Most of the anti-Thaksin sentiment you will find on this forum is exactly that, anti-Thaksin. The queues of people you speak of supporting Generals is a figment of your imagination, born out of desperate desire to in some way defend your cause.

A Classic TV hypocritical cop-out.

If you are anti-Taksin (as I am) then unless you are also actively anti-coup (as I am) then it follows that you are a de facto supporter of the Generals (as you apparently are).

Democracy in Thailand is relatively new-born and has never been allowed an opportunity to establsh itself and grow strong by a process of learning from experience. You clap and cheer the continuing attempt (successful thus far) to smother the infant.

At least Phetaroi has the integrity to declare his shameful and craven choice; sadly it seems that you do not.

I am against coups but unlike you, i blame the 2006 coup on Thaksin, not the Generals. Had Thaksin been running the country with honesty and integrity, the coup wouldn't and couldn't have occured. Thai people wouldn't have accepted it. Broadly speaking they did.

Kitsch i have a question. Please think before you answer. Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?

Most of the anti-Thaksin sentiment you will find on this forum is exactly that, anti-Thaksin. The queues of people you speak of supporting Generals is a figment of your imagination, born out of desperate desire to in some way defend your cause.

A Classic TV hypocritical cop-out.

If you are anti-Taksin (as I am) then unless you are also actively anti-coup (as I am) then it follows that you are a de facto supporter of the Generals (as you apparently are).

Democracy in Thailand is relatively new-born and has never been allowed an opportunity to establsh itself and grow strong by a process of learning from experience. You clap and cheer the continuing attempt (successful thus far) to smother the infant.

At least Phetaroi has the integrity to declare his shameful and craven choice; sadly it seems that you do not.

I am against coups but unlike you, i blame the 2006 coup on Thaksin, not the Generals. Had Thaksin been running the country with honesty and integrity, the coup wouldn't and couldn't have occured. Thai people wouldn't have accepted it. Broadly speaking they did.

Kitsch i have a question. Please think before you answer. Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?

You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly. So who decided the coup? You say the Thai people broadly accepted the coup. Is that why they then elected a pro-taksin government.

You say the Thai people broadly accepted the coup. Is that why they then elected a pro-taksin government.

Take no prisoners caf!

Most of the anti-Thaksin sentiment you will find on this forum is exactly that, anti-Thaksin. The queues of people you speak of supporting Generals is a figment of your imagination, born out of desperate desire to in some way defend your cause.

A Classic TV hypocritical cop-out.

If you are anti-Taksin (as I am) then unless you are also actively anti-coup (as I am) then it follows that you are a de facto supporter of the Generals (as you apparently are).

Democracy in Thailand is relatively new-born and has never been allowed an opportunity to establsh itself and grow strong by a process of learning from experience. You clap and cheer the continuing attempt (successful thus far) to smother the infant.

At least Phetaroi has the integrity to declare his shameful and craven choice; sadly it seems that you do not.

I am against coups but unlike you, i blame the 2006 coup on Thaksin, not the Generals. Had Thaksin been running the country with honesty and integrity, the coup wouldn't and couldn't have occured. Thai people wouldn't have accepted it. Broadly speaking they did.

Kitsch i have a question. Please think before you answer. Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?

I always think before I post (accidental keypresses excepted). On this occasion my first thought is that your question is so unspecific and lacking in context as to leave it unrooted and so of questionable relevance.

If your question were asked in Thailand in 2006, my answer is, certainly, "No."

If your question were to be asked in England in 2009, I would have to think very much longer and harder before answering.

To attempt to produce a generalised response: Where a government (notwithstanding its being guilty of corruption and similar or comparable misfeasance but falling short of genocide such as to render probable international intervention) enjoys the support of a significant democratic majority of the voters under a system of general adult suffrage (even in circumstances of poor education, misinformation, bribery and so forth) upon a fair and open vote taken in private (which must exclude circumstances where the party in power has disqualified or otherwise excluded its opponents) then a military coup cannot be justified and amounts to an act of war upon the populace.

I do appreciate that that proposition can lead to a situation in which power remains concentrated in some very dirty hands. Nevertheless, if the people are to be ruled by a despot, let it be a despot of their choosing rather than a despot chosen by the military.

If, on the other hand, Taksin had declared himself to be "Prime Minister For Life" and had abolished elections, then a coup would most certainly have been justified. But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people. And they backed him. To say that they have "accepted" the post-coup situation is firstly untrue and secondly begs the question of the real nature of one's acceptance when one is looking down the barrel of a gun.

You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

So who decided the coup?

If you don't know, find out yourself.

You say the Thai people broadly accepted the coup.

Did everyone agree with it? No. Did it cause widespread outrage and disgust that compelled people to take to the streets in numbers? No.

Is that why they then elected a pro-taksin government.

When you say "they" are you aware of what percentage of the population you are talking about?

Kitsch i have a question. Please think before you answer. Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?

I always think before I post (accidental keypresses excepted). On this occasion my first thought is that your question is so unspecific and lacking in context as to leave it unrooted and so of questionable relevance.

Unspecific you moan. Lacking in context. Unrooted. Questionable relevance...blah blah blah

Deary me. How evasive can you get? It's a very simple question:

Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?

"Yes" or "no"?

If your question were asked in Thailand in 2006, my answer is, certainly, "No."

If your question were to be asked in England in 2009, I would have to think very much longer and harder before answering.

That looked like a "yes". Was it?

You say the Thai people broadly accepted the coup. Is that why they then elected a pro-taksin government.

Take no prisoners caf!

Lay the pom poms down to one side and just walk away. It's not a pretty sight.

But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people.

I respect you for being willing to stick to your opinion Kitsch, but just keep in mind, that is exactly what demagogues do. It doesn't mean you should respect them for it.

The unfortunate reality is democracies are useless when in the presence of a demagogue. I don't care how corrupt the guy was. There is lots of corruption in Thai politics, and there always will be. That is not why Takki had to go. The fact that he is a demagogue IS why he has to go.

Leaving a country to people like that gives rise to things like Hitler. I will forever disagree with your position, as much as I respect your right to be wrong. A coup was completely justified in this case, just as a coup would have been justified to remove Hitler before WWII.

No ideology or system of government is perfect. The military has a responsibility to protect the people from all enemies of the country, even if the enemy is the PM. I am glad the military did not shy away from their responsibilities.

But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people.

I respect you for being willing to stick to your opinion Kitsch, but just keep in mind, that is exactly what demagogues do. It doesn't mean you should respect them for it.

The unfortunate reality is democracies are useless when in the presence of a demagogue. I don't care how corrupt the guy was. There is lots of corruption in Thai politics, and there always will be. That is not why Takki had to go. The fact that he is a demagogue IS why he has to go.

Leaving a country to people like that gives rise to things like Hitler. I will forever disagree with your position, as much as I respect your right to be wrong. A coup was completely justified in this case, just as a coup would have been justified to remove Hitler before WWII.

No ideology or system of government is perfect. The military has a responsibility to protect the people from all enemies of the country, even if the enemy is the PM. I am glad the military did not shy away from their responsibilities.

Are you suggesting that the military has an obligation towards self-annihilation?

That looked like a "yes". Was it?

No. My final paragraph was a "Yes". If you had trouble in understanding that, then I dare say you will have failed to comprehend the generalisation which explained why that final paragraph was a "Yes"

You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

quote

So who decided the coup? quote

If you don't know, find out yourself. quote You say the Thai people broadly accepted the coup. quote

Did everyone agree with it? No. Did it cause widespread outrage and disgust that compelled people to take to the streets in numbers? No.

Is that why they then elected a pro-taksin government.

When you say "they" are you aware of what percentage of the population you are talking about?

Breaking up my quote into short sections is a clever way to ignore the issue.

Clever but not honest.

It is a cheap device to mention the coup but not fully explain it. Either don't mention it or make your point explicitly.

The pro-taksin government was elected. That is fact. It is clear signal of what people thought.

But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people.

I respect you for being willing to stick to your opinion Kitsch, but just keep in mind, that is exactly what demagogues do. It doesn't mean you should respect them for it.

The unfortunate reality is democracies are useless when in the presence of a demagogue. I don't care how corrupt the guy was. There is lots of corruption in Thai politics, and there always will be. That is not why Takki had to go. The fact that he is a demagogue IS why he has to go.

Leaving a country to people like that gives rise to things like Hitler. I will forever disagree with your position, as much as I respect your right to be wrong. A coup was completely justified in this case, just as a coup would have been justified to remove Hitler before WWII.

No ideology or system of government is perfect. The military has a responsibility to protect the people from all enemies of the country, even if the enemy is the PM. I am glad the military did not shy away from their responsibilities.

You make a good point about Hitler in Germany. But is Thailand with its history of regular coups a good parallel. I think not. A coup in Germany would have had a single and clearly understood purpose; a coup here is more shall we say traditional and acceptable. My own view is that Germans and Thais have different ways of looking at politics and how differences are resolved.

Breaking up my quote into short sections is a clever way to ignore the issue.

I simply dealt with each of your comments individually. I'm sorry if that didn't follow the route that you wanted the discussion to follow. I can't see that i ignored any of your questions. Please tell me which ones. And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.

caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

Well?

The pro-taksin government was elected. That is fact. It is clear signal of what people thought.

You are using the fact that a pro-Thaksin government was elected after the coup as evidence that the coup was not broadly accepted by Thai people, after i stated that it was and you disagreed.

The problem you have is that it only shows what 30 odd percent of the voting population were thinking. The 30 odd percent who voted that way may well have been in some way opposed to the coup (note that being opposed is different from not accepting something).

But what about the other 70 odd percent? If we are happy to simplistically conclude that the 30 odd percent voting for the pro-Thaksin party were against the coup, do we then also assume that the 70 odd percent who voted another way were either in favour of the coup or at the very least, not opposed to it?

Too many unknowns involved i would say.

The truth is, if you were here and you lived through the coup amongst Thai people, you would know that indeed the coup was broadly accepted. I'm not saying everyone agreed with it and i'm not saying everyone was in favour of it, but broadly speaking was it accepted? Absoultely "YES". Were people out on the streets hailing abuse and throwing objects at soldiers and tanks? Absolutely "NO" - offering refreshments and flowers more like. Was there any sort of an uprising of the people? "NO". What did people do then at the time of the coup? Well all those that i saw simpy carried on with their lives, as if little had happened. I don't think they could have been more accepting had they tried.

If, on the other hand, Taksin had declared himself to be "Prime Minister For Life" and had abolished elections, then a coup would most certainly have been justified. But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people. And they backed him. To say that they have "accepted" the post-coup situation is firstly untrue and secondly begs the question of the real nature of one's acceptance when one is looking down the barrel of a gun.

I see you are still being a drama queen.

My final paragraph was a "Yes".

You'll have to forgive me but my patience is limited for the sort of long and winding, evasive, round the houses response you gave to the very simple "yes" or "no" question below.

Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?

And at the end of it all you still couldn't bring yourself to answer the question directly. Too busy trotting out all your clauses, conditions and justifications to mutter a simple "yes" it seems.

how people fall into the argument of "an elected government" if this "elected Government" was dissolved and it's prime minister was only in a CARETAKER Position - then the Country started to be in gridlock already - why those who use this argument, refuse to take the simple truth and swallow it - and discuss issues from there on?

I understnad that then theyre whole argument would have no base no more!

Baseless to discuss on this very shaky base!

These grounds are the only (fabricated) straw to legalize the advance against a coup, the cleaning of political shrapnel who wished to cling to power, whatsoever and keep the power against ALLL DEMOCRATIC rules!

These are only part of the Facts of those times.

TH EC ruled there was massive meddling, other parties boycotted the call for new elections because there was a too smal window for preparations and, and, and....

The very essence of the trouble was being brewed in those days.... and not after the PAD occupied the airport!

Had nothing to do with an "democratically elected government"!

It was all about a man and his mighty-majority party didn't want to let go of it's grip of power which was so close at their disposal....so close and then the dream turned for those involved into a nightmare, so close, yet so far, one step too far, they had crossed the line!

That is why - none else!

Breaking up my quote into short sections is a clever way to ignore the issue.

I simply dealt with each of your comments individually. I'm sorry if that didn't follow the route that you wanted the discussion to follow. I can't see that i ignored any of your questions. Please tell me which ones. And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.

caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

Well?

The pro-taksin government was elected. That is fact. It is clear signal of what people thought.

You are using the fact that a pro-Thaksin government was elected after the coup as evidence that the coup was not broadly accepted by Thai people, after i stated that it was and you disagreed.

The problem you have is that it only shows what 30 odd percent of the voting population were thinking. The 30 odd percent who voted that way may well have been in some way opposed to the coup (note that being opposed is different from not accepting something).

But what about the other 70 odd percent? If we are happy to simplistically conclude that the 30 odd percent voting for the pro-Thaksin party were against the coup, do we then also assume that the 70 odd percent who voted another way were either in favour of the coup or at the very least, not opposed to it?

Too many unknowns involved i would say.

The truth is, if you were here and you lived through the coup amongst Thai people, you would know that indeed the coup was broadly accepted. I'm not saying everyone agreed with it and i'm not saying everyone was in favour of it, but broadly speaking was it accepted? Absoultely "YES". Were people out on the streets hailing abuse and throwing objects at soldiers and tanks? Absolutely "NO" - offering refreshments and flowers more like. Was there any sort of an uprising of the people? "NO". What did people do then at the time of the coup? Well all those that i saw simpy carried on with their lives, as if little had happened. I don't think they could have been more accepting had they tried.

My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?

And don't confuse voter turnout with voters not voting a particular way. The election was won by a particular party.

And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.

caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

Well?

My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?

Please don't bother asking me questions when you have shown yourself unable/unwilling to answer mine.

And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.

caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

Well?

My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?

Please don't bother asking me questions when you have shown yourself unable/unwilling to answer mine.

I'll answer for you. Newspaper reports and media coverage.

And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.

caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.

me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?

Well?

My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?

Please don't bother asking me questions when you have shown yourself unable/unwilling to answer mine.

I'll answer for you. Newspaper reports and media coverage.