US Calls For Peaceful Resolution In Thailand

[ballpoint]

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?

You mean the thread where you mysteriously clammed up when it was pointed out that:

1) The visit was "a routine check-in with the Pentagon, which counts Thailand as one of its oldest and strongest Asian military allies".

2) "The Thai general's trip, U.S. diplomats said, was scheduled months ago at the request of U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey". (Months ago from the report date of February 2010).

3) The reds certainly didn't see it as a reprimand, but rather a show of support, and even sent a letter to President Obama, in which they "insisted Anupong's role as a "coup co-conspirator" should disqualify the general from Pentagon visits. The trip, they claim, "does not sit well with millions of Thais who view it as a step backward" for democracy".

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/thailan...ntagon?page=0,0

It was also pointed out that, prior to his role as chief of staff, General Casey was the top US commander in Iraq, trying to subdue a civilian population following the US army's overthrow of an "elected" government (as much elected as Thaksin was at the time of the coup), and would be more likely to offer coup tips to Gen Anupong than to do any chatising. And now you come Wenging your way back in here bringing up this whole pathetic argument all over again.

As an aside, I wonder just how many governments the US has overthrown, either by supporting a foreign military, or doing it themselves directly. I'd say they seriously rival the Thai army's record in that respect.

Edited March 31, 2010 by ballpoint

[Publicus]

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?

In response to your question (rhetorical or real), I refer you to my post #33 to this thread.

[hammered]

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.

So I'll take it you were mightily impressed at the Thai soldiers last Songkhran who dispersed a riotous crowd without killing anyone.

You may want to reword one part that civilised nations do not deploy the military to deal with public disturbances (by adding) in their own countries. They frequently do so in other people's countries or so history seems to show us. And I guess we bette rexclude Israel form a list of civilised countries as they do it very often in land that they do effectively control.

So it seems civilised countries have no qualms in using their militaries to kill civilians just as long as it isnt their own ones.

[elkangorito]

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

I just said the same thing in another thread this evening but your wife beat me to it.

[kraxlhuber]

<br />And a parliamentary vote is EXACTLY what democracy is all about.<br /><br />Not in my book it isn't. Elected by the people not the parliament thats democracy.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

democracy sucks,if one man one vote can bring the richest crookest politician to power

Ye hear that!

[animatic]

Gods teeth can you just use the ACTUAL DEFINITION....?

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

By definition (2) your book is WRONG. Live with it.

democracy–noun,plural-cies.

1.government by the people;

a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people

and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class;

the common people with respect to their political power.

Origin: 1525–35; < MF démocratie < LL dēmocratia < Gk dēmokratía popular government,

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

democracy n.

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Edited March 31, 2010 by animatic

[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"?

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.

Ummmm 1) Your suppositions about the meeting at the Pentagon flies in the face of what was reported (and the response of the reds) --- see a post following between the post I am replying to and this post itself for the details. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3460333

2) Your guessing at my service to my country are immaterial (and quite wrong).

3) Your supposition about the use of force is bogus as well.

4) I am assuming that the militia of your country has in fact been used to deal with civil disturbances within your own countries borders.

5) your statement "If there are fatalities due to a police intervention it is easier to explain politically than if it is the military that is responsible" flies in the face of what happened in Thailand Oct 7th.

I did enjoy your shot about my military service (or lack of having served) but you are as off base there as you are with the rest of your suppositions

Edited March 31, 2010 by jdinasia

[landofthefree]

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.

....and having a country run by the unelected military isn't democracy either.....

[jdinasia]

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.

....and having a country run by the unelected military isn't democracy either.....

Thankfully that isn't the case in Thailand, perhaps you are thinking of Myanmar?

[yoshiwara]

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?

Anti-Americanism is always a cheap and easy shot to take.

You forgot WWII, but then maybe your education was a little limited.

[gemini81]

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?

so then why did you click on the headline just to complain?

They're not getting involved, nothing mentioned about that. Lots of outside countries just don't wanna get too involved with business here from overseas, seeing the constant instability.

[colino]

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?

so then why did you click on the headline just to complain?

They're not getting involved, nothing mentioned about that. Lots of outside countries just don't wanna get too involved with business here from overseas, seeing the constant instability.

I agree with gemini81 .

Its time the Americans stopped trying to run everyone elses Countrys sort out your own back yard .

[Bagwan]

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

So all this insanity isn't a new thing then?

[monkfish]

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?

Anti-Americanism is always a cheap and easy shot to take.

You forgot WWII, but then maybe your education was a little limited.

Yea thank GOD they eventually joined in.

[Bagwan]

Anti-Americanism is always a cheap and easy shot to take.

You forgot WWII, but then maybe your education was a little limited.

I agree but why does the US make itself such a soft target? I've never know the US to be so unpopular. I have no great animosity towrds its peoples who I have found very friendly and generous on my extended visits but why oh why do you elect crooks, former mobsters and shysters into power? It seems that the UK is following your fine example.

My recollection of WW2 was that the US only joined in after it was attacked. That was the second time that you turned up late. All the same thanks for your help but I still have not forgiven you for sending all that powdered egg.

[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.

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.

So I'll take it you were mightily impressed at the Thai soldiers last Songkhran who dispersed a riotous crowd without killing anyone.

You may want to reword one part that civilised nations do not deploy the military to deal with public disturbances (by adding) in their own countries. They frequently do so in other people's countries or so history seems to show us. And I guess we bette rexclude Israel form a list of civilised countries as they do it very often in land that they do effectively control.

So it seems civilised countries have no qualms in using their militaries to kill civilians just as long as it isnt their own ones.

GK does sometimes get OTT, especially in things military (and recently in this respect towards jdinasia), and your post reads impressively but I'm still trying to figure what your post said. I guess there's something about using the word "civilized" and connecting it to "countries" that catches the eye, but I still dunno quite what you said.

I do know the People's Republic of China hosted the 2008 Olympic Summer Games 19 years after its tanks and machine gunners slaughtered pro democracy demonstrators in Tienanmen Square - and don't forget the many supporting citizens of Beijing itself who also were mowed down - yet the PRC has billboards around and about the country saying the Party is bringing "civilization" to China, which includes new sophisticated censorship technology and beginning last year a noticably new and stridently aggressive arrogance.

Thaksin and the PRC government tend to associate naturally with the same dictators of Africa and elsewhere wherever either can find them. The PRC dictators in Beijing like to say they're connecting with poor countries . Thaksin anyway couldn't get into Israel even to be circumcized .

It also seems Thaksin and his Redshirts got a similar message from Washington as Anupong et al got about violence, as the Redshirts are taking pains to try to dispel their violent image, highlighted by their negotiations with the PM (nationally televised). It seems to be down to a cat and mouse game between the government and the Redshirts as to who fires the first shot....but more importantly who fires the second one.

[LuckyLew]

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"?

I agree, could not give a toss what the US says ...

been a long time since I have. Any country that

would elect GWB then go ahead and re-elect him

What is your definition of winning ...

Illegally invade a country on false pretenses, oust the leader because

he does not kiss USA's rear end. Destroy all the infrastructure. Cause

over a 100 000 deaths then decide to leave. But hey yes did win, since

Haliburton made lots of money.

Well done USA ... you should be proud

[rixalex]

I did enjoy your shot about my military service (or lack of having served) but you are as off base there as you are with the rest of your suppositions

I found the shot cheap.

GeriatricKid, just because you are comfortable advertising your own achievements for your country, don't assume those who don't advertise have done nothing.

[MellowYellow]

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"?

I agree, could not give a toss what the US says ...

been a long time since I have. Any country that

would elect GWB then go ahead and re-elect him

What is your definition of winning ...

Illegally invade a country on false pretenses, oust the leader because

he does not kiss USA's rear end. Destroy all the infrastructure. Cause

over a 100 000 deaths then decide to leave. But hey yes did win, since

Haliburton made lots of money.

Well done USA ... you should be proud

When does your book come out?

How about a blog?

Got any exciting theories on 9/11?

[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?

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"?

I agree, could not give a toss what the US says ...

been a long time since I have. Any country that

would elect GWB then go ahead and re-elect him

What is your definition of winning ...

Illegally invade a country on false pretenses, oust the leader because

he does not kiss USA's rear end. Destroy all the infrastructure. Cause

over a 100 000 deaths then decide to leave. But hey yes did win, since

Haliburton made lots of money.

Well done USA ... you should be proud

Democracy in the US suffered more of a severe abuse than we ever could have realized when the Bush Boyz in Florida and on the Supreme Court stole the 2000 quadrennial election of the president/vicepresident. But it's a resiliant democracy, especially given it's only two centuries+ old/young. It's a strong democracy because it swallowed the bitter pill of Bush's theft in 2000 and in 2004 the differerence again of one state, Ohio and its right-wing religious zealots, to continue Bush's controversial presidency. If it's any consolation to critics of the US during the Bush years, Bush is already destined to go down in history as one of the worst 3 or 4 presidents to rank with other Republican disasters such has Mr. 1928 Great Depression Himself Herbert Hoover.

You clearly (and I suspect willfully) to have missed the 2008 election in which the significant number of the US electorate accepted a man who offered a radical change from the Bush/Cheny years, a man who is pursuing policies definitively different. Barack Hussein Obama isn't of the same skin color as Bush/Cheny or of the line of presidents/vice presidents. Obama/Biden is a part of the radical reversal of the Bush swindle of the electoral process in 2000 and again in 2004. You completely miss this and prefer to dwell and pound away on the table of ancient history, focusing on the past rather than the future and on the the demographic future of the US which will produce a woman president, a Hispanic president and eventually a president of Asian ancestry, among others.

Obama can't get out of Iraq overnight, nor should he quit in Afghanistan lest you yourself might be blown up or gassed in some terrorist attack that presently is being minimized. Quantanimo will take more time because of the brutal nature of terrorism. But Obama knows the US cannot survive by becoming the same or worse than the terrrorist reactionaries themselves.

You miss a lot. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Hammer away as you love to do, you are behind the curve of history both in the United States of America and globally. What, do you like the model of the People's Republic of China instead?

[daboyz1]

Let them sit on that bridge and roast if that's what they want. They screwed up big time by throwing in with Thaksin. More Lao Khao for me when I go up country for Songkran.

[landofthefree]

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.

....and having a country run by the unelected military isn't democracy either.....

Thankfully that isn't the case in Thailand, perhaps you are thinking of Myanmar?

No, Thailand. Who has been staging all of the coups? Who is Abhisits master? Why did Abhisit talk to the Red shirts? Because the "establishment" told him to.............. source .............Newspaper that rhymes with Bangkok Toast. Why is he not holding elections until the end of the year? so that that Anupongs 'brother' can be appointed as new head of the army. (same paper)Why is the Armys budget uncapped after their marvellous purchases of a baloon and bomb detectors that don't work? the Army runs the country its just a little better covered up than Burma's Junta thats all.

[geriatrickid]

I did enjoy your shot about my military service (or lack of having served) but you are as off base there as you are with the rest of your suppositions

I found the shot cheap.

GeriatricKid, just because you are comfortable advertising your own achievements for your country, don't assume those who don't advertise have done nothing.

I have not advertised anything nor made any claims as to my achievements. If someone's has figured out who I am, well whoopdeedoo. I am quite aware of how some people manipulate threads to engender sympathy, twisting statements out of context to play the "gotchya game". There is an attempt to provoke so that the report button can be pushed and complaints made about someone not being nice. Sricha John who has been banned was famous for playing that game.

The thread was about the US government's desire to see that peace was kept in Thailand and that there would be no bloodshed. From this, all sorts of weirdness has sprung. What is the problem with the US asking for peace? Would people rather there was a request for bloodshed?

And yes I stand by my comments that the Thai general was summoned. There was an attempt to cancel the appointment. What is so difficult for anyone to understand here? The US has its hands full with China and North Korea and doesn't need more aggravation in SE Asia.

[rixalex]

I have not advertised anything nor made any claims as to my achievements.

What i objected to wasn't so much your advertising, which yes, subtly, have done (as is your right and as is illustrated below by what you imply); it's to do with your assumptions about others, in this case JD.

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.

How could you possibly know what JD may or may have not done for his country?

If someone's has figured out who I am, well whoopdeedoo.

Here's another example of advertising by implication. Letting us all know that you think you are a "somebody".

[rixalex]

There is an attempt to provoke so that the report button can be pushed and complaints made about someone not being nice.

So what if there is. Let the mods deal with it. Rising to provocation isn't particularly smart, tempting though it may be.

What is the problem with the US asking for peace? Would people rather there was a request for bloodshed?

That's the point isn't it. Of course they are not going to ask for violence, so why state the blindingly obvious and ask for peace. Do they think that idea hasn't occured to anyone over here?

[geriatrickid]

Rixalex, get a grip. You are reading far too much into my comments. If you have feelings of inadequacy deal with them, don't blame me. As far as the Thai officials are concerned, I am a nobody. NOBODY. Many foreigners develop a false sense of importance because they know some cop or army official or the wife's uncle is a government lackey. Sometimes the former barboy is a clerk at immigration. The reality is that Thai officialdom has absolutely no use for us unless 1) There is money to be made, or 2) We are amusing, similar to the way the ancient Romans found that tossing people to the lions was amusing or 3) We provide some sort of useful service that once provided, allows us to be tossed as soon as the services are rendered.

I find it interesting that when officials from the US Surgeon General's office visit Thailand, they wear their naval uniforms with rank and insignia. My impression is that they are treated with more respect than are their counterparts from the US NIH or EU HPB, despite the fact that these people are senior. It's all about the uniform. Why the mention here? Because uniforms carry clout. It is why General Casey was selected to deliver the message to General Anupong. If you know Thailand, you will understand the power of the uniform. It is why even lowly politicans and civil servants will appear in their formal whites. This is a country that rivals the former Soviet Union when it comes to awarding medals and decorations.

As for the other statements you made, I'm not going to bother responding. Not germane and of no concern to me.

[jdinasia]

I did enjoy your shot about my military service (or lack of having served) but you are as off base there as you are with the rest of your suppositions

I found the shot cheap.

GeriatricKid, just because you are comfortable advertising your own achievements for your country, don't assume those who don't advertise have done nothing.

It was a cheap shot, but so far off base that it is funny. I do note that he didn't apologize for it though Other than that, well, 'summoned to the Pentagon' was just as funny

[Lite Beer]

A post bringing the Monarchy into a political discussion has been removed as per Forum Rules.

[rixalex]

As for the other statements you made, I'm not going to bother responding. Not germane and of no concern to me.

How convenient.

At the time you accused JD of having never served his nation despite having no possible way to know one way or the other, i assume you considered the point germane and of concern to you? Yes? No?

[geriatrickid]

Rixalex, if you dressed up like the U.S. sailor guy from the Village People and sang a chorus In The Navy, that would not make you a member of the USN. You might look quite fetching, but it wouldn't pass muster, especially with the ban on gays in the US military. I suppose if you were closeted, one could get away with it. One of my former friends was a lawyer in the US naval reserve and he was quite adept at being discreet, that is until he showed up at a Boston gay bar in his uniform and the rest is history. (It was intentional as he didn't want to deploy to Iraq.) The stress of being closeted had gotten to him I guess. Who knows. He used to say I was special though. I was a somebody in his heart. So there ya go, I am indeed a somebody.

Please note that I am now withdrawing from this thread. If I refuse to engage certain individuals directly because I find them icky, I am certainly not going to discuss them with you. my points have been made. Anything else, please direct it to my batboy Mr. Kang.

Know what else? Bite me.