jayboy

Talking about PAD as a pre-cursor to the actions by the Red shirts is just silly.

I'm not sure "pre-cursor" is the right word.However it's not silly at all to see PAD as being the first grouping to openly defy the elected government, seizing and occupying public property and defying the law openly and brazenly.To that extent it blazed the trail which others followed.

Interesting to think some here actually make it seem like

corruption in army procurement would

go down if PTP came to power...HA!

It only means different politicians will try to take a cut, if they can.

If not the generals will go on as before.

No matter what party or clique is in power keeping the army calm is part of their brief and game plan.

It's not like there is a choice in the matter.

You're dreaming on this one.Nobody has suggested that army corruption would end whichever parties held power.

The army needs to be cut down to size - no more corruption, no more media or other external business interests, no more refuge in lies and fantasy about its main mission (point being to fob off any criticism of its widespread abuses), no more absurdly high number of generals, more accountability, no more cover up of its criminality, no more delays and stalling on investigations into its involvement in civilian deaths.Most importantly civilian oversight by the government of the day (okay I had to swallow hard at that last one but that's the long term aim, involving cleaning up politics as well I agree).

Where I agree with you is that none of this is going to happen any time soon.Can be done though - look at Indonesia.

There's a fatuous idea prevailing among some that the army in Thailand is somehow in less need of radical reform than the police.That's not the case.

The point, that you so often fail to understand, is that a blimp *does* have operational usage and isn't a silly idea just based on the idea of it being a blimp. Nor is it an airship that is 'easily shoot down by any AK wielding person' that some would like to assert.

What determines the success of the blimp in the south will be how it is used, not the fact that it is a blimp.

And no, the thread isn't about the military's 'known corruption' per se, the OP clearly mentions several paragraphs of criticism as to 'why' the airship would be a bad choice. As if the opposition knew this for a fact. Which I doubt they do.

I don't think I have ever commented before on the Thai army blimp so difficult to see how I have so often failed to understand.

The problem is not the usefulness of blimps, nor has anyone to my knowledge said the idea of the blimp is silly in itself.

In a competent and non-corrupt army with honest procurement procedures it could well make sense.

The Thai army purchased the blimp for use in the South, and its failure there is well documented.

US will use blimps.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=194252

http://gizmodo.com/#!5366082/250+foot-long-hybrid-airship-will-spy-over-afghanistan-battlefields-in-2011

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rise-of-the-Blimps-The-US-Armys-LEMV-06438/

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af2996a4f-f738-4cb2-8157-afba2eb5ca28

What's your point with these irrelevant links?

We are talking about the Thai army with its known corruption in procurement.

Equally to the point the purchase of this airship was an example of extreme stupidity.It cannot do its job in the South.

Of course the army will never apologise = remember the GT 200,

As for Seh Daeng himself history is being rewritten -

http://asiancorrespondent.com/50501/the-assassination-of-seh-daeng-did-not-take-place/

You also have absolutely no knowledge of any of the Ambassador's motivations for any of the purported wikileak cables.

Do you have any inkling of how crazy this makes you sound?

An ambassador, particularly of a first tier country like the USA, reports the truth as he sees it.

thaksin did more for thailand than anyone past or present.

Thaksin did some good stuff, and he did some not so good stuff - and he also did some awful stuff - actually the awful stuff is ongoing... but as far as him doing more for Thailand than anyone else, past or present, i can only think that to make such a statement, you must be completely unaware that Thailand has a King, a King who has been on the throne over sixty years, a King who has done more for Thailand than all of the politicians past and present put together who have ever been elected.

Sadly this claim cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny. And I was taught not to believe anything unless I could first scrutinize the claim carefully, with freedom and access to the full facts.

If you were to reserve passing judgment as to good or bad, or refuse to be drawn on forming opinion, until privy to all the facts on a given topic, you would simply forever be in a state of "undecided", because all the facts are rarely ever available, no matter what the subject matter might be, and even if they were, how would you possibly know?

One would look carefully at the evidence available, (ignore any hysteria, propaganda and fairy tales) and draw what seemed to be rational conclusions.

The wikileaks issue is all based upon hearsay and without any specificity with an extra helping of conjecture and innuendo.

And then there's the who leaked it to wikileaks aspect?

Hardly the basis for any sort of conspiracy to be seriously based upon.

No the Wikileaks information on Thailand is far from being conjecture and innuendo.That's your province.

The whole point about Wikileaks is that the reporters involved (in this instance the US Ambassador) was making his comments to the State Department, and had no reason to lie or dissemble.

In other words unless there is powerful evidence to the contrary, and there has been none yet, one must assume that the Wikileaks reports on Thailand are true and accurate.

The article Dream of treasure turns to nightmare for Thaksin also mentions what Thaksin thought was another assassination plot:

The Nation said that Thaksin’s judgment looked increasingly suspect. It said falling victim to the cave hoax was his latest blunder, following the embarrassing saga of a blast that destroyed a plane he was about to board last month.

Thaksin, who initially said a bomb had destroyed the plane and even claimed he knew who planted it, was later forced to concede that the blast was the result of a malfunction.

That article was written 10 years ago. If his judgment was that bad then, I wonder how bad it would be now. How the hell did this fool get a masters and doctorate in Criminal Justice?

Thanks for the Andrew Marshall article.It is certainly a reminder of Thaksin's poor judgement (let's be blunt:it was pure craziness).I always felt there was something particularly Thai in the way perfectly sane people became gullible about the Japanese gold fiasco.Is there perhaps something of the gullible and uneducated peasant in many so called educated middle class Thais?

Of course this has nothing to do with Thaksin's election victories.

I am not really a Red Shirt supporter but I do believe that if Thailand is a democracy then there should an election and people must abide by the vote of the people. If the Pheu Thai party is victor and they bring Thaksin back here then so be it. That is what democracy is all about. The majority decides.

I really don't like the yellow shirts who are a group of wealthy thugs.

I would share your view - except for the fact that the last 2 elections won by Thaksin were won by bullying, threatening, vote rigging and bribery

Do you have any evidence for this, specifically that "irregular" practices made a difference to the result?

It would be interesting to see why you come to this conclusion because all the independent evidence does not support it.

Perhaps you would like to refer us (links where possible please) to the international electoral representatives, Thai and foreign academics or experienced social commentators that support your conclusion

Sorry mispost

I feel that Newin is an opportunist,

I wonder how you possibly could have got that impression.

Not "foaming with rage" or any of the other personal ad hominems you used to describe me jayboy. In fact that post wasn't about Thaksin it was about policies that were populist that were trash from the beginning. The post was evidence that, contrary to your claim that the Dems took up all of Thaksin's populist policies, they in fact threw many in the bin where they belonged.

Not angry Not emotive Not given to ad hominem attacks when confronted by facts that don't fit my personal agenda

The bulk of the policy was copied and expanded.

Exactly --- I refuse. Mentioning the name of a book without discussing it is strictly a bibliography exercise.

But you were the one that gave the reason for not naming the book as your unwillingness to discuss it (mudslinging) !!!!

I know why you have refused so no need to invent reasons.

My manageable length post -- before altered by Jayboy. In the post I stated that playing jayboy's bibliography game serves no purpose (anyone can google) and is off topic.

Jayboy ---I have stated I have no intention on playing your bibliography game --- Your continued harassment on this subject is both off topic and boring to myself (and I would suggest, others)

Fair enough:boredom can't be forgiven.

I wasn't playing a bibliography game, simply asking you to name one book on Thai politics that's influenced you.

You have refused to do this as have your fellow rightists.

I found myself about to offer you the chance to come by and peruse my library and mention some books by author, then realized it would be giving in to your off-topic, ad hominem attacks.

As predicted.He just can't mention even one book, even after I have undertaken not to "follow up" in any way.

As asked before please do not modify my posts The rest is still off-topic and a continuation of ad hominem attacks

Forum rules on shortening posts to manageable levels have been carefully explained to you already.

If you can't name a book that's influenced you just say so and that's an end of it.

Meaningless and vague complaints about "ad hominem attacks" are very lame.If you have a specific problem I will do my best to address it.

Can throw the billions that Thaksin threw at the 1,000,000 cows and the 1,000,000 rubber tree programs in the trash bin as well.

Disagree - all these projects had some positive outcome, however minimal (rather academic, I know). There is a call for these policies and, in a true democracy, these calls have to be looked at.

The question is whether the public benefits are greater than the public cost. Even the war on drugs had some positive effect (possibly up to 1,100 drug dealers removed from the market). It's the implementation that's the difference-maker. And the implementation of the war on drugs, the loans for farmers scheme, the free cows, the rubber trees were all not really well done, to make an understatement.

These were examples of populist programs that the Dems did not use (hence the "lock stock and barrel argument is a fallacy" The Dems tossed these programs in the trash bin (where they belonged)

The general policy was maintained and expanded.Of course quite sensibly some components which didn't make much sense were set aside.The angry and emotive way this is described "tossed into the trash bin where they belonged" betrays the rightist agenda of deep dislike of the Thaksin strategy the Democrat led government is copying.It's not really controversial in the outside world: it's simply politics.Yet because Thaksin was the instigator there will always be a section that writhes and foams with rage.

I found myself about to offer you the chance to come by and peruse my library and mention some books by author, then realized it would be giving in to your off-topic, ad hominem attacks.

As predicted.He just can't mention even one book, even after I have undertaken not to "follow up" in any way.

Neither avoided "the main issue" ("That fact doesn't affect many that would have preferred to see fresh elections") nor is that in fact the main issue of this thread or of my counter-argument to a silly statement.

You started in on other people about reading before you singled me out for your new tangential tirades. I choose not to play that game. What purpose is there to list a bibliography to someone that always resorts to ad hominem attacks and that doesn't have a bearing on the discussions? I would think that direct refutation of cited references (which I have done repeatedly) would suffice

Your suggesting I found something "alarming" is simply crap. You have no idea what I find "alarming" but I can tell you honestly that nothing you have ever directed at me has been alarming at all.

More bluster and evasion, though reading the tea leaves it seems you now concede there is a problem with the way this government came to power.Not the line you took in the past.

Yes I have asked a few of the right wing hardliners whether there is any book which has informed their understanding of Thailand.I asked because (with the exception of Bucholz, who has some selective background well though is weak at analysing it) there seemed to be profound ignorance of recent history, let alone interpreting it.All including you have refused so I draw my own conclusions.I said you were alarmed because you provided as an excuse an unwillingness to get into mudslinging.I promised to note the book concerned and shut up.Still, nothing....

Jayboy with more personal attacks as fits his agenda.

Strange that he admitted "possibly" then goes on to suggest that the poster (me) had "never read around the subject" which is not true in the least but when you can't address the discussion point with anything other than "possibly" it only leaves ad hominem attacks. When the red spokesperson states that the government was legitimately elected in Thailand it IS silly to suggest otherwise. That fact doesn't affect that many people would have preferred to see fresh elections

If you have read around the subject, why do you consistently refuse to name even one book you have found illuminating? I even promised not to enter into a discussion about your choice, a prospect you found alarming.

I note you avoid dealing with the main issue of the way the current government was guided to power

I bet you have a white stick or you are a bad comedian.Would you like to define freedom to me. Is it the right to have your vote ignored by a military junta governerment by proxy. I think it is you that needs to get a life

Calling the government (duly elected as even the red shirt English language spokesman Sean B. stated publicly) a junta government by proxy is just plain silly.

Possibly but even Khun Korn, Finance Minister, in his recent interview with Andrew Spooner recognised that the way government had come to power wasn't particularly satisfactory.

Since you openly show contempt for knowledge of history, politics and context it's not surprising that perfectly reasonable assertions sound "silly".There is a good case to be made that the current Democrat led government represents elite interests and was guided to power in a shabby and ant-democratic way.If you ever read around this subject you might be able to mount a sensible counter argument (there is one I agree).As it is you just sound...well, silly.

And recovered from as equally well as the country did.

Point being, the North and Northeast did the same before and during Thaksin.

Actually that's not the point.One can have a rational discussion about how well the North and North East did under Thaksin's policies.The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

The point is I think rather that under Thaksin the rural majority was "politicised" and given dignity , made to feel their views were important.This clearly struck a chord after decades of disrespect or "haut en bas" patronising.Again one can have a discussion about Thaksin's motives but whatever one believes he changed Thailand forever.

"report on the death of a Japanese cameraman during last year's riots showed a discrepancy between a written conclusion and the autopsy report. No one is questioning the integrity and professional dedication of DSI officials"

I do question their integrity, the whole article is about how they are politically manipulated, from the first day till today.

For me it looks like they are a "political police", to deal with the opposition and with the discontent brewing in the masses of society

Its obvious that you do not know any DSI officers, from my own experience they are hard working, non corruptible agents , doing a very hard job. If only all Thai policeman had their morals, society would be much richer...

No doubt there were East Germans who praised the Stasi as hard working non corruptible agents doing a hard job.

History swept them away.

It isn't a class-war since it isn't a division along class-lines. More regional than anything else.

Denying that *is* burying ones head in the sand.

Thank you for this thoughtful analysis.It's the same in the UK where the Conservative vote is concentrated in the South while the Labour vote is strongest in the Midlands and North.Purely regional differences and no suggestion there is a class or wealth angle involved.

You're right, it is a class war. Between two classes of elite with the poor and common people thrown in as cannon fodder. Poor sods shafted as usual

There may be elements of a class war but this is changing quite fast.Frankly I see the possibility of the River Tiber foaming with much blood ...but this isn't inevitable.I have been very impressed with an interview Korn recently gave to Andrew Spooner.If the Dems can take their lead from people of this calibre there's a good chance for reform and reconciliation.

It isn't a class-war since it isn't a division along class-lines. More regional than anything else.

Denying that *is* burying ones head in the sand.

Thank you for this thoughtful analysis.It's the same in the UK where the Conservative vote is concentrated in the South while the Labour vote is strongest in the Midlands and North.Purely regional differences and no suggestion there is a class or wealth angle involved.