US Calls For Peaceful Resolution In Thailand

[ding]

Toner made a good diplomatic statement. I hope all works out for the best soon, however.

[TAWP]

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

Not in my book it isn't. Elected by the people not the parliament thats democracy.

Please tell us how TRT and PPP came to power...

Hint: Through a parliamentary vote.

[Publicus]

US calls for peaceful resolution

oh u mean the country which started not one but 2 wars in the 00s (and more importantly wasn't able to "win" either)

who asked it?

An AFP journalist asked Mr Toner during a DEPSTATE daily news conference and Mr Toner responded - the AFP reporter then wrote a news article (above) circulated globally.

The US military doesn't go around overthrowing the US government or meddle in US government or politics. (The Pentagon lobbies Congress and the White House for its budget same as the other departments of the US government.)

During the Vietnam War several US generals were removed from their command for disobeying orders by senior civilian policy makers in Washington both at the Pentagon and in the White House - in every instance the generals wanted to or did exceed their defined/limited authority in conducting the war. In Iraq and Afghanistan a couple of US generals or other senior officers (colonels) have been removed from command for incidents such as Abhu Grahib or failure to execute clearly defined policy (Rules of Engagement).

Thailand has never considered or tried to establish the principle of civilian control of its military which is a major reason, if not the major reason, democracy in Thailand is weak, tentative, feeble, cannot become rooted in continuity, is regularly interrupted or manipulated by the military. A major reason Thaksin is gone is that he attempted to assert a personal Thaksin control of the military, a personal control that had nothing to do with the principle of civilian control of the military.

Same as you, a reporter asked a question - each of you got an answer.

[eggomaniac]

Quote from the OP "The kingdom offered elephants to President Abraham Lincoln as he waged the 1861-1865 Civil War."

According to Wikipedia [dang I LOVE saying that!]; the offer of elephants for the Civil War is a myth.

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

Contrary to popular, and false, belief (such as depicted in [2] and in Wikipedia's own Wikianswer), King Mongkut did not offer a herd of war elephants to President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War for use against the Confederacy. He did, however, offer to send some domesticated elephants to President James Buchanan, to use as beasts of burden and means of transportation. The royal letter of February 14, 1861, which was written even before the Civil War started, took some time to arrive in Washington DC, and by the time it reached its destination President Buchanan was not in office any longer. (Text of the royal letter here [3]. Although the Smithsonian Institution describes it as the "translation" in fact it was written by the King himself in his "self-educated" English.) Lincoln, who succeeded Buchanan as the US President, is said to have been asked what the elephants could be used for, and in reply he said that he did not know, unless "they were used to stamp out the rebellion."[4] However, in his replying letter dated February 3, 1862 [5] Lincoln did not mention anything about the Civil War. The President merely politely declined to accept King Mongkut's proposal, explaining to the King that the American climate might not be suitable for elephants and that American steam engines could also be used as beasts of burden and means of transportation.

[ding]

Thailand has never considered or tried to establish the principle of civilian control of its military which is a major reason, if not the major reason, democracy in Thailand is weak, tentative, feeble, cannot become rooted in continuity, is regularly interrupted or manipulated by the military. A major reason Thaksin is gone is that he attempted to assert a personal Thaksin control of the military, a personal control that had nothing to do with the principle of civilian control of the military.

Same as you, a reporter asked a question - each of you got an answer.

Well if that don't just about kick ass I don't know what does.

The USA has changed, however, a lot.

[monkfish]

The US should just keep out of it otherwise there is bound to be a war.

[tracymeaw]

The supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra say the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power through a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling removed Thaksin's allies from power.

I don't understand how Thaksin says he is fighting for democracy when he says things like this!

Because the PPP executive broke the law, the court had to make the decision that they did. It was a clear cut decision.

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

It just shows that Thaksin wants to ignore the courts AND ignore democracy.

Some believe that there is a serious obstacle to democracy when a system allows for the dissolution of an entire political party when/if even one of its members is allegedly guilty of misconduct.

If that same process were applied evenly, then there would have probably been no parties remaining to stage that parliamentary fix you speak of.

[Siripon]

Jatuporn vows to beat govt before Songkran holidays

BANGKOK: -- Jatuporn Promphan Wednesday vowed to beat the government in the on-going political game before the Songkran holidays.

He said the red-shirt movement would do everything to make the game over for the government before the Songkran holidays so that the red-shirt people could return home to celebrate the water-splashing festival.

The red-shirt movement demanded that the government unconditionally dissolve the House within 15 days.

-- The Nation 2010-03-31

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

The red shirts will go home for Songkran whether you like it or not Jatuporn, and you know that; hence the final of final of final battles.

[jdinasia]

The supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra say the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power through a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling removed Thaksin's allies from power.

I don't understand how Thaksin says he is fighting for democracy when he says things like this!

Because the PPP executive broke the law, the court had to make the decision that they did. It was a clear cut decision.

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

It just shows that Thaksin wants to ignore the courts AND ignore democracy.

Some believe that there is a serious obstacle to democracy when a system allows for the dissolution of an entire political party when/if even one of its members is allegedly guilty of misconduct.

If that same process were applied evenly, then there would have probably been no parties remaining to stage that parliamentary fix you speak of.

The party is dissolved only when the party executives are caught not "just one of its members". The MP's that are not party executives are not removed from office and can continue as MP's to serve the people that elected them by joining another party.

Your second sentence/[aragraph is a strawman argument. Any party where an executive was caught on tape paying off people would be dissolved. The fact that they were given enough time to form a new "shell" party for the MP's to join seems to be lost on all the red posters here.

[Jingthing]

Its just a diplomatic communication which can be read as, we aren't taking sides in this, good luck!

[khunjamespittman]

The supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra say the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power through a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling removed Thaksin's allies from power.

I don't understand how Thaksin says he is fighting for democracy when he says things like this!

Because the PPP executive broke the law, the court had to make the decision that they did. It was a clear cut decision.

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

It just shows that Thaksin wants to ignore the courts AND ignore democracy.

A parlimentary vote is the proper way to register support or opposition inside a parlimentary body.

It is not the proper vehicle to use in a national referendum. When the courts declared no confidence in the previous government the proper thing would have been to allow the people to voice their will by voting in a national referendum. This elections is still required.

Abhisit, by saying he would hold an election in 9 months, admitted a vote is needed. He is hopeful to use the 9 months to modify the constitution to codify the procedure of using the courts and a parlimentary vote that brought him to power. If that is allowed to happen, the only way to replace and incumbent government would be to resort to a coup.

That would not be a good thing for Thailand. If the present government is successful in manipulating the constitution in this way, I hope that the people will have a vote via a national referendum, not a parlimentary vote, to reject it.

[jdinasia]

-03-31 14:31:55' post='3459894']

The supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra say the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power through a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling removed Thaksin's allies from power.

I don't understand how Thaksin says he is fighting for democracy when he says things like this!

Because the PPP executive broke the law, the court had to make the decision that they did. It was a clear cut decision.

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

It just shows that Thaksin wants to ignore the courts AND ignore democracy.

A parlimentary vote is the proper way to register support or opposition inside a parlimentary body.

It is not the proper vehicle to use in a national referendum. When the courts declared no confidence in the previous government the proper thing would have been to allow the people to voice their will by voting in a national referendum. This elections is still required.

Abhisit, by saying he would hold an election in 9 months, admitted a vote is needed. He is hopeful to use the 9 months to modify the constitution to codify the procedure of using the courts and a parlimentary vote that brought him to power. If that is allowed to happen, the only way to replace and incumbent government would be to resort to a coup.

That would not be a good thing for Thailand. If the present government is successful in manipulating the constitution in this way, I hope that the people will have a vote via a national referendum, not a parlimentary vote, to reject it.

Another series of fallacious arguments by khunjamespittman. The current government was elected in a standard parliamentary vote. Nobody is denying that! Some people are not liking it but nobody is denying it.

Your claim (repeated) that the "courts declared 'no confidence'" is a flat out fabrication. "No Confidence" is a vote of parliament and does not pertain to the courts at all. The courts disbanded a political party where there was incontrovertable evidence that a party EXECUTIVE had committed electoral fraud. Only party executives were banned. The rest of the MP's joined other parties. Mostly the party that PPP had set up already, knowing that they would be banned. It is NOT part of electoral law or the constitution that new elections must be called or even should be called when this happens. You are just making up constitutional law to suit yourself.

Abhisit countered Jatuporn and Weng's claim that the majority of the people wanted dissolution by saying "Let's ask them!". Nothing extra-constitutional about that, but not a standard practice. Abhisit has offered a compromise with the reds of holding an early election, it is an utter strawman argument to suggest that he "admitted a vote is needed". The current government (again) is completely constitutional. Nothing needs to change for it to remain constitutional, thus your statement that anything about the court decision to disband PPP or the parliamentary vote that elected the current government needs to be "codified". It is already the law of the land.

Abhisit has not suggested a unilateral change in the constitution or the organic law of Thailand. That would have been the PPP before they were dissolved that was attempting that. Abhisit has referred to a national referendum regarding charter reform.

Really, you need to just drop the lie that the court declared "No confidence" at any time as that is not the function of the court and is solely the responsibility of Parliament.

[anotherpeter]

The supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra say the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power through a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling removed Thaksin's allies from power.

I don't understand how Thaksin says he is fighting for democracy when he says things like this!

Because the PPP executive broke the law, the court had to make the decision that they did. It was a clear cut decision.

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

It just shows that Thaksin wants to ignore the courts AND ignore democracy.

A parlimentary vote is the proper way to register support or opposition inside a parlimentary body.

It is not the proper vehicle to use in a national referendum. When the courts declared no confidence in the previous government the proper thing would have been to allow the people to voice their will by voting in a national referendum. This elections is still required.

Abhisit, by saying he would hold an election in 9 months, admitted a vote is needed. He is hopeful to use the 9 months to modify the constitution to codify the procedure of using the courts and a parlimentary vote that brought him to power. If that is allowed to happen, the only way to replace and incumbent government would be to resort to a coup.

That would not be a good thing for Thailand. If the present government is successful in manipulating the constitution in this way, I hope that the people will have a vote via a national referendum, not a parlimentary vote, to reject it.

The courts didn't "declare no confidence in the previous government", so the rest of your statement is irrelevant.

Abhisit has already put forward changes to the constitution, including changes that the PTP want but he doesn't agree with. The PTP declined to even debate it.

In the talks with the red leaders he has stated that the constitution would be discussed and debated with all groups, not just him and the reds, and then voted on in a referendum by the people.

Abhisit wants to keep the constitution vote separate from the election because it is not just a political issue. That's one of the reasons he wants to wait 9 months for an election - to get the constitution and referendum out of the way before that.

The reds want an election now so they can get into power and change the constitution to exactly how they want it. That would follow the processes that Thaksin was trying to use so that he could stay in power after the failed 2006 elections.

[ozzieman05]

My Thai wife says

The most important things we must learn from this is

Thai Politics and Parlimentary process, should be a compulsary subject in schools

when she was at school she was not interested in these subjects

Now she wished she and her fellow country people had be taught these principles

Corruption and power are a result of ignorance

[khunjamespittman]

-03-31 14:31:55' post='3459894']

The supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra say the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power through a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling removed Thaksin's allies from power.

I don't understand how Thaksin says he is fighting for democracy when he says things like this!

Because the PPP executive broke the law, the court had to make the decision that they did. It was a clear cut decision.

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

It just shows that Thaksin wants to ignore the courts AND ignore democracy.

A parlimentary vote is the proper way to register support or opposition inside a parlimentary body.

It is not the proper vehicle to use in a national referendum. When the courts declared no confidence in the previous government the proper thing would have been to allow the people to voice their will by voting in a national referendum. This elections is still required.

Abhisit, by saying he would hold an election in 9 months, admitted a vote is needed. He is hopeful to use the 9 months to modify the constitution to codify the procedure of using the courts and a parlimentary vote that brought him to power. If that is allowed to happen, the only way to replace and incumbent government would be to resort to a coup.

That would not be a good thing for Thailand. If the present government is successful in manipulating the constitution in this way, I hope that the people will have a vote via a national referendum, not a parlimentary vote, to reject it.

Another series of fallacious arguments by khunjamespittman. The current government was elected in a standard parliamentary vote. Nobody is denying that! Some people are not liking it but nobody is denying it.

Your claim (repeated) that the "courts declared 'no confidence'" is a flat out fabrication. "No Confidence" is a vote of parliament and does not pertain to the courts at all. The courts disbanded a political party where there was incontrovertable evidence that a party EXECUTIVE had committed electoral fraud. Only party executives were banned. The rest of the MP's joined other parties. Mostly the party that PPP had set up already, knowing that they would be banned. It is NOT part of electoral law or the constitution that new elections must be called or even should be called when this happens. You are just making up constitutional law to suit yourself.

Abhisit countered Jatuporn and Weng's claim that the majority of the people wanted dissolution by saying "Let's ask them!". Nothing extra-constitutional about that, but not a standard practice. Abhisit has offered a compromise with the reds of holding an early election, it is an utter strawman argument to suggest that he "admitted a vote is needed". The current government (again) is completely constitutional. Nothing needs to change for it to remain constitutional, thus your statement that anything about the court decision to disband PPP or the parliamentary vote that elected the current government needs to be "codified". It is already the law of the land.

Abhisit has not suggested a unilateral change in the constitution or the organic law of Thailand. That would have been the PPP before they were dissolved that was attempting that. Abhisit has referred to a national referendum regarding charter reform.

Really, you need to just drop the lie that the court declared "No confidence" at any time as that is not the function of the court and is solely the responsibility of Parliament.

I won't comment on your hyperbolic comments. Feel free to continue if you wish.

From your post:

"Abhisit has not suggested a unilateral change in the constitution or the organic law of Thailand. That would have been the PPP before they were dissolved that was attempting that. Abhisit has referred to a national referendum regarding charter reform."

I believe I heard him say that one of the reasons he can't disolve parliment was they need to make constitutional changes to make a smooth election.

[anotherpeter]

I won't comment on your hyperbolic comments. Feel free to continue if you wish.

From your post:

"Abhisit has not suggested a unilateral change in the constitution or the organic law of Thailand. That would have been the PPP before they were dissolved that was attempting that. Abhisit has referred to a national referendum regarding charter reform."

I believe I heard him say that one of the reasons he can't disolve parliment was they need to make constitutional changes to make a smooth election.

That isn't "unilateral change".

EDIT: Abhisit is involving all groups in the discussions, and having a referendum to accept it.

Edited March 31, 2010 by anotherpeter

[jdinasia]

I won't comment on your hyperbolic comments. Feel free to continue if you wish.

From your post:

"Abhisit has not suggested a unilateral change in the constitution or the organic law of Thailand. That would have been the PPP before they were dissolved that was attempting that. Abhisit has referred to a national referendum regarding charter reform."

I believe I heard him say that one of the reasons he can't disolve parliment was they need to make constitutional changes to make a smooth election.

There was no hyperbole in anything that I wrote. What you believe you heard is true --- what you didn't hear is him suggesting unilateral changes. What you heard was a national referendum. That means letting the people vote to accept the changes or not.

Again your contention that the courts declared "no-confidence" is just a fabrication on your part. I must assume that you come from a country without a parliamentary democracy and that you just don't have any idea of what that means. Do a bit of research on it then feel free to get back to us and actually use valid arguments.

[geriatrickid]

The US already took a position a few months ago when the head of the Thai military was summoned to the Pentagon. The US just wants there to be peace and stability as it has to deal with bigger issues involving China and North Korea. In the old days, all the Thais had to say was that the protestors were commies, and the US would throw money and arms their way but times have changed, and the US has become a little more sophisticated now that the Republican Neanderthals are out of power. If there is bloodshed, the Thai government will not get a sympathetic ear from the US or other western nations for that matter.

[jdinasia]

The US already took a position a few months ago when the head of the Thai military was summoned to the Pentagon. The US just wants there to be peace and stability as it has to deal with bigger issues involving China and North Korea. In the old days, all the Thais had to say was that the protestors were commies, and the US would throw money and arms their way but times have changed, and the US has become a little more sophisticated now that the Republican Neanderthals are out of power. If there is bloodshed, the Thai government will not get a sympathetic ear from the US or other western nations for that matter.

Please help the rest of us out ... can you support your point that the "Thai military was summoned" and that it wasn't exactly what was represented in the press - a meeting occured?

If there is bloodshed .... ? Ummm do you mean if the Thai government has to use minimal force and people get hurt? Or are you implying something on the order of "if the government uses live ammunition to crack down on protesters without being first attacked"?

[bangon04]

And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.

Not in my book it isn't. Elected by the people not the parliament thats democracy.

So a "real" democracy according to this would be that every national decision would have to be decided by national referendum????

and every local decision would have to be decided by local referendum??.

Perfect democracy, but don't you think the idealistic gains might be a little expemsive,not to say slow??

[Publicus]

The US already took a position a few months ago when the head of the Thai military was summoned to the Pentagon. The US just wants there to be peace and stability as it has to deal with bigger issues involving China and North Korea. In the old days, all the Thais had to say was that the protestors were commies, and the US would throw money and arms their way but times have changed, and the US has become a little more sophisticated now that the Republican Neanderthals are out of power. If there is bloodshed, the Thai government will not get a sympathetic ear from the US or other western nations for that matter.

I wouldn't associate Neanderthals with the US Republican Party and its members as Neanderthal man was a gentle and friendly type - the Cromangions however were the skull bashers of the time who eliminated the Neanderthal presence of north central Europe. Crogmangion descendants became the post-Lincoln Republican Party of the Reagan-Bushes.

To respond myself to a followup post, the US means NO violence by anyone. No is spelled N-O and it has an exclamation mark after it - NO!. This is a major reason Abhisit not only is bending over backwards to keep the peace, Abhisit's backside is so close to the gound in this respect he's is doing the limbo. The US Government will accept whichever and whatever government Thailand has or may have, however, the US, the EU, Apec etc will not accept violence either by the guys who have the tanks or by the guys who have the propane gas tankers. Any violence by anyone anytime anywhere will put the country seriously in the tank for a long time to come.

[bangon04]

My Thai wife says

The most important things we must learn from this is

Thai Politics and Parlimentary process, should be a compulsary subject in schools

when she was at school she was not interested in these subjects

Now she wished she and her fellow country people had be taught these principles

Corruption and power are a result of ignorance

but at least Thai schools teach children how nasty (Burmese) foreigners defeated Siam (by cheating of course) and also how Siam was never ever conquered by foreigners (not even the Burmese?), so that must be the main reason why foreigners do not understand the Thai political system...

Edited March 31, 2010 by bangon04

[TAWP]

When the courts declared no confidence in the previous government the proper thing would have been to allow the people to voice their will by voting in a national referendum.

You proclaim this false nonsense again.

Time to bring forward the evidence that the court did this or apologize for making stuff again repeatedly and doing again after you have been corrected multiple times.

[geriatrickid]

The US already took a position a few months ago when the head of the Thai military was summoned to the Pentagon. The US just wants there to be peace and stability as it has to deal with bigger issues involving China and North Korea. In the old days, all the Thais had to say was that the protestors were commies, and the US would throw money and arms their way but times have changed, and the US has become a little more sophisticated now that the Republican Neanderthals are out of power. If there is bloodshed, the Thai government will not get a sympathetic ear from the US or other western nations for that matter.

Please help the rest of us out ... can you support your point that the "Thai military was summoned" and that it wasn't exactly what was represented in the press - a meeting occured?

If there is bloodshed .... ? Ummm do you mean if the Thai government has to use minimal force and people get hurt? Or are you implying something on the order of "if the government uses live ammunition to crack down on protesters without being first attacked"?

Gen. Anupong Paojinda, head of the Royal Thai Army, visited is the Pentagon from Feb. 5-12. Please refer to the press release from the Pentagon. It stated that the visit was scheduled at the request of U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. The Thai General didn't wake up one morning and say, hey, I'm going to the USA for some shopping. This subject was discussed in great detail on the specific thread and I pointed out the meeting at the time, since well informed insiders like you had missed the significance and the visit itself. The Thai general did not want to leave Bangkok at the time due to the political climate, but one doesn't stand up an important man like General Casey. At the meeting, Gen. Casey delivered the US position on military coups, soldier to soldier. The southern insurrection was also discussed. The US doesn't want to see bloodshed in Thailand. What's the problem with that?

Your attempt at playing the innocent wears thin. You are fully aware of the consequences of what happens if the army opens fire upon civilians. There is no such thing as minimal force with the military. Soldiers are trained to kill. That is the same with all militaries. I appreciate that you never served your nation, but had you done so, you would have learned that you must not hesitate or else people on your side will end up dead. This is why civilian disturbances are left to the police that are supposed to have the training to deal with such events. If there are fatalities due to a police intervention it is easier to explain politically than if it is the military that is responsible, particularly a military that does not report to the government, nor even accept that the elected government is in charge of the military. I am not going to play your game of what would provoke the military into using lethal force, as the issue was whether or not it is deemed acceptable in the west. It is not. Hence, the reason why there would be no sympathy. Civilized nations do not deploy the military to deal with public disturbances because it leads to negative consequences. Soldiers are not police officers and should not be expected to undertake such duties as they are not trained for them.

[Ricardo]

I won't comment on your hyperbolic comments. Feel free to continue if you wish.

From your post:

"Abhisit has not suggested a unilateral change in the constitution or the organic law of Thailand. That would have been the PPP before they were dissolved that was attempting that. Abhisit has referred to a national referendum regarding charter reform."

I believe I heard him say that one of the reasons he can't disolve parliment was they need to make constitutional changes to make a smooth election.

That isn't "unilateral change".

EDIT: Abhisit is involving all groups in the discussions, and having a referendum to accept it.

Quite. This is surely what we used to call democracy, having a national-referendum, to confirm/deny changes to the constitution following negotiations between all the parties in parliament ? One can only hope that the PTP may decide to participate, and not just blindly object to the changes, unless they also white-wash Thaksin's convictions & outstanding-cases.

[Roob]

US calls for peaceful resolution

oh u mean the country which started not one but 2 wars in the 00s (and more importantly wasn't able to "win" either)

who asked it?

Look I don't agree with the wars, but did not win? so Iraq is still lead by the same man before the war? The Iraq army kept the US from taking controll of the capitol?

Maybe we have different meaning of win, but the war took down the iraq leadership. Was it a clean war? no, but remind me of a war that was "clean"?

Won't come in to the who won or not but will agree with the hypocrisy shown by the US government about peaceful resolutions.

At least there is little chance of the US sending troops to LOS,not enough oil in Thailand.

[bangon04]

Civilized nations do not deploy the military to deal with public disturbances because it leads to negative consequences. Soldiers are not police officers and should not be expected to undertake such duties as they are not trained for them.

Is it just a false impression given by Hollywood, that in the US the National Guard gets called out to reinforce the police on a regular basis?

[animatic]

When the courts declared no confidence in the previous government the proper thing would have been to allow the people to voice their will by voting in a national referendum.

You proclaim this false nonsense again.

Time to bring forward the evidence that the court did this or apologize for making stuff again repeatedly and doing again after you have been corrected multiple times.

I wonder why lying repeatedlyafter being corrected with facts repeatedly is not a banning offense here?

Since it might fall under the Lobbying Members rule in TVF.

How about:

FORUM RULE

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is

knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate,

invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings

or judgments of any Thai court of law.

The courts do NOT and never have done 'No Confidence votes'. It is a fact.

People do not vote for MP's, nor ever for PMs directly, via referendums, but with elections.

Referendums are used to validate laws of great importance or effect on many.

Since after accurately being told by several members the truth,

K James insists on spouting this falsity, over and over and over again,

he must be trying to manipulate us.

Making mistakes, and having divergent opinions,

is different than repeating a obvious lie over and over and over.

After awhile it just wears awfully thin...

Edited March 31, 2010 by animatic

[bdenner]

US calls for peaceful resolution in Thailand

WASHINGTON (AFP) --The United States on Tuesday voiced support for talks to resolve Thailand's political turmoil, and urged protesters to avoid violence.

Here we go again. The bloody World police trying to lay the law down again! Can't they keep their bibs out of anything?

[Publicus]

Civilized nations do not deploy the military to deal with public disturbances because it leads to negative consequences. Soldiers are not police officers and should not be expected to undertake such duties as they are not trained for them.

Is it just a false impression given by Hollywood, that in the US the National Guard gets called out to reinforce the police on a regular basis?

You should know the National Guard is the militia of a state and under the sole command of the elected governor of the state, that each state has one, each state's national guard is a part-time citizen-soldier organization, has a military commander who is a 2-star general who is part state and part federal in his/her training, duties, loyalty. Sole and exclusive command of a state's National Guard units by the state's elected governor can be supersceded only by the direct order of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, ie., the president, in the cause of a national emergency, in which case (only) the National Guard of one, more or all states are integrated into the command structure of the US active military.

The National Guard of a state, each of the 50 states, is activated from its regular part-time status by order of the elected governor of the state and only in the event of an extreme emergency such as a natural disaster which civil authorities cannot solely manage or due to civil disturbances on the scale of the huge 1960s-70s anti-Vietnam War riots which got either so unruly or violent they became beyond the singular or joint control of the municipal orstate police.

Any call to active duty of the citizen-soldiers of a state's part-time National Guard units is solely the decision and at the perrogative of the elected governor of the state. Thats why the National Guard are called "Weekend Warriors."

Edited March 31, 2010 by Publicus