Thailand's Army, The Silent Political Actor

[webfact]

warning

This topic is not about the US army or US foreign politics

If you can't stay on topic we will close it

//several off-topic posts deleted//

[Publicus]

Post deleted by poster.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Publicus

[yesdavy]

New Delhi, India (CNN) -- A new law went into effect in India Thursday making education a fundamental right for every child.

India makes elementary education compulsory.

Possible in Thailand you think, or is it only taaaaaalks?

Remember next month starts a new school year in Thailand. Most parents will be broke, which could also pore fuel into the fire. Why is the gov so slow in acting?

Does making it a fundamental right actually mean that everyone will get educated, or does it mean every can be educated ... if they want to?

It's not just a matter of making it available. You have to somehow make other alternatives (ie going to work) less attractive.

The problems with poor families is that they get everyone working as soon as possible, so that they can make money. So sending someone off to school, even if free, means that there is one less person supplying money to the family. It becomes a difficult choice when you are only just getting enough money to put food on the table.

What does make it a fundamental right mean? Does it mean that students will be allowed to question teachers? Does it mean students can never come to class or take a test and still pass? How will it curtail teachers not teaching during school hours so they can get paid to tutor privately?

[Publicus]

warning

This topic is not about the US army or US foreign politics

If you can't stay on topic we will close it

//several off-topic posts deleted//

Oh, I see. You are saying there is no connection between the US Army and the power of the Thai Army. Hmmm, all right, if you say so it must be true.

My own individual statement in response to your questioning of the moderation, which by forum rules puts you out of line, is that of course there is a direct connection between the US Army and the Thai Army, although during my time in the US Army Infantry I had no contact with the connection, and that discussion of the connection is legit but that a sole focus on exclusive discusssion of the United States and its military budget, policies, actions, leadership etc are beyond the topic and, in a word, extraneous.

I've looked for the oath of loyalty that Thais must take on induction but even Googling it a dozen different ways I can't locate it. I'd only like to see the allegiance to which Thai military personnel pledge, swear or affirm. I want to know the locus of their loyalty and the justification they accept to sacrifice their life if and as ever necessary or required. I'd like to find, if possible, what in the Thai military's oath of loyalty might include justification(s) of a coup d'etat. I generally remember the oath we in the US take and, moreover, was able to locate the exact language, which might tell the difference between oaths of military loyalty in First World countries and those of Developing countries. The US oath for all military personnel is as follows:

"I,_____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The reference to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) 809 ART 90 (20) refers to obeying the "lawful" commands of [one's] superior officers. In other words, as I continue to understand it as a former officer of the active (and inactive) US military, the moral and legal obligation is to the US Constitution and not to those officers who would issue "unlawful" orders - orders which also and moreover might be given by officers in direct violation of the UCMJ.

A related case study exists in the Suez Crisis of 1956 involving the assault by the UK and France, in clandestine conjunction with Israel, against Egypt after its President Nasser (an army colonel who had seized power in a coup) nationalized the Canal. UK PM Anthony Eden ordered the UK military to retake possession of the canal. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Smallwood, chief of the British General Staff, was aghast at the order, rightfully considering it legally and morally wrong. In addressing all senior officers of the UK military, ACM Smallwood said, "I've just come from Number 10 and the prime minster has gone stark raving mad." Smallwood and the general staff discussed ignoring PM Eden's command to retake the canal, but decided to sacrifice the lives of their military personnel rather than challenge the principle of civilian control of the military. There wasn't any discussion of a coup or any active challenge to the government - only the passive reaction of not executing the orders of the PM (isn't the monarch the head of the UK military? couldn't Smallwood have appealed to the monarch? he didn't). The British military went ahead with France and Israel to invade Egypt and were doing rather well. However, the Suez adventure became a complete disaster for the UK, France and Israel as it was opposed after its initation by the previously unconsulted and uninformed US Pres Eisenhower who vociferously objected and referred the matter to the UN after the then USSR, Egypt's ally, spoke openly about nuking London.

What's the precise wording of the military oath of loyalty, for instance, in the UK - and in Thailand? Anyone know?

Edited to add: Actually, yes, yesdavy, I see you do accept mod's decision and warning concerning posts to this thread. You in fact state no direct defiance or challenge to it. (Inferred innuendo doesn't count.)

Edited April 1, 2010 by Publicus

[mazeltov]

Democracy can only occur once the military reports to the civilian government and only when it is the civilian government that dictates the military budget.

Right on...otherwise, we are just like Burma....

Yeah, but we got electricity and tourist. Whoooooopppeeeeeeeeee!

and the smiles. don't forget about the smiles. its legit.

[Publicus]

Democracy can only occur once the military reports to the civilian government and only when it is the civilian government that dictates the military budget.

Right on...otherwise, we are just like Burma....

Yeah, but we got electricity and tourist. Whoooooopppeeeeeeeeee!

and the smiles. don't forget about the smiles. its legit.

For some time now I always refer to the former LOS.

[Siripon]

There were no coups from 1992 to 2006 in spite of some woeful governments, ie Banharn and Chavalit.

Why? Because the country could function and the introduction of the 1996 green constitution was seen as a great step forward in curbing political corruption and abuse of power. Of course it was opposed by all the dinosaurs, I remember Sanoh Tiantong barking as usual that it was an outrageous constitution.

But the constitution writers hadn't seen the rise of Thaksin with his limitless wealth and insatiable greed for power.

The independent organisations were undermined, the press was muzzled, MPs were bought.

The checks and balances carefully drafted were hopelessly undermined by a power crazy billionnaire.

That's why the same people who had opposed Sujinda's army in 1992 came out to welcome the coup of 2006.

The influence of money throughout the political system, the moral bankruptcy of many MPs, until these issues are settled the army will be needed as a last resort.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Siripon

[Thai at Heart]

and the smiles. don't forget about the smiles. its legit.

Kitthung Baan! (Sob, sob)

[mark45y]

There were no coups from 1992 to 2006 in spite of some woeful governments, ie Banharn and Chavalit.

Why? Because the country could function and the introduction of the 1996 green constitution was seen as a great step forward in curbing political corruption and abuse of power. Of course it was opposed by all the dinosaurs, I remember Sanoh Tiantong barking as usual that it was an outrageous constitution.

But the constitution writers hadn't seen the rise of Thaksin with his limitless wealth and insatiable greed for power.

The independent organisations were undermined, the press was muzzled, MPs were bought.

The checks and balances carefully drafted were hopelessly undermined by a power crazy billionnaire.

That's why the same people who had opposed Sujinda's army in 1992 came out to welcome the coup of 2006.

The influence of money throughout the political system, the moral bankruptcy of many MPs, until these issues are settled the army will be needed as a last resort.

All reasonable points but the only reason there was a coup in 06 was Thaksin tried to get the authority to appoint new generals. The person who appoints generals eventually runs the country because the generals run the country.

The rest is all fluff.

[CockneyGit]

You know, there's one thing that really annoys me, and that is when these so-called 'elite' people say that the common people have no education and therefore should not be entitled to vote.

Let's face it, this is a communist state in all but name.

Comrades..!!

[mark45y]

You know, there's one thing that really annoys me, and that is when these so-called 'elite' people say that the common people have no education and therefore should not be entitled to vote.

Let's face it, this is a communist state in all but name.

Comrades..!!

In the 1970’s the Thai military fought and defeated the communist insurgency that was based primarily around Petchabun.

Perhaps you could tell us the difference between communism and a constitutional monarchy and/or military dictatorship.

[rreddin]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

If my memory serves me right, TMB used to be called Thai Military Bank. I also recall that a very high ranking officer of the Royal Thai Air Force is a director of Thai Airways International. I have also seen comment that other serving senior military offices hold directorships on other major companies in Thailand. So, the military are involved in government, the media and in commerce.

These are not natural roles for the military. I also understand why people are demanding an end to the military's role in the government, the media and in the wider economy, but I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. TIT.

[Publicus]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

If my memory serves me right, TMB used to be called Thai Military Bank. I also recall that a very high ranking officer of the Royal Thai Air Force is a director of Thai Airways International. I have also seen comment that other serving senior military offices hold directorships on other major companies in Thailand. So, the military are involved in government, the media and in commerce.

These are not natural roles for the military. I also understand why people are demanding an end to the military's role in the government, the media and in the wider economy, but I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. TIT.

The Thai military in not unique in the SE Asia region. Other militaries are even more involved in communications, transportation, industry and commerce. In the People's Republic of China for instance the military as a whole own businesses and corporations throughout the country, to include land, and use income from those 'enterprises' to help fund its largest army of the world of some 3m soldiers. The Communist Party of China requires that its military personnel be members of the party so that there isn't a power and money base in the country that is outside the control of the Party. This requirement however concomitantly gives PRC top brass both tanks and politico-economic strength and power over its 'civilian' leaders. It took the current CPC Chairman Hu Jin Tao most of his first 5 year term as president before he managed to become Chairman of the Military. So one doesn't need to ask much or look very far to know who runs the government of the PRC either, where the military budgets during the past decade of economic growth have had staggering increases. Conversely there are countries such as Malaysia where the military is so low profile and quiet we could wonder if the country actually had a military (Malaysia also has an unusual rotation of 4 or 5 monarchs).

The Phillipines and Indonesia are only a few more countries among others where the militaries are also involved in their economies. Militaries of so many Old World countries are involved in their economies to one extent or another. Yet Thailand is one of the few to regularly find its way into global headlines and live news reports yet again showing tanks in the streets or, at other times, people in the streets opposed to the army. It's a matter of record the police then the army refused to successfully block or to clear the airport from occupation. The army can do or it can not do. "It's up to you" seems to apply to the army first and formost.

[blaze]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

If my memory serves me right, TMB used to be called Thai Military Bank. I also recall that a very high ranking officer of the Royal Thai Air Force is a director of Thai Airways International. I have also seen comment that other serving senior military offices hold directorships on other major companies in Thailand. So, the military are involved in government, the media and in commerce.

These are not natural roles for the military. I also understand why people are demanding an end to the military's role in the government, the media and in the wider economy, but I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. TIT.

The Thai military in not unique in the SE Asia region. Other militaries are even more involved in communications, transportation, industry and commerce. In the People's Republic of China for instance the military as a whole own businesses and corporations throughout the country, to include land, and use income from those 'enterprises' to help fund its largest army of the world of some 3m soldiers. The Communist Party of China requires that its military personnel be members of the party so that there isn't a power and money base in the country that is outside the control of the Party. This requirement however concomitantly gives PRC top brass both tanks and politico-economic strength and power over its 'civilian' leaders. It took the current CPC Chairman Hu Jin Tao most of his first 5 year term as president before he managed to become Chairman of the Military. So one doesn't need to ask much or look very far to know who runs the government of the PRC either, where the military budgets during the past decade of economic growth have had staggering increases. Conversely there are countries such as Malaysia where the military is so low profile and quiet we could wonder if the country actually had a military (Malaysia also has an unusual rotation of 4 or 5 monarchs).

The Phillipines and Indonesia are only a few more countries among others where the militaries are also involved in their economies. Militaries of so many Old World countries are involved in their economies to one extent or another. Yet Thailand is one of the few to regularly find its way into global headlines and live news reports yet again showing tanks in the streets or, at other times, people in the streets opposed to the army. It's a matter of record the police then the army refused to successfully block or to clear the airport from occupation. The army can do or it can not do. "It's up to you" seems to apply to the army first and formost.

Good post- thanks.

[CLOD]

And therin lies abisits credibility problem.

Abisit knows he is unelected, and undemocratic, so does everyone else.

And everyone knows that anybody who takes the side of military junta coups over electoral democracy has NO credibility.

Abisit has shown he cannot be trusted to do the right thing , and people know it.

[mark45y]

And therin lies abisits credibility problem.

Abisit knows he is unelected, and undemocratic, so does everyone else.

And everyone knows that anybody who takes the side of military junta coups over electoral democracy has NO credibility.

Abisit has shown he cannot be trusted to do the right thing , and people know it.

The military has been in power since 1932. Governments only govern with their consent. If the governments get out of line there is a coup. There is no credibility problem. Everyone knows this.

If the red shirts pose too much of a problem they will be dealt with.

[yoshiwara]

And therin lies abisits credibility problem.

Abisit knows he is unelected, and undemocratic, so does everyone else.

And everyone knows that anybody who takes the side of military junta coups over electoral democracy has NO credibility.

Abisit has shown he cannot be trusted to do the right thing , and people know it.

The inference being that Thaksin does not have a credibility problem

and that Thaksin can be trusted to do the right thing.

Thaksin apologist broken record.

[RegularReader]

And therin lies abisits credibility problem.

Abisit knows he is unelected, and undemocratic, so does everyone else.

And everyone knows that anybody who takes the side of military junta coups over electoral democracy has NO credibility.

Abisit has shown he cannot be trusted to do the right thing , and people know it.

The inference being that Thaksin does not have a credibility problem

and that Thaksin can be trusted to do the right thing.

Thaksin apologist broken record.

Hey Clod, you're posts are changing...a bit.

This time your comments included no mention of airports siege and subsequent closeure by AOT. Keep it up - I like your knew approach.

You still don't have anything to add to the debate, but it is different. Well done !

[mca]

If only somebody could have a word in yoshi's ear that it's not a legal requirement to put "Thaksin apologist " in every post. Although the addition of " broken record" is a breath of fresh air.

( All in jest mate)

[SpoliaOpima]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

If the army is really behind it all, then the Reds should take their beef directly to the military, not the elected civilian government. If the reds get a dissolution, they probably wouldn't get the vote they wanted anyway. But if the military is really in control - and yes, of course they are, and always have been since 1932 - they will simply stage another coup. They may stage one anyway, to head off further conflict.

The reds are barking up the wrong tree and wasting a lot of resources.

[mark45y]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

If the army is really behind it all, then the Reds should take their beef directly to the military, not the elected civilian government. If the reds get a dissolution, they probably wouldn't get the vote they wanted anyway. But if the military is really in control - and yes, of course they are, and always have been since 1932 - they will simply stage another coup. They may stage one anyway, to head off further conflict.

The reds are barking up the wrong tree and wasting a lot of resources.

They did a couple of times so far and the army backed down. They will again until they get the desired result.

[CLOD]

And therin lies abisits credibility problem.

Abisit knows he is unelected, and undemocratic, so does everyone else.

And everyone knows that anybody who takes the side of military junta coups over electoral democracy has NO credibility.

Abisit has shown he cannot be trusted to do the right thing , and people know it.

The inference being that Thaksin does not have a credibility problem

and that Thaksin can be trusted to do the right thing.

Thaksin apologist broken record.

No, the inference being that you have a credibility problem along with ani and jd.

[cthulumunch]

In my humble opinion, here are a few things every Thai could do to make things alittle better:

1) Care less about Thaksin. Come to terms that he will never return as PM. Don’t let him influence your thoughts and actions, regardless of which shirt you are wearing.

2) Let the government finish their term. The government only has a year and abit more left . (correct me if I’m wrong). Then excise your democratic rights when the time comes. Standards of democracy and reduced corruption is in progress, albeit slow.

3) This government and the next ,whoever they may be needs to place more weight on satisfying rural population as they are obviously identifying themselves as the “neglected”. Governments need to learn this lesson as it is simple survival. Redshirts are losing faith in current democracy and monarchy, it is the government and the rest of the country’s responsibility to help restore faith and peace.

4) The strong monarchy supporters need to be less sensitive about threats to de-establishment. Our longstanding history, love and respect for Monarchy is embedded so deep in the hearts of every Thai it will be near impossible for select few rebellious and radical individuals to overthrow them. Its like killing your own Father and Mother.

I used to like Thaksin, but after 4 years of turmoil I cannot be bothered anymore. Focus on the present, our government and previous governments are either good or mediocre, its not terrible – and this is acceptable because we chose to be a democratic country, respect our own decisions. Stop the overthrowing and revenge, none of these governments led us into War, genocide, famine, or mass unemployment. Let democracy be.

[mark45y]

Why did the army pull out of the central locations today giving the reds a major opportunity? Is it a group of young Turks taking control? Because that is the only thing that could change the balance of power.

[chadintheusa]

Evidently the PM doesn't have what it takes to maintain law and order, and we'd be much worse off with Red leadership. The reds, yellow, pinks and so forth need a collective time out. Time for another military coup.

[unclejunta]

Evidently the PM doesn't have what it takes to maintain law and order, and we'd be much worse off with Red leadership. The reds, yellow, pinks and so forth need a collective time out. Time for another military coup.

yes nothing like a good old coup to reset everything and have a junta in power. Anupong fancy being PM himself i suppose

[wayfarer108]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

Is all about the Have and Have not. Arm forces is one way to keep the have not in their place. Most of wealth is owned by few families in Thailand and all the big industries are also own and control by them. They don’t have anti-trust laws so there no law again this.

No it's new money vs old money, using the rural villagers as pawns. Nothing to do with haves vs havenots. Another poster here summed it up pretty well:

"Let me break it down for the Americans out there. The Red shirts are like hill billies from the Ozarks and Appalachians. Poor, not well educated and a bit marginalized by the rest of the country. They idolize a corrupt billionaire named Bernie Madoff, they thinks he's the cat's ass. Bernie is in jail for his misdeeds but sees these rubes as his ticket to freedom and the restoration of his ill gotten fortune. He tries to enlist the help of a million of these fine folks, but through bribery and angry rhetoric he only manages to get 50,000 to participate in his scheme. He has them march on Washington, he even puts gas in their pickups so they can make the journey. They occupy the streets of the nation's capitol. They piss on the sidewalks and make a nuisance of themselves. They loiter and block intersections and hang out at the Lincoln memorial. They hope by doing this that Obama will not only pardon Bernie, but that he'll declare him the new President. Sounds insane doesn't it? What about the other 300 million or so citizens? Shouldn't they get a say? No, all that matters is that Bernie Madoff gets rich and powerful once more. And when he does his protesters can go back to moonshining and marrying their cousins." (Thanks for the brilliant analogy, chadintheusa.)

Edited April 7, 2010 by wayfarer108

[kraxlhuber]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

you forgot the Thai Military bank,The Thai Military hospital The Thai Military... this and that

What Thailand needs is a national Guard to protect the constitution and the Parliament with his PM;s and Prime Minister.

And protect the citizen from rouge elements.

[wayfarer108]

It is sad that relative to other Asian countries Thailand has been a parliamentary democracy for some time, yet has been unable to exert the power of that parliament to control the army. Vast cuts in military spending are the way forward.

What a great article, one that the Nation newspaper and a lot of Thai Visa posters could learn from. In reply to the post if Abhisit stays in power he has agreed to increase military spending not decrease it. I wonder if the Thai visa posters that support Abhisit realise that he is just a front man for the unelected army. I personally don't like Thaksin and what he has done but I find the alternative too similar to the situation in Burma. The Military have far too much of a say in Thai politics, one only has to look at the number of coups that they have carried out to see that.I don't know how common knowledge this is but the Thai military even own and run a Thai TV channel! Why?The military Junta in Burma recently disqualified the party that was going to win from being in the elections, sounds very similar to what happened in Thailand doesn't it? I can understand why Thai people are not happy with the political situation and why the people are out on the streets protesting.

If the army is really behind it all, then the Reds should take their beef directly to the military, not the elected civilian government. If the reds get a dissolution, they probably wouldn't get the vote they wanted anyway. But if the military is really in control - and yes, of course they are, and always have been since 1932 - they will simply stage another coup. They may stage one anyway, to head off further conflict.

The reds are barking up the wrong tree and wasting a lot of resources.

They did a couple of times so far and the army backed down. They will again until they get the desired result.

Dream on. We're talking about a country where the revolution is owned lock, stock and barrel by the armed forces, from day one.

50,000 protesters is no match for 500,000 active and reserve personnel - the 14th largest army in the world.

Usually I cheer for the underdog, but not in this case. Like most Thais, who know well what it's like to live under military rule, I would prefer living under a full military dictatorship to living under the rabid red leaders seen barking on the TV.

[britmaveric]

^most of the army is from the North. (heart of thailand)