How Do You Think Los Would Be Different Today?

[Tilokarat]

First of all, Thailand is not surrounded by communist countries unless you count Malaysia and Burma as states that have joined the ranks of communist nations. Second, the peasants of China got a good look at the Communist Party of China, and Mao's use of terror and intimidation, during the Great Leap Forward in which over 30 million Chinese starved to death, and, in one item left out of the Little Red Book, cannibalism was present. Most males in rural China had to tend the so-called backyard furnaces to produce useless steel. Third, Thailand did have its air force and army involved in operations in both Vietnam and Laos. Fourth, the U.S. presence in Thailand obviously helped to stimulate the economy, and protect Thailand from potential troublesome neighbours.

Would Thailand have been a different place without the American presence? Yes, but in what way and direction no-one can say. Would it have drifted to communism? Not necessarily since Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia did not become communist. Would Thailand have been as successful economically? Perhaps, again using Malaysia and Singapore as examples.

Anyway, it is a tough question and runs along the lines of, would England be Catholic if not for Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, would European history be different if the French had ever defeated England, would North America be mostly French-speaking if Wolfe had lost the battle with Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, and so on.

[farang prince]

"P.S. When was the war in Granada? I must have missed that one; not like me to miss a good war. "

Spanish Civil War in the 30's

Orwell and Hemingway were there appararently

Unless its Grenada when the might of the USA kicked arse of a bunch of Cuban bricklayers working on a building site close to a medical school attended by rich kids not clever enough to get into a real medical school but will be butchering somebody by now

Well, I'll be damned. No wonder those maps of Granada didn't work for us!!!! Jesus, I do apologize to the poor Spaniards whose house we destroyed.

[Prakanong]

"P.S. When was the war in Granada? I must have missed that one; not like me to miss a good war. "

Spanish Civil War in the 30's

Orwell and Hemingway were there appararently

Unless its Grenada when the might of the USA kicked arse of a bunch of Cuban bricklayers working on a building site close to a medical school attended by rich kids not clever enough to get into a real medical school but will be butchering somebody by now

Well, I'll be damned. No wonder those maps of Granada didn't work for us!!!! Jesus, I do apologize to the poor Spaniards whose house we destroyed.

There is a TV station in the UK called Granada - I am sure I saw the USMC charging up Coronation Street in one episdode! ;-)

PS: Coronation Street is a long running British soap opera made by Granada - 1960 I beleive and I miss it so much being here in Asia!

[ColPyat]

I'm sure someone will bring Thailand back into the discussion soon.....

Totster

The big problem with bringing this topic back to Thailand is, that the more historically inclined posters are severely handicapped as regarding Thailand much historical reference material that shows a rather different light on things cannot be presented in public.

So yes, in this discussion, such as in many other like minded discussions, we will have to live with he propagated myth, which unfortunately though has very little to do with a far more complex reality.

A similar myth has been mentioned by several posters here regarding the good old US saving Europe from the Nazis. Well, history there was a bit more complex, and proponents of that rewritten history do conveniently forget to mentioned the excellent business relations many large US companies and banks did have with the Nazis, even throughout the war.

I would suggest looking up old Henry Ford, and why he got in 1938 the highest order of merit Nazi Germany had for foreigners, or Standard Oil, and why even up to 1943 they have supplied Nazi Germany with for the war effort much needed Oil, General Motors, etc.

For us the non-Americans, the US is a huge enigma. Democracy and freedom is propagated, while at the same time almost impossible alliances are made with more than questionable partners, elected governments were helped to be toppled, in order to be replaces by US friendly, though ruthless dictatorships (Indonesia). Politics and Big Business in the US are so inseparable.

Why is that so? Why is it that on communal level the US is more democratic than many other western countries, though on national level democracy by the people has been taken over by spin doctors and lobbies, and on foreign policy things are even more murky (such as the very strange US support of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after their ouster through the Vietnamese)?

I am sorry that this post steers things away from Thailand, but unfortunately in Thailand the subject of history is still, and even more so, a subject that is one of the dangerous subjects. So we will have to stay with similar involvements of the US in other parts of the world in order to show that things are often not as they are propagated.

[dumspero]

ColPyat- Agreed that things are complicated, and rarely is something all one way or another.

At the same time, it is often the case that a simplified generalization is accurate and useful in a variety of ways.

For example, in a simplified sense, yes, the US government did wipe out the American Indians. Far more complicated than that of course. But it's a useful overview in a number of ways.

Similarly, it's a reasonably accurate statement to say the US government was the deciding factor in the Nazis losing WWII in the 1940's (maybe they would have collapsed later, maybe the USSR would have held on until lend lease extended in 1948 to a super weapon, etc.). But still, hard to deny the US military was the deciding factor. And really, by 'military' I just mean 'huge economy' only, not superior people, culture, arms or anything else, just bigger and could make many, many, many more of everything and move them to the front and resupply them so many times more.

So what's the sensitivity on this point with certain non-US people? I don't get it. It's obvious that no person is any better than anyone else just because of what country he comes from, and we all know the US has many problems and has done many things wrong, but it's not always relevant to the posts to condemn the US for everything.

If someone tells me what a brilliant strategist and tactician Napolean was, since he won so many battles where he was out-resourced, I will agree and feel zero need to pick on the French about anything, whether related to that topic or not.

Same if someone says how British development of the common law has had such a postive impact on history, I agree and feel no urge, however small, to make fun of some other aspect of the UK.

But let someone on this forum say anything good about the US, and many folks feel uncontrollably compelled to bash the US. Frankly, it seems to me that much of the compulsion arises out of an insecurity or jealousy about one's own country. And that's ironic in a way, sense I don't believe the average American EXPAT thinks the US is superior to other countries. Instead, it's just that so many non-US expats seem to project onto us that we're like that.

So I'm no apologist for the US, but we ought to be able to face that it's done a lot of good out there along with some bad, including some perspective about whether it would have been better to have, for example, the USSR currently standing in the place the US does in the world in terms of relative military-technology strength.

[ColPyat]

So what's the sensitivity on this point with certain non-US people? I don't get it. It's obvious that no person is any better than anyone else just because of what country he comes from, and we all know the US has many problems and has done many things wrong, but it's not always relevant to the posts to condemn the US for everything.

You are right about that other countries have a lot of shit on sticks. And yes, most countries who have been super powers, or had aspirations of that status, have done the same things.

Part of the sensitivity comes from the fact that presently most countries have given up the notion of aspiring to be a super power. Most Europeans are tired of endless warfare necessary for upholding that status. We are trying to find a way out of that endless circle of violence. Well, and then comes Bush, and the neo-cons, and we are presented with world views such as this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I am sorry, but this is a slap in the face, especially because it is signed by many key members of the Bush government.

[dumspero]

Let's be real. That is one of the things many in Europe laugh at the US and many Americans about. We're not realists. We want to see things get better.

So let's be real first. France, Germany and the UK gave up on being super powers because they cannot be super powers. It is primarily about what can be, not that those countries evolved past it in terms of morality. In particular, France seems to be the hardest hold out in terms of a foreign policy that is practical first and moral second. And one of the appeals to Euro is that, together, Europe is in many ways a super power. If Euroland ever truly comes together, then it seems an easy prediction that it will act like a super power, hopefully for the better.

You may have forgotten (or not know) that Bush campaigned the first time on not changing the world, on not going out and being the policeman. Instead, he intended to focus on a foreign policy that was economically selfish for the US (like many other countries do). Then came 911. Then came the mistaken (in my view) reaction.

But let's be clear that 911 was caused, regardless of any mistaken reaction, by the haves in the world conspiring with the elites in the Middle East to take advantage. Sure, the hijackers and others can come from good families, but the root cause of terrorism is that the so-called developed world has taken economic advantage of the Mid East and treats its traditionalist culture with disdain.

So the countries of most of us expats posters are to blame. Not sure what this has to do with Thailand, but I do love to ramble...

[draggons]

Just asked the missus what she thought Thailand would be like if not for the good old US of A.

Her answer. Thailand.

Nuff said.

[Ulysses G.]

but the root cause of terrorism is that the so-called developed world has taken economic advantage of the Mid East and treats its traditionalist culture with disdain.

The root cause of terrorism is backwards religious fanatics with no real sense of morality.

[endure]

but the root cause of terrorism is that the so-called developed world has taken economic advantage of the Mid East and treats its traditionalist culture with disdain.

The root cause of terrorism is backwards religious fanatics with no real sense of morality.

The problem with morals is that they're like fingerprints. Everyone has a set and they're all different.

[Ulysses G.]

Purposely targeting women, children and innocent civilians to murder for political ends is forbidden by the Koran, I believe?

[ColPyat]

Purposely targeting women, children and innocent civilians to murder for political ends is forbidden by the Koran, I believe?

And in Christianity as well.

It never seemed to have stopped people from doing it though, and unfortunately it still doesn't. Carpet bombing is purposely targeting civilians - only we call it now "collateral damage" instead of plain murder.

[Pepe']

Yet another attempt to bring this back on topic.

I started it, maybe I can finish it. IMHO I believe Thailand is far better off than it's surrounding neighbors due to the presence of the US in Thailand.

Don't get me wrong none of us are wearing halos. I have just heard it time and time again since the early seventies. Most Thais I have spoken with about this say they love the USA and they have always been glad to have a "special" relationship with us.

Because if you messed with Thailand you messed with the USA their big brother. That's the word on the street, not something I cooked up.

They also don't take it lightly that our beloved Majesty the King was born here in the US.

Long live the King!!!

Is that sentiment changing, absolutely. Just like here most Thai teens don't know which end is up or could care less about history, recent or ancient.

Old Chinese Curse. Oh Yeah it goes something like this,

"May you be born in interesting times."

'I think we're there...

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

Dragonns. I don't understand your post. Does it mean your wife just hates US? Or just doesn't follow current events and or history.

Ask here what the BOT is? I'm curious what her reply would be.

Don't feet bad my wife has University Degree from Siam U and for years was assistant manager of the BKK Amari. She didn't know either.

Let's keep it on topic fellas and stop the USA bashing.

You wouldn't want to get us pissed off now would you...

Oh yes I stand corrected Burma is not communist. It is a communist backed facist style ditatorship.

Malaysia, I was going to say something but I won't. Malaysia will show it's true colors in the very near future.

Once it get's bad enough with them the USA will be requested to "help" again.

At this time I would like to respectfully request one of the mods close this thread.

Frankly I have had quite enough speculation, imagination and ignorant untruths all targeted at flaming the USA...

[John_Rambo]

I'm American, and i'm strongly of the opinion that, with the exception of driving the Japanese back where they came from in the second world war, South East Asia would have been better off without significant American interference.

[Ulysses G.]

You are distorting the meaning of "targeting" as well as "collateral damage".

Collateral damage is civilian deaths caused by targeting military targets while being unable to avoid civilian casualties - Usually because terrorists have purposely used them as shields.

[Pepe']

I'm American, and i'm strongly of the opinion that, with the exception of driving the Japanese back where they came from in the second world war, South East Asia would have been better off without significant American interference.

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

Hi John,

Thanks for staying on topic and expressing your opinion.

The Colonel:

We need you again John.

I saw you give your prize money to the monks after you won that last fight.

You can't just stay here at the monastery and working with the monks.

We need you John. There are soldiers out there US soldiers out there.

Your the only one that can help them!

Rambo:

No, I told ya I'm tru wit da military and all a youse guyzs. No I don't want ta no nutin. Git outa hir! Don't badda me no mour!

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

Sorry, with a handle like that you got to admit you must be surprised you don't get more of that.

[ColPyat]

You are distorting the meaning of "targeting" as well as "collateral damage".

Collateral damage is civilian deaths caused by targeting military targets while being unable to avoid civilian casualties - Usually because terrorists have purposely used them as shields.

That would count if there would be any front line and clearcut military targets in these wars (started by the Bush government and Blair). There are hardly any, and suddenly villages and towns with mostly civilians turn in military targets. But the problem though is that there are still many civilians living there.

The question though is, who really is the terrorist? Opinions differ...

[Pepe']

You are distorting the meaning of "targeting" as well as "collateral damage".

Collateral damage is civilian deaths caused by targeting military targets while being unable to avoid civilian casualties - Usually because terrorists have purposely used them as shields.

That would count if there would be any front line and clearcut military targets in these wars (started by the Bush government and Blair). There are hardly any, and suddenly villages and towns with mostly civilians turn in military targets. But the problem though is that there are still many civilians living there.

The question though is, who really is the terrorist? Opinions differ...

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

[ColPyat]

I'm American, and i'm strongly of the opinion that, with the exception of driving the Japanese back where they came from in the second world war, South East Asia would have been better off without significant American interference.

I never thought the day would come where i would agree with you. Here i do.

I am sure though that this warm moment won't last long...

[Pepe']

I'm American, and i'm strongly of the opinion that, with the exception of driving the Japanese back where they came from in the second world war, South East Asia would have been better off without significant American interference.

I never thought the day would come where i would agree with you. Here i do.

I am sure though that this warm moment won't last long...

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

Well Thailand is in SEA, so I guess we can let that one slide.

Do I need to re post the original post again fellas?

Mods please close this thank you...

[ColPyat]

You are distorting the meaning of "targeting" as well as "collateral damage".

Collateral damage is civilian deaths caused by targeting military targets while being unable to avoid civilian casualties - Usually because terrorists have purposely used them as shields.

That would count if there would be any front line and clearcut military targets in these wars (started by the Bush government and Blair). There are hardly any, and suddenly villages and towns with mostly civilians turn in military targets. But the problem though is that there are still many civilians living there.

The question though is, who really is the terrorist? Opinions differ...

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

Ah yes, off topic. Sorry, mate, but if you think that you can limit the discussion to a very narrow topic without looking at the future that todays events will cause, then i wonder why you even started this topic in the fist place.

Or do you want to save that topic for when in 20 years we can sit and ask how different the mideast would have been without todays US presence.

Even this "what if" scenario you try to let us do here cannot be discussed fully, as here in Thailand certain historical facts, though very important, cannot be discussed in public.

So, excuse me if i stray off topic here - it does serve a purpose.

[Pepe']

You are distorting the meaning of "targeting" as well as "collateral damage".

Collateral damage is civilian deaths caused by targeting military targets while being unable to avoid civilian casualties - Usually because terrorists have purposely used them as shields.

That would count if there would be any front line and clearcut military targets in these wars (started by the Bush government and Blair). There are hardly any, and suddenly villages and towns with mostly civilians turn in military targets. But the problem though is that there are still many civilians living there.

The question though is, who really is the terrorist? Opinions differ...

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

Ah yes, off topic. Sorry, mate, but if you think that you can limit the discussion to a very narrow topic without looking at the future that todays events will cause, then i wonder why you even started this topic in the fist place.

Or do you want to save that topic for when in 20 years we can sit and ask how different the mideast would have been without todays US presence.

Even this "what if" scenario you try to let us do here cannot be discussed fully, as here in Thailand certain historical facts, though very important, cannot be discussed in public.

So, excuse me if i stray off topic here - it does serve a purpose.

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

I don't make the rules I just try to follow them. I believe there have already been several warnings.

I think they are there mostly for a good reason. So please stay on topic. Mate.

[mcgriffith]

But let someone on this forum say anything good about the US, and many folks feel uncontrollably compelled to bash the US. Frankly, it seems to me that much of the compulsion arises out of an insecurity or jealousy about one's own country. And that's ironic in a way, sense I don't believe the average American EXPAT thinks the US is superior to other countries. Instead, it's just that so many non-US expats seem to project onto us that we're like that.

So I'm no apologist for the US, but we ought to be able to face that it's done a lot of good out there along with some bad, including some perspective about whether it would have been better to have, for example, the USSR currently standing in the place the US does in the world in terms of relative military-technology strength.

It is more than ironic. Most American expats here in CM are very anti-Bush. A lot of them moved here BECAUSE of Bush and the neo-con political muscle that seems to be extant in the US today. So it is particularly galling for these people to be on TV and read how America this, America that...

Once I was on a bus, travelling from Kabul to Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan, in the year 1973. Dressed head to toe in Afghan dress, and fluent in Dari, we stopped along the way for a mid-day prayer stop. It was observed by the bus driver that I did not partake in the Muslim prayer. When we got under way, he asked me my nationality. I told him I was American. He then (while driving the bus; literally all our lives were in his hands) proceeded to berate and denigrate America. "Why does America support Israel?" "Why does America give Israel 6 billion dollars a year?", etc. I politely pointed out that I was one of (at that time) 250 million Americans, and that I DID NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT MY GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES PERSONALLY. Dead silence on the bus. Then, a passenger behind me spoke up. He stated that this hariji (farang) is a guest in our country- can we not show him the respect that Muslims should always give a traveller? There was a groundswell of murmering in support of this opinion. I went from dead meat, to honored guest, because these largely simple people were able to discern my point.

Don't tar me with what my goverment does, or did. I am an individual. Try to see the good things that I do. Try to see the good things my government has done. Don't focus on the bad, try to see the good....

Would Thailand be a different place without the American aid, military assistance and influence in SE Asia over the last 50 years? I think it would be the exact same place. Just maybe everyone would be speaking Japanese.

[jing jing]

I'm American too, not that it matters for purposes of this discussion, and it seems obvious enough to me that the USA does not generally involve itself in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations for altruitstic reasons. We send the Marines, Special Forces, and/or CIA over when the government in its infinite wisdom has decided there is something vital to our own economic interests at stake.

If anything good ever happens to another country as a result of our intervention, well, that's probably just an unintended consequence.

After WW2 we sent a brilliant statistician named Deming over to help the Japanese rebuild their industries and teach them a little something about quality control. I reckon they learned that lesson even better than we'd probably hoped.

[Pepe']

But let someone on this forum say anything good about the US, and many folks feel uncontrollably compelled to bash the US. Frankly, it seems to me that much of the compulsion arises out of an insecurity or jealousy about one's own country. And that's ironic in a way, sense I don't believe the average American EXPAT thinks the US is superior to other countries. Instead, it's just that so many non-US expats seem to project onto us that we're like that.

So I'm no apologist for the US, but we ought to be able to face that it's done a lot of good out there along with some bad, including some perspective about whether it would have been better to have, for example, the USSR currently standing in the place the US does in the world in terms of relative military-technology strength.

It is more than ironic. Most American expats here in CM are very anti-Bush. A lot of them moved here BECAUSE of Bush and the neo-con political muscle that seems to be extant in the US today. So it is particularly galling for these people to be on TV and read how America this, America that...

Once I was on a bus, travelling from Kabul to Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan, in the year 1973. Dressed head to toe in Afghan dress, and fluent in Dari, we stopped along the way for a mid-day prayer stop. It was observed by the bus driver that I did not partake in the Muslim prayer. When we got under way, he asked me my nationality. I told him I was American. He then (while driving the bus; literally all our lives were in his hands) proceeded to berate and denigrate America. "Why does America support Israel?" "Why does America give Israel 6 billion dollars a year?", etc. I politely pointed out that I was one of (at that time) 250 million Americans, and that I DID NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT MY GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES PERSONALLY. Dead silence on the bus. Then, a passenger behind me spoke up. He stated that this hariji (farang) is a guest in our country- can we not show him the respect that Muslims should always give a traveller? There was a groundswell of murmering in support of this opinion. I went from dead meat, to honored guest, because these largely simple people were able to discern my point.

Don't tar me with what my goverment does, or did. I am an individual. Try to see the good things that I do. Try to see the good things my government has done. Don't focus on the bad, try to see the good....

Would Thailand be a different place without the American aid, military assistance and influence in SE Asia over the last 50 years? I think it would be the exact same place. Just maybe everyone would be speaking Japanese.

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

Well it took you long enough to get there. LOL Nicely done though and I think you speak for many of us Yanks...

[richard10365]

Pepe,

I hear you asking people to stay on topic and not to bash America. But how can you ask that? Your asking about how would Thailand be without American involvement. You have two possible answers. Better or worse.

Once someone says better, they give an opinion. When they say worse, they give an opinion. The people discuss and explain why they have these opinions. It's almost like they are part of a forum.

From your responses, you do not like the opinions of the ones who don't think Thailand is what it is better off because of U.S. involvement.

There are two or more sides to every forum question. Just cause you don't like the answers doesn't mean people are off topic. They are just explaining why their answer to your question.

From the various answers, it seems the majority of posters do not think the U.S. has had any positive or negagitve impact on Thailand. It also seems the U.S. is not a very popular country with most posters.

I mgiht be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Pepe']

Pepe,

I hear you asking people to stay on topic and not to bash America. But how can you ask that? Your asking about how would Thailand be without American involvement. You have two possible answers. Better or worse.

Once someone says better, they give an opinion. When they say worse, they give an opinion. The people discuss and explain why they have these opinions. It's almost like they are part of a forum.

From your responses, you do not like the opinions of the ones who don't think Thailand is what it is better off because of U.S. involvement.

p--- No actually could care less about their opinions or mine.

p--- There's a big difference from an opinion and bashing. As I said the mods have given several warnings already or did you miss that.

There are two or more sides to every forum question. Just cause you don't like the answers doesn't mean people are off topic. They are just explaining why their answer to your question.

p---Give me a 3333333 break there has been more off topic US bashing here than I've seen to date on this forum. I'm shocked quite frankly it hasn't been closed.

From the various answers, it seems the majority of posters do not think the U.S. has had any positive or negagitve impact on Thailand. It also seems the U.S. is not a very popular country with most posters.

I mgiht be wrong, but I don't think so.

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

p---Very subjective statement. Why not count the pro's and cons instead of just "ballparking it."

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

:D

[ColPyat]

p---Give me a 3333333 break there has been more off topic US bashing here than I've seen to date on this forum. I'm shocked quite frankly it hasn't been closed.

Well, if you don't like the answers - then don't start a thread with such a topic.

Like it or not - there are many people (including Americans) who do not like US foreign policy, and after looking at historical facts believe that over all - US military involvement after WW2 has done far more damage to region that it has done positive (support for Suharto in Indonesia, the secret war in Tibet, the support for countless brutal dictators in Thailand, it's involvement in the Indochina wars, etc.).

And especially we don't like to see that US/UK involvement in the mid-east today makes very similar mistakes that have led to the mess that we have now here in SEA.

Sorry if the answers are not what you expected.

[PeaceBlondie]

Closed for obvious reasons, the first one being that it's at the request of the original poster.

Good night, folks.