How Do You Think Los Would Be Different Today?

[Pepe']

One of my friends, that's lived in LOS since 1966, always says "Just think we're surrounded on all sides by communist countries." "If not for the US Thailand would be communist too."

He seems to think Thailands "infrastructure" and socio-economic situation would be at a very different level.

He was saying that the road from Sattahip was put in by CBEES and US Army and the Her Majesty the Queen used to travel from Bangkok on that road often. He also mentioned numerous other projects built by US military.

I know it's been stated "ad nauseum" but Thailand had been famous for it's female entertainers long before the US showed up. So please let's not drag that one around again. OK?

So the real question is, How do you think it would be different? Better? Worse?

More developed? Less developed?

And please no more smart a## comments like, "Gee I live in a nice mansion in Thailand" or "How much money did you loose in Thailand Pepe"

Please grow up and give me a brake.

Fire away...

[solent01]

I guess you are talking about the great war the US decided they should partake in for the better of man kind. And LOST should I add.

And even now Vietnam is thriving, even though its a communist republic.

Edited May 8, 2007 by solent01

[qwertz]

I think, since Thailand didn't have any colonists (apart from a few battallions of Japanese overstays) to toss out after WW2, that it would probably have undergone some kind of destructive civil war and put itself back about one century. I also think it was the willingness of the nation as a whole to look west that has contributed most to its progress. The current trend of nationalism will slow down its growth considerably but not on the scale of N. Korea or Myanmar. Just conjecture on my part.

[Jingthing]

If we are talking about modern history (the last 50 years), the biggest question I would have is would Thailand be more like Laos (communist and royalty crushed) if it wasn't for American military support. Don't know the answer.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Jingthing

[solent01]

Tounge in cheek answer would be, NO PATTAYA.

So glad you yanks got involved, and got you <deleted> kicked of course, I mean, where would the world be without you........... Sorry people, I don't mean to diss, but for a young country your leaders sure due want to make up for lost time.

[Dakhar]

and for an old country, it sure hasn't accomplished much.

[britmaveric]

Same Same but different!!

[mbkudu]

Let me ask this question. How different would Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos be today if the US hadn't bombed the living sh!t out of them all those years? How different would Central America be today if the US hadn't interfered in their affairs? How about the Middle East? How different would the USA be if the Pilgrims/Colonists who reached the east coast had integrated peacefully with the native inhabitants, who had been there there for centuries already, instead of massacring them? Something tells me it's a chain reaction and that possibly Thailand might be different if the US military hadn't come. One reason for the close US military involvement in Thailand was/is the close ties between the Monarchy of Thailand and the US.

Edited May 9, 2007 by mbkudu

[sbk]

Let me ask this question. How different would Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos be today if the US hadn't bombed the living sh!t out of them all those years? How different would Central America be today if the US hadn't interfered in their affairs? How about the Middle East? How different would the USA be if the Pilgrims/Colonists who reached the east coast had integrated peacefully with the native inhabitants, who had been there there for centuries already, instead of massacring them? Something tells me it's a chain reaction and that possibly Thailand might be different if the US military hadn't come. One reason for the close US military involvement in Thailand was/is the close ties between the Monarchy of Thailand and the US.

Don't know your history very well, do you?

Suggest you study the history of British occupied areas such as the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent as well as SE Asia first.

And just as an FYI, it appears that a large number of Native American deaths were more likely related to disease brought over from England rather than from actual murder.

This is such a moot argument, frankly. As you so aptly pointed out by going back over 400 years.

[mbkudu]

Let me ask this question. How different would Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos be today if the US hadn't bombed the living sh!t out of them all those years? How different would Central America be today if the US hadn't interfered in their affairs? How about the Middle East? How different would the USA be if the Pilgrims/Colonists who reached the east coast had integrated peacefully with the native inhabitants, who had been there there for centuries already, instead of massacring them? Something tells me it's a chain reaction and that possibly Thailand might be different if the US military hadn't come. One reason for the close US military involvement in Thailand was/is the close ties between the Monarchy of Thailand and the US.

Don't know your history very well, do you?

Suggest you study the history of British occupied areas such as the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent as well as SE Asia first.

And just as an FYI, it appears that a large number of Native American deaths were more likely related to disease brought over from England rather than from actual murder.

This is such a moot argument, frankly. As you so aptly pointed out by going back over 400 years.

Actually I do know some history and I purposely left the British out of the discussion because it was asking about US involvement, not British. The Americans are rank amateurs compared to the British when it comes to pillage and plunder. Have you ever read about the 'Massacre of Sand Creek' or 'The Trail of Tears'? They didn't die of disease I'm afraid.

Edited May 9, 2007 by mbkudu

[sbk]

Let me ask this question. How different would Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos be today if the US hadn't bombed the living sh!t out of them all those years? How different would Central America be today if the US hadn't interfered in their affairs? How about the Middle East? How different would the USA be if the Pilgrims/Colonists who reached the east coast had integrated peacefully with the native inhabitants, who had been there there for centuries already, instead of massacring them? Something tells me it's a chain reaction and that possibly Thailand might be different if the US military hadn't come. One reason for the close US military involvement in Thailand was/is the close ties between the Monarchy of Thailand and the US.

Don't know your history very well, do you?

Suggest you study the history of British occupied areas such as the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent as well as SE Asia first.

And just as an FYI, it appears that a large number of Native American deaths were more likely related to disease brought over from England rather than from actual murder.

This is such a moot argument, frankly. As you so aptly pointed out by going back over 400 years.

Actually I do know some history and I purposely left the British out of the discussion because it was asking about US involvement, not British. The Americans are rank amateurs compared to the British when it comes to pillage and plunder. Have you ever read about the 'Massacre of Sand Creek' or 'The Trail of Tears'? They didn't die of disease I'm afraid.

Well, I wasn't stating that massacres didn't happen just that the majority of native deaths occurred from disease.

Regardless, my point was that the US is a convenient scape goat for other nationalities to forget their own poor history. The Spanish, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, British and Germans all spring to mind.

Also, must point out that the OP was asking about US involvement in Thailand, not the middle East, Central America etc. But, as I said, you aptly pointed out the pointlessness of this topic by going back 400 years to discuss how other places might have fared.

[jumnien]

Hypothetical conjecture becomes a petri dish in which one's resentments, ignorance and preconceptions flourish. Things are the way they are; they are pretty good, aren't they?

[farang prince]

Let me ask this question. How different would Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos be today if the US hadn't bombed the living sh!t out of them all those years? How different would Central America be today if the US hadn't interfered in their affairs? How about the Middle East? How different would the USA be if the Pilgrims/Colonists who reached the east coast had integrated peacefully with the native inhabitants, who had been there there for centuries already, instead of massacring them? Something tells me it's a chain reaction and that possibly Thailand might be different if the US military hadn't come. One reason for the close US military involvement in Thailand was/is the close ties between the Monarchy of Thailand and the US.

Don't know your history very well, do you?

Suggest you study the history of British occupied areas such as the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent as well as SE Asia first.

And just as an FYI, it appears that a large number of Native American deaths were more likely related to disease brought over from England rather than from actual murder.

This is such a moot argument, frankly. As you so aptly pointed out by going back over 400 years.

Actually I do know some history and I purposely left the British out of the discussion because it was asking about US involvement, not British. The Americans are rank amateurs compared to the British when it comes to pillage and plunder. Have you ever read about the 'Massacre of Sand Creek' or 'The Trail of Tears'? They didn't die of disease I'm afraid.

And what does this have to do with Thailand?

[Jet Gorgon]

That's a lot of "what ifs" involved here. Well, it ain't "what ifs" anymore so get on with it.

The only reason y'all bash the US of A is because it's bigger and has more clout than your little countries. Go watch "The Life of Brian" and pay particular attention to the scene where the anti-Roman group is bashing the Romans and asking "what have they done for us?" Then they remember, oh the roads, the aquaducts, etc; put that into a parallel of the US vis-a-vis the world today.

Face it, most US bashers are band-wagoners that do not have all the facts; and it's so much easier to hit a big target.

[Pepe']

I guess you are talking about the great war the US decided they should partake in for the better of man kind. And LOST should I add.

And even now Vietnam is thriving, even though its a communist republic.

---------------------------

The war as we all no was not great, it was a horror. I know. I was there.

So your sarcasm is not appreciated. Definitely from me.

When I returned to the US on my first leave I refused to go back. But that's a story for another day.

On a side note, I've been getting my hair cut a small Vietnamese owned barber shop in my neighborhood for years.

Last November just before leaving for LOS I was in getting my pre-flight #2 buzz cut. I was early. Just he and I in the shop.

He commented that I had on a 24 carat gold chain. I showed him the Buddha I was wearing. I told him my mother in-law in BKK had given it to me.

I asked him to stop for a minute. The short version is I said "I want to apologize to you for what we did to your people and your country."

I said, "I was personally involved and know that I am personally responsible for the deaths of many Vietnamese people."

I said, "I don't know what else to say and I guess this is a weird conversation but we were so wrong and I just want to tell you how sorry

I am and how awful I feel when I think back to those days."

He went to a drawer and pulled out an old black and white picture of himself with about seven of his buddies. As he shed a tear he told he they were VC marines.

Then he told me they were all killed except him. I said, "Some of my friends were killed too."

I shook his hand and said, "It wasn't our time, we're here now together

so we have some karma together."

He smiled again with a tear and said, "yes we have our karma."

We have never spoken of it again.

[jumnien]

Thanks for letting the hypothetical conjecture go and getting to the nitty-gritty emotional reality that bonds us human beings. Noble words.

[Pepe']

I think, since Thailand didn't have any colonists (apart from a few battallions of Japanese overstays) to toss out after WW2, that it would probably have undergone some kind of destructive civil war and put itself back about one century. I also think it was the willingness of the nation as a whole to look west that has contributed most to its progress. The current trend of nationalism will slow down its growth considerably but not on the scale of N. Korea or Myanmar. Just conjecture on my part.

-------------------------------------

qwertz you are solid man, like a rock.

Thanks for an injection of sanity mixed with reality...

[Pepe']

Tounge in cheek answer would be, NO PATTAYA.

So glad you yanks got involved, and got you <deleted> kicked of course, I mean, where would the world be without you........... Sorry people, I don't mean to diss, but for a young country your leaders sure due want to make up for lost time.

------------------------------------

Obviously just like Iraq, the war in Vietnam was not fought to be won.

Rather it's design was to reap huge profit at the expense of innocent lives.

Would you Brits like another crack at us. LOL

Your pathetic man and this is not how this thread was intended. AT ALL!!

[Prakanong]

I really do not like the "If" school of history - it tends to be pretty amateur

Histography is pretty detailed ground as it is.

Then again E H Carr asked the question in "What is History" about Cleopatra's nose - would the Roman Empire have fallen if it was not so pretty? ;-)

[ColPyat]

I really do not like the "If" school of history - it tends to be pretty amateur

Exactly.

Without the US we might now life in a country that Pridi has brought on the road modernity, no military coups and self serving elites.

But then, we might have had another Pol Pot here.

Or a Burma.

Or whatever.

A better idea would be to concentrate on the history that happened, more than enough historical facts on Thailand, both ancient and contemporary, are still suppressed and/or hotly debated.

One very unfortunate thing here in Thailand is, that there are more than a few aspects on history that still cannot be debated in public.

[bendix]

I think the assumption stated in the OP is flawed. It suggests that without the US, Thailand too might have become communist. With all due respect to our American brethren, the US's involvement didn't do much to prevent several other countries becoming or remaining communist.

So the answer is moot.

Edited May 9, 2007 by bendix

[kmart]

I really do not like the "If" school of history - it tends to be pretty amateur

Exactly.

Without the US we might now life in a country that Pridi has brought on the road modernity, no military coups and self serving elites.

But then, we might have had another Pol Pot here.

Or a Burma.

Or whatever.

A better idea would be to concentrate on the history that happened, more than enough historical facts on Thailand, both ancient and contemporary, are still suppressed and/or hotly debated.

One very unfortunate thing here in Thailand is, that there are more than a few aspects on history that still cannot be debated in public.

Difficult to know one's future when in denial or ignorant about the past.

[Prakanong]

"Difficult to know one's future when in denial or ignorant about the past. "

I know - I was recently discussing various aspects of thai history with an Australian in India while on a biz trip. My Thai colleague was there and she really did not know about many ot the incidents and what lead up to them.

She did have a part excuse as she grew up and went to school in North America for most of high school and Uni though.

I know she does now want to know more about her country and has asked for certain books although her mum is scared of her reading them in Thailand itself.

Then again I have discussed things with my ex and she was totally not interested - said she knew all about certain incidents (she almost certainly was lying) and had no interest in finding out and more than she was taught at school - this has been my more common experience.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Prakanong

[richard10365]

I think the assumption stated in the OP is flawed. It suggests that without the US, Thailand too might have become communist. With all due respect to our American brethren, the US's involvement didn't do much to prevent several other countries becoming or remaining communist.

So the answer is moot.

You make a good point. Laos is still Communist. Veitnam is still Communist. The only other countries that I can think of off the bat that is still Communist is Cuba. Even the Soviet Union is gone. Had we gone to war with them perhaps they would be around too.

The only factor that seems to keep Communism alive and well is U.S. agression. Without the USA, there would be no Communism.

[bendix]

You're forgetting the small matter of China, although - in fairness - noone in their right mind would think of them as communist these days. It may have an entity called the Communist Party of China in control, but any country which combines free market economics with rigid social control and lack of political freedoms is closer to facism than communism.

[Prakanong]

You're forgetting the small matter of China, although - in fairness - noone in their right mind would think of them as communist these days. It may have an entity called the Communist Party of China in control, but any country which combines free market economics with rigid social control and lack of political freedoms is closer to facism than communism.

Just to be pedantic when I studied Politics at Uni (OK it was 20 years ago) the "Political Scale" was not a horizontal line but in fact a circle - Fascism and Communism were pretty close on the particular scale ;-)))

[Johpa]

I think the assumption stated in the OP is flawed. It suggests that without the US, Thailand too might have become communist. With all due respect to our American brethren, the US's involvement didn't do much to prevent several other countries becoming or remaining communist.

So the answer is moot.

You make a good point. Laos is still Communist. Veitnam is still Communist. The only other countries that I can think of off the bat that is still Communist is Cuba. Even the Soviet Union is gone. Had we gone to war with them perhaps they would be around too.

The only factor that seems to keep Communism alive and well is U.S. agression. Without the USA, there would be no Communism.

I can only imagine the tremendous amount of US aggression that the Bolsheviks in Russia faced at the turn of the last century. And the interventionist policies of Woodrow Wilson in the years prior to the October Revolution of 1917 that led to the formation of the USSR are oh so well documented, Woodrow you colonial scallywag you! And going back further into history, no doubt that it was US aggression in Europe in the 1840s that caused Karl marx to pen his opus.

Time to stop throwing the Jews down the wells and start throwing the Americans down the wells because we all now know that without us Yanks there would be none of them commies around. And those modern day hard core Vietnamese commies have become the worst of the lot.

So throw d'em Yanks down the wells and kill a commie for mommy.

[richard10365]

You're forgetting the small matter of China, although - in fairness - noone in their right mind would think of them as communist these days. It may have an entity called the Communist Party of China in control, but any country which combines free market economics with rigid social control and lack of political freedoms is closer to facism than communism.

Oh yea....China. I did leave them out. Perhaps their rigid social control helped them to be around a lot longer than anyone else.

I'm not sure about their history but what kind of control did they practice before Communism and how was it similiar to what they became after Communism?

Maybe the transition was not as dramatic as most westerners seem to think.

[richard10365]

I think the assumption stated in the OP is flawed. It suggests that without the US, Thailand too might have become communist. With all due respect to our American brethren, the US's involvement didn't do much to prevent several other countries becoming or remaining communist.

So the answer is moot.

You make a good point. Laos is still Communist. Veitnam is still Communist. The only other countries that I can think of off the bat that is still Communist is Cuba. Even the Soviet Union is gone. Had we gone to war with them perhaps they would be around too.

The only factor that seems to keep Communism alive and well is U.S. agression. Without the USA, there would be no Communism.

I can only imagine the tremendous amount of US aggression that the Bolsheviks in Russia faced at the turn of the last century. And the interventionist policies of Woodrow Wilson in the years prior to the October Revolution of 1917 that led to the formation of the USSR are oh so well documented, Woodrow you colonial scallywag you! And going back further into history, no doubt that it was US aggression in Europe in the 1840s that caused Karl marx to pen his opus.

Time to stop throwing the Jews down the wells and start throwing the Americans down the wells because we all now know that without us Yanks there would be none of them commies around. And those modern day hard core Vietnamese commies have become the worst of the lot.

So throw d'em Yanks down the wells and kill a commie for mommy.

I wonder if Native Americans in the USA have an opinion about all of this.

[bendix]

I think the assumption stated in the OP is flawed. It suggests that without the US, Thailand too might have become communist. With all due respect to our American brethren, the US's involvement didn't do much to prevent several other countries becoming or remaining communist.

So the answer is moot.

You make a good point. Laos is still Communist. Veitnam is still Communist. The only other countries that I can think of off the bat that is still Communist is Cuba. Even the Soviet Union is gone. Had we gone to war with them perhaps they would be around too.

The only factor that seems to keep Communism alive and well is U.S. agression. Without the USA, there would be no Communism.

I can only imagine the tremendous amount of US aggression that the Bolsheviks in Russia faced at the turn of the last century. And the interventionist policies of Woodrow Wilson in the years prior to the October Revolution of 1917 that led to the formation of the USSR are oh so well documented, Woodrow you colonial scallywag you! And going back further into history, no doubt that it was US aggression in Europe in the 1840s that caused Karl marx to pen his opus.

Time to stop throwing the Jews down the wells and start throwing the Americans down the wells because we all now know that without us Yanks there would be none of them commies around. And those modern day hard core Vietnamese commies have become the worst of the lot.

So throw d'em Yanks down the wells and kill a commie for mommy.

How can I say this politely? What a stupid post.

Noone is saying the US created communism. What they are saying is that history shows that when the US has attempted to intervene militarily to prevent countries becoming or remaining communist, their efforts have usually had the effect of galvanising said country's efforts (and population) and this reinforcing the totalitarian state.

There's a good argument that the Soviet Union remained communist for so long not because of any long-term clinging to an outdated and failed ideology, but rather because the Cold War and the threat of western intervention gave the communist leadership an excuse to massively boost the military at the same time as curbing individual freedoms. Once the threat of intervention waned with glasnost and perestroika, the russian people had renewed freedom to take matters into their own hands.

The same argument could be applied to North Korea now.