Thai Army Chief Enters Election Fray

[trisailer]

The topic is weather or not the Army will enter the fray. Do any of you really believe that Thaksin has not anticipated this and has a plan?

You can say what you want about the guy, but he is a leader and he is not likely to be blindsided by "unexpected" factors.

Don't you "get it" the Thai people are desperate for "leadership" They don't give a shit about his personal issues. They want a leader who will get the job done.

Don't get your pintle in high gudeon.

Thaksin has been blindided often --- it'll happen again. He's not an effective leader at all. He's autocratic and self-centered. A percentage of Thais want Thaksin and a percentage are very opposed to him. The fact is that he is a convicted criminal and was convicted for valid reasons. The topic is not "will the army enter the fray" the topic is "Thai Army Chief Enters Election Fray" :-)

Do you think that Thaksin would have allowed weapons and gasoline into a demonstration where people passions were going to be inflamed? Would any leader anywhere in the world allow that to happen? Are you suggesting that the "Army Chief" is speaking as a private citizen? I believe that he is speaking as head of the Army, otherwise no one would care.

In case you forgot Thailand's roots are firmly formed by autocratic leadership. That may explain why the expect it and welcome it when it get the job done.

[rixalex]

Agreed! The question is "what is best for this country" I believe that the Thai people a perfectly capable of deciding that and I plan to live with their choice.

Forget the Thai electorate, i don't think any electorate is particularly capable of making the right decision, otherwise why G W Bush? Why Berlusconi? But this is democracy, so we live with it, and if the electorate votes in someone we don't agree with, we live with that, just as all the Americans who knew that Bush was a complete tool, had to live with him. Doesn't mean we have to agree though, and whether it be our home country or our adopted country, we have the right to a view, don't we? Or would you prefer it taken away?

[rubl]

Agreed! The question is "what is best for this country" I believe that the Thai people a perfectly capable of deciding that and I plan to live with their choice.

Forget the Thai electorate, i don't think any electorate is particularly capable of making the right decision, otherwise why G W Bush? Why Berlusconi? But this is democracy, so we live with it, and if the electorate votes in someone we don't agree with, we live with that, just as all the Americans who knew that Bush was a complete tool, had to live with him. Doesn't mean we have to agree though, and whether it be our home country or our adopted country, we have the right to a view, don't we? Or would you prefer it taken away?

One of the basic Human Rights:

The right to make your own mistakes rather than learn from those made by others

[rixalex]

Do you think that Thaksin would have allowed weapons and gasoline into a demonstration where people passions were going to be inflamed? Would any leader anywhere in the world allow that to happen?

Would any leader anywhere in the world allow people to train as airline pilots and then hijack planes and fly them into buildings? No, of course not, if they have the chance to prohibit it, they would. Doesn't always work out that way. Personally though, i place much more of the blame with the perpetrators for perpetrating it than with the authorities for not stopping it.

[trisailer]

Agreed! The question is "what is best for this country" I believe that the Thai people a perfectly capable of deciding that and I plan to live with their choice.

Forget the Thai electorate, i don't think any electorate is particularly capable of making the right decision, otherwise why G W Bush? Why Berlusconi? But this is democracy, so we live with it, and if the electorate votes in someone we don't agree with, we live with that, just as all the Americans who knew that Bush was a complete tool, had to live with him. Doesn't mean we have to agree though, and whether it be our home country or our adopted country, we have the right to a view, don't we? Or would you prefer it taken away?

Of course you have a right to your view. You expressing it are you not? No I would not prefer that it be taken away. I think it is an important part of the process, but some of the comments here about the Thai's being too stupid (not saying you) to decide what's best for their own country are over the top, wouldn't you agree?

[samurai]

Don't you "get it"? With the exception of perhaps your wife and in-laws, you don't speak for Thai people.

I can read the papers and the polls just like you.

I will have the honor of going to the village to collect up my Thai family and carry them to the voting poll on election day just as I did my own mother in the US. That's the most I can do.

Why doesn't someone explain to me why you farangs are so passionate about a election that you can't vote in?

Because to many of us, this is our home...adopted anyway. We love it here, live here full time, raise our families here and want to see the best for this country.

Agreed! The question is "what is best for this country" I believe that the Thai people a perfectly capable of deciding that and I plan to live with their choice.

Some farang seem to think that they know better than the Thai people and that's what I have an issue with.

Second that.

And i live here full time and not just having a wife, a gf or a bf from Thailand.

[rixalex]

Of course you have a right to your view. You expressing it are you not?

Yes i am, but the message i was getting from you was that because i don't have a vote, i shouldn't have an opinion, at least not a passionate one. Was that not what you were saying, because that's how it sounded?

I think it is an important part of the process, but some of the comments here about the Thai's being too stupid (not saying you) to decide what's best for their own country are over the top, wouldn't you agree?

I think calling other people who you have never met stupid is over the top, yes, but i have no problem with calling certain ideas that some people might share stupid. The idea that a Thaksin clone is going to be a good thing for this country is, in my opinion, a stupid idea.

[trisailer]

Do you think that Thaksin would have allowed weapons and gasoline into a demonstration where people passions were going to be inflamed? Would any leader anywhere in the world allow that to happen?

Would any leader anywhere in the world allow people to train as airline pilots and then hijack planes and fly them into buildings? No, of course not, if they have the chance to prohibit it, they would. Doesn't always work out that way. Personally though, i place much more of the blame with the perpetrators for perpetrating it than with the authorities for not stopping it.

Yes a leader would and did and while it was happening he sat befuddled reading children's books and chewing his lip. If the SS hadn't dragged him out of there he probably would have stayed until the end of the book. Clueless. Only a few people were outraged by his failures and the cluster <deleted> that followed with F-16's chasing their tails and Chaney telling them to shoot down passenger planes. It played out like a Monty Python farce.

In spite of hundreds of billions of dollars for intelligences gathering and a real and obvious threat it happened. Did anyone at CIA or FBI get fired for incompetency? No they didn't. Will it happen again? Yes it will and likely as a result of the exact same failures which have still not been corrected. It is every bit as incompetent as letting the reds occupy and destroy BKK. I don't recall anyone being fired over that debacle either.

There are always going to be perpetrators of this kind of stuff. The short term goal should be to stop them by whatever means possible. The long term goal (the most important one) should be to do what leaders have been promising for century's. Make the world a fair and balanced place. All of these issues are solvable, but not if the priority is to make a handful of people richer than they need to be.

[jdinasia]

Do you think that Thaksin would have allowed weapons and gasoline into a demonstration where people passions were going to be inflamed? Would any leader anywhere in the world allow that to happen?

Would any leader anywhere in the world allow people to train as airline pilots and then hijack planes and fly them into buildings? No, of course not, if they have the chance to prohibit it, they would. Doesn't always work out that way. Personally though, i place much more of the blame with the perpetrators for perpetrating it than with the authorities for not stopping it.

Not only do I think Thaksin would allow it ... I think he ordered it.

[hellodolly]

The topic is weather or not the Army will enter the fray. Do any of you really believe that Thaksin has not anticipated this and has a plan?

You can say what you want about the guy, but he is a leader and he is not likely to be blindsided by "unexpected" factors.

Don't you "get it" the Thai people are desperate for "leadership" They don't give a shit about his personal issues. They want a leader who will get the job done.

Don't get your pintle in high gudeon.

Thaksin has been blindided often --- it'll happen again. He's not an effective leader at all. He's autocratic and self-centered. A percentage of Thais want Thaksin and a percentage are very opposed to him. The fact is that he is a convicted criminal and was convicted for valid reasons. The topic is not "will the army enter the fray" the topic is "Thai Army Chief Enters Election Fray" :-)

Do you think that Thaksin would have allowed weapons and gasoline into a demonstration where people passions were going to be inflamed? Would any leader anywhere in the world allow that to happen? Are you suggesting that the "Army Chief" is speaking as a private citizen? I believe that he is speaking as head of the Army, otherwise no one would care.

In case you forgot Thailand's roots are firmly formed by autocratic leadership. That may explain why the expect it and welcome it when it get the job done.

Not only let it happen he financed it. That is just one of the reasons he is hoping for his clone sister to win so she can white wash him. What planet were you on when the red shirts were trying to kidnap Bangkok.

Abhist has his faults and a really big one is he allowed it to happen. They should never have been allowed to take over any part of the city.

ask your self if his supporters had taken over your wifes city and carried on like they did in Bangkok would you still be defending hm?

I am guessing no

Edited June 18, 2011 by hellodolly

[trisailer]

Not only let it happen he financed it. That is just one of the reasons he is hoping for his clone sister to win so she can white wash him. What planet were you on when the red shirts were trying to kidnap Bangkok.

Abhist has his faults and a really big one is he allowed it to happen. They should never have been allowed to take over any part of the city.

ask your self if his supporters had taken over your wifes city and carried on like they did in Bangkok would you still be defending hm?

I am guessing no

Do you think that I'm advocating the violence that took place? Where would you get that idea? I'm not defending anyone, I'm pointing out that the red demonstration could have had a different outcome if it were managed properly. I'm fully expecting trouble as a result of this unrest. This is Thailand. Are you saying you hate Thaksin because of what the reds did. Thaksin is partly the blame because the issues at hand have been simmering for a long time.

I'm guessing that your reading comprehension skills are lacking. What I said was Thaksin would not have let an angry mob opposed to him gather with weapons and gasoline. Try reading it again. The red shirts should not have been allowed gather with weapons. If Abhist was a strong leader he would have insured that they were disarmed before attending and not allow them to escape the barriers and set fires.

You seem to know a lot about Thakson. Have you met him? Do you really think you know what he will do? If your so sure of what the outcome will be you should be investing money based upon your theory otherwise your just like the rest of us, waiting and wondering.

[rixalex]

If Abhist was a strong leader he would have insured that they were disarmed before attending and not allow them to escape the barriers and set fires.

A leader's strength can only be as strong as the tools he has at his disposal. If Thailand had a police force and security services that were half-professional and half-organised, what you are saying should have happened, might have. He didn't. And you can't blame him for that when he had only been PM a matter of months.

[rixalex]

Do you think that I'm advocating the violence that took place? Where would you get that idea? I'm not defending anyone, I'm pointing out that the red demonstration could have had a different outcome if it were managed properly.

The slant of your argument is akin to the argument that people who don't have top notch security systems fitted to their homes have themselves to blame when thieves break in and ransack the place.

[animatic]

Do you think that I'm advocating the violence that took place? Where would you get that idea? I'm not defending anyone, I'm pointing out that the red demonstration could have had a different outcome if it were managed properly.

The slant of your argument is akin to the argument that people who don't have top notch security systems fitted to their homes have themselves to blame when thieves break in and ransack the place.

Essentially yes.

Or a girl gets raped, it's her fault for not dressing like Sister Mary Elephant.

She should have handled it differently. Her fault.

Each attempt at properly managing the Red Rallies was matched by an escalation of Red Tactics. Each agreement with Red Demands was met with an escalation of red demands. The outcome was preordained by the Red game plan, cause violence to bring down the government and make the people rise up against the army, and give Thaksin control of the country.

At ANY time if the police had been able, or willing, to clear out the rallies it could/would have been done. And the moment the army was forced into acting extreme violence was used against it. but not before. The whole rally was obviously intended to force the army's hand and then let loose the Black Shirt ringers to attack them.

It was a disgusting hypocritical set up and the hypocracy continues.

The only ways it CAN work out ultimately for the PTP Reds Thaksin is :

a ) IF the electorate is not smart enough to see through the charade.

b ) Or the propaganda campaign and information control by the political machine is airtight.

If the electorate is clear on what they have seen happen,

the likelihood of a landslide for PTP with Reds in tow diminishes.

Edited June 19, 2011 by animatic

[kerryk]

Do you think that I'm advocating the violence that took place? Where would you get that idea? I'm not defending anyone, I'm pointing out that the red demonstration could have had a different outcome if it were managed properly.

The slant of your argument is akin to the argument that people who don't have top notch security systems fitted to their homes have themselves to blame when thieves break in and ransack the place.

Essentially yes.

Or a girl gets raped, it's her fault for not dressing like Sister Mary Elephant.

She should have handled it differently. Her fault.

Each attempt at properly managing the Red Rallies was matched by an escalation of Red Tactics. Each agreement with Red Demands was met with an escalation of red demands. The outcome was preordained by the Red game plan, cause violence to bring down the government and make the people rise up against the army, and give Thaksin control of the country.

At ANY time if the police had been able, or willing, to clear out the rallies it could/would have been done. And the moment the army was forced into acting extreme violence was used against it. but not before. The whole rally was obviously intended to force the army's hand and then let loose the Black Shirt ringers to attack them.

It was a disgusting hypocritical set up and the hypocracy continues.

The only ways it CAN work out ultimately for the PTP Reds Thaksin is :

a ) IF the electorate is not smart enough to see through the charade.

b ) Or the propaganda campaign and information control by the political machine is airtight.

If the electorate is clear on what they have seen happen,

the likelihood of a landslide for PTP with Reds in tow diminishes.

Is there any chance the election results could be seen as a mandate that the Thai people are tired of coups?

[animatic]

Do you think that I'm advocating the violence that took place? Where would you get that idea? I'm not defending anyone, I'm pointing out that the red demonstration could have had a different outcome if it were managed properly.

The slant of your argument is akin to the argument that people who don't have top notch security systems fitted to their homes have themselves to blame when thieves break in and ransack the place.

Essentially yes.

Or a girl gets raped, it's her fault for not dressing like Sister Mary Elephant.

She should have handled it differently. Her fault.

Each attempt at properly managing the Red Rallies was matched by an escalation of Red Tactics. Each agreement with Red Demands was met with an escalation of red demands. The outcome was preordained by the Red game plan, cause violence to bring down the government and make the people rise up against the army, and give Thaksin control of the country.

At ANY time if the police had been able, or willing, to clear out the rallies it could/would have been done. And the moment the army was forced into acting extreme violence was used against it. but not before. The whole rally was obviously intended to force the army's hand and then let loose the Black Shirt ringers to attack them.

It was a disgusting hypocritical set up and the hypocracy continues.

The only ways it CAN work out ultimately for the PTP Reds Thaksin is :

a ) IF the electorate is not smart enough to see through the charade.

b ) Or the propaganda campaign and information control by the political machine is airtight.

If the electorate is clear on what they have seen happen,

the likelihood of a landslide for PTP with Reds in tow diminishes.

Is there any chance the election results could be seen as a mandate that the Thai people are tired of coups?

IMHO

if the Dems get 50% would indicate,

that the electorate wants stability.

if the Vote No campaign gets more than 70%

and goes against all the dinosaur parties and the biggest ones.

I doubt either will happen.

I think Thailand needs the french style:

'The Election followed by a run off between the

top two vote winning parties 2 weeks later, system.

This way it winnows out the smaller niche parties

and we really get to see which way that

1/3 of the country voting for niches actual thinks.

It also guarantees a true mandate.

But it also marginalizes the smaller parties ability to get in office

and do deals to form coalitions.The smaller parties will be dead set against it.

AI also think the Party List system should be abolished

with extreme prejudice.

Edited June 19, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

Is there any chance the election results could be seen as a mandate that the Thai people are tired of coups?

That might have been the case with the 2007 election, but no one got a "mandate" in that one.

[rixalex]

Is there any chance the election results could be seen as a mandate that the Thai people are tired of coups?

Not unless there is a party out there running on the platform of "we are tired of coups".

The only coups all of the parties are against are those that unseat them. Unseat someone else, no problem. What were the reds attempting to do last year, if not topple a government by force.