whybother Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 1.He comically compares the criminal coup of 2006 in Thailand to the American Revolution.His understanding of his own country's history seems as limited as his understanding of Thailand's. Isn't it always the case that the winners (of coups or wars) are exonerated and the losers jailed or killed or exiled? 2.He denies that Thaksin was legally PM of Tailand at the time of the coup - a straightforward lie here Do you mean the legally elected PM or the legally appointed care-taker PM? Was Thaksin reappointed after resigning as care-taker PM (assuming he was care-taker PM and not still the elected PM)? 3.He argues that Thaksin was the cause of Thailand's political problems, not the greedy feudal elite, the corrupt military and the manifest unfairness in Thai society. Change was happening in Thailand, slowly. There was a peoples constitution. There were elections. There was a full term. If Thaksin had been a reasonable PM, rather than greedy, corrupt and power hungry, then things would have continued to change, slowly. Instead, he made himself rich and he put his relatives in positions of power. He was taking control. He didn't do anything against the "manifest unfairness in Thai society". He threw around some money to the poor in unsustainable programs during a boom in the world economies, and usually where a lot of the money was skimmed off the top by the upcountry "feudal elite" that have been prolonging the "manifest unfairness in Thai society" for most of the poor farmers. 4.He thinks the overall damage to Thailand was done by the Drugs War, not the coup.Silly of him to compare - a meaningless statement. This one I think you're mis-quoting ... again. Why do you reply to someones post and then refer to them in the third person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Why do you reply to someones post and then refer to them in the third person? I haven't replied to your post in detail because we've been around this course so many times already.I hope you accept it's not a lack of courtesy. Just a few points 1.I think it's beyond dispute that Thaksin was the legal PM when deposed by the coup makers in 2006.I'm not sure the caretaker status is really relevant 2.I think it would with time and patience have been possible to eject Thaksin democratically.The military cheerleaders simply deny this but without ever explaining why.Thaksin's influence was on the wane and the polls sowed this. 3.You repeat the view, voiced by some other apologists for the old order that country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites.I think I know what is meant here but it doesn't alter the facts of life in Thailand relating to the Bangkok based dominance of a powerful elite network.Everything else is subsidiary.Read Duncan McCargo's masterful analysis for background. The reason why I refer to the poster in third person is that he has me on "ignore", so somewhat absurdly he only reacts when he sees me in quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 1.I think it's beyond dispute that Thaksin was the legal PM when deposed by the coup makers in 2006.I'm not sure the caretaker status is really relevant If it's beyond dispute, why do a lot of people dispute it? Care-taker status is very relevant in understanding what "legal" means. Particularly when Thaksin resigned as care-taker PM. 2.I think it would with time and patience have been possible to eject Thaksin democratically.The military cheerleaders simply deny this but without ever explaining why.Thaksin's influence was on the wane and the polls sowed this. You may be correct in saying that with time and patience it would have been possible to eject Thaksin democratically. But how long would it have taken and how much damage would have been done by that stage? It was obvious that Thaksin was already putting his own controls in place of various institutions. If he got more control, particularly over the army, would it have been possible to remove him democratically? No one knows, but you can look at the direction it was heading. 3.You repeat the view, voiced by some other apologists for the old order that country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites.I think I know what is meant here but it doesn't alter the facts of life in Thailand relating to the Bangkok based dominance of a powerful elite network.Everything else is subsidiary.Read Duncan McCargo's masterful analysis for background. As in any country, the big businesses and the country's political control ends up being in the big cities. By continually stating that it is the Bangkok based "elite" that are causing all the problems, you conveniently ignore the damage done by the upcountry "elite", the big local businesses and local political powers that are no better (and sometimes worse) than their Bangkok based "cousins". I don't "apologise" for the old order or the military. I just try and point out the contradictions in posts that are against the "elite" but support Thaksin and the red leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreyMcCollum Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Oh Please . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maewrocks Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well, so far Abhisit's attempts at reconciliation have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Would be hard to do worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I also think him coming back and going to jail serving hissentence will also help the peace. But since he is very selfish this he willnot obey the law He may very well come back and go to a prison. In the event that a pardon would then be granted as part of an over all amnesty, why then all legal issues would be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well, so far Abhisit's attempts at reconciliation have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Would be hard to do worse. negotiating with idiots can be time consuming and mentally draining. Thus, consider the overall need for such a negotiation. If the outcome sought is not extremely valuable to you, break off the negotiation sooner versus later. You'll save your brain cells, your mental sanity, and the strength to negotiate on another day................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maewrocks Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well, so far Abhisit's attempts at reconciliation have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Would be hard to do worse. negotiating with idiots can be time consuming and mentally draining. Thus, consider the overall need for such a negotiation. If the outcome sought is not extremely valuable to you, break off the negotiation sooner versus later. You'll save your brain cells, your mental sanity, and the strength to negotiate on another day................ I see you subscibe to the Piromya school of diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well, so far Abhisit's attempts at reconciliation have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Would be hard to do worse. negotiating with idiots can be time consuming and mentally draining. Thus, consider the overall need for such a negotiation. If the outcome sought is not extremely valuable to you, break off the negotiation sooner versus later. You'll save your brain cells, your mental sanity, and the strength to negotiate on another day................ I see you subscibe to the Piromya school of diplomacy. diplomacy? weren't you the one that called me a pretentious <deleted>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominique355 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Amnesty is the opposite of justice. In fact, it is denial of justice. And if in addition amnesty is only granted to politicians, how can this bring peace and reconciliation to the country? If you cheat billions, you walk free, if you steel 100 Baht, you rot in prison. Is that the Phew Thai way of justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Yingluck: Amnesty Will Restore Peace And bring back her criminal brother. The man is only thinking me,me,me,me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well, so far Abhisit's attempts at reconciliation have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Would be hard to do worse. negotiating with idiots can be time consuming and mentally draining. Thus, consider the overall need for such a negotiation. If the outcome sought is not extremely valuable to you, break off the negotiation sooner versus later. You'll save your brain cells, your mental sanity, and the strength to negotiate on another day................ I see you subscibe to the Piromya school of diplomacy. diplomacy? weren't you the one that called me a pretentious <deleted>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Bucholz, the master of databank, I ask you who was the financial minister the first years of T. , (a man at the same level of K.Korn,) who copied the "populist" strategies of Chuan Leek Pai and had been promoted to higher positions because he couldn't accept that this stategies was not accepeted for all Thailand but only for regions where T. had his voters? The first Finance Minister in Thaksin Cabinet was Somkid Jatusripitak. Somkid was one of the co-founders of the Thai Rak Thai party in 1998, along with party leader Thaksin Shinawatra. His senior stature in the party was apparent from his no. 3 position in the TRT's 2001 election party list, behind Thaksin Shinawatra and Purachai Piemsomboon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somkid_Jatusripitak As a Party Executive with TRT he is currently banned from politics for 5 years for electoral fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KireB Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Well, so far Abhisit's attempts at reconciliation have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Would be hard to do worse. Especially given the fact that both the Reds and the PT have tried everything possible to prevent him from governing this country. Was he ever given a fair chance? He can't even travel freely within Thailand, as in most parts groups of sponsored red hooligans would either threaten him, attack him or shout profanities at him. And he crux of it all, is that those red hooligan leaders are gonna be MP in the 'Thaksin-Thinks-PT Does-Party'. How blind can you be not see through this charade? Edited May 21, 2011 by KireB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siripon Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Banharn's party will certainly support an amnesty as this will free himself and his family to resumes their roles legally. All depending on the number of seats obtained by which party, but no doubt Thaksin is courting all the small parties now with sweeteners ranging from money to key ministries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 How blind can you be not see through this charade? A contract might have something to do with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Bucholz, the master of databank, I ask you who was the financial minister the first years of T. , (a man at the same level of K.Korn,) who copied the "populist" strategies of Chuan Leek Pai and had been promoted to higher positions because he couldn't accept that this stategies was not accepeted for all Thailand but only for regions where T. had his voters? The first Finance Minister in Thaksin Cabinet was Somkid Jatusripitak. Somkid was one of the co-founders of the Thai Rak Thai party in 1998, along with party leader Thaksin Shinawatra. His senior stature in the party was apparent from his no. 3 position in the TRT's 2001 election party list, behind Thaksin Shinawatra and Purachai Piemsomboon.http://en.wikipedia....id_Jatusripitak As a Party Executive with TRT he is currently banned from politics for 5 years for electoral fraud. And wasn't Devakula head of the bank of T then too. No working partly as a respected pundit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuian Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) well, well, well standing ovations for "little Yinluck" she's so cute and her statements so enlightening - here we go, not even at the helm or not even elected here she goes... round.... which one? Edited May 21, 2011 by Samuian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 A troll/flame post and responses to it have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 How blind can you be not see through this charade? A contract might have something to do with it... ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Inflammatory posts removed from view also a quoted reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlest Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 This i don't like the look or smell of... Beauty and naivety, a female to write the history books... a puppet to brainwash more of the masses controlled by the one who cannot be let in... unless she gets in first... He really is Thailands greatest embarrasment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I suggested around the time of the protest last year that Abhisit would be well advised to reach out to the rural communities and build a relationship..........it would appear this is the current agenda of Yingluck............ I guess Abhisit was just too busy running the country......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 How blind can you be not see through this charade? A contract might have something to do with it... ????? Maybe I'm wrong. It could be a "gentlemen's agreement" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 How blind can you be not see through this charade? A contract might have something to do with it... ????? Maybe I'm wrong. It could be a "gentlemen's agreement" What in the name of Bonaparte's balls are you going on about now, man? Please clarify for the hard of mind-reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atyclb Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Why do you reply to someones post and then refer to them in the third person? I haven't replied to your post in detail because we've been around this course so many times already.I hope you accept it's not a lack of courtesy. Just a few points 1.I think it's beyond dispute that Thaksin was the legal PM when deposed by the coup makers in 2006.I'm not sure the caretaker status is really relevant 2.I think it would with time and patience have been possible to eject Thaksin democratically.The military cheerleaders simply deny this but without ever explaining why.Thaksin's influence was on the wane and the polls sowed this. 3.You repeat the view, voiced by some other apologists for the old order that country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites.I think I know what is meant here but it doesn't alter the facts of life in Thailand relating to the Bangkok based dominance of a powerful elite network.Everything else is subsidiary.Read Duncan McCargo's masterful analysis for background. The reason why I refer to the poster in third person is that he has me on "ignore", so somewhat absurdly he only reacts when he sees me in quotes. Even I "feel your pain" #1 Thailand will get the government it deserves #2 TV forum has the participants it deserves or vice a versa et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbin Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Here we go again..... Some of you might have been posted here by your employer but the vast majority of us are here of our own choice. A good part of being an expat is leaving behind your investment in the politics of your home country. Yes, that's right. If you cared that much why did you cut and run? Then to substitute, some get all frothy at the mouth about the politics of this our adopted country. Where they have no vote. But that doesn't slow them down at all unfortunately. Have an opinion. Express it once in great while. Then shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siripon Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I suggested around the time of the protest last year that Abhisit would be well advised to reach out to the rural communities and build a relationship..........it would appear this is the current agenda of Yingluck............ I guess Abhisit was just too busy running the country......... Apisit went to Nong Khai province but as soon as the reds heard he was there they sent a contingent off to harrass and drive him away.And as for Chiang Mai, there's quite a history of leading Democrats facing physical assault there. He's done more for farmers than Thaksin ever did, his crop subsidy scheme has reached far more farmers, especially the rice farmers, than Thaksin's mortgage project which helped the millers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 What in the name of Bonaparte's balls are you going on about now, man? Please clarify for the hard of mind-reading. Going to have to leave you with your balls for now, hanuman1. Will all no doubt become clearer within the next few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I suggested around the time of the protest last year that Abhisit would be well advised to reach out to the rural communities and build a relationship..........it would appear this is the current agenda of Yingluck............ I guess Abhisit was just too busy running the country......... Apisit went to Nong Khai province but as soon as the reds heard he was there they sent a contingent off to harrass and drive him away.And as for Chiang Mai, there's quite a history of leading Democrats facing physical assault there. He's done more for farmers than Thaksin ever did, his crop subsidy scheme has reached far more farmers, especially the rice farmers, than Thaksin's mortgage project which helped the millers. There is I believe an intended oilseed subsidy, and intended fertiliser subsidy for second crop rice, did these measures get pushed through? Just to let you know most poorer farmers are on land that will only carry enough water for one crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now