Thai Govt Won't Be Overthrown, No Coup: Military Commanders

[animatic]

Wonder who is spreading the rumours. It sure aint the military

It is obviously a strong and pernicious campaign of rumors.

[blazes]

My respect for the commanders making such statements, but this should not be necessary in a developed democracy.

The necessity for such denials would be reason enough to dismantle the armed forces altogooether as they are not here to serve the people but to protect the ruling elite.

humm................ Have anywhere been a similar practice like this one?....

Does this question mean "is Thailand like other countries, or not?"

The answer is, yes. Antonio Gramsci was the first to theorise that most "democratic" governments are in power because there is an unspoken contract that if things go "wrong" the army will quickly be on the streets to guarantee law and order, which nearly always means the law and order of the ruling elite.

The 20th Century saw numerous examples of this and it was a Republican president (Eisenhower) who warned against the emergence of a "military-industrial complex." So, yes, Thailand is no different ...

And at least Thailand does not waste taxpayers' money by looking for ....erm... weapons of mass destruction.

[sunnyrolfe]

General Songkitti asked the media and people not to panic with the coup rumor because the Thai armed forces are under the constitution, underlying the democratic system with the constitutional monarchy; therefore, the Thai military will not violate freedom of people.

Why weren't they abiding by this when Thaksin was overthrown? Or does it only count when you're trying to prop up a hi so dictatorship.

[whybother]

General Songkitti asked the media and people not to panic with the coup rumor because the Thai armed forces are under the constitution, underlying the democratic system with the constitutional monarchy; therefore, the Thai military will not violate freedom of people.

Why weren't they abiding by this when Thaksin was overthrown? Or does it only count when you're trying to prop up a hi so dictatorship.

Possibly because Thaksin was trying to usurp the democratic system.

[Crushdepth]

Why weren't they abiding by this when Thaksin was overthrown? Or does it only count when you're trying to prop up a hi so dictatorship.

The Thaksin government wasn't a hiso dictatorship? His party don't even get to elect their own leader. Very democratic.

[ianbaggie]

The most interesting thing here - is that this shows that the military top brass KNOW the differnce between right and wrong. Their denial PROVES that they know how armed forces should behave within political spheres.

One thing that could be learnt from Britain by the Thais is to keep a SMALL peace time army as we always have - why would Thailand need a strong army anyway? Its not as if Myanmar is about to invade Sukhothai again is it. Thailand should concerntrate on quality NOT quantity within its armed forces.

[ianbaggie]

Why weren't they abiding by this when Thaksin was overthrown? Or does it only count when you're trying to prop up a hi so dictatorship.

The Thaksin government wasn't a hiso dictatorship? His party don't even get to elect their own leader. Very democratic.

Maybe crushdepth - thats because thaksin was a convicted c riminal who REFUSED to let go of power - he RIGHTLY HAD t6o be removed by whatever means necessary.

[ianbaggie]

My respect for the commanders making such statements, but this should not be necessary in a developed democracy.

The necessity for such denials would be reason enough to dismantle the armed forces altogooether as they are not here to serve the people but to protect the ruling elite.

humm................ Have anywhere been a similar practice like this one?....

Does this question mean "is Thailand like other countries, or not?"

The answer is, yes. Antonio Gramsci was the first to theorise that most "democratic" governments are in power because there is an unspoken contract that if things go "wrong" the army will quickly be on the streets to guarantee law and order, which nearly always means the law and order of the ruling elite.

The 20th Century saw numerous examples of this and it was a Republican president (Eisenhower) who warned against the emergence of a "military-industrial complex." So, yes, Thailand is no different ...

And at least Thailand does not waste taxpayers' money by looking for ....erm... weapons of mass destruction.

NO - but one thing it does have in common is that from time to time its armed forces are needed to remove dangerous, murdering, lying, cheating dictators!!!!!!!

[ianbaggie]

My respect for the commanders making such statements, but this should not be necessary in a developed democracy.

The necessity for such denials would be reason enough to dismantle the armed forces altogooether as they are not here to serve the people but to protect the ruling elite.

humm................ Have anywhere been a similar practice like this one?....

Does this question mean "is Thailand like other countries, or not?"

The answer is, yes. Antonio Gramsci was the first to theorise that most "democratic" governments are in power because there is an unspoken contract that if things go "wrong" the army will quickly be on the streets to guarantee law and order, which nearly always means the law and order of the ruling elite.

The 20th Century saw numerous examples of this and it was a Republican president (Eisenhower) who warned against the emergence of a "military-industrial complex." So, yes, Thailand is no different ...

And at least Thailand does not waste taxpayers' money by looking for ....erm... weapons of mass destruction.

NO - but one thing Thailand does have in common with Democratic western countries is that from time to time its armed forces are needed to remove dangerous, murdering, lying, cheating dictators!!!!!!!

[BKK03]

Cash flow is excellent at the moment. Interruptions are not in order. Time passes quickly. Patience is in order. :jap:

[SteeleJoe]

The most interesting thing here - is that this shows that the military top brass KNOW the differnce between right and wrong. Their denial PROVES that they know how armed forces should behave within political spheres.

Actually they have no business in political spheres. But here's what i dashed off on another thread thinking your post was on that one!

...someone said that we should view it as progress that the military makes the denials it is making and thus implicitly acknowledges that intervention in politics is wrong; I agree that that is an indication of progress however I would temper optimism with the fact that that change* happened decades ago -- and still we have the question of a coup on the horizon. (I remember in circa '93 when I subscribed to the view of many political analysts of the time that Thailand had moved past that -- how naive we were).

*It's true that it's only a relatively short time ago (in historical terms) that the military would have righteously insisted that its duty was to oversee administration of the country but they began paying lip service to civilian control and an apolitical military about 20 years ago (and to be fair, there seemed to be some genuine movement in that direction; indeed I'm inclined to hypothesize that it was largely the advent of a phenomena like Thaksin -- something that in some ways had never been seen here before and which no one saw coming -- contributed to a reverse in the trend. The way I see it, Thaksin was smart enough -- and rich enough -- to use the prevailing climate, and some structural changes that should have furthered democracy, to benefit his less than democratic goals)

[Roadman]

The most interesting thing here - is that this shows that the military top brass KNOW the differnce between right and wrong. Their denial PROVES that they know how armed forces should behave within political spheres.

Actually they have no business in political spheres. But here's what i dashed off on another thread thinking your post was on that one!

...someone said that we should view it as progress that the military makes the denials it is making and thus implicitly acknowledges that intervention in politics is wrong; I agree that that is an indication of progress however I would temper optimism with the fact that that change* happened decades ago -- and still we have the question of a coup on the horizon. (I remember in circa '93 when I subscribed to the view of many political analysts of the time that Thailand had moved past that -- how naive we were).

*It's true that it's only a relatively short time ago (in historical terms) that the military would have righteously insisted that its duty was to oversee administration of the country but they began paying lip service to civilian control and an apolitical military about 20 years ago (and to be fair, there seemed to be some genuine movement in that direction; indeed I'm inclined to hypothesize that it was largely the advent of a phenomena like Thaksin -- something that in some ways had never been seen here before and which no one saw coming -- contributed to a reverse in the trend. The way I see it, Thaksin was smart enough -- and rich enough -- to use the prevailing climate, and some structural changes that should have furthered democracy, to benefit his less than democratic goals)

Your observation is correct. The Army is genuine in its promotion of assisting with the installation of democratic governance.

Will there be another coup while the Democrats hold power? No, as the Democrats are governing within the frame work of the Constitution.

Will there be a coup if the PTP win governance and work within the Constitutional frame work? No.

Will there be a coup if the PTP and their scumbag dictator start ruling how they see fit? You bet there will be. This time around thou the Army would be wise to deal to Thaksin once and for all, no matter what the cost.

[SteeleJoe]

Your observation is correct. The Army is genuine in its promotion of assisting with the installation of democratic governance...

Well, that's not quite what I said (though I don't necessarily disagree entirely).

Or are you being ironic?

[phiphidon]

Your observation is correct. The Army is genuine in its promotion of assisting with the installation of democratic governance...

Well, that's not quite what I said (though I don't necessarily disagree entirely).

Or are you being ironic?

I hope he's being ironic but don't have too much faith in the idea. The Democrats are indeed working under the framework of the constitution, albeit one written by the military. This was of course subject to a referendum of the Thai people who voted overwhelmingly for it, well 59 per cent did. And you weren't actually allowed to publicly criticise it which is kind of democratic, with a very small "d" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/06/politics/politics_30039559.php

[MAJIC]

The supreme commander confirmed that people can rest assured that the military has no involvement in the national politics

That must have changed overnight then.

He knows it is a lie.We know it is a lie.The Thai People knows it is a lie.

And Thaksin will be praying it really is a lie,when the Reds lose the next Election,and another Democrat Coalition resumes!

Edited April 7, 2011 by MAJIC

[SanitreeNapikin]

Wow they're all so hot.

[animatic]

The most interesting thing here - is that this shows that the military top brass KNOW the differnce between right and wrong. Their denial PROVES that they know how armed forces should behave within political spheres.

One thing that could be learnt from Britain by the Thais is to keep a SMALL peace time army as we always have - why would Thailand need a strong army anyway? Its not as if Myanmar is about to invade Sukhothai again is it. Thailand should concerntrate on quality NOT quantity within its armed forces.

Actually the army is the main conter force against the Thai Police. They two are constantly squared off against each other and to some extent keep each in check, or at least from not running totally amok.

Edited April 8, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Your observation is correct. The Army is genuine in its promotion of assisting with the installation of democratic governance.

Will there be another coup while the Democrats hold power? No, as the Democrats are governing within the frame work of the Constitution.

Will there be a coup if the PTP win governance and work within the Constitutional frame work? No.

Will there be a coup if the PTP and their scumbag dictator start ruling how they see fit? You bet there will be. This time around thou the Army would be wise to deal to Thaksin once and for all, no matter what the cost.

(Pardon for the edit to make points more clear to the eye. content remains the same.).

Probably pretty close to a reasonable prognostication of the future. As un-pretty a picture as this last section paints, it is probably not far from potential reality.

If Thaksin takes back power, and starts down the path of vindictiveness he has shown in the past, against those who opposed him, then I would not want to bet on his long term survival.

No doubt certain parties will try the 'calling for his death' accusation yet again against me, as was done last week, but there is a big difference between making observations and predictions of possible outcomes and their consequences, and calling for someone to take violent action against someone with a history of violence that surrounds him. I'll leave that psychosis to the Red Shirt Leaders.

Thaksin has a track record that no doubt gives fear to many if he were to take control over them. If I were being threatened with my life by a vindictive sociopath, I might also be quite inclined to strike him before he does me. Sometimes the best defense is offense. Not saying this should be done, but not going to bet against it being done either...

Edited April 8, 2011 by animatic

[SteeleJoe]

The most interesting thing here - is that this shows that the military top brass KNOW the differnce between right and wrong. Their denial PROVES that they know how armed forces should behave within political spheres.

One thing that could be learnt from Britain by the Thais is to keep a SMALL peace time army as we always have - why would Thailand need a strong army anyway? Its not as if Myanmar is about to invade Sukhothai again is it. Thailand should concerntrate on quality NOT quantity within its armed forces.

Actually the army is the main conter force against the Thai Police. They two are constantly squared off against each other and to some extent keep each in check, or at least from not running totally amok.

I personally think that's far less true than it used to be -- not since the days of Pibun and Phao (when the RTP was a full-fledged and formidable paramilitary organization) have the police been real contenders; having said that, there are occasional clashes or conflicts -- I even remember a case in the '80s when the police arrested a solider and there was an armed standoff at a police station (but it wasn't quite like the firefight fought over opium a couple decades before) -- and who knows what the situation would be if the army wasn't more powerful than the police.