notmyself Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I'm not a natural defender of this government however the Rohingya refugee problem should be addressed by the United Nations. We are far too fast to land responsibility on to Thailand. The UN should be operating camps in Thailand dealing with this and putting the Rohingya under protection until the problems in Burma are sorted out. Burma knows full well what will happen if the no so recent immigrants who arrived during and to a greater extent after the British left India are given recognition... A continuation of their demand for statehood. anyway. The five veto nations wield the veto in their narrow self interest and that poisons the Well. There may be near unanimous condemnation of Israeli action but the US will veto it. The Russians and Chinese love vetoing things just to wind America up, and the Brits and France sit there kicking each other under the table. It's time for the UN to go, it's so last century. No question the UN is seriously inept but it is the nature of the beast. It's all very well to say and I quote... It's time for the UN to go, it's so last century. What would you replace it with? The vast vast majority out there now wish to encompass the destruction of civilisation so why not give it to them? Put it to a worldwide vote with all countries sending monitors to all countries to ensure it is fair and square. Well over 50% look forward with glee at the end times and some of them will do anything within their power to bring it about. The UN is at the end not flawed, we are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I nominate Vorayuth Yoovidhya to be the Thai delegate and have the seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPT Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I can certainly see a benefit to having an ASEAN member as a non-permanent member in the near future given the South China Sea disputes. Thailand doesn't seem like such a bad choice (though I would prefer Singapore) keeping in mind current members include Pakistan and Rwanda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLew Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 The only seat they deserve at the UN is the toilet seat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kotsak Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) chooka, on 11 Sept 2013 - 10:37, said:chooka, on 11 Sept 2013 - 10:37, said:I nominate Vorayuth Yoovidhya to be the Thai delegate and have the seat. He will be disappointed.. There is no gearbox and steering wheel.. Edited September 11, 2013 by kotsak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 The only seat they deserve at the UN is the toilet seat That's a little silly because they don't sit on them. You need people who can sit not squat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 This is akin to one's slightly drunk and none too educated friend asking: "Let me have a go at your car mate!" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 What's the date again? The same one............. every day. TIT or HUB day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMF1960 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I'm not a natural defender of this government however the Rohingya refugee problem should be addressed by the United Nations. We are far too fast to land responsibility on to Thailand. The UN should be operating camps in Thailand dealing with this and putting the Rohingya under protection until the problems in Burma are sorted out. The Rohingya are a Burmese problem landed on Thailand. People are also fast to forget that Thailand has taken in millions of Burmese refugees already. On the other hand some of the Thai responses have been appalling, all the more reason why they should be placed front and centre at the UN. Anyway, the UN should be abolished. It's not fit for purpose and it's causing division. The five veto nations wield the veto in their narrow self interest and that poisons the Well. There may be near unanimous condemnation of Israeli action but the US will veto it. The Russians and Chinese love vetoing things just to wind America up, and the Brits and France sit there kicking each other under the table. It's time for the UN to go, it's so last century. According to Refugees International 140,000 Burmese refugees have been taken in by Thailand. This is a far cry from the "millions" claimed. While there are a lot more living illegally, a much smaller number have been given refugee status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini81 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Then forget the UN, avoid criminal organizations, meetings and don't sign anything that takes away freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunjerrybkk Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Ha ha ha.....ridiculously humorous. HELL would FREEZE over before that would ever be considered by UN Security Council Members. Define "Security" ........ is not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Countries unable to solve their own issues should not even think about to get a seat in the UN! If you use this criteria then there are a few current seat holders who shouldn't be on their either... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Ha ha ha.....ridiculously humorous. HELL would FREEZE over before that would ever be considered by UN Security Council Members. Define "Security" ........ is not here. The ten countries who are elected to serve as temporary members of the UN Security Council are selected by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. If countries such as Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Guatemala can get elected, I would not be surprised that Thailand is elected as one of the Asian regional representatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Ha ha ha.....ridiculously humorous. HELL would FREEZE over before that would ever be considered by UN Security Council Members. Define "Security" ........ is not here. The ten countries who are elected to serve as temporary members of the UN Security Council are selected by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. If countries such as Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Guatemala can get elected, I would not be surprised that Thailand is elected as one of the Asian regional representatives. One suspects Singapore would be elected before Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 What's the date again? The same one............. every day. TIT or HUB day Falls between 31st March and 2nd April Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Ha ha ha.....ridiculously humorous. HELL would FREEZE over before that would ever be considered by UN Security Council Members. Define "Security" ........ is not here. The ten countries who are elected to serve as temporary members of the UN Security Council are selected by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. If countries such as Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Guatemala can get elected, I would not be surprised that Thailand is elected as one of the Asian regional representatives. One suspects Singapore would be elected before Thailand Has Singapore announced a bid to be re-elected? Seems a bit soon as they had a temporary seat in 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Remember the South Park movie when Canada bombed the Baldwins ? Perhaps if they had of targeted the Shinawatras instead Thailand may have had a chance. But it is too late, the UN would have answered their application with "Sorry, but you are damaged goods. And anyway, we are not in the market for a member country which is governed by a criminal on the run." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15Peter20 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 The UN is not my Father!!!!!! Ring any Bells? It may equally have been said by US, UK, French and other leaders over the past few years, as well as Thaksin. I guess he was just being more forthright - never a good ploy in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 From Wikipedia entry for UN Security Council, (member) responsibilities include: - Maintenance of international peace - Establishment of peacekeeping operations - Establishment of international sanctions - Authorization of military action Which, if any, of the above has Thailand demonstrated any involvement, let alone competency (let alone leadership!), in over the last 20 years? IIRC Thailand sent a few ships to help with international anti-pirate operations off the Somali coast, and also helped with support-troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan, according to this report. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32593.pdf So there has been a certain amount of involvement, in World-affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phetaroi Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Yes, they deserve their turn. After all, they impressed the world with their military coups and the riots/arson by the Red Shirts (which was in place of a legitimate election). Yup, they deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeO Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 No, it doesn't. Well done. That was the first response that came into my mind...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsider Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 "... being a member of the council would help raise Thailand's international role in all global issues." Really? Thailand should rise above its own xenopobia first and accept the fact that there is a world (and a bigger one at that) outside Thailand. Secondly, does anyone (or country) really take Thailand seriously, enough to have it on the Security Council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangon04 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I'm not sure the UN will agree that Thailand deserves a place after Thaksin's famous "the UN is not my father" quote and more recently playing ducks and drakes over the Preah Vihear temple dispute. Maybe once they get nuclear power ...... that will show the world that Thailand is ready for international responsibility 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