dumbnewbie

It's maddening when someone does that to you. It happened to me in China and Korea. In Seoul, some big, tough-looking middle aged guy (undercover cop?) cut in front of me in a small shop. After recovering from the shock, I bravely went around him and resumed my place in line. Then he immediately did it AGAIN, without so much as looking at me or saying anything. At that point I was so furious I was shaking, but decided he might be a cop or something so I backed down.

In Beijing, a long line to get into Mao's 'Maosoleum'. Me, my girlfriend and her kid cousin. The line isn't single file, but a shifting herd between two ropes. People repeatedly cut into the line up ahead of us, often by ducking under the rope. Other people would push past us from behind (we'd try to block them, but to no effect - they seemed more puzzled than ashamed or apologetic and would simply retreat for a few moments and then try again). Sensing my increasing indignation, my girlfriend's cousin starting yelling at the stern-looking commie woman who was apparently in charge of keeping order. She turned on him like a vicious dog, threatening us with stuff like "You're in China now! You want trouble?" When my girlfriend translated, I put my arm around him like a friend and my hand over his mouth (because he was yelling back at her "if you kept an orderly line here there wouldn't be any trouble!", etc.) and gave my biggest smile to the commie bitch, bowing a little for good measure. Geez. Nice culture. Who knows what they might've done to the poor kid.

Later I asked my girlfriend if I was wrong to censor her cousin like that, and she said "no! you were awesome!". But I told her that I felt bad about getting so upset by the line-jumping - that that was just the culture here and I couldn't expect it to be like the US and have to learn to not let it infuriate me. She had no reply to that... just sort of thought about it.

It is true both the Shah of Iran and Alberto Fujimori did some good things. So did Thaksin. So did Hitler. Mandella did some bad things. So did Gandhi. So did Lincoln. There isn't any human being who does all good or all bad. That really isn't the issue.

Right. That isn't the issue. The issue is on balance, is a person mostly good or mostly bad, and is a person who is mostly good sometimes misrepresented as mostly bad (or more likely entirely evil)?

I'm saying the Shah and Fujimori were mostly good, yet were unfairly tarnished, vilified and driven from power by people who were actually much worse. And I'm wondering if maybe Thaksin isn't another example of this.

Dumbnewbie

Well, you prefixed the Dumb didn't you, but it's increasingly suspect that you are anything like a 'newbie' isn't it?

Got a bit carried away with post#378 did you? Giving yourself away with the whole..." just trying to understand the whole thing here"...cue arm shrug and look of mock confusion.

Got all up yourself with semantics regarding 3,000 deaths (pardon me for getting a little shirty here, but for anyone to argue/deny/deflect 3,000 extra-judicial killings, which are an historical fact, is one of the most dislikeable aspects within the pro-Thaksin camp) and then return with post#379 (arf arf) with limp 'I'm just here asking questions, playing devil's advocate, etc., in an attempt to learn more'.

Whatever man. Believe what you like. If I were pro-Thaksin, I would have no problem saying so and explaining why. Instead, I'm asking questions, trying to learn more, and trying (mostly in vain) to get anti-Thaksin people to support their case.

I'll tell you why I'm skeptical about the received wisdom that Thaksin was a bad guy. It's because I know how other enlightened leaders have been smeared and run out of their countries, people such as the Shah of Iran and President Alberto Fujimori of Peru. These guys were autocratic, but they were making tremendous progress for their countries and for the ordinary people of their countries. But the US (my country, OK? And I'm generally pro-American, but I can see that some mistakes are made) and UK got rid of these guys for their own reasons.

Let's take the Shah first. You guys probably think he was the biggest fascist, a dictator king whose vicious secret police tortured and murdred thousands of innocents, right? Sure, because that's what the Western media told you! But do some research and you learn you've been duped. The Shah was actually a real patriot, not a puppet - he was doing his best to modernize his country to make it prosperous, powerful and respected in the world. His human rights record was no worse than that of neighboring countries, and better than some, according to Daniel Yergin, author of The Prize, an authoritative book on the history of the oil industry. So why was he singled out and made to look like a monster? Because he was a leader of OPEC and raised oil prices in 1974, against Western advice, in order that his country and people might reap some benefit from Iranian oil. It was only after this act of defiance that the West turned against the Shah and used their media (especially the BBC) to stir up a revolt and they drive this very decent man out of power and replace him with a mob of mullahs, who've been raping and torturing the Persian people for 30 years now (but they sell oil nice and cheap to the West). Now, because the mullahs have aligned themselves with Russia & China and threatened to destroy Israel and are developing the nuclear capability to do so, the West is turning against the Islamic Republic regime (as it should). But for 30 years they didn't give a dam_n that thousands and thousands of people were tortured and killed by the mullahs.

Then look at Alberto Fujimori of Peru. This guy single-handedly turned that country around 180 degrees in record time. When he was elected to office, Peru was a basket case. A vicious cult of Maoist guerillas controlled most of the country, regularly massacring villagers and terrorizing the capital with bombings and assassinations. The economy was a shambles. Nobody in his right mind would do business there. Unemployment and inflation were rampant. The country had been going down the toilet for many years, with no hope in sight. Fujimori took charge, promptly captured the head of the Shining Path terrorists and put him in a cage so everyone could see him pacing back and forth, ranting like the madman he was. He then turned the economy around, creating an Asian-style economic miracle, with massive investment, exports and GNP growth rates unheard of anywhere in Latin America - even better than Chile. I believe he also cracked down on the cocaine trade, and I think that is why the US ran him out of the country. Since then Peru has been sliding back towards the Latin American norm of economic stagnation, corruption, poverty and hopelessness.

I suspect that Thaksin was a good leader like these guys (or Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, or Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, etc.). He cracked down hard on the drug trade (a very good thing, even if it wasn't done properly). Maybe that's why he was run out of the country? Because he was destroying the profits of some traditional elites in Thailand? I could be wrong. I really don't know. But seeing how good men like the Shah and Fujimori were villified and destroyed, I'm keeping an open mind about Thaksin until I learn more. I'm very much open to persuasion, so give me more evidence.

dumbnewbie,

It has been a while since the forum hosted a "why I hate Thailand" thread, and we appreciate you taking the time to start a new discussion.

That was not my intention. Read the OP again. My hope is to learn the good and bad points of many countries.

I meet Muslims every day in my work (in the UK). I once asked a Muslim what he thought about the accusation that Muslims don't speak out against terrorists. His answer was that he was a shopkeeper with a wife and 2 kids - what would he know about terrorism? All he was doing was trying to provide for his family. He neither knew nor wanted to know anything about terrorism.

Next time you see him, why don't you ask him how he would feel if his daughters decided to reject Islam, visit pubs & discos, have a non-Muslim boyfriend or too & eventually settle down with a non-Muslim husband, from the local indigenous population?

Yes, and why not ask him point-blank what he thinks about the Taliban and al Qaeda? I'd be very surprised if he categorically denounced them, as you could expect 99.99% of Christians to categorically denounce the KKK.

It depends on what you mean by 'Country'

If you mean the government then M/C is wonderful.It stamps out what all governments fear =An educated united workforce'.

If you mean the working class then it is horrific=especially in countries such as the U.K with a benefits system and laws that prohibit any anti immigration discussion.

Good point - maybe this is why the British government used to mix up the labor force in it's colonies - importing Indians to Africa and Malaya, Chinese to Malaya, etc. Now every Western government is doing the same thing to their own domestic labor force. It does look like a case of divide & conquer. In the U.S., "illegal immigration" from Mexico & Central America really only took off after the race riots and civil uprising by blacks in the 1960s. The effect has been to largely replace 'uppity' black and unionized white labor with cheaper, pliant (because illegal and scared) Hispanic labor. Meanwhile, the poor whites and blacks turn to drugs and kill themselves and each other. At the other end of the scale, loads of highly motivated scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, etc. from India, China, Korea, Philippines, etc. have depressed wages for upper-middle class white. You gotta figure all of this was by design.

I am reminded of the words spoken [recorded] in Parliament by Winston Churchill around 1954...'the biggest threat to Britain ,at this time,is the prospect of mass coloured immigration'..He started a bill [thrown out by Macmillan]to prevent 'rights of residence'.

Interesting. You have to wonder how it happened that every Western country simultaneously opened the floodgates to immigrants after WWII. How and why did that happen? Why hasn't it happened in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia?

In any case, I think immigration and increasing diversity is one thing in immigrant nations such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; it's quite another thing in homogeneous tribal nations such as England, Germany, France, Netherlands or Sweden.

Ahhh! We also agreed, or at least I'm agreeing with you now, that MC brings the advantage of more flavour choices in women and food.

I should clarify that remark about religious people: I respect the feelings of people that receive "spiritual nourishment" from their religion, I just can't comprehend "faith" in an unknown quantity.

Yeah, I'm OK with peaceful, compassionate "spirituality" (study, meditation, yoga, tai chi, charity, etc.) - but I have a real problem with people who believe in an angry, cruel, vengeful sky-god, satan, hel_l, etc. and hate those of us who just can't believe in such things.

The Netherlands, shows in the top 5 of Multicultural open ( easy accesable ) countries.

Yes, but that famous Dutch tolerance wasn't enough to prevent the vicious murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh and repeated death-threats against Aayan Hirsi Ali, all real heroes for risking death to exercise their free speech and warn others of the danger they saw. What happened to them should dispel any doubts that they were right.

To be frank, I am tempted to give up on this one angle of the MC debate because it is tiresome to argue with sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations that are mainly bred out of the US propaganda machine, (not to mention the closed mindedness of the likes of sunholidaysun1...nobody will ever change his mind).

If you put forward some facts, not emotive propaganda, we might have a debate.

Yeah, I know how you feel - I don't have any illusions that I'll change anyone's mind either. If enough other people show interest, maybe I'll take this further, but for now I'll be the one to give it up.

(As an aside....I share your bemusement at intelligent people that are religious)

Nice of you to share that - I'm happy we can agree on something.

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that?

For the same reason that Brazilians rarely spoke up against the IRA. The actions of the terrorists have nothing to do with them.

Poor analogy. Does the IRA claim to be fighting the cause of Brazilians? It is an anti-British, Irish-nationalist terror group. Of course it has nothing to do with Brazilians.

I meet Muslims every day in my work (in the UK). I once asked a Muslim what he thought about the accusation that Muslims don't speak out against terrorists. His answer was that he was a shopkeeper with a wife and 2 kids - what would he know about terrorism? All he was doing was trying to provide for his family. He neither knew nor wanted to know anything about terrorism.

And I do sympathize with this man and his situation. Believe me, I do. Still, he is a Muslim and he either cannot or will not condemn Islamic terrorists, either because he secretly agrees with them or because he's afraid to disagree with them. And because there are no Muslim protesters chanting "Not in our name - you are not Muslims!", the terrorists can continue to claim they're fighting for Islam, and the world has no reason to think otherwise.

As an analogy, ask 100 random Christians if they support the KKK. I'd be very surprised if even one of them failed to strongly condemn the KKK and vehemently deny that it is a Christian organization.

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that? The fact is that most of them agree with the goals of the jihadi terrorists (killing Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, gays, fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, etc. and destroying Israel, US, UK, India, secular governments, etc. in order to establish a new Islamic Caliphate to be the new world hegemon). Or they are afraid to speak out because Islam has the death penalty for that. Either way it's a problem. So yeah, I'd say that the biggest problem for MC is Islam, because Islam isn't about living peacefully with other people - it's about dominating, converting and/or killing them.

This can easily be verified if you'll kindly remove your rose-colored (leftist) glasses for a moment and take a glance around the world - everywhere there are Muslims they are in conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors: in UK, Spain, France, Netherlands, Australia, US, Thailand, Philippines, China, Russia, Serbia, Sudan, Nigeria, Israel, India, you name it. And in majority-Muslim countries the non-Muslim minorities are constantly being terrorized, persecuted and murdered: Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. (Christians are attacked); Indonesia (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists are attacked, Western tourists are bombed); Iran (Baha'is, Christians, atheists, leftist secularists are attacked); Pakistan (Christians, Hindus, Sikhs are attcked), etc. To ignore all of this evidence and suggest that fear of Islam is irrational and a bogeyman made up by US neocons greedy for Middle Eastern oil is highly disingenuous, or just ignorant.

I'm not saying that the majority of "Muslims" are causing problems. No - the majority are not. But all it takes is a few, doesn't it? And you simply don't have that problem with any other group of people I can think of. It is unique to Islam, and again, I stress that the IDEA (and the culture of intolerance, hatred and violence it produces) is the root of the problem, not any particular ethnic group or groups.

Mankind is going to have to find some way of containing or destroying this idea, because as long as it exists, it will produce that "minority fundamentalist fringe" which you agree is a problem. And that fringe will only grow stronger from here on out, if it is allowed to. They're not stupid people - they can learn nuclear technology, biological weapons, cyberwarfare, whatever. The strange thing about religion is that even highly intelligent people often believe in it.

But I could be wrong, and I'd enjoy being persuaded of it, so don't give up.

I find that you really only know a place in relation to another place. For instance, most of us only really understood our native countries after living in another country for the first time.

With that in mind, how would you guys compare Thailand with some other countries you know (either your home country or others, especially in Asia)?

For example, I'll start: Thailand compared w/ Japan

Thailand pluses:

cheaper

friendlier

better dental/medical care (if at one of the better clinics/hospitals)

great food

more advanced anti-smoking laws

Thailand negatives:

too hot & humid all year long

air pollution

pickpockets, aggressive lady boys, muggers, scam artists, police shakedowns

political instability, some risk of terrorism, coups, strikes, violent demonstrations

too many bugs all year long

mosquitoes - malaria, dengue fever, etc.

traffic in Bangkok - stressful, pollution

Japan pluses:

very clean

very safe (little kids take the subway alone in Tokyo; people leave their cars running while shopping in 7-11!)

4 seasons in most of the country - fall & spring very beautiful

tap water is safe to drink; also means you don't have to worry about ice, salads, etc. containing dirty water

hygiene in general is very high

fantastic public transportation in Tokyo, other big cities

very clean taxis, w/ honest drivers (but very expensive)

no tipping! (not sure about Thailand, but I think you tip in some places, right?)

Japan negatives:

expensive

cold, racist, arrogant people (for the most part, but they are polite)

expensive, bland food gets old very quickly; good foreign food hard to find, not so good, very expensive

ridiculously difficult and expensive to rent an apartment (most won't even allow foreigners)

service in restaurants not so good or friendly (due to no tipping!)

david96, "...The religion of Radical Islam and its culture will be a problem for Western governments

in the future and they need to update their laws and legislation to combat it...."

I have never heard of a religion called Radical Islam. Can you elaborate about it, please? Is it a translation of one of the radical groups names such as Jamah Islamiyah? Isn't the name "Islam" when tied to one of the radical groups more a political movement than a religion?

What you've stated is the officially approved Politically Correct viewpoint on the subject, and I'm not sure I dare correct you. I'm still a bit new here and don't know how much I'm allowed to say.

Read the forum rules and speak your mind.

I'm not sure Which statement you are referring to as PC. I made a comment followed by several questions, so I have to assume you're referring to David96's statement.

I wouldn't call it PC.....you'd better clarify Dumbnewbie.

The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious. Proof of this is is that the so-called radicals, extremists and Islamists are also called Islamic fundamentalists. In other words, they believe and practice the fundamentals of Islam, i.e., as it was taught and practiced by the founder of the movement 1300 years ago. (If you protest that every religion has fundamentalists, ask yourself how a fundamentalist Buddhist would behave. Would he kill innocent people after calling them "infidels"? Or would he be more likely to meditate until he starved to death, or maybe feed himself to a poor hungry tiger?)

Further proof is that the most Islamic countries on earth, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, are remarkably similar, even though one is Sunni and the other Shiite, and one is a monarchy while the other is a theocracy. Why are they so similar? Because they are both based on draconian Sharia Islamic law ("god's law"), as were all Islamic societies prior to being modernized and liberalized by Western colonialists or secular native reformers (as in Turkey and Iran). These reformers replaced Islamic law with secular Western law, thus giving women rights (to walk down the street unmolested even though not dressed like a black ghost, to get a secular education, to work outside the home, etc.) and also throwing out all the inhuman Islamic punishments (flogging, amputation, stoning to death) for such "crimes" as pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, etc. Clergy (mullahs) were stripped of their power, exactly as happened in the West when the Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment ended the Dark Ages of Christian tyranny.

To understand true Islam, you only have to learn how Mohammad and his immediate followers behaved, because that is what Muslims are supposed to do. And what do we find? Well, they set out to conquer, Arabize and Islamize the entire world. And they made incredible progress toward that end given the primitive technology they had - conquering everything from Morocco to India, destroying the ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Persian cultures in the process and converting most of those people from Greek or Coptic Christians or Persian Zoroastrians into Arabic-speaking Muslims. (You have to learn Arabic to be a Muslim, because you're supposed to memorize the Koran, and the only official version of the Koran is the Arabic one). Mohammad's armies killed men, raped women and took as wives and concubines the wives and daughters of the conquered.

Islam means "submission" to the angry Middle Eastern god of the Torah/Old Testament, which the Koran was based on. Islam does aim for "peace", but the idea is that there will be peace on earth only when all of humanity becomes Muslim and submits to god and his sharia laws.

There is no question but that Islam was much more political and violent than any other "religion" right from the very beginning. Mohammad was nothing like Buddha or Jesus, who taught compassion and radical non-violence (even towards enemies). Christianity became a very violent religion, but you can argue that the whole religion was the antithesis of what its founder actually taught and stood for. The same cannot be said of Islam.

Having said all that, I want to make a clear distinction between Islam (the religion/ideology/worldview) and Muslims, the vast majority of which are decent, good people, because they are human beings first and Muslims second, or more likely, in name only. Indeed, they are the first victims of this Islam, which has the death penalty for converting to another religion or even questioning it, and they deserve our understanding and sympathy.

david96, "...The religion of Radical Islam and its culture will be a problem for Western governments

in the future and they need to update their laws and legislation to combat it...."

I have never heard of a religion called Radical Islam. Can you elaborate about it, please? Is it a translation of one of the radical groups names such as Jamah Islamiyah? Isn't the name "Islam" when tied to one of the radical groups more a political movement than a religion?

What you've stated is the officially approved Politically Correct viewpoint on the subject, and I'm not sure I dare correct you. I'm still a bit new here and don't know how much I'm allowed to say.

If they don't like the British or our way of life <deleted> do they continue to arrive ?

They continue to arrive because they want a better standard of living, not because they want to change their identity and whole way of life.

That is perfectly understandable and has always been true of most immigrants. The first generation generally hang with each other, speak their own language, dream of going back someday, etc.

But, their kids and grandkids will naturally become more and more assimilated IF they are not hindered from doing so by "Multicultural" policies, separatist religious ideology, etc.

multi culturism is a joke

every country that has muslim, has problems

my home country, all neighbour countries of that

and... guess what... Thailand also...

who plants bombs and kills innocent people all the time, all over the world ???

not christian, not buddist, not jews, ...

Hahahahaha. I can only laugh at the ignorance. The bigotry is just plain sad.

Firstly, have you never heard of the Irish Republican Army? The Jewish Action Group and various others? Various Buddhist militant groups?

Lets ignore the clear evidence shall we. The IRA were attacking the British, the Jews may have had active terrorists in the past but can you name an attack of theirs in the recent past, and I don't think Buddhist militant groups are even worth mentioning. In contrast the other group that you compared them to seem to indulge in violence right across the world aimed at no particular target. And in reality when we discuss if multiculturalism is good for a country most people think of the detrimental impact of this particular group on the country's that suffer home them.

Yep. I would just add that the problem here is a way of thinking (religion/worldview) rather than an ethnic group, and that many people from a "Muslim" background are disgusted by what's going on and feel more victimized than anyone else because they feel tarnished by association. Muslims are the first victims of Islam - they have to shut up and live within its totalitarian rules or face draconian punishments. Those who speak out in favor of moderation or reform are often killed for "apostasy" or "heresy". Young people can't even date. Girls are killed by their own fathers or brothers. The whole thing is unbelievably sad.

Even more bizarre is that the West (UK and US mainly) which is responsible for the resurgence of fundamentalist Islam these past 30 years. The ruling elites of these countries had the brilliant idea of using Islam to fight Communism. And it worked - by replacing the Shah with the Ayatollah, they prevented a Communist takeover of Iran, which seemed about to happen. Then the "Mujahideen freedom fighters" bankrupted the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims broke up Yugoslavia, and Chechens, Uigurs, etc. continue to destabilize Russia and China, all with plenty of secret support from the West.

But what a terrible price the people of these countries have paid. (Had Iran continued to develop under the secular Pahlavi dynasty, it would be a very advanced, progressive democracy by now instead of the Islamic hel_l-on-earth that it has devolved into). And what a terrible price non-Muslims all over the world are paying as well - primarily fear, but also many actual victims of terrorism. And there will be many more.

Henryalleyman: "..BTW what have been the benefits for the native Americans and Australians of the so called multiculturalism? ..."

Wool blankets, iron axeheads, steel knives, metal cooking pots, glass beads......

But also: Science. Education. Medicine. Philosopy....

Air conditioning? Television? Porn?

...and let me also add that scientists still do not have an answer for where the explosion of life came from that occurred several hundreds of millions of years ago.....

No, but every religion, past and present, has an answer to that - just pick one and "have faith".

I am free of all prejudice - I hate everyone equally

\hahahaha brilliant answer....and so true...... they are all b*stards, the lot of them....

HAHA! YES!

Imperial historic kharma.....

The words of a pure liberal more then likely North American.

Im no imperialist i dont believe in overbearing governance, but the British Empire whilst obviously wasnt lilly white wasnt the evil empire folk such as yourself like to make out it was.

Ha! Try telling that to the Chinese, Indians, Malays, Persians and Arabs. Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the British Empire, and I'm a Yank. Just like America, it did far more good than evil.

Canada is a wonderful caring country who tries to rectify many past mistakes by being overly sensitive to race, religion and cultural problems.

I guess this is the justification for multi-cultural policies in all Western countries, but I'm not at all sure these policies were designed with the best interests of immigrants & minorities in mind. What if their real purpose is to prevent assimilation and keep society stratified along ethnic lines? This is the actual result of multi-culturalism, so you have to wonder if this was the intention of those who conceived and implemented the policies.

For instance, in the US, many (most? all?) public schools force all kids with Spanish surnames into "bi-lingual" (Spanish) classes, even if they speak no Spanish and their parents are furious that their kids are being kept out of mainstream English classes. What could possibly be the purpose of such policies?

All Western countries have had high rates of immigration for many generations now, yet the political and business elites in all these countries are still remarkably homogeneous. You gotta wonder if this isn't by design.

multiculturalism is good for human beings in general, so is good for countries by default.

Why is that?

I dont say that you are wrong, but I wonder why you just establish the fact that it is good for human beings in general.

Smaller countries like, Norway, Finland, etc, have not exactly been over run with immigrants in the past.

I cant say these countries have suffered or lost out because of this.

Genetic diversity.....in the long run of evolution, it's a winner.

Pooling of knowledge.

Conglomeration of philosophies.

Others could add to this list.

Better food.

Cuter girls.

One of the things that really bugged me at the time was how many people were utterly opposed to smoking in the bars but just shrugged off the use of cars as if it were irrelevent.

So time for a bit of revenge!!!

Time to ban cars in cities? Agreed !!!

I know you're joking, but I'm all for it. Excellent proposal. No private cars - just subways, skytrains, streetcars, clean buses (electric or natural gas fueled), and clean taxis (again, electric or natural gas). Most of the time people should walk or ride bikes; the exercise, clean air and sunshine would do everyone a world of good. This would also have the effect of drastically slashing deaths and injuries from traffic accidents, and would save everyone a small fortune not having to keep buying and maintaining cars.

yeh but this thread has more than 3000 views and just 150 votes so there is people who dont care so much they couldnt care to vote.

Exactly. For example, I haven't voted.

26 posts and counting for you on this thread that you "don't care so much" about?

I find this sort of topic interesting, but I don't presume to know enough about the situation to pass judgement on Thaksin. I'm just here asking questions, playing devil's advocate, etc., in an attempt to learn more.

yeh but this thread has more than 3000 views and just 150 votes so there is people who dont care so much they couldnt care to vote.

Exactly. For example, I haven't voted.