Thaksins Drug War

[jdinasia]

one would think that a reasonably accurate number could be derived from adding confirmed deaths to the number of "disappeared". The political climate afterwards was heavy, even possibly heavy enough to keep people quiet .... back then ... but today?

Yes, I'd agree that that'd be a reasonable means of speculating on a decent approximation but the problem is that -- as you say -- we don't have the numbers of disappeared; and moreover there are other plausible, even likely, explanations for some of the disappearances that are not in fact the fault of the government of the time. But most importantly I don't think there's any reason to believe that even the perpetrators know how many victims there were (and doubt it was recorded -- or could have been).

So those are reasons why even today we perhaps can get no real idea. There are other potential reasons, among them those which have, again, to do with things that are still extant but can't be spoken of. (That is NOT meant as a veiled accusation of complicity by anyone or anything and it requires context and explication that can not be provided so I would caution anyone against attempting to publicly interpret what I've said).

EDIT FOR TYPO

Regarding your first paragraph ..... Reginald Perrin?

[SteeleJoe]

I don't know who that is or what it's a refernce to. But if you're having a go at how silly that sounded -- can't say I blame you! I'm not at my best at the moment and even when I am, I can be a pretty piss poor writer.

[jdinasia]

I don't know who that is or what it's a refernce to. But if you're having a go at how silly that sounded -- can't say I blame you! I'm not at my best at the moment and even when I am, I can be a pretty piss poor writer.

Gads --- edited to get it right ,,,,,

The fall and rise of Reginald Perrin .. didn't star Cleese (I was thinking Fawlty Towers) --- starred Leonard Rossiter I thnk

It is a bit of fun with an overall message of "wherever you go, there you are", he fakes his own death several times during the run of the series ...

Edited April 7, 2011 by jdinasia

[SteeleJoe]

Well, I confess I'm smiling now at the thought of sounding like that guy ( I can sort of imagine it even without seeing it -- but I'm probably just sort of typecasting Cleese in my head), However, I actually was trying to say something in that paragraph:

• Adding numbers of disappeared would not be perfect but could be of some use except we don't have the numbers.
• The numbers are probably unattainable because no one ever had them.
• Even if we had the numbers of disappeared, some of them quite possibly won't have been killed by the military, if at all.

Why didn't I just put it like that in that first place?

EDIT: Thanks Youtube! Funny stuff. But it doesn't star John Cleese, does it?

CROSS -EDIT!

Edited April 7, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[jdinasia]

Well, I confess I'm smiling now at the thought of sounding like that guy ( I can sort of imagine it even without seeing it -- but I'm probably just sort of typecasting Cleese in my head), However, I actually was trying to say something in that paragraph:

• Adding numbers of disappeared would not be perfect but could be of some use except we don't have the numbers.
• The numbers are probably unattainable because no one ever had them.
• Even if we had the numbers of disappeared, some of them quite possibly won't have been killed by the military, if at all.

Why didn't I just put it like that in that first place?

EDIT: Thanks Youtube! Funny stuff. But it doesn't star John Cleese, does it?

CROSS -EDIT!

Your point 3 elicited my reginald perrin remark ---- which makes ME watching the new updated version on youtube now, completely your fault! I could see someone just having had enough of Chamlong's rants (hey I like a few things Chamlong has accomplished!) and deciding to drop his clothes on the beach and start a new life as a pig farmer! (one of Reggie Perrins jobs)

(note I corrected my Cleese remark!)

[SteeleJoe]

Oh, now I get it. I thought it was more because I sound like (even more of) a pompous tw#t (than I am).

Yeah, that'd be one one explanation! (I used to see Chamlong as something of a hero. Not so much anymore). Someperson or people might have just taken a chance to start over. Or... who knows? Other sorts of foul play on either side? Not actually disappeared at all but were never there or were there but want to appear to be still missing? Provocateurs who went back to the other side? Or...

[jdinasia]

Oh, now I get it. I thought it was more because I sound like (even more of) a pompous tw#t (than I am).

Yeah, that'd be one one explanation! (I used to see Chamlong as something of a hero. Not so much anymore). Someperson or people might have just taken a chance to start over. Or... who knows? Other sorts of foul play on either side? Not actually disappeared at all but were never there or were there but want to appear to be still missing? Provocateurs who went back to the other side? Or...

I have met Chamlong a couple of times. He's incredibly sociable and charming 1:1 or in a small group. He scares the bejeezus out of me on some levels though. Unlike many people at his social strata or who are involved in politics he seems sincere all the time. Which means if he said something scary like Thaksin did "when the first bullet.... I will be there with you" ... he means it. That type of leader is capable of creating so many martyrs if he wants to. (and I do not mean involuntary martyrs as I suspect some of the deaths last year were!) He also seems to be very devout in his beliefs and Santi-Asoke is not a mainstream sect of Buddhism. I guess what I am trying to say, is that with his personal charisma and perceived integrity he could be a very good thing for Thailand or a very very bad thing for Thailand.

[SteeleJoe]

Excellent post JD

Met him only once -- and just that: met him (as in mutual wais and a brief exchange) but it was at or very near what was, I should think. perhaps the most interesting time in his life.

But all of this comports precisely with my own take:

He scares the bejeezus out of me on some levels though. Unlike many people at his social strata or who are involved in politics he seems sincere all the time. Which means if he said something scary like Thaksin did "when the first bullet.... I will be there with you" ... he means it. That type of leader is capable of creating so many martyrs if he wants to. (and I do not mean involuntary martyrs as I suspect some of the deaths last year were!) He also seems to be very devout in his beliefs and Santi-Asoke is not a mainstream sect of Buddhism. I guess what I am trying to say, is that with his personal charisma and perceived integrity he could be a very good thing for Thailand or a very very bad thing for Thailand.

And I don't even want to get into Santi-Asoke Or even mainstream Thai Buddhism...

[pauljones]

I am curious about the 'so called' corrupt land deal. Did'nt Mrs Thaksin win in a fair bidding process, because her bid was the highest. ? Whats wrong with that.

It was corrupt because Thaksin signed off on it while he was PM. That was against the law. Pretty simple really.

Cooking on TV is also considered high crime in Thailand.

Ravaging Gov House, commandeering our International airport, gunning down 90 protesters...... is ok.

.

[whybother]

I am curious about the 'so called' corrupt land deal. Did'nt Mrs Thaksin win in a fair bidding process, because her bid was the highest. ? Whats wrong with that.

It was corrupt because Thaksin signed off on it while he was PM. That was against the law. Pretty simple really.

Cooking on TV is also considered high crime in Thailand.

Ravaging Gov House, commandeering our International airport, gunning down 90 protesters...... is ok.

Being paid to talk on TV (or being paid for any other job) while you are PM is not considered a high crime. If you are found guilty of that, you are forced to step down from being PM. But you can stand again the next day. Whether you get selected by those in charge is up to them.

People have been charged with ravaging government house and commandeering the airports.

Gunning down 90 (actually 78) protesters is not OK. Shooting guns at the army (or helping those that do), storming hospitals, shooting grenades at civilians and burning down buildings is also not OK.

[JurgenG]

I have met Chamlong a couple of times. He's incredibly sociable and charming 1:1 or in a small group. He scares the bejeezus out of me on some levels though. Unlike many people at his social strata or who are involved in politics he seems sincere all the time. Which means if he said something scary like Thaksin did "when the first bullet.... I will be there with you" ... he means it. That type of leader is capable of creating so many martyrs if he wants to. (and I do not mean involuntary martyrs as I suspect some of the deaths last year were!) He also seems to be very devout in his beliefs and Santi-Asoke is not a mainstream sect of Buddhism. I guess what I am trying to say, is that with his personal charisma and perceived integrity he could be a very good thing for Thailand or a very very bad thing for Thailand.

So true ! TRT was more business oriented, more "rough" than the democrats, more soft, more consensual. But the PAD, and Chamlong is good example , were downright extremists, scary is the right word. They had no doubts, ready for martyrdom. When you know how much Thai hate social violence, it's difficult, for me at least, to understand their success.

Some of the witch hunts they later organized on facebook was not of very good memory for someone coming from Europe. Of from the US for that matter, McCarthy was not a great example of democracy at work

[SteeleJoe]

I have met Chamlong a couple of times. He's incredibly sociable and charming 1:1 or in a small group. He scares the bejeezus out of me on some levels though. Unlike many people at his social strata or who are involved in politics he seems sincere all the time. Which means if he said something scary like Thaksin did "when the first bullet.... I will be there with you" ... he means it. That type of leader is capable of creating so many martyrs if he wants to. (and I do not mean involuntary martyrs as I suspect some of the deaths last year were!) He also seems to be very devout in his beliefs and Santi-Asoke is not a mainstream sect of Buddhism. I guess what I am trying to say, is that with his personal charisma and perceived integrity he could be a very good thing for Thailand or a very very bad thing for Thailand.

So true ! TRT was more business oriented, more "rough" than the democrats, more soft, more consensual. But the PAD, and Chamlong is good example , were downright extremists, scary is the right word. They had no doubts, ready for martyrdom. When you know how much Thai hate social violence, it's difficult, for me at least, to understand their success.

Some of the witch hunts they later organized on facebook was not of very good memory for someone coming from Europe. Of from the US for that matter, McCarthy was not a great example of democracy at work

Not to speak for JD but it seems you've misinterpreted him/her (deliberately or not I wouldn't say): when i said I agreed with JD's post I certainly didn't mean that the description of Chamlong was an equally apt one for the PAD, nor would I agree that they more extremist than their opposition.

And you are making a fallacious comparison -- it's not the TRT and the PAD that should be compared but the UDD (one might argue that the UDD is just a proxy for the TRT but...)

And how can you possibly think that the UDD had any less no doubts or were any less ready for martyrdom? If anything they were more devoted to their cause than the PAD asnd seemingly ready to face anything.

When you know how much Thai hate social violence, it's difficult, for me at least, to understand their success.

Say what?! There's nothing to indicate that Thais hate violence any more than any other nationality or ethnic group - if anything it's rather the contrary actually; this country has a very high rate of violent crime and I (and virtually anyone I know who has lived here for any lenght of time) can tell you countless tales of violence and brutality, often with ridiculously little provacation or cause.

[JurgenG]

We are talking on Thaksin war on drugs. At that time it was the TRT if I am not mistaken.And the PAD was created to fight against Thaksin's political machine, the TRT. Quite efficiently because the TRT was later disbanded.

Regarding your comments about violence in Thailand, I disagree, but that's only my opinion. I grew up in Europe, travelled to the USA, Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines , just to name a few. As far as I'm concerned, Thailand is a very safe place. And also it's quite common knowledge that Thais are adverse to personal confrontation. But again, just my opinion

[jdinasia]

I have met Chamlong a couple of times. He's incredibly sociable and charming 1:1 or in a small group. He scares the bejeezus out of me on some levels though. Unlike many people at his social strata or who are involved in politics he seems sincere all the time. Which means if he said something scary like Thaksin did "when the first bullet.... I will be there with you" ... he means it. That type of leader is capable of creating so many martyrs if he wants to. (and I do not mean involuntary martyrs as I suspect some of the deaths last year were!) He also seems to be very devout in his beliefs and Santi-Asoke is not a mainstream sect of Buddhism. I guess what I am trying to say, is that with his personal charisma and perceived integrity he could be a very good thing for Thailand or a very very bad thing for Thailand.

So true ! TRT was more business oriented, more "rough" than the democrats, more soft, more consensual. But the PAD, and Chamlong is good example , were downright extremists, scary is the right word. They had no doubts, ready for martyrdom. When you know how much Thai hate social violence, it's difficult, for me at least, to understand their success.

Some of the witch hunts they later organized on facebook was not of very good memory for someone coming from Europe. Of from the US for that matter, McCarthy was not a great example of democracy at work

Not to speak for JD but it seems you've misinterpreted him/her (deliberately or not I wouldn't say): when i said I agreed with JD's post I certainly didn't mean that the description of Chamlong was an equally apt one for the PAD, nor would I agree that they more extremist than their opposition.

And you are making a fallacious comparison -- it's not the TRT and the PAD that should be compared but the UDD (one might argue that the UDD is just a proxy for the TRT but...)

And how can you possibly think that the UDD had any less no doubts or were any less ready for martyrdom? If anything they were more devoted to their cause than the PAD asnd seemingly ready to face anything.

When you know how much Thai hate social violence, it's difficult, for me at least, to understand their success.

Say what?! There's nothing to indicate that Thais hate violence any more than any other nationality or ethnic group - if anything it's rather the contrary actually; this country has a very high rate of violent crime and I (and virtually anyone I know who has lived here for any lenght of time) can tell you countless tales of violence and brutality, often with ridiculously little provacation or cause.

Thanks SJ ---

Comparing the PAD to TRT is specious. If you want to make comparisons of political parties then fine, compare the Dems or NPP to TRT. As SJ points out it would not be unfair to suggest that the UDD is the street action arm of the TRT/PPP/PTP's but it would be unfair to suggest that about the PAD with even the NPP, since apparently the NPP is going to contest the next elections over the stringent objections of the PAD.

Social violence? Seems to be a more red shirt thing that a PAD thing. The reds in 2007 at Prem's. The reds in 2008 attacking the PAD at Government House (1 killed and Samak had an excuse for calling a SoE.) The reds in 2009 at Songkran and the burnt busses and threatening an apartment block with a gas truck, The reds in Udon Thani, The reds in Chiang Mai, the reds at the army base and Thaicom leading to the April 10th attempt to disperse them where they started using war weapons. The PAD certainly aren't violent on the same scale. (That is not to say that they are not violent at all, but in most instances when they were involved in fighting it was defensive)

FaceBook as an issue and at the direction of the PAD? hardly.

Thais, like most other people, have violence as part of their culture and as SJ points out some of them often explode with little provocation. My explanation for that would be that some take so much crap day in and day out and cannot vent the anger in any way that is appropriate at work etc ... that they bottle it up and explode later when some random person does something basically innocent, like bump into them on a bus. (Something I witnessed first hand in BKK)

I do note that Jurgen just didn't mention the extremism of the reds by using the TRT fallacious argument.

Now Back to the topic combined with Jurgen's argument .... if Thais hate violence so much, why was Thaksin's war on drugs tolerated? Witch hunts? That would certainly describe the War on Drugs where according to reports more than 1/2 of the victims were innocent of any drug charges.

[SteeleJoe]

Another excellent post.

Let me just say that my comment about Thais and violence wasn't meant as any sort of criticism per se (no more than it is one of humans in general, really); I think your theory as to why violence rises to the surface is a good one and I've little doubt that that's at least part of it. Frankly, while it's not pleasant or admirable (and perhaps this speaks poorly of me), I'm not especially bothered by what I know of the dark side of Thais and I'm certainly not anti-Thai in the slightest. I just get tired of the simplistic, inaccurate and ultimately paternalistic stuff I hear about Thais being non-violent and spiritually enlightened yadda yadda...

Yes, if Thais hate violence so much, why was Thaksin's war on drugs tolerated? In fact, often celebrated.

[SteeleJoe]

We are talking on Thaksin war on drugs. At that time it was the TRT if I am not mistaken.And the PAD was created to fight against Thaksin's political machine, the TRT. Quite efficiently because the TRT was later disbanded.

Regarding your comments about violence in Thailand, I disagree, but that's only my opinion. I grew up in Europe, travelled to the USA, Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines , just to name a few. As far as I'm concerned, Thailand is a very safe place. And also it's quite common knowledge that Thais are adverse to personal confrontation. But again, just my opinion

Didn't see this.

Yes, it was the TRT. But you compared the PAD with the TRT -- there's no way that makes any sense.

You may disagree but it's hardly subjective: there are statistics (I can't vouch for their reliability) that show that Thailand has an extremely high rate of murder (by some accunts 4th in the world for use of handguns and 14th overall) and other types of violent crime and as I say there is copious anecdotal evidence -- not to mention reports in the press -- that provide further insight.

You think Thailand is very safe -- generally it will be for you. But I am certain you don't realize how quickly that could change with a minor alteration of circumstance. I've travelled to some dangerous places that looked scarier than here. But I ran pubs and discos in this country and knew people in that business. I've lived in Thai slums. I have seen the violence and even experienced it. Moreover, I've had thousands and thousands of conversations with Thais in the Thai language over decades of living here. I've never heard a Thai talk about their dislike for violence as a value -- but I have heard many a tale of violence or proposed aggression (mostly just posturing but not always -- and if violence were such a social anathema, why would Thais so readily talk about doing such and such to so and so?) Finally, I've spoken with many Thais on many occasions about this common delusion of falangs -- and all of them have agreed with me that regrettably it just isn't so.

Sorry. This is pretty sloppy but I've been called away and really rushed.

[SteeleJoe]

False alarm. Back to wasting time...

Just want to add:

When I moved from the nightclub business into real estate (before moving on again) I thought that I was in a more civilized and sedate business. I was initially very surprised at how often Thais would ask me if I wasn't afraid of getting shot. That was before I found out that getting shot was not all that uncommon in that business. I'll also point out that there are guides to doing business in Thailand that remind the readers that assasination is one option that is not infrequently employed in Thailand to resolve conflicts or eliminate obstacles.

So to get it back on topic: the Drug war was not an aberration in terms of the violence it engendered. What was remarkable about it was it's organized nature, it's scale and it's open and explicit official sanction.

[JurgenG]

Thanks SJ ---

Comparing the PAD to TRT is specious.

Why ? It was the political forces in presence at the time. The PAD was clearly set up to oppose Thaksin and the TRT. Is it something I missed here ?

I do note that Jurgen just didn't mention the extremism of the reds by using the TRT fallacious argument.

Thank you for noting. I never supported the red movement., Where, when did I ?

What fallacious arguments ?

You take it easy with the facts when they don't serve you

Now Back to the topic combined with Jurgen's argument .... if Thais hate violence so much, why was Thaksin's war on drugs tolerated? Witch hunts? That would certainly describe the War on Drugs where according to reports more than 1/2 of the victims were innocent of any drug charges.

Back to the topic Why was the war on drug tolerated ? Maybe because it sounds like a good idea.Do you know many countries who support the drug trade ? A few countries in Europe tried to liberalized the trade of certain drugs. I'm not sure it's a great success.

Edited April 8, 2011 by JurgenG

[SteeleJoe]

Thanks SJ ---

Comparing the PAD to TRT is specious.

Why ? It was the political forces in presence at the time. The PAD was clearly set up to oppose Thaksin and the TRT. Is it something I missed here ?

I do note that Jurgen just didn't mention the extremism of the reds by using the TRT fallacious argument.

Thank you for noting. I never supported the red movement., Where, when did I ?

What fallacious arguments ?

You take it easy with the facts when they don't serve you

Now Back to the topic combined with Jurgen's argument .... if Thais hate violence so much, why was Thaksin's war on drugs tolerated? Witch hunts? That would certainly describe the War on Drugs where according to reports more than 1/2 of the victims were innocent of any drug charges.

Back to the topic Why was the war on drug tolerated ? Maybe because it sounds like a good idea.Do you many countries who support the drug trade ? A few countries in Europe tried to liberalized the trade of certain drugs. I'm not sure it's a great success.

You don't seem unintelligent. Are you being deliberately obtuse or what?

-- The PAD did not exist during the war on drugs. The PAD was not a political party. The TRT was a political party made up of politicians doing their business in the halls of government etc, not on the streets. The counterpart to the PAD was the UDD or other Red Shirts.

-- Maybe it sounds like a good idea? How could murdering people sound like a good idea to people who hate violence? (I won't get into why it shouldn't sound like a good idea to anyone with a semblance of decency, common sense, and respect for democracy and the rule of law.)

-- Not supporting the drug trade is completely different from having a policy whereby drug dealers are executed summarily by the police without due process.(Only a fool would argue otherwise and that was an absurd straw man) Do you know of any country that does that as a rule?

You spoke of Europe's history -- do you honestly think that it's a good idea to give the Thai police the right to shoot people whom they claim are drug dealers? Do you think Germans would agree to that in their country (where almost certainly the police force ids more credible, regulated and benign)?

You'll note I've not even bothered to get into the fact that you assume that the people being killed were drug dealers; because quite simply while it's far worse when innocent people are killed, it's not OK for the police to be judge jury and executioner even if they are criminals.

EDITED TO ADD:

Thais hate violence? You should see my photos taken (not by me) at Thammasat University in 1976. One of the most shocking? The people standing around smiling as someone beat with a stick the body of a pro-democracy student protestor who had already been hung and burned alive.

Edited April 8, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[JurgenG]

Final post. It's getting tiring

I'm not the one who introduced the PAD in this thread, I was merely answering a post. I underlined the part I was answering and said I agree with this statement. So if you think the PAD is not relevant with this thread, argue with the people who introduce it at the first place.

I said people supported the war on drug because it sounds like a good idea. I never said people supported the indiscriminate killing of innocents. Why an international report was needed? Because people were disagreeing on the real motives/results on the war of drug. That's why we have this thread, trying to understand what really happened.

PS : thank you for saying I don't seem unintelligent. We should always try to keep a positive mind.

[SteeleJoe]

Final post. It's getting tiring

I'm not the one who introduced the PAD in this thread, I was merely answering a post. I underlined the part I was answering and said I agree with this statement. So if you think the PAD is not relevant with this thread, argue with the people who introduce it at the first place.

I said people supported the war on drug because it sounds like a good idea. I never said people supported the indiscriminate killing of innocents. Why an international report was needed? Because people were disagreeing on the real motives/results on the war of drug. That's why we have this thread, trying to understand what really happened.

PS : thank you for saying I don't seem unintelligent. We should always try to keep a positive mind.

You compared the PAD to the TRT. That's what we're discussing now. You've asked why that's a specious comparison and you've been told -- now you can't defend it anymore so you want to backpedal?

I never said that you said people supported the indiscriminate killing of innocents, did I? No. I did not. I even specifically stated that that wasn't the point.

You claim that Thais hate violence and the question was raised, if so, how could they approve of a policy of extra-judicial killing? You come back with an attempt to justify it -- that was completely untenable and you've not even tried to defend it or reply to the questions and points used to refute it -- but you avoid answering the question: how could they be OK with it if they hate violence?

I think it's obvious why that was your final post. Just as well, I'm sure.

[rixalex]

SteeleJoe and JD, thanks for some informed and interesting discourse. Pleasure to read. :jap:

[JurgenG]

I think it's obvious why that was your final post. Just as well, I'm sure.

I can answer an argument point by point, line by line, what I tried to do.

But your post are getting nonsensical and repetitives.

I'm not sure you even understand what I say.I don't really care at the end. If other people want to comment, they are welcomed

Edited April 8, 2011 by JurgenG

[SteeleJoe]

I can answer an argument point by point, line by line...

Demonstrably false.

Your posts are just smoke and mirrors.

Demonstrably false.

(I thought we were done? And let's not go for the ad hominem -- or even post unless, rather than just use derive rhetoric based on nothing, you can actually address something )

EDIT: I am replying in the above to a post that has since been changed.

SteeleJoe and JD, thanks for some informed and interesting discourse. Pleasure to read.

Thanks for the positive feedback Rixalex but I'm well aware of how turgid I can be (...but JD's real good.)

Edited April 8, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[geriatrickid]

I am curious about the 'so called' corrupt land deal. Did'nt Mrs Thaksin win in a fair bidding process, because her bid was the highest. ? Whats wrong with that.

It was corrupt because Thaksin signed off on it while he was PM. That was against the law. Pretty simple really.

Cooking on TV is also considered high crime in Thailand.

Ravaging Gov House, commandeering our International airport, gunning down 90 protesters...... is ok.

Being paid to talk on TV (or being paid for any other job) while you are PM is not considered a high crime. If you are found guilty of that, you are forced to step down from being PM. But you can stand again the next day. Whether you get selected by those in charge is up to them.

People have been charged with ravaging government house and commandeering the airports.

Gunning down 90 (actually 78) protesters is not OK. Shooting guns at the army (or helping those that do), storming hospitals, shooting grenades at civilians and burning down buildings is also not OK.

Hypothetically speaking..... If a PM has to resign for having a harmless cooking show, what do you recommend for a defense minister that denies cluster munitions are used when the evidence shows that they were? What of his boss the PM that doesn't take responsibility for his minister? What would you do with a minister of natural resources that did not enforce land protection laws, if there is a strong likelihood that the non enforcement was a factor in the loss of lives due to landslides? What would you do with the minister's boss, the PM if the PM did nothing?

[whybother]

Hypothetically speaking..... If a PM has to resign for having a harmless cooking show, what do you recommend for a defense minister that denies cluster munitions are used when the evidence shows that they were? What of his boss the PM that doesn't take responsibility for his minister? What would you do with a minister of natural resources that did not enforce land protection laws, if there is a strong likelihood that the non enforcement was a factor in the loss of lives due to landslides? What would you do with the minister's boss, the PM if the PM did nothing?

If every lying politician had to step down, there would be no politicians.

Lying, as bad as it is, is not the same as breaking the law ... unless of course, it's under oath, which is what Samak did when he lied about being paid for his "harmless cooking show".

[jdinasia]

Hypothetically speaking..... If a PM has to resign for having a harmless cooking show, what do you recommend for a defense minister that denies cluster munitions are used when the evidence shows that they were? What of his boss the PM that doesn't take responsibility for his minister? What would you do with a minister of natural resources that did not enforce land protection laws, if there is a strong likelihood that the non enforcement was a factor in the loss of lives due to landslides? What would you do with the minister's boss, the PM if the PM did nothing?

If every lying politician had to step down, there would be no politicians.

Lying, as bad as it is, is not the same as breaking the law ... unless of course, it's under oath, which is what Samak did when he lied about being paid for his "harmless cooking show".

To wit ... he didn't resign now did he? Better question, if he was kicked out for lying but could step right back in if elected by parliament again .... what does that say about accountability even when caught?

As for pauljones' hyperbole .... there is just no reason to deal with lies and misrepresentations. (such as 90 protestors)

[jdinasia]

I can answer an argument point by point, line by line...

Demonstrably false.

Your posts are just smoke and mirrors.

Demonstrably false.

(I thought we were done? And let's not go for the ad hominem -- or even post unless, rather than just use derive rhetoric based on nothing, you can actually address something )

EDIT: I am replying in the above to a post that has since been changed.

SteeleJoe and JD, thanks for some informed and interesting discourse. Pleasure to read.

Thanks for the positive feedback Rixalex but I'm well aware of how turgid I can be (...but JD's real good.)

Nah --- I am fair to middling when it comes to many things, but thanks for the compliment.

[geriatrickid]

Hypothetically speaking..... If a PM has to resign for having a harmless cooking show, what do you recommend for a defense minister that denies cluster munitions are used when the evidence shows that they were? What of his boss the PM that doesn't take responsibility for his minister? What would you do with a minister of natural resources that did not enforce land protection laws, if there is a strong likelihood that the non enforcement was a factor in the loss of lives due to landslides? What would you do with the minister's boss, the PM if the PM did nothing?

If every lying politician had to step down, there would be no politicians.

Lying, as bad as it is, is not the same as breaking the law ... unless of course, it's under oath, which is what Samak did when he lied about being paid for his "harmless cooking show".

To wit ... he didn't resign now did he? Better question, if he was kicked out for lying but could step right back in if elected by parliament again .... what does that say about accountability even when caught?

As for pauljones' hyperbole .... there is just no reason to deal with lies and misrepresentations. (such as 90 protestors)

Awww isn't this convenient. Avoid the issue by pointing fingers. When Thaksin defenders point out that his errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest were no worse than others, the Thaksin bashing contingent will sputter and froth at the mouth exclaiming, no. Well, I'm sorry but the examples I cited are just as bad, if not worse and yet, no one takes a consistent position. Nice.

[jdinasia]

Hypothetically speaking..... If a PM has to resign for having a harmless cooking show, what do you recommend for a defense minister that denies cluster munitions are used when the evidence shows that they were? What of his boss the PM that doesn't take responsibility for his minister? What would you do with a minister of natural resources that did not enforce land protection laws, if there is a strong likelihood that the non enforcement was a factor in the loss of lives due to landslides? What would you do with the minister's boss, the PM if the PM did nothing?

If every lying politician had to step down, there would be no politicians.

Lying, as bad as it is, is not the same as breaking the law ... unless of course, it's under oath, which is what Samak did when he lied about being paid for his "harmless cooking show".

To wit ... he didn't resign now did he? Better question, if he was kicked out for lying but could step right back in if elected by parliament again .... what does that say about accountability even when caught?

As for pauljones' hyperbole .... there is just no reason to deal with lies and misrepresentations. (such as 90 protestors)

Awww isn't this convenient. Avoid the issue by pointing fingers. When Thaksin defenders point out that his errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest were no worse than others, the Thaksin bashing contingent will sputter and froth at the mouth exclaiming, no. Well, I'm sorry but the examples I cited are just as bad, if not worse and yet, no one takes a consistent position. Nice.

HUH?

When Thaksin defenders point out that his errors in judgement and conflicts of interest (I left out the word perceived!) were no worse than others, they get corrected. The war on drugs was orders of magnitude worse than others as were his conflicts of interest. It is only convenient to Thaksin defenders to proclaim they were no worse than others

The examples you cited weren't even close to being on the same scale, and were not even similar in nature

edit -typo

Edited April 10, 2011 by jdinasia