Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

[FreedomDude]

surely you are INCORRECT in your assertion that "there has been no media crackdown except that media guilty of incitement". 1000s of websites have been shut down!

Just a note that even before this began, and for many years now, hundreds of thousands of websites were blocked and redirected to static ICT warning site.

I can't remember when exactly that has started. It's a long time ago. Anyone remembers?

With great flourish, on Feb. 2, 2006, the Minister of Information and Communication Technology in the Thaksin cabinet, Sora-at Klinpratoom, proudly announced the grand plan to block 1,000,000 websites deemed "unsuitable" or "inappropriate" and that they would be shut down "in a few weeks."

He said that the government was coordinating with CAT Telecom to install software capable of blocking all these "undesirable" websites.

...and to read FreedomDude speak of "1,000's"

I don't condone censorship by anybody. It was wrong for Thaksin to engage in it also.

[pornsasi]

1) the military coup written constitution is more favourable to the government

2) there are no free and fair elections in Thailand (The old and new elite buy the patronage of the Nai who then instruct the Phrai how to vote)

3) The government would lose the election and the new government could then select the new army leadership thus making subsequent coups more difficult

4) No one seems to respect the results of elections- if the reds win, the yellows protest; if the democtrats form a government by 'influencing' the coalition parners, the reds come out

5) Everyone is so entrenched in their own dogma and constrained by their own loyalties, dialogue and compromise are not even a possibility

Pretty spot on.

It's a national crisis - he needs a mandate - or the Thail people will never forgive him - he does not have a mandate and if he sends these guys in and it gets bloody it can spiral - why is he so frightened of an election? come to your own conclusion - it's obvious.

exactly

[daboyz1]

Abhisit has no mandate to govern he was never elected in a democratic vote. He was appointed.

Jeez, If I see the above statement again, my head is gonna explode. This isn't a republic like the U.S. People don't directly elect the PM. It's a constitutional monarchy, somewhat similar to England. People elect the MPs, and then the MPs elect the Prime Minister. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

Since 1932 the Head of Government of Thailand has been the Prime Minister of Thailand: usually the leader of the largest party or the largest coalition party in the lower house of Parliament. The Prime Minister is, in accordance with the constitution selected; first by an election in the lower house then officially appointed by the King.

Calling elections to elect MPs is another story. I believe Abhisit can wait until the end of the year until he has to call elections (maybe longer) The TRT and PPP parties were dissolved due to corruption among other things. Also, the last 3 TRT/PPP/Phuea Thai PMs were thrown for breaking election and other laws. Maybe the Democrats will be dissolved as well. They are under investigation by the EC.

Granted it's a mess.

[stevotoo]

1) the military coup written constitution is more favourable to the government

2) there are no free and fair elections in Thailand (The old and new elite buy the patronage of the Nai who then instruct the Phrai how to vote)

3) The government would lose the election and the new government could then select the new army leadership thus making subsequent coups more difficult

4) No one seems to respect the results of elections- if the reds win, the yellows protest; if the democtrats form a government by 'influencing' the coalition parners, the reds come out

5) Everyone is so entrenched in their own dogma and constrained by their own loyalties, dialogue and compromise are not even a possibility

Pretty spot on.

It's a national crisis - he needs a mandate - or the Thail people will never forgive him - he does not have a mandate and if he sends these guys in and it gets bloody it can spiral - why is he so frightened of an election? come to your own conclusion - it's obvious.

You can only get a mandate by winning an election with an overall majority- It is very unlikely for the Democrats ever to have a mandate

A mandate also suggests that the people are giving responsibility to Parliament to carry out the electors' wishes. For this to have any meaning, the political parties would have to present policies with which the electorate agree. In Thailand the political system revolves around loyalty (forced or not) to individuals rather than values (which seem sadly lacking)

[ChiangMaiFun]

Abhisit has no mandate to govern he was never elected in a democratic vote. He was appointed.

Jeez, If I see the above statement again, my head is gonna explode. This isn't a republic like the U.S. People don't directly elect the PM. It's a constitutional monarchy, somewhat similar to England. People elect the MPs, and then the MPs elect the Prime Minister. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

Since 1932 the Head of Government of Thailand has been the Prime Minister of Thailand: usually the leader of the largest party or the largest coalition party in the lower house of Parliament. The Prime Minister is, in accordance with the constitution selected; first by an election in the lower house then officially appointed by the King.

Calling elections to elect MPs is another story. I believe Abhisit can wait until the end of the year until he has to call elections (maybe longer) The TRT and PPP parties were dissolved due to corruption among other things. Also, the last 3 TRT/PPP/Phuea Thai PMs were thrown for breaking election and other laws. Maybe the Democrats will be dissolved as well. They are under investigation by the EC.

Granted it's a mess.

Yes I know - ok but the PM would call the election - believe me (and I'm English) if Brown wanted to fight fellow Brits in the country he would need a mandate to crack down.

It's a mess? you could say that... but put water on the fire - call elections - easy and we all support the outcome - sending in troops against fellow Thais? you gotta be kidding...

[pornsasi]

Why do red supporters keep coming out with "Abhisit wasn't elected"?

Can a red supporter please explain to me how their version of elections show that Abhisit wasn't elected?

Thailand is tearing itself apart because of one corrupt billionaire. And it's only because he didn't get control of the army that we are not living under the rule of his gun.

He wasn't elected - go read - I can't be bothered to repeat the arguements - the red government (which was elected) was banned and MPs jumped ship - do your homework

I've read. I've posted. I've explained. All I get back is "he wasn't elected".

And then half-truths:

- "the red government (which was elected) " - The PPP got 40% of the vote and needed coalition partners to form government.

- "the red government was banned" - the PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government after the PPP was disbanded.

- "MPs jumped ship" - MPs changing sides - it's legal, it's democratic, it happens in many countries that have coalition governments.

No (in reply to anotherpeter) it does not without general elections . Sorry to disapoint you

[rabo]

If I am the commander, I would:

1. Drop a dozen of their best snipers on the roof top of surrounding building via helicopters.

2. Aim and shoot both legs of all the RED leaders (not to kill them, just wound them).

3. Airlift the snipers out.

4. Repeat from step one to three, everyday, at 8am & 6pm when evryone (including the RED) will have to stand up for the national anthem.

Since the legs of the RED leaders are injured, they have to go hospital, nearest of which is the police hospital. The police can then arrest them there will they were receiving treatment.

Does anyone think this is a peaceful way to end the standoff?

Are you really a Thai woman....?

Your logic, while certainly sang froid,

is beyond what I expect from your avatar.

No this is not peaceful.

It is one way to end it, but would have been tried already if acceptable.

I do think those snipers are already on the roofs though.

I have thought about tranquilizer darts... though they are not good for long range.

One way or another your 'solution' above might be LESS bloody than what may be tried...

Got another idea. There are now only a few thousand protesters. Block all the roads in and out (done). Allow protesters out but not in. Send in loyal troops disguised in red. These troops will identify innocent people especially those with children. Give them 10,000 baht to "Go outside and buy something to help everyone, anything left send home to your family", or "Your baby needs to see a doctor". Crowd slowly shrinks. When it's down to just the hardcore and infiltrators, grab each hardcore by both arms and escort them to police headquarters. Everybody has a good laugh, Arisman et al have lost lots of face, and Thaksin's threat will no longer be credible. Abhisit wins next election and waits for the purple shirts.

[generalgrant]

Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

If this happens I fear the Red -Shirts may disperse temporarily only to regroup and then begin an all out armed insurgency. Many could die and the country be plunged into Iraq-like chaos. Why not just bring back the 1997 Constitution, hold a free and fair election and respect the outcome of that election? I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceburg of the madness that could occur.

Read carefully.

Strip away the 'I fear...' wrapping and it is just another thinly disguised red threat.

This time from Mr Iceburg.

The Thai military is obviously split now.

I mean, those guys in black who shot the heck out of Thai army with rubber bullets but also shot from long range and killed with real bullets the leader, are of course active Thai military.

Their loyalty is to their people and not the current Thai regime.

Maybe a few hundred are there now but who knows, maybe a thousand are there in the area.

There are tall buildings everywhere. Bombs could be already placed to meet any push into a building.

Do you really think the Thai military wants to die for the current regime at the hands of Thai people who just simply asking for a free and for once honest Thai election?

My bet is no.

If the men in black, not even in their main area, could shoot 250 army, how many do you think they could kill using real bullets in their main defensive area?

1000? 2000?

You think the Thai army guys want to die for this?

I think not.

Shooting school kids at Thamasat was easy but at this place--the men in Black will rip them some new holes should they charge the mauls.

Funny thing is the men in black can likely get away and do it again in another part of the city the next day.

I can just see it in the future.

Major mauls destroyed and hotels closed--economy in meltdown and the regime says let them eat cake.

[pornsasi]

Read my lips, he can't fire anybody, he is a puppet. Without all the guys in his coalition he's got nothing. The only guy who's ever had the numbers was Thaksin.Without the rural poor nobody in Thai politics can have a proper mandate. The sooner the Democrats come to their senses and realise this , the sooner Thaksin will cease to be a player. Now all we need is a pragmatist and it'll be over. At the moment it's loggerheads because the powers can't bring themselves to give a little to those who toil the land,work the factories and constructions under terrible conditions. Have you ever seen a construction site in BKK? That's an eye openner , people live on site in squallor , no safety and long hours for a pittance.

Would you drive a taxi in BKk on a 12-14 hour shift for a daily wage for substinance? Just a couple of examples of exploitation and no choice for anything better.

The reds ARE nothing because they don't have the support of the coalition parties.

Don't you understand, that's the way democracy works. You need to get the majority of support.

Abhisit currently has the support of all the coalition parties. He has the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand.

The reds want to come to power even though they only have the minority support of Thailand. That's not the way democracy works.

Yes democracy works by boycotting elections and bribing small parties to do the same as the dems did in April 2006 ?

Yes democracy works by shooting with live ammunition peaceful middle age rural people ?

Yes democracy works by taking off the air radio , TV stations and internet site that dont agree with you

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/asia/thailands-...transformation/

You really have a strange view of democracy means . Suggest you travel more in ndemocratic countries could be useful .

And since the reds have only minority support , why not call for general elections instead of preparing for another crackdown ? So that everyone can be assured of Abhisit majority support

Laughable ....

obvious - obvious - obvious

good post

Thanks

[steveromagnino]

Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

If this happens I fear the Red -Shirts may disperse temporarily only to regroup and then begin an all out armed insurgency. Many could die and the country be plunged into Iraq-like chaos. Why not just bring back the 1997 Constitution, hold a free and fair election and respect the outcome of that election? I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceburg of the madness that could occur.

Cannot just bring back the 1997 constitution - the coalition want to take the elements of both constitutions and fix some of the issues we saw in the shortfalls - the rampant attempts to remove any watchdog organisations under TRT, the failure to charge THaksin for asset concealment due to his 'honest mistake' which is a loophole to be closed - the issues of censure needing certain amount of opposition - the 90 days standdown period that encourages large parties to abuse smaller factions that might want to break away.

The red shirts cannot rewind back to 1997 - Thaksin cannot allow that, as the 1997 Constitution doesn't grant him immunity from prosecution.

Their goal is:

- dissolve parliament prior to any change in the constitution

- attempt to win a mandate they could not acheive last time (i.e. not a coalition but an absolute majority)

- silence all dissent via control of the media, military, police (i.e. TRT all over again)

- unilaterally change the constitution themselves granting Thaksin an amnesty for past and future charges as well as changing fast enough to avoid any charges of having cheated in the election (which it is highly likely they will need to do as they can't help themselves) and then also attempt to bring back the 111 banned politicians (most of whom can return in 18 months anyhow)

If PPP/PT/red shirts were interested in a free and fair election, they would have no issues with the current clauses in the current constitution which can result in a party being banned for widespread cheating. In fact, now all major parties are going to have seen the result of that - Chart Thai and PPP/TRT already, Democrats in the hot seat now - however interestingly with a track record of repeatedly attempting to cheat, PPP/TRT/PT now are basically the only party saying they have a problem with this clause....because it resulted in their ban.

They can't complain about the Samak removal as a result of being a media show owner and also moonlighting in paid employment...as this was also banned in the 1997 constitution.

In fact....ok, let's go clause by clause and I am happy to discuss with you the difference between the two constitutions. Most of the charges Thaksin is facing now, in fact all of them, are all actionable under either constitution..... so obviously this is the nice strawman argument that the red shirt leaders keep putting up - that the 1997 constitution was the great one let's bring that back. What they don't mention is that when asked to participate they didn't propose that, instead they pulled out of the process; in addition the 1997 constitution development was led by Anand, one of the very Amartaya that they are having a go at almost every hour in their speeches when they target the privvy council.

In IT we often hear this comparison of what we have now with the future proposed system, and almost everyone sees the current system for a while as the devil, and the new system as the promised land.

They then discover eventually that the promised land is not nearly as capable out of the box as they thought, as what they now is already modified and improved from out of the box the last time; then the new system is the devil, and the old one is remembered fondly as the best thing they ever had.

At some point, however, smarter minds get together and the new system ends up better than the old.

If work started now across the floor with community groups represented by leaders; academics; the parliamentarians (as only two groups, HOR and Senate); judiciary got together then we would end up with a constitution we all could live with. However, the red shirts don't at any point want this sort of development; they want to unilaterally impose THEIR version of what we need as a constitution.

It's obvious. We need a clear direction for constitution development by experts representing a wide cross section of society....not just by idiots like Jatuporn. And that has to occur separately to an election process. However, as the red shirts repeatedly say, they want the two to be the same thing; a vote for the red shirts party is a vote to change the constitution a specific way.

Apparently, only voters should comment on the constitution. Prisoners, children, etc - no rights at all to comment.

Hmmm.....Seems a bit of a Pojamarn job if you ask me.

[yoshiwara]

Why do red supporters keep coming out with "Abhisit wasn't elected"?

Can a red supporter please explain to me how their version of elections show that Abhisit wasn't elected?

Thailand is tearing itself apart because of one corrupt billionaire. And it's only because he didn't get control of the army that we are not living under the rule of his gun.

He wasn't elected - go read - I can't be bothered to repeat the arguements - the red government (which was elected) was banned and MPs jumped ship - do your homework

I've read. I've posted. I've explained. All I get back is "he wasn't elected".

And then half-truths:

- "the red government (which was elected) " - The PPP got 40% of the vote and needed coalition partners to form government.

- "the red government was banned" - the PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government after the PPP was disbanded.

- "MPs jumped ship" - MPs changing sides - it's legal, it's democratic, it happens in many countries that have coalition governments.

No (in reply to anotherpeter) it does not without general elections . Sorry to disapoint you

You are the one who is incorrect.

Not that you care.

For you what is correct is the policy that advances Thaksin.

And please learn to spell 'disappoint'

[FreedomDude]

Read my lips, he can't fire anybody, he is a puppet. Without all the guys in his coalition he's got nothing. The only guy who's ever had the numbers was Thaksin.Without the rural poor nobody in Thai politics can have a proper mandate. The sooner the Democrats come to their senses and realise this , the sooner Thaksin will cease to be a player. Now all we need is a pragmatist and it'll be over. At the moment it's loggerheads because the powers can't bring themselves to give a little to those who toil the land,work the factories and constructions under terrible conditions. Have you ever seen a construction site in BKK? That's an eye openner , people live on site in squallor , no safety and long hours for a pittance.

Would you drive a taxi in BKk on a 12-14 hour shift for a daily wage for substinance? Just a couple of examples of exploitation and no choice for anything better.

The reds ARE nothing because they don't have the support of the coalition parties.

Don't you understand, that's the way democracy works. You need to get the majority of support.

Abhisit currently has the support of all the coalition parties. He has the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand.

The reds want to come to power even though they only have the minority support of Thailand. That's not the way democracy works.

No, no, no! He does NOT have "the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand"

The choice of the LARGEST block of voters was ignored as a result of the mass disqualification. He may have the LEGAL right to the PMs chair under the new constitution. But this country can't even agree on which constitution is legal?!? The ethical thing to do would have been to hold a NEW election ASAP in Dec 2008 so that the wishes of the LARGEST BLOCK of voters would be represented in the government.

[pornsasi]

If I am the commander, I would:

1. Drop a dozen of their best snipers on the roof top of surrounding building via helicopters.

2. Aim and shoot both legs of all the RED leaders (not to kill them, just wound them).

3. Airlift the snipers out.

4. Repeat from step one to three, everyday, at 8am & 6pm when evryone (including the RED) will have to stand up for the national anthem.

Since the legs of the RED leaders are injured, they have to go hospital, nearest of which is the police hospital. The police can then arrest them there will they were receiving treatment.

Does anyone think this is a peaceful way to end the standoff?

Are you really a Thai woman....?

Your logic, while certainly sang froid,

is beyond what I expect from your avatar.

No this is not peaceful.

It is one way to end it, but would have been tried already if acceptable.

I do think those snipers are already on the roofs though.

I have thought about tranquilizer darts... though they are not good for long range.

One way or another your 'solution' above might be LESS bloody than what may be tried...

Got another idea. There are now only a few thousand protesters. Block all the roads in and out (done). Allow protesters out but not in. Send in loyal troops disguised in red. These troops will identify innocent people especially those with children. Give them 10,000 baht to "Go outside and buy something to help everyone, anything left send home to your family", or "Your baby needs to see a doctor". Crowd slowly shrinks. When it's down to just the hardcore and infiltrators, grab each hardcore by both arms and escort them to police headquarters. Everybody has a good laugh, Arisman et al have lost lots of face, and Thaksin's threat will no longer be credible. Abhisit wins next election and waits for the purple shirts.

You should write books for kids ... they like fairy tales

[way2muchcoffee]

Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

If this happens I fear the Red -Shirts may disperse temporarily only to regroup and then begin an all out armed insurgency. Many could die and the country be plunged into Iraq-like chaos. Why not just bring back the 1997 Constitution, hold a free and fair election and respect the outcome of that election? I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceburg of the madness that could occur.

Because that's not a compromise. The redshirt leaders need to learn to negotiate. The blood is already on their hands. The current government, including the coalition partners, represents over half of the country. The redshirts fail to understand this basic point. If they want something there are better ways to accomplish this than starting a civil war.

[steveromagnino]

No, no, no! He does NOT have "the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand"

The choice of the LARGEST block of voters was ignored as a result of the mass disqualification. He may have the LEGAL right to the PMs chair under the new constitution. But this country can't even agree on which constitution is legal?!? The ethical thing to do would have been to hold a NEW election ASAP in Dec 2008 so that the wishes of the LARGEST BLOCK of voters would be represented in the government.

Er..... so just to be clear, the largest block of voters as tyou call them represented by more than 1/2 of the house of representatives who DIDN'T vote for PPP in 2007 should be denied the right to speak simply because PPP are cheaters and were too dumb themselves to hold a new election in December 2008 as was their right to call (but they didn't want to try)?

Hmmmm... A curious view, not entirely sure I see it as you do.

Do you come from a country with MMP?

Edited April 19, 2010 by steveromagnino

[pornsasi]

I've read. I've posted. I've explained. All I get back is "he wasn't elected".

And then half-truths:

- "the red government (which was elected) " - The PPP got 40% of the vote and needed coalition partners to form government.

- "the red government was banned" - the PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government after the PPP was disbanded.

- "MPs jumped ship" - MPs changing sides - it's legal, it's democratic, it happens in many countries that have coalition governments.

No (in reply to anotherpeter) it does not without general elections . Sorry to disapoint you

You are the one who is incorrect.

Not that you care.

For you what is correct is the policy that advances Thaksin.

And please learn to spell 'disappoint'

I am incorrect ? Alright , link on another case please ?

PS : Your forgot "red apologist" probably you need a rest

[generalgrant]

Hey spelling teacher

I take it yu support a regime that has done over 20 coups and butchers students at Thamasat University?

You remind my of the boys in America living in the south in 1860 who were fighting for their right to own slaves.

In fact--that is exactly what the Thai regime is doing Mr Spell check.

Watch the video of the students piled up dead at Thamasat and feel proud that you support this government and regime that is its real power.

[way2muchcoffee]

1) the military coup written constitution is more favourable to the government

2) there are no free and fair elections in Thailand (The old and new elite buy the patronage of the Nai who then instruct the Phrai how to vote)

3) The government would lose the election and the new government could then select the new army leadership thus making subsequent coups more difficult

4) No one seems to respect the results of elections- if the reds win, the yellows protest; if the democtrats form a government by 'influencing' the coalition parners, the reds come out

5) Everyone is so entrenched in their own dogma and constrained by their own loyalties, dialogue and compromise are not even a possibility

Pretty spot on.

It's a national crisis - he needs a mandate - or the Thail people will never forgive him - he does not have a mandate and if he sends these guys in and it gets bloody it can spiral - why is he so frightened of an election? come to your own conclusion - it's obvious.

He already has a mandate. He has the mandate of the Democrat MPs and all of the coalition partners. Together they represent well over half of the population of Thailand.

[pornsasi]

No, no, no! He does NOT have "the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand"

The choice of the LARGEST block of voters was ignored as a result of the mass disqualification. He may have the LEGAL right to the PMs chair under the new constitution. But this country can't even agree on which constitution is legal?!? The ethical thing to do would have been to hold a NEW election ASAP in Dec 2008 so that the wishes of the LARGEST BLOCK of voters would be represented in the government.

Er..... so just to be clear, the largest block of voters represented by more than 1/2 of the house of representatives who DIDN'T vote for PPP were a majority of the house in 2007 should be denied the right to speak simply because PPP are cheaters and were too dumb themselves to hold a new election in December 2008 as was their right to call (but they didn't want to try)?

Hmmmm... A curious view, not entirely sure I see it as you do.

Do you come from a country with MMP?

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

[Neurath]

Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

If this happens I fear the Red -Shirts may disperse temporarily only to regroup and then begin an all out armed insurgency. Many could die and the country be plunged into Iraq-like chaos. Why not just bring back the 1997 Constitution, hold a free and fair election and respect the outcome of that election? I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceburg of the madness that could occur.

I agree.

The city could start to burn.

The reds can win simply by destroying the city.

But

I do not think the Thai military groups are in any hurry to go in with the men in Black shooting real bullets at them.

Did all of you ever look at what this current regime did to the students at Thamasat University? They killed Thai college students in the hundreds if not thousands.

So much for the Thai love for other Thai people.

The reds have at long last figured out the game.

When you play against scum you must play like scum to win.

They might burn the city down, so I hear.

No pass for History Hombre. Mr. Samak, a PTP Prime Minister, was where and doing what PRECISELY during the sad event that you mention? Well, he was calling for the intervention of the Armed and Paramilitary forces to do for the effete 'communist' university students. Samak claimed said university students were a threat to the highest institution. Of course he was Thaksin's man subsequently. It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad that PTP and Reds provided the man with support. Samak sure seemed to be in love with the 'Amart' back then - still, any port in a storm I suppose.

That's right. Uh huh, 'current regime'. What piffle.

[LuckyLew]

Abhisit has no mandate to govern he was never elected in a democratic vote. He was appointed.

Jeez, If I see the above statement again, my head is gonna explode. This isn't a republic like the U.S. People don't directly elect the PM. It's a constitutional monarchy, somewhat similar to England. People elect the MPs, and then the MPs elect the Prime Minister. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

Since 1932 the Head of Government of Thailand has been the Prime Minister of Thailand: usually the leader of the largest party or the largest coalition party in the lower house of Parliament. The Prime Minister is, in accordance with the constitution selected; first by an election in the lower house then officially appointed by the King.

Calling elections to elect MPs is another story. I believe Abhisit can wait until the end of the year until he has to call elections (maybe longer) The TRT and PPP parties were dissolved due to corruption among other things. Also, the last 3 TRT/PPP/Phuea Thai PMs were thrown for breaking election and other laws. Maybe the Democrats will be dissolved as well. They are under investigation by the EC.

Granted it's a mess.

Yes I know - ok but the PM would call the election - believe me (and I'm English) if Brown wanted to fight fellow Brits in the country he would need a mandate to crack down.

It's a mess? you could say that... but put water on the fire - call elections - easy and we all support the outcome - sending in troops against fellow Thais? you gotta be kidding...

Caling elections at this pointwould be a waste of time

Reds win election - yellows will protest.

Yellows win election reds will protest.

White win election - reds and yellowswill protest.

If the current Gov't bows down to 100 000 red necks then

you can bet you last dollar that the next election will be

called "unfair" "corrupt" and "ilegal"

If he calls it when he is ready ... then maybe, just maybe there is a chance

[pornsasi]

1) the military coup written constitution is more favourable to the government

2) there are no free and fair elections in Thailand (The old and new elite buy the patronage of the Nai who then instruct the Phrai how to vote)

3) The government would lose the election and the new government could then select the new army leadership thus making subsequent coups more difficult

4) No one seems to respect the results of elections- if the reds win, the yellows protest; if the democtrats form a government by 'influencing' the coalition parners, the reds come out

5) Everyone is so entrenched in their own dogma and constrained by their own loyalties, dialogue and compromise are not even a possibility

Pretty spot on.

It's a national crisis - he needs a mandate - or the Thail people will never forgive him - he does not have a mandate and if he sends these guys in and it gets bloody it can spiral - why is he so frightened of an election? come to your own conclusion - it's obvious.

He already has a mandate. He has the mandate of the Democrat MPs and all of the coalition partners. Together they represent well over half of the population of Thailand.

Maybe not anymore . But it cost nothing to check it out by calling for a general election , perhaps it might even save some innocent lives

[stevotoo]

1) the military coup written constitution is more favourable to the government

2) there are no free and fair elections in Thailand (The old and new elite buy the patronage of the Nai who then instruct the Phrai how to vote)

3) The government would lose the election and the new government could then select the new army leadership thus making subsequent coups more difficult

4) No one seems to respect the results of elections- if the reds win, the yellows protest; if the democtrats form a government by 'influencing' the coalition parners, the reds come out

5) Everyone is so entrenched in their own dogma and constrained by their own loyalties, dialogue and compromise are not even a possibility

Pretty spot on.

It's a national crisis - he needs a mandate - or the Thail people will never forgive him - he does not have a mandate and if he sends these guys in and it gets bloody it can spiral - why is he so frightened of an election? come to your own conclusion - it's obvious.

He already has a mandate. He has the mandate of the Democrat MPs and all of the coalition partners. Together they represent well over half of the population of Thailand.

This includes many 'ifs and buts'

if you recognise and accept the constitution under which they were 'elected' (actually they came a distant second)

if you believe the coalition actually believes the same thinngs as the government and is not being pressured/bought off

if you add the total number of votes won by the democrats and coalition partners, it is still less than half of the population

if it were not for ifs and buts, cow sh*t would be butter

the best/only way to get a mandate is by winning an election

we can let the government decide

we can let the army decide

or we can let the people decide

which one is best?

[pornsasi]

Caling elections at this pointwould be a waste of time

Reds win election - yellows will protest.

Yellows win election reds will protest.

White win election - reds and yellowswill protest.

If the current Gov't bows down to 100 000 red necks then

you can bet you last dollar that the next election will be

called "unfair" "corrupt" and "ilegal"

If he calls it when he is ready ... then maybe, just maybe there is a chance

I might be a dreamer , but if the elections are free and fair , then i think the thai peole will accept the end result

[yoshiwara]

Hey spelling teacher

I take it yu support a regime that has done over 20 coups and butchers students at Thamasat University?

You remind my of the boys in America living in the south in 1860 who were fighting for their right to own slaves.

In fact--that is exactly what the Thai regime is doing Mr Spell check.

Watch the video of the students piled up dead at Thamasat and feel proud that you support this government and regime that is its real power.

Nice try but no cigar.

Linking the current government to 19c USA and Thailand 1972 is a pretty desperate move.

Why not go the whole hog and put up Mr Thaksin as Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln.

After all a couple of the other red apologists tried to paint your hero Thaksin as Gandhi.

is it 500 baht for each joke or a job lot?

Mr Yu.

[KireB]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

Please google: 2007 Constitution Referendum Thailand! 60% of the people showed up and the majority voted YES!

[daboyz1]

Abhisit has no mandate to govern he was never elected in a democratic vote. He was appointed.

Jeez, If I see the above statement again, my head is gonna explode. This isn't a republic like the U.S. People don't directly elect the PM. It's a constitutional monarchy, somewhat similar to England. People elect the MPs, and then the MPs elect the Prime Minister. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

Since 1932 the Head of Government of Thailand has been the Prime Minister of Thailand: usually the leader of the largest party or the largest coalition party in the lower house of Parliament. The Prime Minister is, in accordance with the constitution selected; first by an election in the lower house then officially appointed by the King.

Calling elections to elect MPs is another story. I believe Abhisit can wait until the end of the year until he has to call elections (maybe longer) The TRT and PPP parties were dissolved due to corruption among other things. Also, the last 3 TRT/PPP/Phuea Thai PMs were thrown for breaking election and other laws. Maybe the Democrats will be dissolved as well. They are under investigation by the EC.

Granted it's a mess.

Yes I know - ok but the PM would call the election - believe me (and I'm English) if Brown wanted to fight fellow Brits in the country he would need a mandate to crack down.

It's a mess? you could say that... but put water on the fire - call elections - easy and we all support the outcome - sending in troops against fellow Thais? you gotta be kidding...

So they call elections again. Pheua Thai wins. One of Thaksin's cousins/brothers (insert relative here) whatever gets selected as PM. Then the yellows take over the airport again claiming a corrupt election with vote buying etc. Where does this cycle end?

I honestly blame the airport takeover for this current mess. It basically says you can kick and scream like an angry 3 year old and get your way.

If I had a vote, it would be for a coup. At least things were stable.

[yoshiwara]

I might be a dreamer , but if the elections are free and fair , then i think the thai peole will accept the end result

Nobody is arguing against elections.

It is the timing of the elections PLUS the running of the elections without electoral fraud.

Elections without electoral fraud?

How outrageous! shout our red friends.

Thaksin must be guaranteed his return.

And we know how he operates.

Mr Peole.

[steveromagnino]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

But they knew when they showed up to compete in the election that if they were caught cheating, they would be banned. That's like me being Polish, then showing up to box in USA against an American boxer with an American judge. I know the rules, and if i choose to repeatedly punch under the belt, how can I complain when I get disqualified?

If all the coalition partners had switched anyhow, democrats would still have a government now. It just so happens that PPP /PT were such a total mess and so moronic not to call an election...can you blame the rats who desert a sinking ship?

Lest you think that when you vote for one party, and it ends up linking hands with another, I note that none of the TRT/PPP/PT complainers now had any issue when the voters of NAP suddenly discovered the party being dissolved into TRT (totally undemocratic also?) or Chart Pattana being rolled in TRT also pre 2005.

Surely, the voters suddenly might have discovered the people they elected were now part of another party altogether? Shock! The horror!

And yet, despite that, I cannot really recall 20,000 red shirt flag waving people taking to the streets to protest.

Hmmmmm.. That Chavalit. He's a tricky one, despite obesity and the fact that his hair line is receding at the same rate that senility appears to be advancing.

[pornsasi]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

Please google: 2007 Constitution Referendum Thailand! 60% of the people showed up and the majority voted YES!

You seem to forget that campaning for a "NO" , under that military governement was not possible . Which explain the relatively low attendance . So do you think democratic ?