Its not a matter of if the Thai govt will listen or not. Its a matter of being witness for the world. If the world acts or doesn't in any given situation, its their own success or failure.

So it does it because it's supposed to even though nothing will come of it - what is the sense in that??

It really is quite touching how the red apologists here suddenly latch onto the UN pronouncement rather akin to the proverbial drowning man clutching at straws. This is more especially poignant since the government and the red klingons usually treat international opinion much like a costipated owl.... (they just can't give a hoot).... Unless of course they are desperately seeking approbation and support when they know there is a declining amount to be gained domestically.

Is there any chance that they might also acknowledge the international observations as to how corrupt the rice scheme is?I Sorry just a momentary mental abberation, but stranger things have happened!

Why would the UN be concerned with a flawed internal policy decision? You obviously have no idea what the UN is for.

Sorry first time here.

The first half of your statement is correct.

The second half is problematic as no one knows what the UN is good for.

It really is quite touching how the red apologists here suddenly latch onto the UN pronouncement rather akin to the proverbial drowning man clutching at straws. This is more especially poignant since the government and the red klingons usually treat international opinion much like a costipated owl.... (they just can't give a hoot).... Unless of course they are desperately seeking approbation and support when they know there is a declining amount to be gained domestically.

Is there any chance that they might also acknowledge the international observations as to how corrupt the rice scheme is?I Sorry just a momentary mental abberation, but stranger things have happened!

Why would the UN be concerned with a flawed internal policy decision? You obviously have no idea what the UN is for.

Sorry first time here.

The first half of your statement is correct.

The second half is problematic as no one knows what the UN is good for.