US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters

[pornsasi]

No its not emotive propaganda . It a copy and paste parliament . Some parts elected in 2007 , some in 2009 , some elected under another program .

What are they representing as a whole parliament ? nothing .

No popular mandate

This just goes around in circles.

Over the last few pages, I have answered every one of the points that you have raised ... and then you go straight back to "No popular mandate".

You've simply made up your mind and the facts make no difference to you.

You dont understand the difference between legality and popular mandate .

F.e at the end of WW2 Churchill was PM and had still sometimes to go as PM

legally ,however he felt that after the war he should consult the people , not because

he was forced too but because after 5 years of war , and peace coming he thought

thats he did not have a popular mandate beeing a war time PM , not a peace time PM .

He dissolved parliament and lost the election to Attlee .

Thats the british way........

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Is USA backing the red terrorists? Send this guy back home to US immediately. He was not officially invited, and should not go here to meet with the terrorists.

Well, let's see.. Logically there are only two options:

1. The USA has ended its long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

2. The USA does not consider the Red Shirt movement terrorists.

Now, keeping in mind that Fox News is NOT having a field day as we speak, I'm inclined to lean towards option number 2.

Personal suggestion: Write to Fox, they've spun crazier things than this around to show the US government loves terrorists. They'd probably appreciate some help from the resident Farang crazies on this forum!

Edited May 11, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[whybother]

No its not emotive propaganda . It a copy and paste parliament . Some parts elected in 2007 , some in 2009 , some elected under another program .

What are they representing as a whole parliament ? nothing .

No popular mandate

This just goes around in circles.

Over the last few pages, I have answered every one of the points that you have raised ... and then you go straight back to "No popular mandate".

You've simply made up your mind and the facts make no difference to you.

You dont understand the difference between legality and popular mandate .

F.e at the end of WW2 Churchill was PM and had still sometimes to go as PM

legally ,however he felt that after the war he should consult the people , not because

he was forced too but because after 5 years of war , and peace coming he thought

thats he did not have a popular mandate beeing a war time PM , not a peace time PM .

He dissolved parliament and lost the election to Attlee .

Thats the british way........

As I said earlier:

You get a popular mandate by having the support of a majority of MPs. That is what the current government got, and continue to have.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

No, you get a parliamentary and legal mandate. When people vote for a party they want that party to govern, they don't want some elements of that party to be bribed away to join the other side. At that point, you lose a popular mandate.

Although I would agree it's largely a matter of definition.. and probably a discussion of the past anyway, as Abhisit has graciously agreed to go get his own popular mandate in November.

Someone should nominated him for a Nobel peace prize as well.

[whybother]

No, you get a parliamentary and legal mandate. When people vote for a party they want that party to govern, they don't want some elements of that party to be bribed away to join the other side. At that point, you lose a popular mandate.

Although I would agree it's largely a matter of definition.. and probably a discussion of the past anyway, as Abhisit has graciously agreed to go get his own popular mandate in November.

Someone should nominated him for a Nobel peace prize as well.

Yes, "popular mandate" is variable and emotive term.

At the moment Abhisit has the support of the majority of MPs. Some could talk about how he got the majority, but then you could ask exactly the same questions about how the PPP got a majority also (and ask about how Thaksin got his majorities).

[WinnieTheKhwai]

No, you get a parliamentary and legal mandate. When people vote for a party they want that party to govern, they don't want some elements of that party to be bribed away to join the other side. At that point, you lose a popular mandate.

Although I would agree it's largely a matter of definition.. and probably a discussion of the past anyway, as Abhisit has graciously agreed to go get his own popular mandate in November.

Someone should nominated him for a Nobel peace prize as well.

Yes, "popular mandate" is variable and emotive term.

At the moment Abhisit has the support of the majority of MPs. Some could talk about how he got the majority, but then you could ask exactly the same questions about how the PPP got a majority also (and ask about how Thaksin got his majorities).

Right agreed; Thaksin did kind of write the book on how to bribe parties and politicians over to your side. (He did however do it before elections, so people knew what they were voting for. )

[whybother]

No, you get a parliamentary and legal mandate. When people vote for a party they want that party to govern, they don't want some elements of that party to be bribed away to join the other side. At that point, you lose a popular mandate.

Although I would agree it's largely a matter of definition.. and probably a discussion of the past anyway, as Abhisit has graciously agreed to go get his own popular mandate in November.

Someone should nominated him for a Nobel peace prize as well.

Yes, "popular mandate" is variable and emotive term.

At the moment Abhisit has the support of the majority of MPs. Some could talk about how he got the majority, but then you could ask exactly the same questions about how the PPP got a majority also (and ask about how Thaksin got his majorities).

Right agreed; Thaksin did kind of write the book on how to bribe parties and politicians over to your side. (He did however do it before elections, so people knew what they were voting for. )

Well, maybe not all before elections. Apparently some of the smaller parties had campaigned that they wouldn't support the PPP, but then did so after the election anyway.

[Phuket Stan]

And how much did Thaksin give to Chavalit to bring the New Aspiration party into the TRT party after the first election Thaksin won

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Right, that's what I was saying: Thaksin wrote the book on bribing politicians over to his side. All that coalition building he did prior to going into elections under the TRT banner.

[earthpig]

"We call on both sides to urge restraint and to firmly commit to a process of peaceful reconciliation in support of the rule of law and the pursuit of a just and democratic outcome."

This statement by the Americans is precisely correct, and in is addition quite appropriate for them to state, particularily at this juncture.

The statement makes clear that in the eyes of the American goverment both the rule of law and a just outcome are critically important. It thus it will be seen to support the legitimate aspirations of both sides. Coming not only from the world's hyperpower, but also from a country for which thai's generally have a deep admiration, this statement will have a positive influence.

And it is a rare example of the otherwise throughly amateurish american foreign policy team of the current administration getting something right.

[whybother]

"We call on both sides to urge restraint and to firmly commit to a process of peaceful reconciliation in support of the rule of law and the pursuit of a just and democratic outcome."

This statement by the Americans is precisely correct, and in is addition quite appropriate for them to state, particularily at this juncture.

The statement makes clear that in the eyes of the American goverment both the rule of law and a just outcome are critically important. It thus it will be seen to support the legitimate aspirations of both sides. Coming not only from the world's hyperpower, but also from a country for which thai's generally have a deep admiration, this statement will have a positive influence.

And it is a rare example of the otherwise throughly amateurish american foreign policy team of the current administration getting something right.

"It thus it will be seen to support the legitimate aspirations of both sides."

It supports the view of the US government that this should be sorted out peacefully, without further deaths and injuries. It doesn't say anything about the "legitimate" aspirations of reds, just of the PM's road map.

We strongly welcome the PM's road map for national reconciliation and commitment for holding new elections. We're also encouraged by the UDD's positive response to the road map and hope that its leaders will seize this opportunity to responsibly and expeditiously lead Thailand out of its current predicament.

It supports Abhisit's road map and the UDD's initial positive response. It seems that the red leaders haven't seized the opportunity to responsibly and expeditiously get Thailand out of this predicament. They don't want a peaceful resolution.

Edited May 11, 2010 by whybother

[jdinasia]

Is USA backing the red terrorists? Send this guy back home to US immediately. He was not officially invited, and should not go here to meet with the terrorists.

Well, let's see.. Logically there are only two options:

1. The USA has ended its long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

2. The USA does not consider the Red Shirt movement terrorists.

Now, keeping in mind that Fox News is NOT having a field day as we speak, I'm inclined to lean towards option number 2.

Personal suggestion: Write to Fox, they've spun crazier things than this around to show the US government loves terrorists. They'd probably appreciate some help from the resident Farang crazies on this forum!

FOX hasn't spun things as far as your strawman argument above.

3. There was no negotiation (no give and take over any plans or contingencies)

4. The people he met with are attached to Thaksin more so than the Reds --- a message was being delivered to Thaksin that the US wants the reds to shape up and accept the government's reconciliation plan.

Since no negotiations took place --- BOTH of Winnie's points are a strawman argument to sidetrack things.

[jdinasia]

Regarding pornsasi's uverused argument regarding "a mandate" --- he's wrong on every count. More than 50% of the MP's back the current coalition government. They were all elected. That and only that is what constitutes a mandate. Anything else is failing to look at both the rule of law AND at reality.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Is USA backing the red terrorists? Send this guy back home to US immediately. He was not officially invited, and should not go here to meet with the terrorists.

Well, let's see.. Logically there are only two options:

1. The USA has ended its long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

2. The USA does not consider the Red Shirt movement terrorists.

Now, keeping in mind that Fox News is NOT having a field day as we speak, I'm inclined to lean towards option number 2.

Personal suggestion: Write to Fox, they've spun crazier things than this around to show the US government loves terrorists. They'd probably appreciate some help from the resident Farang crazies on this forum!

FOX hasn't spun things as far as your strawman argument above.

3. There was no negotiation (no give and take over any plans or contingencies)

4. The people he met with are attached to Thaksin more so than the Reds --- a message was being delivered to Thaksin that the US wants the reds to shape up and accept the government's reconciliation plan.

Since no negotiations took place --- BOTH of Winnie's points are a strawman argument to sidetrack things.

Obviously. I was responding to people shouting crap about negotiating with terrorists. I suggest you reply to them with any issues you have over semantics. (negotiating with terrorists vs talking with terrorists.)

I guess you're a fan of Fox News too.. figures! Your whole post doesn't serve any purpose other than pick a fight over semantics. I really hope you have actual points to make (that are on topic).

So to reset the dicussion: The US government has spent considerable time listening to the viewpoints of the UDD and Phua Thai vis a vis the current protests, as well as (most likely) deliver the message that the USA supports Abhisit's road map. (All this is on the website of the US Embassy in Bangkok) Ex-PAD extremist and current foreign minister Kasit wasn't happy. You wonder why, as clearly his boss (Abhisit) has reached out to talk with the UDD, too.

Campbell then travelled on to Burma, to meet with the opposition there, specifically Aung San Suu Kyi, a person who has expressed sympathy for the Red cause recently.

There. Now you have something to actually disagree with so you don't have get into how 'discussing' is different from 'negotiating' Clearly it's not negotiating because the US isn't a party in this conflict!

Edited May 11, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[A_Traveller]

specifically Aung San Suu Kyi, a person who has expressed sympathy for the Red cause recently.

No she didn't, as I suspect you well know, but let's keep repeating the fantasy on the basis that one day it may become true.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited May 11, 2010 by A_Traveller

[xbusman]

Glad I am not a politician having to deal with the mentalities of some of these posters.

The US has no position on this matter. It is strictly and entirely an internal Thai affair. They are not taking sides, they do not have a position, they have made every effort to remain out of Thai affairs.

What they are doing is trying to provide a forum for the two parties to meet and talk. Nothing is going to happen until they start talking. Just finding a venue that both parties can agree on is about impossible. The breakfast meeting was an opportunity for both parties to sit down and negotiate. They would not have set up the meeting without everyone agreeing to come, the fact that one side did not show up and then condemned the effort gives some idea how disorganized and chaotic the whole process is.

I believe the US has come out against the use of force or violence by any and all people involved. That is probably the closest thing to a position that any politician from foreign governments have expressed regarding this matter.

So be careful of the propaganda being spouted by both sides and leave the bashing to places where the US is deserving, and there are enough of those to keep the bloggers busy.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

specifically Aung San Suu Kyi, a person who has expressed sympathy for the Red cause recently.

No she didn't, as I suspect you well know, but let's keep repeating the fantasy on the basis that one day it may become true.

Regards

/edit typo//

I can't be bothered to go look it up, but it was mentioned in some articles. She didn't express explicit support for UDD by name, but was talking about Thailand and the need for democracy and basic freedoms there. Sounded clear enough to me anyways.

[way2muchcoffee]

Aung San Suu Kyi, a person who has expressed sympathy for the Red cause recently.

You weaken your credibility with lies.

She specifically stated that her comments in no way represented support for either the redshirts or the government.

[way2muchcoffee]

I can't be bothered to go look it up, but it was mentioned in some articles. She didn't express explicit support for UDD by name, but was talking about Thailand and the need for democracy and basic freedoms there. Sounded clear enough to me anyways.

No. She stated that military coups generally have a destabilizing effect on a country. If you can't be bothered to look it up perhaps you shouldn't make posts attributing statements to people. It is particularly egregious when those statements never occurred.

Edited May 11, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Right, I'm cool with the above. Taking a stance against military coups definitely doesn't put her in the PAD & establishment camp though right.

UDD itself was formed in response to the military coup of 2006. It's the main thing they're campaigning for: to end military and 'amart' influence in politics, and establishment of a democratic system.

They were VERY happy with Aung San Suu Kyi's comments!

[way2muchcoffee]

Right, I'm cool with the above. Taking a stance against military coups definitely doesn't put her in the PAD & establishment camp though right.

UDD itself was formed in response to the military coup of 2006. It's the main thing they're campaigning for: to end military and 'amart' influence in politics, and establishment of a democratic system.

They were VERY happy with Aung San Suu Kyi's comments!

All right then. So what is the establishment? The redshirt leaders, TRT, PPP, PTP, Thaksin, police, et al, are the establishment. As are the Democrats, PAD leaders, CTP, NNP, business leaders, military, etc. etc. etc.

I disagree with your statement. The UDD do not have the goal to reduce power of the military and the amart. The UDD leaders are the amart. Amongst the military and police leaders there are many red supporters. You will find red supporters in all aspects of Thai society, including business moguls and even royalists. You are mistaken if you think otherwise.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

You know what I mean. I already tried to make you happy by not using the word 'elite' which I know you dislike.

[way2muchcoffee]

You know what I mean. I already tried to make you happy by not using the word 'elite' which I know you dislike.

Err. Okay then. Thanks for that. Peace.

[A_Traveller]

Winnie you are a fool of breathtaking proportions. You do not have the faintest idea what you typing about. You claim that UDD was formed to to apply pressure against the existing structure, however, as is your style you forget actions by Rak Chiang Mai 51, how do you reconcile the death of Terdsak Jiamkitwattana's father, Setha, by a mob, for daring to attempt to drive through the cordon around the radio station.

Do you even remember these things?

Probably not, because they don't play into your fantasy of the noble UDD [Reds] somehow striving heroically to free themselves, as opposed to the reality of being placed into a even more reprehensible position once the dust settles. The people running the show, especially at the local level are only interested in ensuring that their ability to interdict money is undiminished. There is not one iota of politics in this scenario, no Marie Antoinette moment, it is all about money. nothing more nothing less.

And you, fool that you are, keep hitting the keys without the ability to understand what is happening.

However, unlike some you are at least an honest fool, but a fool none the less.

Regards

[lannarebirth]

Honest? Methinks you're too kind.

[way2muchcoffee]

Honest? Methinks you're too kind.

Winnie is generally honest IMO. Sometimes he gets wrapped up in his own beliefs and comes out with some whoppers. But I figure that happens to most of us at some time or other. Most of the time he is consistent to a certain set of beliefs. They may not be the same beliefs I hold, but that's life.

Edited May 11, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[lannarebirth]

Honest? Methinks you're too kind.

Winnie is honest IMO. Sometimes he gets wrapped up in his own beliefs and comes out with some whoppers. But I figure that happens to most of us at some time or other. Most of the time he is consistent to a certain set of beliefs. They may not be the same beliefs I hold, but that's life.

I disagree. I think he's just a childishly smug provocateur. I've a soft spot for true believers even when I diagree with their beliefs, but that isn't him. Anyway all OT and negates the beneficial effects of my having placed him on ignore.

Edited May 11, 2010 by lannarebirth

[roykeanz]

Winnie you are a fool of breathtaking proportions. You do not have the faintest idea what you typing about. You claim that UDD was formed to to apply pressure against the existing structure, however, as is your style you forget actions by Rak Chiang Mai 51, how do you reconcile the death of Terdsak Jiamkitwattana's father, Setha, by a mob, for daring to attempt to drive through the cordon around the radio station.

Do you even remember these things?

Probably not, because they don't play into your fantasy of the noble UDD [Reds] somehow striving heroically to free themselves, as opposed to the reality of being placed into a even more reprehensible position once the dust settles. The people running the show, especially at the local level are only interested in ensuring that their ability to interdict money is undiminished. There is not one iota of politics in this scenario, no Marie Antoinette moment, it is all about money. nothing more nothing less.

And you, fool that you are, keep hitting the keys without the ability to understand what is happening.

However, unlike some you are at least an honest fool, but a fool none the less.

Regards

Post of the week!! Nice one AT!!

[elcent]

what about the road-map always? Reds have them too, Rajaprasong, Silom, Sukhumvit etc., etc. ... ? Why should they change that unless getting forced to?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Winnie you are a fool of breathtaking proportions. You do not have the faintest idea what you typing about. You claim that UDD was formed to to apply pressure against the existing structure, however, as is your style you forget actions by Rak Chiang Mai 51, how do you reconcile the death of Terdsak Jiamkitwattana's father, Setha, by a mob, for daring to attempt to drive through the cordon around the radio station.

Do you even remember these things?

Probably not, because they don't play into your fantasy of the noble UDD [Reds] somehow striving heroically to free themselves, as opposed to the reality of being placed into a even more reprehensible position once the dust settles. The people running the show, especially at the local level are only interested in ensuring that their ability to interdict money is undiminished. There is not one iota of politics in this scenario, no Marie Antoinette moment, it is all about money. nothing more nothing less.

Clearly if elements commit crimes they need to be (and are currently) prosecuted. I don't fall into the trap however of dismissing genuine sentiments every time a nutter like Seh Daeng does or says something preposterous.

I have enough Red (or Red symphetizing) friends to know that their points of view are genuine, and not based on money handouts. There's a lot of slander going on of these people, there's actually so much contempt for rural people around in general that some 'educated' urbanites genuinely cannot get it into their heads than that it's anyhting other than money, and then feel the need to label them buffalos, dog eaters (earlier today on this forum) and worse.

There is no side made up entirely of angels, and no side made up entirely of devils. You got to listen to arguments and not get caught up in propaganda.

If it's any consolation, I get shot to bits on red leaning places on the Internet just the same. When I say things like '<deleted> guys, you wanted elections, you got elections, what's with the Suthep-fetish?'. I have the strong impression that there's no agreement any longer among the Red leadership. And I very much sympathize with those seeking reconciliation and compromise. An issue may be though that among all Red supporting people, the absolute most radical hard core are at the protest site; some of those just seem point-blank eager to die. And those are the guys and girls expected to now make up with Abhisit, which is proving tough, very unfortunately.

As for ignoring people, I had Jingthing on ignore for a while, but then decided that if I wanted to ignore opposing points of view then a discussion forum isn't really the place to do it. And he occasionally makes sense on non-Thai-politics topics.

Edited May 11, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai