Thai Army Will Retaliate And No Longer Talk With Cambodia: Sansern

[silp1979]

Let's just hope that someday soon, one of these children will simply let the other have this broken toy....

completely agree !

[SomTumTiger]

Its amusing that people assume there are only 2 parties involved in this conflict.

[Oberkommando]

add to this the fact that the one side must be many times stronger than the other militarily, and it begins to become obvious which side started this. i suppose it ends with a full fledged invasion of the temple area in order to protect innocent civilians who are being shelled, as well as to reclaim lost territory.

This may be the Thai strategy here, they have invaded Preah Vihear before in 1954 and occupied it militarily, until being forced to leave in 1962 after a ruling of 9 to 3 that ownership of the temple belonged to Cambodia.

[silp1979]

looks, like the conflict is escalating.

thailand should agree to the mediation from the un security council or asean.

both sites should withdraw all military from the border area, as it was proposed already a long time ago by cambodia.

maybe you should move to Cambodia

you seem to support them........

TImekeeper you must be Russian, since you don't know anything about freedom of speech

[Oberkommando]

I see the Thaksin blamers are out in force again. This forum never changes.

Better try to blame him than accept the reality of the situation and Thailand's part in it. It's for all intents and purposes a failed state!

Blame Thaksin for the coup, the poor economy, the protests, the junta, the increased military budgets, the corruption in the Democrat-Newin alliance, etc, etc, etc.

[SomTumTiger]

Blame Thaksin for the coup, the poor economy, the protests, the junta, the increased military budgets, the corruption in the Democrat-Newin alliance, etc, etc, etc.

If the shoe fits....

Edited February 7, 2011 by SomTumTiger

[SerpentSea]

And then there is the Thai economy. Can it afford a war? Can the struggling tourism sector survive a war?

Depends if business men influence politics doing it to make the 'best' out of it or some men with 'higher' ideals doing politics for the sake of some spiritual greater good and not for worldly possession.

[Robby nz]

We seem to have quite a few posters on here saying any blame for all this rests with Thailand, the Thai Govt, the PM, the Thai army.

But look at from the point of what each country, Govt has anything to gain or lose.

From what I can see there is no way that Thailand, the army or the Govt can gain anything from starting any fighting.

All are in a no win situation, financialy or politicaly.

On the other hand Cambodia and in particular their PM [dictator] has a lot to gain.

By pretending he is defending the country against the invading Thais he is stirring national feeling in his favour.

Should, as I think is probable, there be the hand and purse of his former advisor behind all of this then he will be getting well rewarded.

It will also give him reason to strengthen the military, new weapons etc. Incase the Thai's invade again.

After all as a dictator the army are his backing against any popular uprising.

From what I read the MOU [signed by whoes govt?] gave the temple to Cambodia but did not define the border around it.

I see nowhere where the Thai Govt has said the temple belongs to Thailand.

However the surrounding land is what is in dispute.

All this started when Cambodia declared the land as theirs and started building roads.

What did you expect the Thai Govt to do say "Take as much as you like".

And If they had said OK you can have the small bit of land, where would it stop? remember part of the sea bed is also under dispute.

The Thai deputy PM has suggested a joint area under the control of both countries for their mutual benefit.

Nowhere did I see a reaction to that from Cambodia.

[SomTumTiger]

We seem to have quite a few posters on here saying any blame for all this rests with Thailand, the Thai Govt, the PM, the Thai army.

But look at from the point of what each country, Govt has anything to gain or lose.

From what I can see there is no way that Thailand, the army or the Govt can gain anything from starting any fighting.

All are in a no win situation, financialy or politicaly.

On the other hand Cambodia and in particular their PM [dictator] has a lot to gain.

By pretending he is defending the country against the invading Thais he is stirring national feeling in his favour.

Should, as I think is probable, there be the hand and purse of his former advisor behind all of this then he will be getting well rewarded.

It will also give him reason to strengthen the military, new weapons etc. Incase the Thai's invade again.

After all as a dictator the army are his backing against any popular uprising.

From what I read the MOU [signed by whoes govt?] gave the temple to Cambodia but did not define the border around it.

I see nowhere where the Thai Govt has said the temple belongs to Thailand.

However the surrounding land is what is in dispute.

All this started when Cambodia declared the land as theirs and started building roads.

What did you expect the Thai Govt to do say "Take as much as you like".

And If they had said OK you can have the small bit of land, where would it stop? remember part of the sea bed is also under dispute.

The Thai deputy PM has suggested a joint area under the control of both countries for their mutual benefit.

Nowhere did I see a reaction to that from Cambodia.

Exactly.

[Farang0tang]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

[TAWP]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

So who should the Egyptians give back the pyramids to?

[SomTumTiger]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

So who should the Egyptians give back the pyramids to?

The Alien overlords who built them of course.

[whybother]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

Cambodia wasn't around then either. I'm guessing that most of the Khmers that were around then are dead too.

[bkkjames]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

Cambodia wasn't around then either. I'm guessing that most of the Khmers that were around then are dead too.

This is what I love about borders+greed+blame+politics+selective memory: Personally I think Laura Croft should just come settle it once and for all.

[Robby nz]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

Havent they said it is a Hindu temple?

Maybe they should give it to India?

And isnt Ayutthaya Khamer? lets give that to Cambodia as well.

But what does it matter the temple isnt in dispute, both countries agree it belongs to Cambodia.

The problem is the land that has been claimed by both countries.

[animatic]

Malevolent; as in people who will let others die, so their operations can grow bigger. As in no lines of typical humanity are drawn in pursuit of greater face, profits, power etc.

Edited February 7, 2011 by animatic

[Farang0tang]

My research shows, the temple was started around 11th century.

Thailand, before that Siam, was not around then. Even the Kingdom of Ayutthaya starts 1430 or there abouts.

We agree its a Khmer temple, built by Khmers, during the Khmer empire, on Khmer (then) soil.

80% of Khmers reside in Cambodia.

So my question is: Who's name is on the yellow book?

Cambodia wasn't around then either. I'm guessing that most of the Khmers that were around then are dead too.

Cambodia - is the English form of the French "Cambodge". Which in turn is a transliteration of the Khmer name "Kampuchea".

[whybother]

Cambodia - is the English form of the French "Cambodge". Which in turn is a transliteration of the Khmer name "Kampuchea".

The name "Cambodia" derives from that of the ancient Khmer kingdom of Kambuja (Kambujadesa; कम्बोजदेश: "land of Kambuja"). The ancient Sanskrit name Kambuja or Kamboja (कम्बोज) referred to an early Indo-Iranian tribe, the Kambojas, named after the founder of that tribe, Kambu Svayambhuva, apparently a variant of Cambyses, Kambujiya or Kamboja. See Etymology of Kamboja.

"referred to an early Indo-Iranian tribe" - Iranians?

[metisdead]

An off topic post and reply have been removed from view.

[martin81]

Maybe Thailand should consider invading Cambodia and and set up a security zone to protect thai villagers from Cambodian Army?

I don't think it is acceptable what the dictator Hun Sen is ordering. I hope Thailand will not show weakness towards Cambodia.

I am saddened by all the comments here that are not supporting Thailand on this issue. Probably many of the comments come from people who are living in Thailand.

[jayjayjayjay]

obviously time for neo con intervention ; bring on "operation temple typhoon"

turn the USS g. washington around

we'll teach them about democracy in sisaket

Teach them a lession in Sisiket!!!!

Sorry, but locals of Sisiket and cross border in Cambodia are well at peace with each other. These groups have lived 1000 years without problems. The Thai's for a 100km inland in Sisiket and Surin speak Cambodian as a mother tongue. So why would be sort them out. It is the idiots in Bangkok, Politicians, Yellow Shirt and the TPN that need to be eradicated. Once that is done sort out a few polies up for reelection in next months polls in Cambodia and then we can all go back to sleep under a banana tree.

[c64]

Mmmm......

Think that the truth will come out one day but not now.

I'm thinking that a war against another nation is a great way to unite a deeply divided country (draw attention away from the domestic problem and get it's people to stick together). That's just a speculation from my side but I'd really wanted to be the fly on the wall on both sides

[animatic]

Well looks like a negotiating ploy for more military expenditure. Among other things

See we really need it, otherwise how can we steal back some of the off-shore oil field rights?

[rogerdee123]

I think probably if one were able to compare the border line over the past several decades, it would be rather clear that this border has shifted a lot more to the East than it has to the West. But of course doing this comparison accurately is impossible when both sides use different maps which neither are accurate ... whatever "accurate" means in this context.

Picking out the so-called "clearly defined 4km" of land under dispute is only possible because that particular border area is perhaps more clearly defined than all the others simply because of that court case.

The point being made here is given all the hundreds or more sq kms that could be disputed between Thailand and Cambodia, why make such a big deal out of this 4km? This is of course a rhetorical question.

There have been and are many reasonable and non-destructive ways to solve such a dispute.

It's easy to see that Hun Sen is going to take advantage of this windfall opportunity to gain prestige at home and abroad at the expense of Thailand. Will Abhisit be blamed ? It depends on how he handles it. The big question is, does the military listen to Abhisit anyway?

But yes I am a long-time resident expat and yes I still blame Thailand (more particularly "idiot selfish dumb Thai politicians") the most for this situation which is already killing soldiers and undoubtedly ruining peoples' lives.

[bangon04]

The casualities are pretty low at the moment which leads me to believe there's nothing to fret about. After all both armies are fairly incompetent and weak so it's like two cripples butting heads in their wheelchairs. The only Thai forces worth mentioning are the few well trained naval commando units and the U.S. purchased airplanes. Other than that it'll remain a low intensity border conflict. Neither has the mechanized or armored power to make any serious stand.

and the recent Royal Thai Army demands for increased budget to purchase heavy armour ? just a coincidence?

Edited February 7, 2011 by bangon04

[kuffki]

Maybe Thailand should consider invading Cambodia and and set up a security zone to protect thai villagers from Cambodian Army?

I don't think it is acceptable what the dictator Hun Sen is ordering. I hope Thailand will not show weakness towards Cambodia.

I am saddened by all the comments here that are not supporting Thailand on this issue. Probably many of the comments come from people who are living in Thailand.

What is dictator Hun Sen ordering???

[invex]

the Thai,s are hard headed I am suprised that the not claim Angkor wat as Thai terotery

Dear "GDK",

Please go back in history a few years. You will learn they DID already.

Big problem at that time with Cambodian protests and bombs at the Thai Embassy in Pnom Pen.

There was really anger towards thet Thai at that time.

[whybother]

the Thai,s are hard headed I am suprised that the not claim Angkor wat as Thai terotery

Dear "GDK",

Please go back in history a few years. You will learn they DID already.

Big problem at that time with Cambodian protests and bombs at the Thai Embassy in Pnom Pen.

There was really anger towards thet Thai at that time.

Actually "they" didn't. The claim was fabricated by Khmer nationalists.

[Pi Sek]

the Thai,s are hard headed I am suprised that the not claim Angkor wat as Thai terotery

Dear "GDK",

Please go back in history a few years. You will learn they DID already.

Big problem at that time with Cambodian protests and bombs at the Thai Embassy in Pnom Pen.

There was really anger towards thet Thai at that time.

Actually "they" didn't. The claim was fabricated by Khmer nationalists.

February 03, 2003

Richard C. Paddock | Times Staff Writer

A false newspaper report that Thai soap opera star Suvanant Kongying had insulted the Cambodian people sparked riots that led to the destruction and looting of the Thai Embassy here as well as dozens of Thai-owned businesses, hotels and factories.

[silp1979]

the Thai,s are hard headed I am suprised that the not claim Angkor wat as Thai terotery

Well it was Thailand at one time.

Interesting

Siem Reap {Sorry about the spelling)

is Cambodian for Siam defeated.

that they call a city siam defieted does not mean it was thai before jsut that they win against thais

but i also do not know details

please post with reference links