PM Yingluck, military leaders discuss army reshuffle

[JRSoul]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Thaksin trying to circumvent the inherently flawed incestuous system of the senior military commanders of the armed forces choosing successor senior commanders is an example of how two wrongs don't make a right, which is a lesson all Thais need to learn, immediately if not sooner.

Elected civilian authority in a democracy doesn't "meddle" in determining who the commanders of the armed forces will be, which is a point you and the feudal farang at TVF entirely miss.

In a functioning and successful democracy the elected civilian authority chooses who the armed forces commanders will be. In the United States for instance the commander in chief, the president, nominates his choices and constitutionally must submit their names to the fully elected Senate for its disposition.

In the U.S. the promotion of any and every military officer of all of the armed forces must be voted on by the Congress in each and every instance, always.

In Thailand the elected civilian authority is excluded from the process and the decisions. This is a constitutional failure that extends back scores of decades and is the root of all evil concerning the nearly 20 coup d'état military mutinies since 1932, either successful mutinies or unsuccessful ones.

The Thai English language vernacular of "meddle" in the military's incestuous practice of scores of decades to choose its own successors independent and entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the elected civilian national authority is one of the fundamental reasons for the chaos that has dominated Thai society and life throughout its efforts to establish a viable democracy.

Separating the appointment - or the removal - of the military high command from the jurisdiction of the elected civilian authority has had bloody consequences for the Thai people. Feudalists call civilian control of the military "meddling."

And if the rest of the world can't do things the same way as the USA, they must be wrong. Many countries don't have a fully elected senate, or even dog-catchers, and are rated as equally or more democratic than the US.

Amazing that you qualify a statement with "In a functioning and successful democracy...." and then go on to apply it to Thailand. While you admit that Thaksin was wrong to apply his nepotistic style of government to the military, you denigrate the one check system that stopped him gaining control of the one of the few remaining independent agencies, the one that stopped him defying the head of state and unilaterally re-installing himself as PM.

Some posters here have some character and time of active military service perhaps to include yourself. Those who have worn the uniform know a nation's military is an honorable institution so it accordingly has no place to conduct a military mutiny against legitimately elected civilian national authority, ie, the government. It is a principle of modern democracy that the military is subject to civilian command and control. The United States is in this respect but one of a relatively small number of perfect examples globally of this character and nature of democracy.

A military mutiny coup d'état is impermissible in a democracy, immoral, illegal, illegitimate, always to be rejected, in the absolute. Those in the U.S government who may have involved themselves in some past military mutinies abroad either have been punished in some way or deserve to be punished severely if they already have not been taken to task for their evil deed(s). The United States has prevented or precluded a number of foreign military mutinies or punished others accordingly.

The Thai military is dishonorable for its long and ignoble history of military mutinies against its own government. Due to the long record of shameless military coups in Thailand, the Thai military has earned the approbation it deserves both internationally and domestically. The belief in the viability or the sanctity of military mutiny as a principle of society, and as an acceptable legal or moral practice, is a perversion of both justice and democratic government / governance.

Fortunately, the Thai military is presently showing it has learned something from its long history of past violations of the public good and the public weal, as it has restrained itself from being drawn into its historic role as the fascist Suthep and his feudal backers would have liked and did try to incite. Those who would continue to use the military as their instrument toward establishing a new fascist order have thus far been frustrated by the new view the military has of itself in Thai society, which is of a neutral force that is resisting being used directly to repress the Thai people.

Two wrongs don't make a right, which means malfeasance in government does not justify military mutiny against it. So long as anyone supports the deranged cultural principle that two wrongs make a right, and that five wrongs make it even more right, no wrongs will ever be made right.

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. IMHO when a corrupt government has usurped many of the independent agencies, and is attempting to elevate and install family members/cronies to do the same with the military, in an attempt to seize total control (aka dictatorship) then military intervention is not only welcome, it is essential. Strangely enough that is the view of many educated Thais (or as you would call them fascist amart), while your attitude is mainly supported by the far less educated willing to accept the political BS that Thaksin feeds them via the UDD.

You also will not admit that the Thai model WORKS; that elected governments are rapidly returned to power and unlike many new democracies, has not slipped into dictatorship. Of course, your theoretical model may work, but why risk it? Because it satisfies your US-centric view of how things should operate?

BTW your US model of military appointments fails to recognise that military commanders are appointed by the head of state, not the US equivalent of the PM.

Edited March 9, 2014 by JRSoul

[Publicus]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Thaksin trying to circumvent the inherently flawed incestuous system of the senior military commanders of the armed forces choosing successor senior commanders is an example of how two wrongs don't make a right, which is a lesson all Thais need to learn, immediately if not sooner.

Elected civilian authority in a democracy doesn't "meddle" in determining who the commanders of the armed forces will be, which is a point you and the feudal farang at TVF entirely miss.

In a functioning and successful democracy the elected civilian authority chooses who the armed forces commanders will be. In the United States for instance the commander in chief, the president, nominates his choices and constitutionally must submit their names to the fully elected Senate for its disposition.

In the U.S. the promotion of any and every military officer of all of the armed forces must be voted on by the Congress in each and every instance, always.

In Thailand the elected civilian authority is excluded from the process and the decisions. This is a constitutional failure that extends back scores of decades and is the root of all evil concerning the nearly 20 coup d'état military mutinies since 1932, either successful mutinies or unsuccessful ones.

The Thai English language vernacular of "meddle" in the military's incestuous practice of scores of decades to choose its own successors independent and entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the elected civilian national authority is one of the fundamental reasons for the chaos that has dominated Thai society and life throughout its efforts to establish a viable democracy.

Separating the appointment - or the removal - of the military high command from the jurisdiction of the elected civilian authority has had bloody consequences for the Thai people. Feudalists call civilian control of the military "meddling."

And if the rest of the world can't do things the same way as the USA, they must be wrong. Many countries don't have a fully elected senate, or even dog-catchers, and are rated as equally or more democratic than the US.

Amazing that you qualify a statement with "In a functioning and successful democracy...." and then go on to apply it to Thailand. While you admit that Thaksin was wrong to apply his nepotistic style of government to the military, you denigrate the one check system that stopped him gaining control of the one of the few remaining independent agencies, the one that stopped him defying the head of state and unilaterally re-installing himself as PM.

Some posters here have some character and time of active military service perhaps to include yourself. Those who have worn the uniform know a nation's military is an honorable institution so it accordingly has no place to conduct a military mutiny against legitimately elected civilian national authority, ie, the government. It is a principle of modern democracy that the military is subject to civilian command and control. The United States is in this respect but one of a relatively small number of perfect examples globally of this character and nature of democracy.

A military mutiny coup d'état is impermissible in a democracy, immoral, illegal, illegitimate, always to be rejected, in the absolute. Those in the U.S government who may have involved themselves in some past military mutinies abroad either have been punished in some way or deserve to be punished severely if they already have not been taken to task for their evil deed(s). The United States has prevented or precluded a number of foreign military mutinies or punished others accordingly.

The Thai military is dishonorable for its long and ignoble history of military mutinies against its own government. Due to the long record of shameless military coups in Thailand, the Thai military has earned the approbation it deserves both internationally and domestically. The belief in the viability or the sanctity of military mutiny as a principle of society, and as an acceptable legal or moral practice, is a perversion of both justice and democratic government / governance.

Fortunately, the Thai military is presently showing it has learned something from its long history of past violations of the public good and the public weal, as it has restrained itself from being drawn into its historic role as the fascist Suthep and his feudal backers would have liked and did try to incite. Those who would continue to use the military as their instrument toward establishing a new fascist order have thus far been frustrated by the new view the military has of itself in Thai society, which is of a neutral force that is resisting being used directly to repress the Thai people.

Two wrongs don't make a right, which means malfeasance in government does not justify military mutiny against it. So long as anyone supports the deranged cultural principle that two wrongs make a right, and that five wrongs make it even more right, no wrongs will ever be made right.

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. IMHO when a corrupt government has usurped many of the independent agencies, and is attempting to elevate and install family members/cronies to do the same with the military, in an attempt to seize total control (aka dictatorship) then military intervention is not only welcome, it is essential. Strangely enough that is the view of many educated Thais (or as you would call them fascist amart), while your attitude is mainly supported by the far less educated willing to accept the political BS that Thaksin feeds them via the UDD.

You also will not admit that the Thai model WORKS; that elected governments are rapidly returned to power and unlike many new democracies, has not slipped into dictatorship. Of course, your theoretical model may work, but why risk it? Because it satisfies your US-centric view of how things should operate?

BTW your US model of military appointments fails to recognise that military commanders are appointed by the head of state, not the US equivalent of the PM.

You're feeling generous this morning, granting me the right to have a point of view, a world view. Someone you hate must have experienced a misfortune overnight.

You well know the United States is a republic in which the head of government is also the head of state, which is not always the case in a republic, and that in a constitutional monarchy the prime minister and cabinet make appointments to all government ministries and agencies that are signed off on by the monarch in accordance with the constitution. You are from a native English language country so you should know something about these matters.

Your blather about which political demographic supports whom and who is supported by which sociocultural grouping of a society is vacuous elitist tripe, same as the rest of your posts. You are of course entitled to your thoughts and to express them, to include incessantly blathering at will.

[JRSoul]

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. IMHO when a corrupt government has usurped many of the independent agencies, and is attempting to elevate and install family members/cronies to do the same with the military, in an attempt to seize total control (aka dictatorship) then military intervention is not only welcome, it is essential. Strangely enough that is the view of many educated Thais (or as you would call them fascist amart), while your attitude is mainly supported by the far less educated willing to accept the political BS that Thaksin feeds them via the UDD.

You also will not admit that the Thai model WORKS; that elected governments are rapidly returned to power and unlike many new democracies, has not slipped into dictatorship. Of course, your theoretical model may work, but why risk it? Because it satisfies your US-centric view of how things should operate?

BTW your US model of military appointments fails to recognise that military commanders are appointed by the head of state, not the US equivalent of the PM.

You're feeling generous this morning, granting me the right to have a point of view, a world view. Someone you hate must have experienced a misfortune overnight.

You well know the United States is a republic in which the head of government is also the head of state, which is not always the case in a republic, and that in a constitutional monarchy the prime minister and cabinet make appointments to all government ministries and agencies that are signed off on by the monarch in accordance with the constitution. You are from a native English language country so you should know something about these matters.

Your blather about which political demographic supports whom and who is supported by which sociocultural grouping of a society is vacuous elitist tripe, same as the rest of your posts. You are of course entitled to your thoughts and to express them, to include incessantly blathering at will.

Yes the systems are quite different, yet you insist the US model for military appointments should apply rather than the current system which works. Although I think that an overview to limit the number of staff officers appointed is needed (if not in process?).

My demographic blather is easily supported by the 2010 insurgency - a protest purportedly over a coup some 4 years and 3 governments too late. But a coup was far easier to paint as "bad" than being outdone in political manoeuvring, or having Thaksin's dosh removed

[Publicus]

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. IMHO when a corrupt government has usurped many of the independent agencies, and is attempting to elevate and install family members/cronies to do the same with the military, in an attempt to seize total control (aka dictatorship) then military intervention is not only welcome, it is essential. Strangely enough that is the view of many educated Thais (or as you would call them fascist amart), while your attitude is mainly supported by the far less educated willing to accept the political BS that Thaksin feeds them via the UDD.

You also will not admit that the Thai model WORKS; that elected governments are rapidly returned to power and unlike many new democracies, has not slipped into dictatorship. Of course, your theoretical model may work, but why risk it? Because it satisfies your US-centric view of how things should operate?

BTW your US model of military appointments fails to recognise that military commanders are appointed by the head of state, not the US equivalent of the PM.

You're feeling generous this morning, granting me the right to have a point of view, a world view. Someone you hate must have experienced a misfortune overnight.

You well know the United States is a republic in which the head of government is also the head of state, which is not always the case in a republic, and that in a constitutional monarchy the prime minister and cabinet make appointments to all government ministries and agencies that are signed off on by the monarch in accordance with the constitution. You are from a native English language country so you should know something about these matters.

Your blather about which political demographic supports whom and who is supported by which sociocultural grouping of a society is vacuous elitist tripe, same as the rest of your posts. You are of course entitled to your thoughts and to express them, to include incessantly blathering at will.

Yes the systems are quite different, yet you insist the US model for military appointments should apply rather than the current system which works. Although I think that an overview to limit the number of staff officers appointed is needed (if not in process?).

My demographic blather is easily supported by the 2010 insurgency - a protest purportedly over a coup some 4 years and 3 governments too late. But a coup was far easier to paint as "bad" than being outdone in political manoeuvring, or having Thaksin's dosh removed

You garbled the quote in your post above. You wrote the statement that is attributed to me. Then you included a prior post of mine with your statement attributed to me. Then you made your separated post.

If you are still unclear, you should take another look at it.

Kindly edit the post to get accurate quotes. If it's too late now for you to edit I'll ask a mod to edit or delete. Let me know if you can't make the corrections I've pointed out that need to be made.

[JRSoul]

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. IMHO when a corrupt government has usurped many of the independent agencies, and is attempting to elevate and install family members/cronies to do the same with the military, in an attempt to seize total control (aka dictatorship) then military intervention is not only welcome, it is essential. Strangely enough that is the view of many educated Thais (or as you would call them fascist amart), while your attitude is mainly supported by the far less educated willing to accept the political BS that Thaksin feeds them via the UDD.

You also will not admit that the Thai model WORKS; that elected governments are rapidly returned to power and unlike many new democracies, has not slipped into dictatorship. Of course, your theoretical model may work, but why risk it? Because it satisfies your US-centric view of how things should operate?

BTW your US model of military appointments fails to recognise that military commanders are appointed by the head of state, not the US equivalent of the PM.

You're feeling generous this morning, granting me the right to have a point of view, a world view. Someone you hate must have experienced a misfortune overnight.

You well know the United States is a republic in which the head of government is also the head of state, which is not always the case in a republic, and that in a constitutional monarchy the prime minister and cabinet make appointments to all government ministries and agencies that are signed off on by the monarch in accordance with the constitution. You are from a native English language country so you should know something about these matters.

Your blather about which political demographic supports whom and who is supported by which sociocultural grouping of a society is vacuous elitist tripe, same as the rest of your posts. You are of course entitled to your thoughts and to express them, to include incessantly blathering at will.

Yes the systems are quite different, yet you insist the US model for military appointments should apply rather than the current system which works. Although I think that an overview to limit the number of staff officers appointed is needed (if not in process?).

My demographic blather is easily supported by the 2010 insurgency - a protest purportedly over a coup some 4 years and 3 governments too late. But a coup was far easier to paint as "bad" than being outdone in political manoeuvring, or having Thaksin's dosh removed

You garbled the quote in your post above. You wrote the statement that is attributed to me. Then you included a prior post of mine with your statement attributed to me. Then you made your separated post.

If you are still unclear, you should take another look at it.

Kindly edit the post to get accurate quotes. If it's too late now for you to edit I'll ask a mod to edit or delete. Let me know if you can't make the corrections I've pointed out that need to be made.

My apologies, i should have checked after posting.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It is decidedly creepy at this point to the extent that the ex-prime minister is going through the motions, and especially ironic that she is overseeing the mechanisms of what many in the Pheu Thai party feel to hold the trump card - the army. This " show " that Yingluck was engaged in comes at a time when Pheu Thai's relations with the army could not possibly be more strained. With the threat of the secession movement being fueled within the UDD, and with the army's anxieties over it being met with studious lack of action or concern by Yingluck and her former ministers - one of whom - Charupong - actually endorsed the UDD platform, which included secession - Prayuth must feel increasingly uncomfortable. The thoughts that must have swirling around the minds of those in that room must have been in jarring contrast to what was said.

I have a feeling that some a big part of the army is in her camp, but the Navy and Air Force on the other side, which makes the situation quite delicate. Remember, how Thaksin tried to eliminate the office of the Prem, before the last coup and how he put people that supported him in a position of power, in the Army. He didn't succeed the last time, but he has had a few years to stack the military deck more in his favor. Only time will tell, I guess.

In Thaskins first six months he had he's brother-in -law as CIC, stepped up from rank of Major, plenty of generals resigned over that , exactly what Thaskin wanted.

[bigbamboo]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Thaksin trying to circumvent the inherently flawed incestuous system of the senior military commanders of the armed forces choosing successor senior commanders is an example of how two wrongs don't make a right, which is a lesson all Thais need to learn, immediately if not sooner.

Elected civilian authority in a democracy doesn't "meddle" in determining who the commanders of the armed forces will be, which is a point you and the feudal farang at TVF entirely miss.

In a functioning and successful democracy the elected civilian authority chooses who the armed forces commanders will be. In the United States for instance the commander in chief, the president, nominates his choices and constitutionally must submit their names to the fully elected Senate for its disposition.

In the U.S. the promotion of any and every military officer of all of the armed forces must be voted on by the Congress in each and every instance, always.

In Thailand the elected civilian authority is excluded from the process and the decisions. This is a constitutional failure that extends back scores of decades and is the root of all evil concerning the nearly 20 coup d'état military mutinies since 1932, either successful mutinies or unsuccessful ones.

The Thai English language vernacular of "meddle" in the military's incestuous practice of scores of decades to choose its own successors independent and entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the elected civilian national authority is one of the fundamental reasons for the chaos that has dominated Thai society and life throughout its efforts to establish a viable democracy.

Separating the appointment - or the removal - of the military high command from the jurisdiction of the elected civilian authority has had bloody consequences for the Thai people. Feudalists call civilian control of the military "meddling."

And if the rest of the world can't do things the same way as the USA, they must be wrong. Many countries don't have a fully elected senate, or even dog-catchers, and are rated as equally or more democratic than the US.

Amazing that you qualify a statement with "In a functioning and successful democracy...." and then go on to apply it to Thailand. While you admit that Thaksin was wrong to apply his nepotistic style of government to the military, you denigrate the one check system that stopped him gaining control of the one of the few remaining independent agencies, the one that stopped him defying the head of state and unilaterally re-installing himself as PM.

Some posters here have some character and time of active military service perhaps to include yourself. Those who have worn the uniform know a nation's military is an honorable institution so it accordingly has no place to conduct a military mutiny against legitimately elected civilian national authority, ie, the government. It is a principle of modern democracy that the military is subject to civilian command and control. The United States is in this respect but one of a relatively small number of perfect examples globally of this character and nature of democracy.

A military mutiny coup d'état is impermissible in a democracy, immoral, illegal, illegitimate, always to be rejected, in the absolute. Those in the U.S government who may have involved themselves in some past military mutinies abroad either have been punished in some way or deserve to be punished severely if they already have not been taken to task for their evil deed(s). The United States has prevented or precluded a number of foreign military mutinies or punished others accordingly.

The Thai military is dishonorable for its long and ignoble history of military mutinies against its own government. Due to the long record of shameless military coups in Thailand, the Thai military has earned the approbation it deserves both internationally and domestically. The belief in the viability or the sanctity of military mutiny as a principle of society, and as an acceptable legal or moral practice, is a perversion of both justice and democratic government / governance.

Fortunately, the Thai military is presently showing it has learned something from its long history of past violations of the public good and the public weal, as it has restrained itself from being drawn into its historic role as the fascist Suthep and his feudal backers would have liked and did try to incite. Those who would continue to use the military as their instrument toward establishing a new fascist order have thus far been frustrated by the new view the military has of itself in Thai society, which is of a neutral force that is resisting being used directly to repress the Thai people.

Two wrongs don't make a right, which means malfeasance in government does not justify military mutiny against it. So long as anyone supports the deranged cultural principle that two wrongs make a right, and that five wrongs make it even more right, no wrongs will ever be made right.

Indeed the military's first loyalty should be to the civilian government it serves but history shows that sometimes that government may not be ruling the country according to it's original manifesto.

Perhaps this was never more evident than in Germany following the rise to power of Hitler, a demagogue with popular, fanatical support but whose hidden agenda and personal 'Pretorian Guard' caused concern amongst the hitherto honourable military institution, the Wehrmacht.

Unfortunately their coup when it came was too little, too late.

[Publicus]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Thaksin trying to circumvent the inherently flawed incestuous system of the senior military commanders of the armed forces choosing successor senior commanders is an example of how two wrongs don't make a right, which is a lesson all Thais need to learn, immediately if not sooner.

Elected civilian authority in a democracy doesn't "meddle" in determining who the commanders of the armed forces will be, which is a point you and the feudal farang at TVF entirely miss.

In a functioning and successful democracy the elected civilian authority chooses who the armed forces commanders will be. In the United States for instance the commander in chief, the president, nominates his choices and constitutionally must submit their names to the fully elected Senate for its disposition.

In the U.S. the promotion of any and every military officer of all of the armed forces must be voted on by the Congress in each and every instance, always.

In Thailand the elected civilian authority is excluded from the process and the decisions. This is a constitutional failure that extends back scores of decades and is the root of all evil concerning the nearly 20 coup d'état military mutinies since 1932, either successful mutinies or unsuccessful ones.

The Thai English language vernacular of "meddle" in the military's incestuous practice of scores of decades to choose its own successors independent and entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the elected civilian national authority is one of the fundamental reasons for the chaos that has dominated Thai society and life throughout its efforts to establish a viable democracy.

Separating the appointment - or the removal - of the military high command from the jurisdiction of the elected civilian authority has had bloody consequences for the Thai people. Feudalists call civilian control of the military "meddling."

And if the rest of the world can't do things the same way as the USA, they must be wrong. Many countries don't have a fully elected senate, or even dog-catchers, and are rated as equally or more democratic than the US.

Amazing that you qualify a statement with "In a functioning and successful democracy...." and then go on to apply it to Thailand. While you admit that Thaksin was wrong to apply his nepotistic style of government to the military, you denigrate the one check system that stopped him gaining control of the one of the few remaining independent agencies, the one that stopped him defying the head of state and unilaterally re-installing himself as PM.

Some posters here have some character and time of active military service perhaps to include yourself. Those who have worn the uniform know a nation's military is an honorable institution so it accordingly has no place to conduct a military mutiny against legitimately elected civilian national authority, ie, the government. It is a principle of modern democracy that the military is subject to civilian command and control. The United States is in this respect but one of a relatively small number of perfect examples globally of this character and nature of democracy.

A military mutiny coup d'état is impermissible in a democracy, immoral, illegal, illegitimate, always to be rejected, in the absolute. Those in the U.S government who may have involved themselves in some past military mutinies abroad either have been punished in some way or deserve to be punished severely if they already have not been taken to task for their evil deed(s). The United States has prevented or precluded a number of foreign military mutinies or punished others accordingly.

The Thai military is dishonorable for its long and ignoble history of military mutinies against its own government. Due to the long record of shameless military coups in Thailand, the Thai military has earned the approbation it deserves both internationally and domestically. The belief in the viability or the sanctity of military mutiny as a principle of society, and as an acceptable legal or moral practice, is a perversion of both justice and democratic government / governance.

Fortunately, the Thai military is presently showing it has learned something from its long history of past violations of the public good and the public weal, as it has restrained itself from being drawn into its historic role as the fascist Suthep and his feudal backers would have liked and did try to incite. Those who would continue to use the military as their instrument toward establishing a new fascist order have thus far been frustrated by the new view the military has of itself in Thai society, which is of a neutral force that is resisting being used directly to repress the Thai people.

Two wrongs don't make a right, which means malfeasance in government does not justify military mutiny against it. So long as anyone supports the deranged cultural principle that two wrongs make a right, and that five wrongs make it even more right, no wrongs will ever be made right.

Indeed the military's first loyalty should be to the civilian government it serves but history shows that sometimes that government may not be ruling the country according to it's original manifesto.

Perhaps this was never more evident than in Germany following the rise to power of Hitler, a demagogue with popular, fanatical support but whose hidden agenda and personal 'Pretorian Guard' caused concern amongst the hitherto honourable military institution, the Wehrmacht.

Unfortunately their coup when it came was too little, too late.

Germany and the rise and rule of Adolph Hitler do not apply to Thailand at any time in Thai history or in any way, to include up to the present and foreseeably. For one thing, Thailand is not about to precipitate a world war.

Suthep and his backers are somewhat comparable to Mussolini's rise to power and rule but not to Hitler's.

Given the military's 2006 coup d'état, we know which side has the military's hearts, minds, loyalty. The chief of the military determinedly refuses to rule out yet another coup. Would a military coup install and implement democracy or fascism? If you'd think democracy or neither, you'd continue to be sorely in error.

A coup is not a solution because, as most Thais need desperately to at long last learn, two wrongs don't make a right. That's been the entire problem in Thailand from the get-go. Farang who also believe two wrongs make a right only compound Thailand's problems.

[bigbamboo]

@publicus...... No bias on your part there then! And nobody is talking about starting wars only about the way the country is governed.

I don't know that there aren't certain similarities. In both cases we have someone from 'another country' dictating how the government is run, he has fanatical support as their leader, the military has misgivings about him, and now there is talk of forming a private army.

That's enough to be going on with surely.

[outsider]

The pic of YL (who looks good, really. At least in the pic) walking in front of a line of guards is probably the human version of the pic below...

[bigbamboo]

The pic of YL (who looks good, really. At least in the pic) walking in front of a line of guards is probably the human version of the pic below...

Catndog.jpg

" Nice pussy, Rover.... but who made her PM? "

( That's Prime Moggie to you. )

Edited March 10, 2014 by bigbamboo