Thai Foreign Ministry Plays Down Speculation Of US Intervention

[venturalaw]

Why would the U.S. give a shit about This problem unless they blocked access to the air base if needed. I don't think Thailand right now is in the top 100 priority list or the top 1000 priorities. Got our hands full at home on much more important issues.

They care because, for one reason, there are many Americans living in Thailand. Another reason is that the U.S. relationship with Thailand has been in existence and positive since the 1800's. The U.S. will not 'move in'. It will continue to monitor the situation, as it should for its citizens residing here, while repeatedly requesting that Thailand find a peaceful resolution.

[eurasianthai]

Khun Kasit is still Thailand Foreign Minister?

[garyk]

I travel quite a bit here and the last week. I was stopped for the first time by the army going to one of my birding sites. North.

Chiang Mai to Mae Wong. I went thru four armed checkpoints, and the last one stopped and put me thru the grinder. I had to show my passport, all documents of ownership of the truck and why i wanted to travel. My truck was searched and while i was treated ok. It was not a pleasent experence. I was clearly not a red shirt and very obvious what I was doing and where i was going. What the hel_l.

I have been here for 3 years. I am an American citizen and am glad now that my country has the resources to get me out of here if things really get bad.

I personally am sick of the whole mess. And am planning a retriet back home.

[LomSak27]

asiawatcher posted

Don't worry too much - the US will never interfere unless it has some kind of payback. They let millions get murdered in Rawanda and never lifted a finger cos there was nothing there they wanted or could use. Here though... only to get a foot in the door of Asia but not worth the millions unless of course Cheyney and the corrupt ass***s can get a payback but doubling and tripling the cost and ripping off the US system further. Who cares - the tax payers foot the bill and they voted for them! Som Num Na

Perhaps yopu missed the BBC articles from a couple months back, seems a EURO country was right on the spot and really did some good work in Rwanda asiawatch

Sarkozy today visited the national memorial at Gisozi where an estimated 250,000 people are buried. The genocide lasted three months, during which time an estimated 1 million people were murdered; it had been a planned and political campaign intended to eliminate a minority, the Tutsis, to avoid power-sharing and create a "pure Hutu state". France had been the one country that had stood any chance of preventing what happened. For years France had supported Rwanda's Hutu dictatorship; the French military had armed and trained the killers and when the genocide began there were French officers embedded in the elite Rwanda army units whose troops in the first hours had eliminated Rwanda's political opposition. France had given tacit approval to the Hutu Power extremists who had formed a rogue government that would eventually create a society based on genocide.

Sarkozy was a government spokesman, and in June 1994 – after two months of widespread massacres – he appeared on French television to explain how France was going to intervene with the military Operation Turquoise in order to establish security zones to protect fleeing refugees. Sarkozy may not have been fully aware of the operation's secondary purpose, for it would ultimately provide an escape route for the Hutu Power killers – the army and the Interahamwe militia – allowing them to establish bases in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo. The hundreds of genocide suspects currently in Europe today have the French military to thank for their freedom.

Good to see Euro nations showing they care, as only they can.

[havetowelwilltravel]

What could US army do against so great warriors and Thai boxing experts that might be all these ISAAN farmers ? :-)

And with all these US expat it's a big risk to launch bombs :-)

Seriously, it's incredible to let all these reds invading the streets, from abroad it just looks like Thai government is just a bunch of weak KATOYE...

comng from the french you should know all about giving up

[havetowelwilltravel]

p.s. Thanks for your help in WW2 shame you came in so late.

They probably mistakenly assumed that....collectively.... the Euros could defend themselves against a country the size of Montana

What size is vietnam? Same as Texas?

but during the cold war it was american taxes that prevented western europe from becoming just another soviet puppet state.

dont thank us its really ok

[havetowelwilltravel]

I never thought it was even a remote possibility that the US would interfere, why would they...we have no oil...we're too far away...they are trying to recover economically...are we even worth their time and money...and Bush is no longer the president so i dont think they will invade any other country soon (other than what has already been started-iraq afghanistan)

Yeah, but all it took was a dormitory-full of US medical students for President Reagan to invade Grenada. We have 4-5 USA teachers in my town up here in Isaan, and are confident of a USA invasion to whisk us out of here, if need be.

Edit: Spelling error corrected. No, it was not Granada, Spain that was invaded.

nothing to do with students we-usa needed the nutmeg and it was close to christmas

[PETDCAT]

I have heard from a very reliable source that American forces will in fact be invading Thailand next week. Unfortunately they will be bypassing the protest area in Bangkok and instead be heading directly to Pattaya and Phuket. The top secret mission is to liberate all the massage workers and bar girls and safely bring them back to the USA to work in Little Rock,Arkansas at ex President Bill Clinton's newly opened health club and resort. The Happy Ending World of massage is pleased to announce opening day specials for Americans with valid ID. Thai nationals are also invited to attend but expect to pay an additional 50%. God bless America.

[JohnLeech]

What is wrong with this picture?

US has a lot problems at home and abroad, doesn't give a hood about bunch of Issan farmers or Thaksin's messily 1.5 billion Dollar. They can spend that in a min

But maybe they can help use the use the Army and Police efficiently for crowd control, if there are really any Police and Army that can be counted on. They for sure have a lot of experience and some success

They already do "help use the use the Army and Police efficiently for crowd control" through the JUSMAGTHAI (Joint US Military Advisory Group Thailand). While clearly "They for sure have a lot of experience" that does not mean they have any success - the results speak for themselves.

[Zappu]

What is wrong with this picture?

US has a lot problems at home and abroad, doesn’t give a hood about bunch of Issan farmers or Thaksin’s messily 1.5 billion Dollar. They can spend that in a min

But maybe they can help use the use the Army and Police efficiently for crowd control, if there are really any Police and Army that can be counted on. They for sure have a lot of experience and some success

The US has a finger inn everybodys pie. They meddle in everybody's business. If they dont like something they change it or kill somebody. When they get tired of this situation they'll do something about it

[Zappu]

I am always amazed at the number of ignorant people who are members of this site!

They have no ability to read a thread and follow it in any sensible manner....

Many of you also think it is a mark of your intelligence to bad mouth USA without having any idea of what the USA does to help people around the world.

As far as USA's effort in Africa just google the amount of money that the Bush administration initiated with efforts still continuing to provide medical care to literally MILLIONS of people living living in Africa.

And as far as Thailand is concerned not only does USA support the military financially, but also provides MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS.

Is USA perfect? NO not by any means but it certainly doesnt deserve to be dragged in the mud by a bunch of uneducated farangs!

Agrred I am tired of USA bashing, truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you and ever here of the marshal plan? When the USA rebuilt the rubble of Europe, get a life

Only if you're corrupt enough or vicious enough will they help you. Otherwise they will off you, or invade you and off thousands.

[JohnLeech]

I am always amazed at the number of ignorant people who are members of this site!

They have no ability to read a thread and follow it in any sensible manner....

Many of you also think it is a mark of your intelligence to bad mouth USA without having any idea of what the USA does to help people around the world.

As far as USA's effort in Africa just google the amount of money that the Bush administration initiated with efforts still continuing to provide medical care to literally MILLIONS of people living living in Africa.

And as far as Thailand is concerned not only does USA support the military financially, but also provides MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS.

Is USA perfect? NO not by any means but it certainly doesnt deserve to be dragged in the mud by a bunch of uneducated farangs!

Agrred I am tired of USA bashing, truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you and ever here of the marshal plan? When the USA rebuilt the rubble of Europe, get a life

Its a rather unpleasant and pointless argument, but in terms of casualties taken and inflicted in WWII I think you'll find that Russia actually "won the second war" for the rest of us by a considerable and often forgotten margin.

As for financial support for the Thai military, I think you'll also find that since the end of the VIetnam era, when US assistance was hardly unconditional, their "support" has been confined to JUSMAG.

"MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS"? Well, the US did fund and run a major trial in Thailand run by the US military using Thai volunteers, but that could hardly be described as altruistic.

"uneducated farangs"? I can't help wondering if they are considered "uneducated" because they post here, or because of their views on the USA (or both). While it may, in any case, be correct, judging by a lot of the posts here, uninformed would be a more apt description than uneducated;

[Publicus]

I am always amazed at the number of ignorant people who are members of this site!

They have no ability to read a thread and follow it in any sensible manner....

Many of you also think it is a mark of your intelligence to bad mouth USA without having any idea of what the USA does to help people around the world.

As far as USA's effort in Africa just google the amount of money that the Bush administration initiated with efforts still continuing to provide medical care to literally MILLIONS of people living living in Africa.

And as far as Thailand is concerned not only does USA support the military financially, but also provides MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS.

Is USA perfect? NO not by any means but it certainly doesnt deserve to be dragged in the mud by a bunch of uneducated farangs!

Agrred I am tired of USA bashing, truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you and ever here of the marshal plan? When the USA rebuilt the rubble of Europe, get a life

Its a rather unpleasant and pointless argument, but in terms of casualties taken and inflicted in WWII I think you'll find that Russia actually "won the second war" for the rest of us by a considerable and often forgotten margin.

As for financial support for the Thai military, I think you'll also find that since the end of the VIetnam era, when US assistance was hardly unconditional, their "support" has been confined to JUSMAG.

"MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS"? Well, the US did fund and run a major trial in Thailand run by the US military using Thai volunteers, but that could hardly be described as altruistic.

"uneducated farangs"? I can't help wondering if they are considered "uneducated" because they post here, or because of their views on the USA (or both). While it may, in any case, be correct, judging by a lot of the posts here, uninformed would be a more apt description than uneducated;

I've stated already the WW II allies' military strategy. It was, by common agreement, to let the Soviets get beat up on while they beat up the invading rapist Nazi Germans....this strategy was agreed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, the latter having had to make up for (regain face in Asian terms) falling for and signing the Nazi designed and cynical mutual non-agression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which clearly showed Stalin to be the fool and idiot he truly was.

After the allies (Brits, US then et al) defeated Rommel in N Africa we followed with the invasion of Sicily, which caused Hitler to decide to withdraw the 2nd Panzer division from the Russian front to defend Italy and which, concomitantly, tipped the balance of the Soviet offensive against the Nazis, which had been at a standoff, thus allowing the Soviets to begin their inexorable and high casualty drive to Berlin, not withstanding contemporary revisionist and anti-American efforts at re-emphaiszing and refocusing history similar to the obscene efforts of the Holocaust deniers of Iran et al.

I wouldn't and do not attempt to diminish the largest in history and most well planned seaborn invasion armada of 4,000 allied ships and so many sacrificial allied troops on June 6, 1944 in the invasion of Nazi occupied Europe in the northern France province of Normandy (of 1066 fame/notoriety). All the WW II alllies suffered and sacrificed, each in his own way whether the Soviets or the Brits/Canadians/Ausies/Kiwis or the US and the et al that joined them from the Nazi German occupied countries of the Nazi German occupied continent of Europe.

Yes, the Soviets lost 20 million of their people during WW II, and 55 million persons overall were lost in that conflagration. To try to assert, however, that the Sovets did the heavy lifting while the other allies coasted, to include the U-Boat convoy Battle of the North Atlantic, the Battle of Britain etc etc is a myopic view at best and at worst an unaware and uninformed pov of the grand strategy of the allies to win WW II. Uneducated or unaware indeed, or just plain cynical and malicious by design or purpose.

Further, post WW I (The Great European War) Thailand and the US joined to advance the interests of Thailand during and subsequent to the Treaty of Versailles negotiations and 1919 signing (by which the lunatic Europeans created, ironically or not, the architecture of another world war a single generation later). Thai Minister to Paris Prince Charoon and Thai Foreign Minister Prince Devawongse, joined by US envoys Elton James and later (1924) Francis B. Sayre (President Woodrow Wilson's brother in law), later with the successor son Prince Devawongse Varodaya, traveled Europe "from one state after another" finally to regain Thai sovereignty against the unequal treaties and the fierce colonial pressures of the toothless tigers France and Britain.

One single new power of the time cared about, for and acted with perseverence in the interests of its oldest Asian ally, since 1833, Thailand. That new power is and remains the United States of America. In the present mess, which the US has made clear Thais themselves must resolve, the United States might invade Pattaya to clean up the mess it contributed to here during the Vietnam War especially , but outside of that Abhisit and Anupong have been fully informed they can't crack Thai heads or kill other Thais using massive or bloody state force.

The demand is for a snap election, but a snap election will not occur. However, an election will serve as a pressure valve to blow off steam, so here we are looking at September 14, five days and but four years from that day on Sept 19th 2006 which so many of us remember so well and so vividly....this could seem similar to the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of another momentous year....which we well know led to nothing good.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Publicus

[Publicus]

asiawatcher posted

Don't worry too much - the US will never interfere unless it has some kind of payback. They let millions get murdered in Rawanda and never lifted a finger cos there was nothing there they wanted or could use. Here though... only to get a foot in the door of Asia but not worth the millions unless of course Cheyney and the corrupt ass***s can get a payback but doubling and tripling the cost and ripping off the US system further. Who cares - the tax payers foot the bill and they voted for them! Som Num Na

Perhaps yopu missed the BBC articles from a couple months back, seems a EURO country was right on the spot and really did some good work in Rwanda asiawatch

Sarkozy today visited the national memorial at Gisozi where an estimated 250,000 people are buried. The genocide lasted three months, during which time an estimated 1 million people were murdered; it had been a planned and political campaign intended to eliminate a minority, the Tutsis, to avoid power-sharing and create a "pure Hutu state". France had been the one country that had stood any chance of preventing what happened. For years France had supported Rwanda's Hutu dictatorship; the French military had armed and trained the killers and when the genocide began there were French officers embedded in the elite Rwanda army units whose troops in the first hours had eliminated Rwanda's political opposition. France had given tacit approval to the Hutu Power extremists who had formed a rogue government that would eventually create a society based on genocide.

Sarkozy was a government spokesman, and in June 1994 – after two months of widespread massacres – he appeared on French television to explain how France was going to intervene with the military Operation Turquoise in order to establish security zones to protect fleeing refugees. Sarkozy may not have been fully aware of the operation's secondary purpose, for it would ultimately provide an escape route for the Hutu Power killers – the army and the Interahamwe militia – allowing them to establish bases in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo. The hundreds of genocide suspects currently in Europe today have the French military to thank for their freedom.

Good to see Euro nations showing they care, as only they can.

[cdnvic]

Several racist and/or inflammatory posts removed. Running out of friendly warnings here.

[Publicus]

I am always amazed at the number of ignorant people who are members of this site!

They have no ability to read a thread and follow it in any sensible manner....

Many of you also think it is a mark of your intelligence to bad mouth USA without having any idea of what the USA does to help people around the world.

As far as USA's effort in Africa just google the amount of money that the Bush administration initiated with efforts still continuing to provide medical care to literally MILLIONS of people living living in Africa.

And as far as Thailand is concerned not only does USA support the military financially, but also provides MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS.

Is USA perfect? NO not by any means but it certainly doesnt deserve to be dragged in the mud by a bunch of uneducated farangs!

Agrred I am tired of USA bashing, truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you and ever here of the marshal plan? When the USA rebuilt the rubble of Europe, get a life

Its a rather unpleasant and pointless argument, but in terms of casualties taken and inflicted in WWII I think you'll find that Russia actually "won the second war" for the rest of us by a considerable and often forgotten margin.

As for financial support for the Thai military, I think you'll also find that since the end of the VIetnam era, when US assistance was hardly unconditional, their "support" has been confined to JUSMAG.

"MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS"? Well, the US did fund and run a major trial in Thailand run by the US military using Thai volunteers, but that could hardly be described as altruistic.

"uneducated farangs"? I can't help wondering if they are considered "uneducated" because they post here, or because of their views on the USA (or both). While it may, in any case, be correct, judging by a lot of the posts here, uninformed would be a more apt description than uneducated;

I've stated already the WW II allies' military strategy. It was, by common agreement, to let the Soviets get beat up on while they beat up the invading rapist Nazi Germans....this strategy was agreed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, the latter having had to make up for (regain face in Asian terms) falling for and signing the Nazi designed and cynical mutual non-agression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which clearly showed Stalin to be the fool and idiot he truly was.

After the allies (Brits, US then et al) defeated Rommel in N Africa we followed with the invasion of Sicily, which caused Hitler to decide to withdraw the 2nd Panzer division from the Russian front to defend Italy and which, concomitantly, tipped the balance of the Soviet offensive against the Nazis, which had been at a standoff, thus allowing the Soviets to begin their inexorable and high casualty drive to Berlin, not withstanding contemporary revisionist and anti-American efforts at re-emphaiszing and refocusing history similar to the obscene efforts of the Holocaust deniers of Iran et al.

I wouldn't and do not attempt to diminish the largest in history and most well planned seaborn invasion armada of 4,000 allied ships and so many sacrificial allied troops on June 6, 1944 in the invasion of Nazi occupied Europe in the northern France province of Normandy (of 1066 fame/notoriety). All the WW II alllies suffered and sacrificed, each in his own way whether the Soviets or the Brits/Canadians/Ausies/Kiwis or the US and the et al that joined them from the Nazi German occupied countries of the Nazi German occupied continent of Europe.

Yes, the Soviets lost 20 million of their people during WW II, and 55 million persons overall were lost in that conflagration. To try to assert, however, that the Sovets did the heavy lifting while the other allies coasted, to include the U-Boat convoy Battle of the North Atlantic, the Battle of Britain etc etc is a myopic view at best and at worst an unaware and uninformed pov of the grand strategy of the allies to win WW II. Uneducated or unaware indeed, or just plain cynical and malicious by design or purpose.

Further, post WW I (The Great European War) Thailand and the US joined to advance the interests of Thailand during and subsequent to the Treaty of Versailles negotiations and 1919 signing (by which the lunatic Europeans created, ironically or not, the architecture of another world war a single generation later). Thai Minister to Paris Prince Charoon and Thai Foreign Minister Prince Devawongse, joined by US envoys Elton James and later (1924) Francis B. Sayre (President Woodrow Wilson's brother in law), later with the successor son Prince Devawongse Varodaya, traveled Europe "from one state after another" finally to regain Thai sovereignty against the unequal treaties and the fierce colonial pressures of the toothless tigers France and Britain.

One single new power of the time cared about, for and acted with perseverence in the interests of its oldest Asian ally, since 1833, Thailand. That new power is and remains the United States of America. In the present mess, which the US has made clear Thais themselves must resolve, the United States might invade Pattaya to clean up the mess it contributed to here during the Vietnam War especially , but outside of that Abhisit and Anupong have been fully informed they can't crack Thai heads or kill other Thais using massive or bloody state force.

The demand is for a snap election, but a snap election will not occur. However, a GE will serve as a pressure valve to blow off steam, so here we are looking at November 14th. This could seem similar to the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of another momentous event....which we well know led to nothing good.

Edited by Publicus for date of GE.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Publicus

[bangon04]

Further, post WW I (The Great European War) Thailand and the US joined to advance the interests of Thailand during and subsequent to the Treaty of Versailles negotiations and 1919 signing (by which the lunatic Europeans created, ironically or not, the architecture of another world war a single generation later). Thai Minister to Paris Prince Charoon and Thai Foreign Minister Prince Devawongse, joined by US envoys Elton James and later (1924) Francis B. Sayre (President Woodrow Wilson's brother in law), later with the successor son Prince Devawongse Varodaya, traveled Europe "from one state after another" finally to regain Thai sovereignty against the unequal treaties and the fierce colonial pressures of the toothless tigers France and Britain.

Maybe one reason why the Treaty of Versailes was less than generous to Siam's interests could have been the perception that Siam cynically entered the Great European War at a very late stage and this could be construed as a purely cynical manoeuver designed to achieve exactly the realignment of colonial pressures alluded to above.

Similarly, Thailand's official record in the Second World War was even less admirable, especially its "dealings" with the Japanese. Again cynical self-interest do pop up as prime motivation in Thai world relationships.

[JohnLeech]

To try to assert, however, that the Sovets did the heavy lifting while the other allies coasted, to include the U-Boat convoy Battle of the North Atlantic, the Battle of Britain etc etc is a myopic view at best and at worst an unaware and uninformed pov of the grand strategy of the allies to win WW II. Uneducated or unaware indeed, or just plain cynical and malicious by design or purpose.

How fortunate, then, that no-one made any such assertion.

[JohnLeech]

Similarly, Thailand's official record in the Second World War was even less admirable, especially its "dealings" with the Japanese. Again cynical self-interest do pop up as prime motivation in Thai world relationships.

Presumably you are referring to Thailand's Declarations of War on the USA and Great Britain - the last country ever to make such declarations.

[Publicus]

Given that Thailand had little to contribute to the Great European War (1914-18) in respect to troops or materials, and that the war was in distant Europe among the lunatic Europeans, it's not difficult to recognize or understand the country's minimal (or less) participation. Thailand did send some small contingent to France which remained in the rear and away from front line action. Throughout, the interests of the colonizer European Powers were in conflict with those of Thailand and, more broadly, Indochina. It wasn't until 1926 that Thailand with the assistance of US envoys Elton James and Francis B. Sayre had regained sovereignty against the unequal treaties of the Europeans and continued to stave off colonizing pressures by Britain and France especially.

We well know the argument that the Japanese controlled Thai government of WW II produced forced and also illegal declarations of war against the US and the UK. Thai minister to Washington Seni Pramoj never delivered the illegal declaration of war for several reasons, among them the fact not all members of the Council of Regency had signed it to include Pridi as the Regent head of government, that Thai troops never engaged in actual warfare against allied forces. Consequently, because the declaration was never delivered to the US government, an official state of war never existed. Further, as Regent, Pridi secretly had organized a Thai guerilla force of 50,000 in-country to activate against the occupying Japanese whenever the allies gave the word (which, because of Japan's sudden surrender, never came). The Seri Thai Resistence based in Washington operated in Thailand against the Japanese, working closely with the US Office of Strategic Services (later the CIA). The national Thai police force was a source of rich information to allied intelligence throughout the war in such matters as Japanese troop movements and other matters such as POW camps. Immediately after Japan's surrender, Regent Pridi declared all actions of the Japanese controlled Council of Regency to be null and void, repudiated all agreements the Council had made with Japan and extracted the resignation of PM Khuang Aphaiwong on grounds of his association with Japan even as Japan was losing the war. Pridi further moved to restore a democratic government, also inviting Seni to return from Washington to become PM.

None the less, immediately after the war the British government declared Thailand to have been an enemy while the US government declared Thailand to have been an ally. The British government finally relented on their long list of demands against Thailand, to include making the country a British regency and protectorate, but only after strong and sustained US pressure to do so. The French however had their way with Thailand, forcing the return in 1947 of all Thai occupied pre-war French provinces of Indochina in return for France withdrawing its threat to veto Thai membership of the new United Nations.

I'm also pleased that it's more clear to certain posters that all the allies of the European Theater of War shared in the heavy lifiting required to defeat Nazi Germany.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Publicus

[JohnLeech]

I find it hard to believe that you are so misinformed that you genuinely believe what you are posting is factually correct when it is so clearly contradicted by historial evidence. I have taken the liberty of editing the relevant parts, as there are too many incorrect "facts" to correct en-masse:

Given that Thailand had little to contribute to the Great European War (1914-18) in respect to troops or materials, and that the war was in distant Europe among the lunatic Europeans, it's not difficult to recognize or understand the country's minimal (or less) participation.

There was no "Great European War" from 1914-1918. There was the Great War (prior to World War Two, after which it was known as World War One); even the few dated American historians that referred to WWI as the European War realised that the war also included the "non-European" Eastern front, the African campaigns, India, and New Zealand, Australian, Japanese and Chinese actions in Asia and the Pacific.

Thailand sent over 1,000 troops to join the Allies in 1917, hoping to win some influence over Britain, France and the USA. 19 were killed on the Western Front and their names can be found on the war memorial in Sanam Luang; the female nurses in the medical unit were probably the only women to actually serve in the trenches on the Western Front. Articles 135, 136 and 137 of the Treaty of Versailles solely concern Thailand.

It wasn't until 1926 that Thailand with the assistance of US envoys Elton James and Francis B. Sayre had regained sovereignty against the unequal treaties of the Europeans and continued to stave off colonizing pressures by Britain and France especially.

Thailand's opposition to external terrritorial claims concerned three countries: France, Britain and the USA. France and Britain relinquished any claims to territorial rights in 1925 (February and July respectively), as the USA had done in 1920.

Thai minister to Washington Seni Pramoj never delivered the illegal declaration of war for several reasons, among them the fact not all members of the Council of Regency had signed it to include Pridi as the Regent head of government,

Probably high among the reasons was the US Secretary of State Cordell Hull offering him all the money belonging to Thais which they had frozen in US accounts. Pridi was not the "Regent head of government" at the time; Chao Phraya Pichayenyothin was. Pridi was given the post of Regent after Chao's death as a purely nominal one by Phibun when Phibun removed him from the Council for not signing the declaraton.

Pridi secretly had organized a Thai guerilla force of 50,000 in-country to activate against the occupying Japanese whenever the allies gave the word (which, because of Japan's sudden surrender, never came). The Seri Thai Resistence based in Washington operated in Thailand against the Japanese, working closely with the US Office of Strategic Services (later the CIA).

The Seri Thai, as an organised unit, was never anywhere near 50,000 in number and at its peak it numbered around 5,000; it was also parallelled by the Seri Thai Movement in the UK.

Regent Pridi declared all actions of the Japanese controlled Council of Regency to be null and void, repudiated all agreements the Council had made with Japan and extracted the resignation of PM Khuang Aphaiwong on grounds of his association with Japan even as Japan was losing the war. Pridi further moved to restore a democratic government, also inviting Seni to return from Washington to become PM.

This is total fiction. Khuang was a known member of the Seri Thai and he resigned so that democatic elections could be held. He was also the founder of the Democrat party, and re-elected PM after Seni one year later. Pridi was never in a position to make any such declarations under the Thai constitution - his was a purely titular post, with no direct authority.

None the less, immediately after the war the British government declared Thailand to have been an enemy while the US government declared Thailand to have been an ally.

Again, total fiction. The British had declared war on Thailand (and "declared Thailand to have been an enemy") the day after receiving Thailand's declaration of war; as the Thai declaration of war had never been delivered in the USA so they had never reciprocated and they neither declared Thailand an enemy or an ally.

The British government finally relented on their long list of demands against Thailand, to include making the country a British regency and protectorate, but only after strong and sustained US pressure to do so. The French however had their way with Thailand, forcing the return in 1947 of all Thai occupied pre-war French provinces of Indochina in return for France withdrawing its threat to veto Thai membership of the new United Nations.

Fiction yet again. Britain initially wanted to retain some control over Thailand, as it (and the USA and the allies) did over Japan and in Germany; there was never any suggestion that Thailand become a "British regency", whatever that may be. France's point, which was perfectly reasonable, was that Thailand had no rights to France's former colonies as these had been taken over with the assistance of Japan.

I'm also pleased that it's more clear to certain posters that all the allies of the European Theater of War shared in the heavy lifiting required to defeat Nazi Germany.

Your lack of knowledge really is unbelievable; the axis powers were defeated by "all the allies" across the board (Africa, Asia, the Pacific, etc), not just in "the European Theater of War".

None of this has much relevance to this subject (apart from Khuang forming the Democrats), so I really cannot understand why you have to drag up an irrelevant subject you know nothing about in order to demonstrate your ignorance - you do a perfectly adequate job of that in the relevant posts.

[yoshiwara]

What is wrong with this picture?

US has a lot problems at home and abroad, doesn’t give a hood about bunch of Issan farmers or Thaksin’s messily 1.5 billion Dollar. They can spend that in a min

But maybe they can help use the use the Army and Police efficiently for crowd control, if there are really any Police and Army that can be counted on. They for sure have a lot of experience and some success

The US has a finger inn everybodys pie. They meddle in everybody's business. If they dont like something they change it or kill somebody. When they get tired of this situation they'll do something about it

Very silly.

Probably underpinned by annoyance of the US tapping of Thaksin's communications.

[Publicus]

I'll write my statements in blue, after which you of course can again choose your own color - there remain many colors for you to choose from.

I find it hard to believe that you are so misinformed that you genuinely believe what you are posting is factually correct when it is so clearly contradicted by historial evidence. I have taken the liberty of editing the relevant parts, as there are too many incorrect "facts" to correct en-masse:

Given that Thailand had little to contribute to the Great European War (1914-18) in respect to troops or materials, and that the war was in distant Europe among the lunatic Europeans, it's not difficult to recognize or understand the country's minimal (or less) participation.

There was no "Great European War" from 1914-1918. There was the Great War (prior to World War Two, after which it was known as World War One); even the few dated American historians that referred to WWI as the European War realised that the war also included the "non-European" Eastern front, the African campaigns, India, and New Zealand, Australian, Japanese and Chinese actions in Asia and the Pacific.

The Great European War began in Europe and was principally and primarily conducted in Europe. A number of Europeans today continue to refer to the war as the "Great War" not as the Great World War. Other actions in other parts of the world were marginal to the carnage in Europe, primarily in northern France - British Empire troops from India, Australia and New Zealand were involved in the war but of course there wasn't any fighting in such places as Australia or NZ, nor were soldiers of the Central Powers much involved in distant parts of the globe.

Thailand sent over 1,000 troops to join the Allies in 1917, hoping to win some influence over Britain, France and the USA. 19 were killed on the Western Front and their names can be found on the war memorial in Sanam Luang; the female nurses in the medical unit were probably the only women to actually serve in the trenches on the Western Front. Articles 135, 136 and 137 of the Treaty of Versailles solely concern Thailand.

Indeed, this was the exception. The presence of the out of place Thais at the front was politely attributed to "language" complications, after which Thai troops were strictly consigned to the rear areas and remained there despite Thailand's less than successful efforts to get some token mechanized units organized along with a few aircraft to send to Europe (not to China, not to India, not to Australia not to other locales).

It wasn't until 1926 that Thailand with the assistance of US envoys Elton James and Francis B. Sayre had regained sovereignty against the unequal treaties of the Europeans and continued to stave off colonizing pressures by Britain and France especially.

Thailand's opposition to external terrritorial claims concerned three countries: France, Britain and the USA. France and Britain relinquished any claims to territorial rights in 1925 (February and July respectively), as the USA had done in 1920.

No argument on this point so you're also going on about nothing much. It was the USA that joined Thailand to endlessly negotiate with European governments to do what the USA had already done much earlier concerning its much lesser claims. I might add the notation that Extraterritoriality in East Asia (then known as the Far East), if that's what you're on about, was established by the British government mid 19th century. Because you care to be selective and picky, I'd point out that matters in this respect weren't officially settled, signed, sealed and delivered until 1926.

Thai minister to Washington Seni Pramoj never delivered the illegal declaration of war for several reasons, among them the fact not all members of the Council of Regency had signed it to include Pridi as the Regent head of government,

Probably high among the reasons was the US Secretary of State Cordell Hull offering him all the money belonging to Thais which they had frozen in US accounts. Pridi was not the "Regent head of government" at the time; Chao Phraya Pichayenyothin was. Pridi was given the post of Regent after Chao's death as a purely nominal one by Phibun when Phibun removed him from the Council for not signing the declaraton.

Where did I say anything contrary to your statement? In the interests of time and space I decided to omit mention of Phibun...the two weren't exactly pals so that gets in to another story.

Pridi secretly had organized a Thai guerilla force of 50,000 in-country to activate against the occupying Japanese whenever the allies gave the word (which, because of Japan's sudden surrender, never came). The Seri Thai Resistence based in Washington operated in Thailand against the Japanese, working closely with the US Office of Strategic Services (later the CIA).

The Seri Thai, as an organised unit, was never anywhere near 50,000 in number and at its peak it numbered around 5,000; it was also parallelled by the Seri Thai Movement in the UK.

You

Regent Pridi declared all actions of the Japanese controlled Council of Regency to be null and void, repudiated all agreements the Council had made with Japan and extracted the resignation of PM Khuang Aphaiwong on grounds of his association with Japan even as Japan was losing the war. Pridi further moved to restore a democratic government, also inviting Seni to return from Washington to become PM.

This is total fiction. Khuang was a known member of the Seri Thai and he resigned so that democatic elections could be held. He was also the founder of the Democrat party, and re-elected PM after Seni one year later. Pridi was never in a position to make any such declarations under the Thai constitution - his was a purely titular post, with no direct authority.

None the less, immediately after the war the British government declared Thailand to have been an enemy while the US government declared Thailand to have been an ally.

Again, total fiction. The British had declared war on Thailand (and "declared Thailand to have been an enemy") the day after receiving Thailand's declaration of war; as the Thai declaration of war had never been delivered in the USA so they had never reciprocated and they neither declared Thailand an enemy or an ally.

The British government finally relented on their long list of demands against Thailand, to include making the country a British regency and protectorate, but only after strong and sustained US pressure to do so. The French however had their way with Thailand, forcing the return in 1947 of all Thai occupied pre-war French provinces of Indochina in return for France withdrawing its threat to veto Thai membership of the new United Nations.

Fiction yet again. Britain initially wanted to retain some control over Thailand, as it (and the USA and the allies) did over Japan and in Germany; there was never any suggestion that Thailand become a "British regency", whatever that may be. France's point, which was perfectly reasonable, was that Thailand had no rights to France's former colonies as these had been taken over with the assistance of Japan.

I'm also pleased that it's more clear to certain posters that all the allies of the European Theater of War shared in the heavy lifiting required to defeat Nazi Germany.

Your lack of knowledge really is unbelievable; the axis powers were defeated by "all the allies" across the board (Africa, Asia, the Pacific, etc), not just in "the European Theater of War".

None of this has much relevance to this subject (apart from Khuang forming the Democrats), so I really cannot understand why you have to drag up an irrelevant subject you know nothing about in order to demonstrate your ignorance - you do a perfectly adequate job of that in the relevant posts.

[Publicus]

The above post was inadvertently made before it had been completed and should be deleted by mods.

I'll use blue to respond to your red, after which you can choose whichever color you wish to respond further as there remain many other colors to choose from.

I find it hard to believe that you are so misinformed that you genuinely believe what you are posting is factually correct when it is so clearly contradicted by historial evidence. I have taken the liberty of editing the relevant parts, as there are too many incorrect "facts" to correct en-masse:

Given that Thailand had little to contribute to the Great European War (1914-18) in respect to troops or materials, and that the war was in distant Europe among the lunatic Europeans, it's not difficult to recognize or understand the country's minimal (or less) participation.

There was no "Great European War" from 1914-1918. There was the Great War (prior to World War Two, after which it was known as World War One); even the few dated American historians that referred to WWI as the European War realised that the war also included the "non-European" Eastern front, the African campaigns, India, and New Zealand, Australian, Japanese and Chinese actions in Asia and the Pacific.

A number of Euopeans today in coversation refer to the "Great War" not to the "Great World War." Empire troops from India, Australia, NZ were involved in the war but we know no fighting took place down under, and that the "non-European" Eastern Front to which you refer was marginal to the war in Europe which began in Europe and was primarily and principally fought in Europe, northern France in particular. Don't let Lawrence of Arabia capture too much of your imagination and romanticism.

Thailand sent over 1,000 troops to join the Allies in 1917, hoping to win some influence over Britain, France and the USA. 19 were killed on the Western Front and their names can be found on the war memorial in Sanam Luang; the female nurses in the medical unit were probably the only women to actually serve in the trenches on the Western Front. Articles 135, 136 and 137 of the Treaty of Versailles solely concern Thailand.

The meaningless exception which is of no consequence, a faux pas politiely attributed by the allies to "language" problems. Thais spend the war in the rear areas.

It wasn't until 1926 that Thailand with the assistance of US envoys Elton James and Francis B. Sayre had regained sovereignty against the unequal treaties of the Europeans and continued to stave off colonizing pressures by Britain and France especially.

Thailand's opposition to external terrritorial claims concerned three countries: France, Britain and the USA. France and Britain relinquished any claims to territorial rights in 1925 (February and July respectively), as the USA had done in 1920.

No argument here as you're off again creating differences that don't exist. It was the US that assisted Thailand and did so to the Europeans by example, successfully.

Thai minister to Washington Seni Pramoj never delivered the illegal declaration of war for several reasons, among them the fact not all members of the Council of Regency had signed it to include Pridi as the Regent head of government,

Probably high among the reasons was the US Secretary of State Cordell Hull offering him all the money belonging to Thais which they had frozen in US accounts. Pridi was not the "Regent head of government" at the time; Chao Phraya Pichayenyothin was. Pridi was given the post of Regent after Chao's death as a purely nominal one by Phibun when Phibun removed him from the Council for not signing the declaraton.

You're reading into what I wrote and doing so for your own purposes. We know Pridi and Phibun weren't the best of pals so I intentionally omitted further detail as that would lead us to another account of Thai history.

Pridi secretly had organized a Thai guerilla force of 50,000 in-country to activate against the occupying Japanese whenever the allies gave the word (which, because of Japan's sudden surrender, never came). The Seri Thai Resistence based in Washington operated in Thailand against the Japanese, working closely with the US Office of Strategic Services (later the CIA).

The Seri Thai, as an organised unit, was never anywhere near 50,000 in number and at its peak it numbered around 5,000; it was also parallelled by the Seri Thai Movement in the UK.

You are reading selectively that which you want to find for your own purposes - no surprise and nothing new. When did I say the Seri Thai numbered 50,000? My statement clearly refers to a separate guerilla force covertly organized by Pridi (I now would add for clarification in cooperation with the Seri Thai and the OSS) to be activated against the Japanese on the word from the allies. The guerilla force existed apart from the Seri Thai but in cooperation with the Seri Thai.

Regent Pridi declared all actions of the Japanese controlled Council of Regency to be null and void, repudiated all agreements the Council had made with Japan and extracted the resignation of PM Khuang Aphaiwong on grounds of his association with Japan even as Japan was losing the war. Pridi further moved to restore a democratic government, also inviting Seni to return from Washington to become PM.

This is total fiction. Khuang was a known member of the Seri Thai and he resigned so that democatic elections could be held. He was also the founder of the Democrat party, and re-elected PM after Seni one year later. Pridi was never in a position to make any such declarations under the Thai constitution - his was a purely titular post, with no direct authority.

Kindly see: "Thailand: A Short History" by David K. Wyatt, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, 1998, pp 261.

None the less, immediately after the war the British government declared Thailand to have been an enemy while the US government declared Thailand to have been an ally.

Again, total fiction. The British had declared war on Thailand (and "declared Thailand to have been an enemy") the day after receiving Thailand's declaration of war; as the Thai declaration of war had never been delivered in the USA so they had never reciprocated and they neither declared Thailand an enemy or an ally.

The Brits after the war reiterated Thailand as an enemy and the US made clear it considered Thailand to have been an ally. The Brits were, shall we say, put out that the Japanese had used Thailand to seize Malay and Singapore so were pretty sore about it all. Thailand had surrendered to Japan within 24 hours of Japan's invasion of Thailand because the futility of resisting Japan was easily recognized. Among British post war demands of Thailand was the handing over 1.5 million tons of free rice.

The British government finally relented on their long list of demands against Thailand, to include making the country a British regency and protectorate, but only after strong and sustained US pressure to do so. The French however had their way with Thailand, forcing the return in 1947 of all Thai occupied pre-war French provinces of Indochina in return for France withdrawing its threat to veto Thai membership of the new United Nations.

Fiction yet again. Britain initially wanted to retain some control over Thailand, as it (and the USA and the allies) did over Japan and in Germany; there was never any suggestion that Thailand become a "British regency", whatever that may be. France's point, which was perfectly reasonable, was that Thailand had no rights to France's former colonies as these had been taken over with the assistance of Japan.

Ibid, Wyatt. France blackmailed Thailand into surrendering territories by threatening to veto Thai entry to the UN. Despicable.

I'm also pleased that it's more clear to certain posters that all the allies of the European Theater of War shared in the heavy lifiting required to defeat Nazi Germany.

Your lack of knowledge really is unbelievable; the axis powers were defeated by "all the allies" across the board (Africa, Asia, the Pacific, etc), not just in "the European Theater of War".

You are one of several posters who seeks to diminish the US role in the Second World War, in particular in the European Theater, by attempting to assign a disproportionate role to the Soviet Union. Yes, as I've noted, the Soviets took a beating while beating up on the Germans in the Soviet Union. The allies took a beating too along the entire Western Front from N Africa to Italy to Normandy into Germany. Air losses were particularly great. Your distortions and revisionist history need to be corrected so that the realities of the war might not be misrepresented by your own prejudices and pursuant purposes.

None of this has much relevance to this subject (apart from Khuang forming the Democrats), so I really cannot understand why you have to drag up an irrelevant subject you know nothing about in order to demonstrate your ignorance - you do a perfectly adequate job of that in the relevant posts.

You obviously miss the Thai - US connection in the two great world wars of the twentieth century since and up to the present, which is directly related to the title of the thread.

Excuse me now as I have work to do.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Publicus

[Publicus]

I am always amazed at the number of ignorant people who are members of this site!

They have no ability to read a thread and follow it in any sensible manner....

Many of you also think it is a mark of your intelligence to bad mouth USA without having any idea of what the USA does to help people around the world.

As far as USA's effort in Africa just google the amount of money that the Bush administration initiated with efforts still continuing to provide medical care to literally MILLIONS of people living living in Africa.

And as far as Thailand is concerned not only does USA support the military financially, but also provides MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS.

Is USA perfect? NO not by any means but it certainly doesnt deserve to be dragged in the mud by a bunch of uneducated farangs!

Agrred I am tired of USA bashing, truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you and ever here of the marshal plan? When the USA rebuilt the rubble of Europe, get a life

Its a rather unpleasant and pointless argument, but in terms of casualties taken and inflicted in WWII I think you'll find that Russia actually "won the second war" for the rest of us by a considerable and often forgotten margin.

As for financial support for the Thai military, I think you'll also find that since the end of the VIetnam era, when US assistance was hardly unconditional, their "support" has been confined to JUSMAG.

"MILLIONS of dollars for the education, prevention and treatment of AIDS"? Well, the US did fund and run a major trial in Thailand run by the US military using Thai volunteers, but that could hardly be described as altruistic.

"uneducated farangs"? I can't help wondering if they are considered "uneducated" because they post here, or because of their views on the USA (or both). While it may, in any case, be correct, judging by a lot of the posts here, uninformed would be a more apt description than uneducated;

My first highlighting of your remarks in Red (a favorite color of yours, and I recognize and respect that you are indeed entitled to your favorite Soviet and PRC color if that's what it may be ) is so I can pose the question: How did Russia manage to have "won the second world war" for the rest of the world and somehow have supposedly done so "by a considerable margin?" This is indeed a wild and unsupportable, unsubstantiated grab of fantasy and gross overstatement made arbitrarily and capriciously out of the fog of blue smoke and mirrors.

Fifty-five million people lost their lives during the Second World Conflagration. A major initial contributing factor to the carnage is that Stalin's Soviet Russia signed a non agression pact with Nazi Germany which freed Germany to attack and temporarily divide Poland between the two, initiating the second world war in Europe in as many generations, then to conquer western Europe. After which Hitler of course set out against the Russian Soviet Union and the equally idiotic Stalin in a racist war of conquest against the peasant and undermenchen slavs.

Because equally racist Japan made clear to Stalin it wasn't interested - read, capable - of simultaneously waging war on two fronts against the then Soviet Union and as planned then executed against the United States, beginning with its horrible and ultimately catatastrophic Pearl Harbor attack, Stalin could shift trainloads of the Red Army from the Russian East to battle against the invading Nazi Germans in the West. The Soviets fought on one front in Soviet Russia proper, the Eastern Front, while the allies led by the United States fought in both the Pacific Theater of War and in the European Theater of War.

The Russian Soviets of Stalin of the time won the second world war? And because of its 20 million casualties by a considerable margin?? Hey, the Soviet Russians in the European Theater of War and in World War Ii itself, more than anyone else, actually won the second world war? Yeah, in the same way the Russian Soviets actually won the Cold War - i.e., not at all. Even anyone loyal to the People's Republic of China, and there are some around here who are so, will state the fact that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in mid 1945 only weeks before the surrender of Japan. Worse, the Soviets of the time then proceded to claim parts of China and began their run down the Korean Peninsula until the United States sent troops to stop Stalin's totalitarian communists to at least create a US protectorate south of the 38th parallel, the Republic of Korea (S Korea) whose sovereign country of 48 million people in 2008 attained the great success of thier GDP exceeding USD $1 trillion and which easily enjoys a GDP per person of ten times that of the PRC with its hopeless overpopulation problem which forseeably endangers global peace.

The bottom line in respect to your reference above is that one can be both educated and informed but, due to natural biases, red preledictions and prejudices, still can and does speak from the margins of society and history.

[kissdani]

My first highlighting of your remarks in Red (a favorite color of yours, and I recognize and respect that you are indeed entitled to your favorite Soviet and PRC color if that's what it may be ) is so I can pose the question: How did Russia manage to have "won the second world war" for the rest of the world and somehow have supposedly done so "by a considerable margin?" This is indeed a wild and unsupportable, unsubstantiated grab of fantasy and gross overstatement made arbitrarily and capriciously out of the fog of blue smoke and mirrors.

...

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

Maybe you should read some history books that aren't only US-centric and propagandistic.

[Publicus]

My first highlighting of your remarks in Red (a favorite color of yours, and I recognize and respect that you are indeed entitled to your favorite Soviet and PRC color if that's what it may be ) is so I can pose the question: How did Russia manage to have "won the second world war" for the rest of the world and somehow have supposedly done so "by a considerable margin?" This is indeed a wild and unsupportable, unsubstantiated grab of fantasy and gross overstatement made arbitrarily and capriciously out of the fog of blue smoke and mirrors.

...

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

Maybe you should read some history books that aren't only US-centric and propagandistic.

Thanks for the presumptuous advice (not really of course).

I've been abroad 13 years in several countries of East Asia and well know the comparasions and contrasts between my own native society, culture and civilization and opposite ones. In my USA education I read Lord Bertram Russell's suggestion that if one wants to learn about the values and principles of one's own native society, one should go abroad to learn opposite ones.

Concomitantly, perhaps you and certain others might consider learning realistically about the United States of America, its ontological and dynamic demographic, cultural, societial and civilizational trends. President Obama might be a good starting point, but there are others such as Lincoln, the Roosevelts, the Irish Kennedys, the idiot Bush, the fascist Reagan, Bill Gates and so many diverse others.

One thing for sure is that I don't go to Wikipedia nor do I recommend the site as anyone of any level of pedestrian intellect, bias, prejudice, prelediction can and does write there, thanks again.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Publicus

[kissdani]

My first highlighting of your remarks in Red (a favorite color of yours, and I recognize and respect that you are indeed entitled to your favorite Soviet and PRC color if that's what it may be ) is so I can pose the question: How did Russia manage to have "won the second world war" for the rest of the world and somehow have supposedly done so "by a considerable margin?" This is indeed a wild and unsupportable, unsubstantiated grab of fantasy and gross overstatement made arbitrarily and capriciously out of the fog of blue smoke and mirrors.

...

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

Maybe you should read some history books that aren't only US-centric and propagandistic.

Thanks for the presumptive advice (not really of course).

I've been abroad 13 years in several countries of East Asia and well know the comparasions and contrasts between my own native society, culture and civilization and opposite ones. Perhaps you and certain others might consider learning realistically about the United States of America and its demographic, cultural, societial and civilizational trends. President Obama might be a good starting point.

I don't go to Wikipedia nor do I recommend the site as anyone of any level of pedestrian intellect, bias, prejudice, prelediction can and does write there, thanks again..

[Publicus]

My first highlighting of your remarks in Red (a favorite color of yours, and I recognize and respect that you are indeed entitled to your favorite Soviet and PRC color if that's what it may be ) is so I can pose the question: How did Russia manage to have "won the second world war" for the rest of the world and somehow have supposedly done so "by a considerable margin?" This is indeed a wild and unsupportable, unsubstantiated grab of fantasy and gross overstatement made arbitrarily and capriciously out of the fog of blue smoke and mirrors.

...

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

Maybe you should read some history books that aren't only US-centric and propagandistic.

Thanks for the presumptive advice (not really of course).

I've been abroad 13 years in several countries of East Asia and well know the comparasions and contrasts between my own native society, culture and civilization and opposite ones. Perhaps you and certain others might consider learning realistically about the United States of America and its demographic, cultural, societial and civilizational trends. President Obama might be a good starting point.

I don't go to Wikipedia nor do I recommend the site as anyone of any level of pedestrian intellect, bias, prejudice, prelediction can and does write there, thanks again..

My god, some open minds around here would be most welcome. Given your focus and obsession, allow me to say President Obama has eliminated and reduced more Pentagon military programs than predecessors since the fascist Reagan combined. The US bore the cost of the Cold War to include my military service during it - information concerning your contribution to defeating totalitarian communism would be welcome to the ears of myself and many others thank you.

There are a lot of people around here openly or clandestinely advocating the government, society and civilization of the People's Republic of China, to inclue some of the Redshirts whose heels are dug in until Thaksin can possibly get his way with further raping Thailand.

Any of us are free to challenge the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Few of us do. Should Gandhi have received the prize? Jimmy Carter did. Al Gore did. Barak Obama did. Woodrow Wilson did. The United States as a nation of receipients leads the list. You'd like to see the USA leave itself open to bin Laden and his kind, vulnerable to the fascist government of the People's Republic of China and their kind?

You're free to do so, much as Neville Chamberlain was and did. And we know history's judgement in his instance, and concerning others like him.

Next 'clever' post please.........

[Publicus]

My first highlighting of your remarks in Red (a favorite color of yours, and I recognize and respect that you are indeed entitled to your favorite Soviet and PRC color if that's what it may be ) is so I can pose the question: How did Russia manage to have "won the second world war" for the rest of the world and somehow have supposedly done so "by a considerable margin?" This is indeed a wild and unsupportable, unsubstantiated grab of fantasy and gross overstatement made arbitrarily and capriciously out of the fog of blue smoke and mirrors.

...

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

Maybe you should read some history books that aren't only US-centric and propagandistic.

Thanks for the presumptuous advice (not really of course).

I've been abroad 13 years in several countries of East Asia and well know the comparasions and contrasts between my own native society, culture and civilization and opposite ones. In my USA education I read Lord Bertram Russell's suggestion that if one wants to learn about the values and principles of one's own native society, one should go abroad to learn opposite ones.

Concomitantly, perhaps you and certain others might consider learning realistically about the United States of America, its ontological and dynamic demographic, cultural, societial and civilizational trends. President Obama might be a good starting point, but there are others such as Lincoln, the Roosevelts, the Irish Kennedys, the idiot Bush, the fascist Reagan, Bill Gates and so many diverse others.

One thing for sure is that I don't go to Wikipedia nor do I recommend the site as anyone of any level of pedestrian intellect, bias, prejudice, prelediction can and does write there, thanks again.

This is my full post which you fail to present in your replies. Altho you don't indicate any editing by you of my full reply post, I won't question or try to infer your reason(s) for failing to present my full reply post in your reply posts. I guess maybe you missed something which would not be a surprise. (I do often edit my posts.)

Edited May 9, 2010 by Publicus