If I was Cambodia I would simply state there is no dispute it is Cambodia as much as any other part of their country. Then leave it at that and simply defend the border..

If I was Cambodia I would simply state there is no dispute it is Cambodia as much as any other part of their country. Then leave it at that and simply defend the border..

Why do you think they would have erected and subsequently smashed two different signs, then erected a flag (which has been condemned by Cambodian generals), if they didn't recognize that area concerned is in dispute? The Cambodian actions accentuate the realization that the area is contested.

Thailand ready to protect sovereignty

BANGKOK, 30 January 2011 (NNT)-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the government will expedite the removal of the Cambodian flag at Wat Kaew Sikkha Khiri Savara temple which sparks anger among Thai people while also instructing the Foreign Ministry to respond to the earlier statement made by Cambodia.

According to Mr. Abisit, the government is now investigating the flag incident and will demand the removal if it is proven to be the Cambodian national flag. Following the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2000, no ownership of such disputed land can be claimed by any one; therefore, planting a national flag on it could be considered a violation.

In response to Cambodia’s statement, the Foreign Ministry will submit a letter to Cambodia’s Foreign Minister, stating that Thailand is ready to protect its sovereignty as well.

-- NNT 2011-01-30

Cambodians method of claiming extra border land is very obverse. They frequently use the squatter method.

This can be seen at the border crossing at Rong Kluea/ Poi Pet with Cambodia setting up a structure after the Thai side of the bridge, purporting to clear immigration/working permits of their citizens, when such procedures can be and should be done on their side of the river.

If I was Cambodia I would simply state there is no dispute it is Cambodia as much as any other part of their country. Then leave it at that and simply defend the border..

Why do you think they would have erected and subsequently smashed two different signs, then erected a flag (which has been condemned by Cambodian generals), if they didn't recognize that area concerned is in dispute? The Cambodian actions accentuate the realization that the area is contested.

Maybe they took the signs down to just be polite and not appear antagonistic but a flag is a flag it says something all together different.

It is just a temple flag, no big deal. Not worth going into war just because of a piece of colored cloth.