Thai Foreign Ministry Plays Down Speculation Of US Intervention

[mazeltov]

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..

^^ asking for it...

Get A BRAIN! MORANS... GO USA!!!

[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..

^^ asking for it...

Get A BRAIN! MORANS... GO USA!!!

I myself have been meaning to install spellcheck in my pc.

[mazeltov]

^^ asking for it...

Get A BRAIN! MORANS... GO USA!!!

I myself have been meaning to install spellcheck in my pc.

This boy, a patriotic US-American, obviously got some brain and didn't used pc to write his signs. GO USA!!! 5555

[Publicus]

^^ asking for it...

Get A BRAIN! MORANS... GO USA!!!

I myself have been meaning to install spellcheck in my pc.

This boy, a patriotic US-American, obviously got some brain and didn't used pc to write his signs. GO USA!!! 5555

[kissdani]

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.)

Sorry, i edit nothing in your post and i quote your entry exactly as it was written and add to TVF by nobody else but yourself. So i don't have to indicate any edits.

It was you who had done all the edits and changes of your post after it was published and you fail to indicate what kind of edits you have done, but the board software states: This post has been edited by Publicus

If you do such edits often i recommend that you lower your pace of writing and sending comments. Wait 5-10 minutes or longer before you finally upload your post, don't act overhasty, take your time, have a second thought and re-think until yourself are satisfied with a final version that you consider as perfect to send and that don't need any additional changes.

You fail to realise that you have to blame yourself.

Don't be a crybaby if someone ignores the words and meaning of your 'full post'. A 'full post' that you might edit yourself 5 minutes later, complete re-write it and lose any memory of its previous version.

[Publicus]

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.)

Sorry, i edit nothing in your post and i quote your entry exactly as it was written and add to TVF by nobody else but yourself. So i don't have to indicate any edits.

It was you who had done all the edits and changes of your post after it was published and you fail to indicate what kind of edits you have done, but the board software states: This post has been edited by Publicus

If you do such edits often i recommend that you lower your pace of writing and sending comments. Wait 5-10 minutes or longer before you finally upload your post, don't act overhasty, take your time, have a second thought and re-think until yourself are satisfied with a final version that you consider as perfect to send and that don't need any additional changes.

You fail to realise that you have to blame yourself.

Don't be a crybaby if someone ignores the words and meaning of your 'full post'. A 'full post' that you might edit yourself 5 minutes later, complete re-write it and lose any memory of its previous version.

Don't need the presumptiously scolding lecture thanks, or the silliness of posting your own textbook instructions. My comment is directly to the point that you repeatedly quoted a post that quickly after posting had been somewhat edited. You never noticed or gave attention to the routine board rule that posts remain open to editing for a short time, or to the long established and often used option to edit a given post.

Enuff said from here.

[SpoliaOpima]

I have wondered about the silence of the US...usually the US is so vocal when it comes to free speech and democracy around the world; in my view, often the comment is appropriate and fair, but sometimes it is self serving hypocrisy to cover some less than excellent behavior on their part.

Being an American citizen I do read the US press...if you had read the thousands of column inches given to Chavez' closure of one anti-government TV station, you would have thought that thewhole Western hemisphere was about to collapse...why the deafening silence when Abhisit closes down all anti-government TV stations, web-sits and radio stations here in Thailand?

Or when armies mow down their protesting citizens there is usually some statement from the US condemning the act (unless it's Israel doing the mowing down, of course) since the US the military doesn't intervene in civil matters, which are handled by the police force...in this case, again nothing but a bland statement calling for a peaceful solution.

Another double standard if you like, showing you that Thailand is not the only country with double standards.

Personally, I think that the US are just waiting to see who 'wins' and then resume the relationship...incidentally the silence speaks volumes about the importance of Thailand to the US....ie I guess there're really not that interested in trying to solve another insoluble dispute on top of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine....

Not much difference is there really between Abhisit's government and the US administration. Both total hypocrites.

The lack of condemnation by the US of the Thai government's recent unlawful activities - as high-lighted in the nested post (retarius) speaks volumes about whose side they're really on. They obviously tacitly support this current undemocratic government in Thailand. But then they would - wouldn't they.

The truth of the situation appears to be that the US supports the lawfully elected, democratic government and condemns the undemocratic, mob-rule tactics of the Redshirts. Afraid you have it twisted around somehow. Listening to Comrade Weng's speeches can cause brain damage.

[justasken]

I have wondered about the silence of the US...usually the US is so vocal when it comes to free speech and democracy around the world; in my view, often the comment is appropriate and fair, but sometimes it is self serving hypocrisy to cover some less than excellent behavior on their part.

Being an American citizen I do read the US press...if you had read the thousands of column inches given to Chavez' closure of one anti-government TV station, you would have thought that thewhole Western hemisphere was about to collapse...why the deafening silence when Abhisit closes down all anti-government TV stations, web-sits and radio stations here in Thailand?

Or when armies mow down their protesting citizens there is usually some statement from the US condemning the act (unless it's Israel doing the mowing down, of course) since the US the military doesn't intervene in civil matters, which are handled by the police force...in this case, again nothing but a bland statement calling for a peaceful solution.

Another double standard if you like, showing you that Thailand is not the only country with double standards.

Personally, I think that the US are just waiting to see who 'wins' and then resume the relationship...incidentally the silence speaks volumes about the importance of Thailand to the US....ie I guess there're really not that interested in trying to solve another insoluble dispute on top of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine....

Not much difference is there really between Abhisit's government and the US administration. Both total hypocrites.

The lack of condemnation by the US of the Thai government's recent unlawful activities - as high-lighted in the nested post (retarius) speaks volumes about whose side they're really on. They obviously tacitly support this current undemocratic government in Thailand. But then they would - wouldn't they.

The truth of the situation appears to be that the US supports the lawfully elected, democratic government and condemns the undemocratic, mob-rule tactics of the Redshirts. Afraid you have it twisted around somehow. Listening to Comrade Weng's speeches can cause brain damage.

America said it supports Thailand.

It did not say anything about supporting this government or the next.

It expressed its good wishes for a peaceful solution.

BUT

Obama is President.

He was a Harvard law professor.

He is a Black man.

He is a card carrying holder of the American bar Association.

He is a member of the NAACP.

Very Likely, he would be very very hostile to seeing dark skinned poor people from NE Thailand being shot down in the streets.

Just thinking

But yes.

It is Thailand's business.

But the west could do to Thailand what it has done to Myanmar, trade sanctions, if Thailand were to go to far. Last time I looked, the economy in Myanmar is trashed.

[Publicus]

Given the developments of today, which is the topic of a separate thread centered on US AsstSec DEPSTATE Kurt M. Campbell in Thailand at the time of this post, many harsh and unrelenting critics of the US concerning its public low visibility concerns about Thailand now have to pirouette in a rather specatular and whirling fashion. Show us your stuff .

[animatic]

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..

^^ asking for it...

Get A BRAIN! MORANS... GO USA!!!

So.... you figure guys at sports events are the mean average of a nations intelligence... ???

Is this your idea of: "learning realistically about the United States of America

and its demographic, cultural, societal and civilizational trends."

Oh my gosh what a literary death blow you have swung...

Besides the fact I have a high school friend called Morans, not Moran, nor moron.

Lowering your level of discourse to the nether regions does no good to anyone, but especially YOU.

Edited May 9, 2010 by animatic

[Totsagan]

I think you all better check your facts regarding Amercia and WWII.

If it wasn't for Amercians like William Holden, then Alec Guinness would not have realized his mistake and blown up the bridge, thereby ending World War II.

us_flag.bmp

[Publicus]

I think you all better check your facts regarding Amercia and WWII.

If it wasn't for Amercians like William Holden, then Alec Guinness would not have realized his mistake and blown up the bridge, thereby ending World War II.

us_flag.bmp

The key and fulcrum of the outcome of the entire world at war was the stunning but modest Thai gal who fell in platonic love with the Brit appointed simulated Major Wm Holden, thus inspiring him to swim the Kwai, be shot to death by the Japanese soldiers, which then caused Guinness (the person not the beer) to collapse on the detonator thus blasting his beloved bridge to smithereens, consequently winning the whole and entire war for the allies. Without the luscious Thai gal, surely the war would have been lost and we'd now be bilingual only in German and Japanese.

So you, I and thousands of others of we farang thank the heavens above for our tendersweet farang loving Thai gals - all of 'em

[yoshiwara]

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.

Russia might not have suffered so many military deaths if Stalin had not decimated the officer corps of the Red Army during the Stalinist purges of the 1930s.

There's a nice little pie chart there.

Also as a result of the Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany pact Russia was woefully unprepared when Hitler attacked.

All of the Communist parties which emerged after the end of WWII, including the Thai CP were thoroughly Stalinist and wedded to the bankrupt theory of Socialism in One Country and defence of the USSR.

Although after the collapse of the USSR in 1989, many CPs in Europe dissolved, some did not and the old Stalinist traditions persist ... kissdani and JL sound about right pushing the USSR 'good' USA 'bad' line which no doubt is being peddled inside the red group by a pro-CP grouplet.

The problem for the organised Thai left is that it is weak and needs to pursue a 'deep entrist' strategy.

That some of it (CP) ends up in Thaksin's pocket is its tragedy, but also consistent with its dirty history.

Edited May 9, 2010 by yoshiwara

[Totsagan]

I think you all better check your facts regarding Amercia and WWII.

If it wasn't for Amercians like William Holden, then Alec Guinness would not have realized his mistake and blown up the bridge, thereby ending World War II.

us_flag.bmp

The key and fulcrum of the outcome of the entire world at war was the stunning but modest Thai gal who fell in platonic love with the Brit appointed simulated Major Wm Holden, thus inspiring him to swim the Kwai, be shot to death by the Japanese soldiers, which then caused Guinness (the person not the beer) to collapse on the detonator thus blasting his beloved bridge to smithereens, consequently winning the whole and entire war for the allies. Without the luscious Thai gal, surely the war would have been lost and we'd now be bilingual only in German and Japanese.

So you, I and thousands of others of we farang thank the heavens above for our tendersweet farang loving Thai gals - all of 'em

I stand corrected. To William Holden and the Thai girl on the banks of the River Kwai

[Publicus]

I think you all better check your facts regarding Amercia and WWII.

If it wasn't for Amercians like William Holden, then Alec Guinness would not have realized his mistake and blown up the bridge, thereby ending World War II.

us_flag.bmp

The key and fulcrum of the outcome of the entire world at war was the stunning but modest Thai gal who fell in platonic love with the Brit appointed simulated Major Wm Holden, thus inspiring him to swim the Kwai, be shot to death by the Japanese soldiers, which then caused Guinness (the person not the beer) to collapse on the detonator thus blasting his beloved bridge to smithereens, consequently winning the whole and entire war for the allies. Without the luscious Thai gal, surely the war would have been lost and we'd now be bilingual only in German and Japanese.

So you, I and thousands of others of we farang thank the heavens above for our tendersweet farang loving Thai gals - all of 'em

I stand corrected. To William Holden and the Thai girl on the banks of the River Kwai

No correction necessary, all of us are on the same page whether making glbt or straight night time airbone insertions....daytime insertions are good too...

It's like Times, Trafalgar, Red (opps, exclude Thailand!) Square or other gathering points in the deserved euphoria of 1945...there always are the banks but unlike Thaksin we enjoy the ones on the rivers and the naam toks of the beautiful former LOS....

As to the communist People's Republic of China posters...they as in the case of their failed predecessors are also pissing up a rope

Edited May 10, 2010 by Publicus

[yoshiwara]

As to the communist People's Republic of China posters...they as in the case of their failed predecessors are also pissing up a rope

the proto Thai CP positions pushing a pro-Russia line would not be the same as the Maoist pro-China line-up.

The split between the pro-Russian CPs and the Maoists was never healed.

Left-wing expat red supporters are mostly holidaying liberals with who have sucked up all the red class-war bullshit.

Sort of Lib Dem supporters on speed.

[JohnLeech]

Well, what a hornet's nest, with far more discussion and response than Publicus' uninformed post deserves.

Kissdani, thanks for posting the pie chart which puts one side of the casualties into perspective. Far more telling is a comparison of the number of casualties with the size of the respective population but, as I said elsewhere, I consider all such comparisons to be both unpleasant and pointless, and to prove very little. I have never met anyone who has served operationally at length in the military, from any country, who would make any such comparisons and the only people who claim "we saved your ass" (or words to that effect) are those who have done so from the safety of an armchair. Sad.

Unfortunately for the many educated and informed Americans around they are routinely eclipsed by the likes of Publicus and his frind animatic who are merely verbose.

I did not, for example, say that Russia alone won the Second World War by a considerable margin, as his editing of my post implies; what I actually said, unedited, was that "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". Hardly the same thing.

Nor, by any stretch of the imagination (or even by any stretch of editing) can I be construed as "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." I have not tried to downplay the considerable part played by the US in any war - what I did was disagree with the childish and jingoistic claim (by a third party) that "truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you". Again, far from the same thing.

Publicus, sadly, appears to be some sort of relic left over from the days of McCarthyism who happily re-writes history to suit his own ends. In Korea, for example, his version of history that "...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)" never happened as he described it. The Soviets reached the 38th parallel on 26 August 1945, and waited there for three weeks before the first American forces arrived. The Allies had already divided Korea at the 38th parallel, without consulting the Koreans (the Koreans were actually excluded from the Moscow conference) and in complete contradiction of the Cairo Conference, and the US Military Governor (Gen Hodge) ended any chance of a united Korea by refusing to recognise the People's Republic of Korea and outlawing the PRK government simply because it was communist even though it was accepted by both the North and the South.

I should add that I have spent some time travelling throughout the States and found them to be the most open, welcoming and generous people you could wish to meet - outdone only by the Bedouin and the Dhofari (and that is a serious compliment). Unfortunately I also found them to be the most bigoted and the worst informed - again, coincidentally, outdone only by the Bedouin and the Dhofari (and that is a serious criticism).

(edited to close paragraph spacing).

Edited May 10, 2010 by JohnLeech

[Publicus]

Well, what a hornet's nest, with far more discussion and response than Publicus' uninformed post deserves.

Kissdani, thanks for posting the pie chart which puts one side of the casualties into perspective. Far more telling is a comparison of the number of casualties with the size of the respective population but, as I said elsewhere, I consider all such comparisons to be both unpleasant and pointless, and to prove very little. I have never met anyone who has served operationally at length in the military, from any country, who would make any such comparisons and the only people who claim "we saved your ass" (or words to that effect) are those who have done so from the safety of an armchair. Sad.

Unfortunately for the many educated and informed Americans around they are routinely eclipsed by the likes of Publicus and his frind animatic who are merely verbose.

I did not, for example, say that Russia alone won the Second World War by a considerable margin, as his editing of my post implies; what I actually said, unedited, was that "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". Hardly the same thing.

Nor, by any stretch of the imagination (or even by any stretch of editing) can I be construed as "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." I have not tried to downplay the considerable part played by the US in any war - what I did was disagree with the childish and jingoistic claim (by a third party) that "truth is most of you Brits would not be here had the US not won the second war for you". Again, far from the same thing.

Publicus, sadly, appears to be some sort of relic left over from the days of McCarthyism who happily re-writes history to suit his own ends. In Korea, for example, his version of history that "...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)" never happened as he described it. The Soviets reached the 38th parallel on 26 August 1945, and waited there for three weeks before the first American forces arrived. The Allies had already divided Korea at the 38th parallel, without consulting the Koreans (the Koreans were actually excluded from the Moscow conference) and in complete contradiction of the Cairo Conference, and the US Military Governor (Gen Hodge) ended any chance of a united Korea by refusing to recognise the People's Republic of Korea and outlawing the PRK government simply because it was communist even though it was accepted by both the North and the South.

I should add that I have spent some time travelling throughout the States and found them to be the most open, welcoming and generous people you could wish to meet - outdone only by the Bedouin and the Dhofari (and that is a serious compliment). Unfortunately I also found them to be the most bigoted and the worst informed - again, coincidentally, outdone only by the Bedouin and the Dhofari (and that is a serious criticism).

(edited to close paragraph spacing).

The Soviets stopped their headlong rush down the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel only to avoid an impending combat against US and allied troops after it was announced the latter would be sent. Among those establishing the 38th parallel as the new border between the two Koreas was a future secretary of state (to Pres Kennely) Dean Rusk.

The totalitarian dictators Kim Il-Sung and Stalin created the impossibility of a post war united Korea. In contrast US Military Governor LTG John Hodge from 1945 to 1948 hed to get the Japanese out of Korea south of the parallel, face a Korean labor force that had knowledge of picks and shovels and working industrial assembly lines but no experience at management or ownership. With nothing to work with, to include unclear policies from Washington, LTG Hodge held together the Korea south of the 38th parallell as Koreans of the left and right as well as moderates attempted to establish the Korea each wanted as Mao closeby asserted his superior military force against Chiang in China, and Stalin's long grabby reach continued to control Kim in Pyongyang.

Moreover and shamlessly, you grossly and with prejudice fail to mention that the US in 1947 was at last able voluntarily to make the initiative to put the status of S Korea to the UN General Assembly, which recognized Korea's independence. (So here and now I've presented some certain history in a nutshell, same as you do, so kindly desist trying to distort necessarily compacted presentations of history that are obscure to the vast majority of posters, such as the Moscow Conference being the predicate of actions/inactions by the four principal post war participants. You select your references then when another - moi - does the same, you hop, holler, rage and denounce the post as uninformed because it doesn't mention your also limited and fragmented but none the less fundamentally accurately selected facts. This is a tactic tiring and distracting to anyone who might take the time to read your distorted posts.)

Your desperate reach into history to throw McCarthyism into the mix is another revealing tactic you use to

try to redirect my own selected and valid points and arguments away from their applicibility and their validity - not to mention attempts at character assassination. That you have a different selection and take on the same factoids, the applicability and validity of the same factoids, makes you argumentative and (to be kind) a sophist - to be more accurate, a cynic and now a character assassin in these matters.

Further, while you proclaim you like and enjoy the people of the US whom you have met there, you somehow have amazingly managed to find two US expats who you coyly claim are exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US you have met, the two US expats being the only Americans who you absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed." How remarkable! And how remarkable the two US 'derelicts' happen to post at TFV in disagreement to your Red Shirt politics.

[Siam Simon]

Unfortunately for the many educated and informed Americans around they are routinely eclipsed by the likes of Publicus and his frind animatic who are merely verbose.

The Soviets stopped their headlong rush down the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel only to avoid an impending combat against US and allied troops after it was announced the latter would be sent. Among those establishing the 38th parallel as the new border between the two Koreas was a future secretary of state (to Pres Kennely) Dean Rusk.

The totalitarian dictators Kim Il-Sung and Stalin created the impossibility of a post war united Korea. In contrast US Military Governor LTG John Hodge from 1945 to 1948 hed to get the Japanese out of Korea south of the parallel, face a Korean labor force that had knowledge of picks and shovels and working industrial assembly lines but no experience at management or ownership. With nothing to work with, to include unclear policies from Washington, LTG Hodge held together the Korea south of the 38th parallell as Koreans of the left and right as well as moderates attempted to establish the Korea each wanted as Mao closeby asserted his superior military force against Chiang in China, and Stalin's long grabby reach continued to control Kim in Pyongyang.

Moreover and shamlessly, you grossly and with prejudice fail to mention that the US in 1947 was at last able voluntarily to make the initiative to put the status of S Korea to the UN General Assembly, which recognized Korea's independence. (So here and now I've presented some certain history in a nutshell, same as you do, so kindly desist trying to distort necessarily compacted presentations of history that are obscure to the vast majority of posters, such as the Moscow Conference being the predicate of actions/inactions by the four principal post war participants. You select your references then when another - moi - does the same, you hop, holler, rage and denounce the post as uninformed because it doesn't mention your also limited and fragmented but none the less fundamentally accurately selected facts. This is a tactic tiring and distracting to anyone who might take the time to read your distorted posts.)

Your desperate reach into history to throw McCarthyism into the mix is another revealing tactic you use to

try to redirect my own selected and valid points and arguments away from their applicibility and their validity - not to mention attempts at character assassination. That you have a different selection and take on the same factoids, the applicability and validity of the same factoids, makes you argumentative and (to be kind) a sophist - to be more accurate, a cynic and now a character assassin in these matters.

Further, while you proclaim you like and enjoy the people of the US whom you have met there, you somehow have amazingly managed to find two US expats who you coyly claim are exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US you have met, the two US expats being the only Americans who you absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed." How remarkable! And how remarkable the two US 'derelicts' happen to post at TFV in disagreement to your Red Shirt politics.

Verbosity indeedy.

[JohnLeech]

Please stop editing my posts - changing the fonts, colours and content is contrary to board rules.

My replies, not that you appear capable of understanding them or much else written in English, are in a pleasant purple.

The Soviets stopped their headlong rush down the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel only to avoid an impending combat against US and allied troops after it was announced the latter would be sent. Among those establishing the 38th parallel as the new border between the two Koreas was a future secretary of state (to Pres Kennely) Dean Rusk.

Rubbish. The Moscow Conference, also known as the Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers as it was attended by Foreign Ministers James Byrnes of the US, Ernest Bevin of the UK and Vyacheslav Molotov of the Soviet Union met in October 1945 , giving the Soviets military authority to the North of the 38th parallel and the US military authority to the South. Fact. The Soviets agreed to the 38th parallel, even though they could have pushed further South, in return for concessions in Europe. Fact.

The totalitarian dictators Kim Il-Sung and Stalin created the impossibility of a post war united Korea. In contrast US Military Governor LTG John Hodge from 1945 to 1948 hed to get the Japanese out of Korea south of the parallel, face a Korean labor force that had knowledge of picks and shovels and working industrial assembly lines but no experience at management or ownership. With nothing to work with, to include unclear policies from Washington, LTG Hodge held together the Korea south of the 38th parallell as Koreans of the left and right as well as moderates attempted to establish the Korea each wanted as Mao closeby asserted his superior military force against Chiang in China, and Stalin's long grabby reach continued to control Kim in Pyongyang.

Rubbish. Rather than getting the Japanese out of Korea in the south, Hodge's first move was to re-install the Japanese administration and to rely on the Japanese military for intelligence on the Soviets. Fact. Hodge held nothing together - the one thing all Koreans agreed on, whether they supported the left wing PRK or the right-wing RDC, was that they wanted the Americans out of the South and the Russians out of the North, and to be left to resolve their political differences themselves. The US did not want to take the risk that the communists would win, so they broke the agreement reached at the Moscow Conference and declared martial law in the south, polarising the two sides and making a war by proxy likely if not inevitable, along with China, the Soviets, and assorted hangers-on. Fact.

Moreover and shamlessly, you grossly and with prejudice fail to mention that the US in 1947 was at last able voluntarily to make the initiative to put the status of S Korea to the UN General Assembly, which recognized Korea's independence.

Rubbish. The Moscow Conference had agreed a five year trusteeship period (1945-1950) which the US (Hodge and the USAMGIK) rejected once they were in occupation, declaring martial law instead, then imposing a new constitution in the South with no UN mandate in July 1948; as the Soviets were following a similar course of action in the North, the UN then recognised South Korea's independence and the existence of two separate states one month later. Both the US and the Soviets were equally to blame, using a proxy for their own agendas, but the difference was that the Soviets technically stuck to what had been agreed while the US did not; neither, clearly, had any interest in what the Koreans actually wanted at the time.

(So here and now I've presented some certain history in a nutshell, same as you do, so kindly desist trying to distort necessarily compacted presentations of history that are obscure to the vast majority of posters, such as the Moscow Conference being the predicate of actions/inactions by the four (sorry, as I've aready said it was three) principal post war participants. You select your references then when another - moi - does the same, you hop, holler, rage and denounce the post as uninformed because it doesn't mention your also limited and fragmented but none the less fundamentally accurately selected facts. This is a tactic tiring and distracting to anyone who might take the time to read your distorted posts.)

My points are, as you say, fundamentally accurate facts. Yours are instead totally inaccurate "factoids".

Your desperate reach into history to throw McCarthyism into the mix is another revealing tactic you use to

try to redirect my own selected and valid points and arguments away from their applicibility and their validity - not to mention attempts at character assassination. That you have a different selection and take on the same factoids, the applicability and validity of the same factoids, makes you argumentative and (to be kind) a sophist - to be more accurate, a cynic and now a character assassin in these matters.

I only write facts, all of which are easily verifiable. "factoids", which are generally unverified, incorrect or fabricated, and at best questionable ("somethng which becomes accepted as fact, although it may not be true" according to the OED) I leave to you as they appear to be the only thing you are an expert on.

Further, while you proclaim you like and enjoy the people of the US whom you have met there, you somehow have amazingly managed to find two US expats who you coyly claim are exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US you have met, the two US expats being the only Americans who you absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed." How remarkable! And how remarkable the two US 'derelicts' happen to post at TFV in disagreement to your Red Shirt politics.

Nothing "coy" about it and, as usual, you credit me with saying something which is the complete opposite of what I said. Far from saying that the two of you are "exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US (I) have met" and that you are "the only Americans who (I) absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed" I made it very clear that I found more Americans to be bigoted and badly informed as well as open, welcoming and generous than any other group/culture I have spent time with except the Bedu and the Dhofari; that is not to say that all Americans are either bigoted and badly informed, or open, welcoming and generous - just an unusually large proportion. I have also met many who are open-minded and well-informed, as well as many who are grasping and mean-spirited - they are just an unusually small proportion. On that basis, while I cannot comment on your generosity, etc, I would say that you are anything but "the opposite of all others in and of the US (I) have met".

If you think I have ever supported "Red Shirt politics" you are, as usual, totally mistaken. I do not support Abhisit or his government, as I have made very clear, because I consider it to be weak and as corrupt as any other, headed by a good administrator but a poor leader with no chance of uniting the country. Similarly, neither do I support the Red Shirts for similar reasons, although I have mentioned more than once that I think they would be far more acceptable with a dead Thaksin rather than a live one.

"Derelicts" ? There really is little point trying to conduct any sort of debate with someone who does not know the difference between a "relic" and a "derelict", so I don't think I'll bother to try.

Edited May 11, 2010 by JohnLeech

[Publicus]

Please stop editing my posts - changing the fonts, colours and content is contrary to board rules.

My replies, not that you appear capable of understanding them or much else written in English, are in a pleasant purple.

The Soviets stopped their headlong rush down the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel only to avoid an impending combat against US and allied troops after it was announced the latter would be sent. Among those establishing the 38th parallel as the new border between the two Koreas was a future secretary of state (to Pres Kennely) Dean Rusk.

Rubbish. The Moscow Conference, also known as the Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers as it was attended by Foreign Ministers James Byrnes of the US, Ernest Bevin of the UK and Vyacheslav Molotov of the Soviet Union met in October 1945 , giving the Soviets military authority to the North of the 38th parallel and the US military authority to the South. Fact. The Soviets agreed to the 38th parallel, even though they could have pushed further South, in return for concessions in Europe. Fact.

The totalitarian dictators Kim Il-Sung and Stalin created the impossibility of a post war united Korea. In contrast US Military Governor LTG John Hodge from 1945 to 1948 hed to get the Japanese out of Korea south of the parallel, face a Korean labor force that had knowledge of picks and shovels and working industrial assembly lines but no experience at management or ownership. With nothing to work with, to include unclear policies from Washington, LTG Hodge held together the Korea south of the 38th parallell as Koreans of the left and right as well as moderates attempted to establish the Korea each wanted as Mao closeby asserted his superior military force against Chiang in China, and Stalin's long grabby reach continued to control Kim in Pyongyang.

Rubbish. Rather than getting the Japanese out of Korea in the south, Hodge's first move was to re-install the Japanese administration and to rely on the Japanese military for intelligence on the Soviets. Fact. Hodge held nothing together - the one thing all Koreans agreed on, whether they supported the left wing PRK or the right-wing RDC, was that they wanted the Americans out of the South and the Russians out of the North, and to be left to resolve their political differences themselves. The US did not want to take the risk that the communists would win, so they broke the agreement reached at the Moscow Conference and declared martial law in the south, polarising the two sides and making a war by proxy likely if not inevitable, along with China, the Soviets, and assorted hangers-on. Fact.

Moreover and shamlessly, you grossly and with prejudice fail to mention that the US in 1947 was at last able voluntarily to make the initiative to put the status of S Korea to the UN General Assembly, which recognized Korea's independence.

Rubbish. The Moscow Conference had agreed a five year trusteeship period (1945-1950) which the US (Hodge and the USAMGIK) rejected once they were in occupation, declaring martial law instead, then imposing a new constitution in the South with no UN mandate in July 1948; as the Soviets were following a similar course of action in the North, the UN then recognised South Korea's independence and the existence of two separate states one month later. Both the US and the Soviets were equally to blame, using a proxy for their own agendas, but the difference was that the Soviets technically stuck to what had been agreed while the US did not; neither, clearly, had any interest in what the Koreans actually wanted at the time.

(So here and now I've presented some certain history in a nutshell, same as you do, so kindly desist trying to distort necessarily compacted presentations of history that are obscure to the vast majority of posters, such as the Moscow Conference being the predicate of actions/inactions by the four (sorry, as I've aready said it was three) principal post war participants. You select your references then when another - moi - does the same, you hop, holler, rage and denounce the post as uninformed because it doesn't mention your also limited and fragmented but none the less fundamentally accurately selected facts. This is a tactic tiring and distracting to anyone who might take the time to read your distorted posts.)

My points are, as you say, fundamentally accurate facts. Yours are instead totally inaccurate "factoids".

Your desperate reach into history to throw McCarthyism into the mix is another revealing tactic you use to

try to redirect my own selected and valid points and arguments away from their applicibility and their validity - not to mention attempts at character assassination. That you have a different selection and take on the same factoids, the applicability and validity of the same factoids, makes you argumentative and (to be kind) a sophist - to be more accurate, a cynic and now a character assassin in these matters.

I only write facts, all of which are easily verifiable. "factoids", which are generally unverified, incorrect or fabricated, and at best questionable ("somethng which becomes accepted as fact, although it may not be true" according to the OED) I leave to you as they appear to be the only thing you are an expert on.

Further, while you proclaim you like and enjoy the people of the US whom you have met there, you somehow have amazingly managed to find two US expats who you coyly claim are exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US you have met, the two US expats being the only Americans who you absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed." How remarkable! And how remarkable the two US 'derelicts' happen to post at TFV in disagreement to your Red Shirt politics.

Nothing "coy" about it and, as usual, you credit me with saying something which is the complete opposite of what I said. Far from saying that the two of you are "exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US (I) have met" and that you are "the only Americans who (I) absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed" I made it very clear that I found more Americans to be bigoted and badly informed as well as open, welcoming and generous than any other group/culture I have spent time with except the Bedu and the Dhofari; that is not to say that all Americans are either bigoted and badly informed, or open, welcoming and generous - just an unusually large proportion. I have also met many who are open-minded and well-informed, as well as many who are grasping and mean-spirited - they are just an unusually small proportion. On that basis, while I cannot comment on your generosity, etc, I would say that you are anything but "the opposite of all others in and of the US (I) have met".

If you think I have ever supported "Red Shirt politics" you are, as usual, totally mistaken. I do not support Abhisit or his government, as I have made very clear, because I consider it to be weak and as corrupt as any other, headed by a good administrator but a poor leader with no chance of uniting the country. Similarly, neither do I support the Red Shirts for similar reasons, although I have mentioned more than once that I think they would be far more acceptable with a dead Thaksin rather than a live one.

"Derelicts" ? There really is little point trying to conduct any sort of debate with someone who does not know the difference between a "relic" and a "derelict", so I don't think I'll bother to try.

Your comments are purple prose indeed. I grant the purple isn't unpleasant but then we could focus on the nature of your pursuits at this thread, whatever they may be.

You're quite interested in pursuing these matters to the point of being argumentative, a hair splitter whose favorite word "rubbish" has long been predictable and in so being, going farther and farther afield from the thread topic. So I'll be brief given the neverending and unassailable assertions of "fact" as you persistently present of the Korean Peninsula immediately post Second World War, and which are designed to try to obfuscate the same or similar facts I present, by your firing of flairs of rhetoric and the constant tossing about of "rubbish."

Your squabbling and rattling on to yourself and a handful of others from the first discussions of the existence of loyalist units in the army (Thai - you remember those folk, Thailand?) has gone on through a few other obscure points of discussion to your present fixation on the Korean peninsula immediately post WW II. Your common theme is that your side, the Soviets in the instance of Korea as a matter of fact honored their skewed deals and that their subterfuge was in fact sincere negotiation, agreement and execution while, conversely, the fact is that my side - the USA - was wicked and diabolical. Or so your posts could be read to say, as matters of fact.

Briefly and in sequence:

Your above first purple prose flair and claim of fact: The Soviets stopped their aggression on the Korean peninsula in return for allied "concessions" in Europe and that, by implication this was the decision of a rational and reasonable actor, Stalin. If you think this to be fact, you must think again. Indeed, you present so many matters of fact I'm not sure to which "concessions" (plural) in Europe you might be factualizing.

Your second purple prose flair and claim of absolute and undisputable fact : The US provoked Uncle Joe Stalin and his brother in totalitarian communism Kim Il-Sung, two charming innocents of the people's rights, who being such gentle souls never then or later intended to seize S Korea by military force. Well it is fact that Stalin repeatedly denied Kim's neverending requests made over the years that Uncle Joe Stalin approve an invasion of the South...at least until one day in mid 1950 when Stalin finally gave the nod and N Korea did in fact invade to initiate the Korean Conflict (in Korea, the Korean Civil War - fact).

Third purple prose flair of fact : The fact the Soviets "technically" stuck to their agreement to provide tender love and care to the people of the North and to Kim while the fact is the always bad guy US government did not. Your placing of the onus here is onerous and you speak as if you did a Rip van Winkle from 1948 - 1991, having enjoyed pleasant dreams of Uncle Joe and the Great Leader Kim Il-Sung et al.

Fourth purple prose flair of fact: You unsurprsingly are going to present more indisputable facts of history.

Fifth purple prose flair of fact: You write only facts. However, isn't it the obvious given since Cleo the Muse of history that Joe Stalin's facts are not my facts, that bin Ladin's facts are not my facts etc etc? It is elementary that the Communist Party of China's official lines of facts against the USA are bullshit to the utmost. History my friend is interpreted and facts are seen from many varying perspectives. That's a fact.

Trying to maintain some sense of perspective and in particular relevance to the thread topic, I'll leave you now. Your bloviations of the neverending clown's parade of undisputed and irefutable fact, fact, fact, fact, fact and more fact, ad infinitum, ad neauseum has long ago made a mockery of the credibility you are certain you have. This is tedious and monotonous to too many of us, i.e., to spend time past or present reading your interpretations, perspectives, subjectivism, pretense and strong propensity to mire yourself in squabble and pretentiously unassailable facts.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Publicus

[SAW]

Possibly the most boring thread in history.

[Publicus]

Agreed. Accordingly your observation and comment are most welcome.

Perhaps - perhaps - the bloviator who in the past few pages is responsible for the fact will begin to subdue and start to self-restrain himself from further posts that not only are arcane and obtuse but which are outright self indulgent and painfully boring.

I have a policy not to get involved in long and winding pissing matches with off center members (to include their eggers-on in the shadows) but this one time I found it necessary to stoop to that level. I've regretted decending to the same level as the factualizer but the fact is bloviators unfortunately have a blind spot to self-embarrassment.

Let's hope for the best from this point forward.

[LomSak27]

Foreign Ministry Plays Down Speculation of US Intervention

BANGKOK: -- The Foreign Minister has played down speculation regarding the United States' intervention on the current political crisis in Thailand.

Secretary-General to Foreign Minister Chavanont Intarakomalyasut has repudiated a claim that the foreign minister is concerned about potential intervention from the United States.

Chavanont admitted that the rumour has stemmed from the Democrat Party meeting, but said that the original comment was being distorted.

Chavanont claimed that Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya was merely talking about the ministry's communication with foreign correspondents and his plea to the Democrat MPs to explain the situation to their constituencies.

Kasit also said that there are currently some people who are trying to bring foreign intervention into the Thailand's political crisis .......... .

So we can assume - if there ever was any doubt - that this was nothing more than rumors started by the Democratic Party and reprinted in the Nation. A bloody Tempest in a Teapot used to distract and deflect.

Personally I am more concerned about THE WAR of the AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION, than WWII or WWI or precursors to the Korean Conflict. Anything you guys want to get off your chests about Maria Theresa and her right to succeed to the Habsburgs of her father, Charles VI?

Salic Law precluded royal inheritance by a woman, was that an injustice or what?

Feel free to comment or discuss what yanks your chain about this oft overlooked world conflict.

[Siam Simon]

Agreed. Accordingly your observation and comment are most welcome.

Perhaps - perhaps - the bloviator who in the past few pages is responsible for the fact will begin to subdue and start to self-restrain himself from further posts that not only are arcane and obtuse but which are outright self indulgent and painfully boring.

I have a policy not to get involved in long and winding pissing matches with off center members (to include their eggers-on in the shadows) but this one time I found it necessary to stoop to that level. I've regretted decending to the same level as the factualizer but the fact is bloviators unfortunately have a blind spot to self-embarrassment.

Let's hope for the best from this point forward.

Hey, Publicus, why do you keep making your posts in plain English? Six big words will suffice for one small one, you know?

[Totsagan]

Agreed. Accordingly your observation and comment are most welcome.

Perhaps - perhaps - the bloviator who in the past few pages is responsible for the fact will begin to subdue and start to self-restrain himself from further posts that not only are arcane and obtuse but which are outright self indulgent and painfully boring.

I have a policy not to get involved in long and winding pissing matches with off center members (to include their eggers-on in the shadows) but this one time I found it necessary to stoop to that level. I've regretted decending to the same level as the factualizer but the fact is bloviators unfortunately have a blind spot to self-embarrassment.

Let's hope for the best from this point forward.

Vilaiwan Seeboonreaung - the Thai actress standing on the banks of the River Kwai....

[tomyummer]

It's easy to say that it is none of the US' business. Fact is that the region and country needs stability, and if the US provides that, so be it.

Yeah, stability, just like how they handle their own social security, health care and budget deficit. USA! USA!

[Publicus]

Unfortunately for the many educated and informed Americans around they are routinely eclipsed by the likes of Publicus and his frind animatic who are merely verbose.

The Soviets stopped their headlong rush down the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel only to avoid an impending combat against US and allied troops after it was announced the latter would be sent. Among those establishing the 38th parallel as the new border between the two Koreas was a future secretary of state (to Pres Kennely) Dean Rusk.

The totalitarian dictators Kim Il-Sung and Stalin created the impossibility of a post war united Korea. In contrast US Military Governor LTG John Hodge from 1945 to 1948 hed to get the Japanese out of Korea south of the parallel, face a Korean labor force that had knowledge of picks and shovels and working industrial assembly lines but no experience at management or ownership. With nothing to work with, to include unclear policies from Washington, LTG Hodge held together the Korea south of the 38th parallell as Koreans of the left and right as well as moderates attempted to establish the Korea each wanted as Mao closeby asserted his superior military force against Chiang in China, and Stalin's long grabby reach continued to control Kim in Pyongyang.

Moreover and shamlessly, you grossly and with prejudice fail to mention that the US in 1947 was at last able voluntarily to make the initiative to put the status of S Korea to the UN General Assembly, which recognized Korea's independence. (So here and now I've presented some certain history in a nutshell, same as you do, so kindly desist trying to distort necessarily compacted presentations of history that are obscure to the vast majority of posters, such as the Moscow Conference being the predicate of actions/inactions by the four principal post war participants. You select your references then when another - moi - does the same, you hop, holler, rage and denounce the post as uninformed because it doesn't mention your also limited and fragmented but none the less fundamentally accurately selected facts. This is a tactic tiring and distracting to anyone who might take the time to read your distorted posts.)

Your desperate reach into history to throw McCarthyism into the mix is another revealing tactic you use to

try to redirect my own selected and valid points and arguments away from their applicibility and their validity - not to mention attempts at character assassination. That you have a different selection and take on the same factoids, the applicability and validity of the same factoids, makes you argumentative and (to be kind) a sophist - to be more accurate, a cynic and now a character assassin in these matters.

Further, while you proclaim you like and enjoy the people of the US whom you have met there, you somehow have amazingly managed to find two US expats who you coyly claim are exclusively the opposite of all others in and of the US you have met, the two US expats being the only Americans who you absurdly attempt to assert are "bigoted" and "uninformed." How remarkable! And how remarkable the two US 'derelicts' happen to post at TFV in disagreement to your Red Shirt politics.

Verbosity indeedy.

Any sense of evenhandedness would require your citing the bloviator for his transgressions, namely, not having any sense of when to stop or to ease off boring other posters/readers while simultaneously being a thread destroyer. I've stated that I strayed from my policy not to engage (polite word) with egomaniacs who drivel endlessly in their own rubbish, that I myself regret doing so, and regretting doing so while I was doing it...that I did engage the rubbish man because the poster (and his silent partner) needed to see it happen, not because I like to bore members or destroy threads.

After all, I'm a civic minded citizen and poster - I do sometimes go out of my way to pick up the rubbish that litters the lawn. Suffering through the stench is part of the civic responsibility.

[Publicus]

The reports are there are 5,000 troops presently involved in Bangkok....this is of the 350,000 Thai military force. These troops are reliable and dependable troops, not conscripts, not watermelons.

This is the point I began making months ago and which a few certain posters have said is false and have challenged on no basis what so ever except to be argumentative and contrarian for their own purposes, purposes which haven't anything to do with the facts and reality that the government over decades always relies and depends on a small select number of loyalist troops in these situations, not the general military, not the ordinary military or the military as a whole. The Reds ran into such crack troops of the air force at Don Muang two weeks ago, hard nuts troops who scattered the Reds in a panic and send Arisman scrambling in a car trunk back to Racha.

Present events have proved the vacuuous contrarians to be bloviators and dead wrong, full of rubbish antagonists of no contributory purpose or intent.

Rubbish posts.

One hundred percent rubbish.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Publicus

[viking75]

The reports are there are 5,000 troops presently involved in Bangkok....this is of the 350,000 Thai military force. These troops are reliable and dependable troops, not conscripts, not watermelons.

This is the point I began making months ago and which a few certain posters have said is false and have challenged on no basis what so ever except to be argumentative and contrarian for their own purposes, purposes which haven't anything to do with the facts and reality that the government over decades always relies and depends on a small select number of loyalist troops in these situations, not the general military, not the ordinary military or the military as a whole. The Reds ran into such crack troops of the air force at Don Muang two weeks ago, hard nuts troops who scattered the Reds in a panic and send Arisman scrambling in a car trunk back to Racha.

Present events have proved the vacuuous contrarians to be bloviators and dead wrong, full of rubbish antagonists of no contributory purpose or intent.

Rubbish posts.

One hundred percent rubbish.

while the hard nut troops are out killing, maybe a real coup is brewing!! They not going to let them kill their fellow contry men for ever.

US is likely to suspend aid to thailand and military budgets as is illegal for US to give money to these regimes. And, any regime that needs hard core army crack troops to keep it in power is going down that road.

They threatened it last time in 2006 but believed it was popular coup because they too stupid to ask anybody about it that not live in Bangkok and have lot of money.