At least 100 military in NLA: source

[ALFREDO]

 

 

 

 

True, so, let rule the General for a looooong time, until all the OLD corruption GANGS have died out. 

Than maybe, try again with a democracy attempt. 

 

Right, a long period of military rule will fix everything.  Look at how well that worked in Myanmar. 

 

 

The comparison is limping, in many ways.

 

Important,

the starting point of the military rule is from two completely different developed countries,

starting points in very different years and

Thailand has no other chance, if not, we see that disaster of the last years again and again. 

[heybruce]

 

 

 

 

 

True, so, let rule the General for a looooong time, until all the OLD corruption GANGS have died out. 

Than maybe, try again with a democracy attempt. 

 

Right, a long period of military rule will fix everything.  Look at how well that worked in Myanmar. 

 

 

The comparison is limping, in many ways.

 

Important,

the starting point of the military rule is from two completely different developed countries,

starting points in very different years and

Thailand has no other chance, if not, we see that disaster of the last years again and again. 

 

 

History never repeats itself exactly, so all comparisons are imperfect  But I think my comparison is far more accurate than the earlier implied comparison between Thailand's junta and Singapore's government.

 

"Thailand has no other chance...".  Do you really think so?  I can think of some obvious alternatives to military rule, but none that the military will go along with.

 

If I knew of any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results, I might be a little more optimistic.  Can you think of an example?

 

[ALFREDO]

 

If I knew of any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results, I might be a little more optimistic.  Can you think of an example?

 

 

 

Ask me in some years again.  

[heybruce]

 

 

If I knew of any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results, I might be a little more optimistic.  Can you think of an example?

 

 

 

Ask me in some years again.  

 

 

In other words, no.  It's never worked before, but you're happy to let a small group of generals risk Thailand's future in the hope that this will be the first time.
 

[ALFREDO]

 

 

 

If I knew of any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results, I might be a little more optimistic.  Can you think of an example?

 

 

 

Ask me in some years again.  

 

 

In other words, no.  It's never worked before, but you're happy to let a small group of generals risk Thailand's future, in the hope that this will be the first time.

 

 

 

=heybruce= please.

 

My answer is just, a ironic joke.

 

1st,

I lazy to think and check to answer your question, regarding  

"any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results?"

 

2nd

I, do not   ""let" a small group of generals risk Thailand's future."

 

Because, I do not manage, handle and steer the situation. I am only onlooker and witness. 

[rubl]

 

 

 

 

If I knew of any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results, I might be a little more optimistic.  Can you think of an example?

 

 

 

Ask me in some years again.  

 

 

In other words, no.  It's never worked before, but you're happy to let a small group of generals risk Thailand's future, in the hope that this will be the first time.

 

 

 

=heybruce= please.

 

My answer is just, a ironic joke.

 

1st,

I lazy to think and check to answer your question, regarding  

"any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results?"

 

2nd

I, do not   ""let" a small group of generals risk Thailand's future."

 

Because, I do not manage, handle and steer the situation. I am only onlooker and witness. 

 

 

3rd please quantify 'long military rule'. It is months, 1-1/2 year, longer than that?

 

Anyway there seems to be a profound unwillingness to cooperate and belief in the work the NCPO is doing coupled with a near naive belief that democracy solves all especially in the 'perfect' democracy like Thailand had before the military stepped in.

[heybruce]

 

 

 

 

Ask me in some years again.  

 

 

In other words, no.  It's never worked before, but you're happy to let a small group of generals risk Thailand's future, in the hope that this will be the first time.

 

 

=heybruce= please.

 

My answer is just, a ironic joke.

 

1st,

I lazy to think and check to answer your question, regarding  

"any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results?"

 

2nd

I, do not   ""let" a small group of generals risk Thailand's future."

 

Because, I do not manage, handle and steer the situation. I am only onlooker and witness. 

 

 

3rd please quantify 'long military rule'. It is months, 1-1/2 year, longer than that?

 

Anyway there seems to be a profound unwillingness to cooperate and belief in the work the NCPO is doing coupled with a near naive belief that democracy solves all especially in the 'perfect' democracy like Thailand had before the military stepped in.

 

 

No, there's a profound preference for a system of government in which the people in charge can be changed through elections, as opposed to an unelected government in which the people in charge stay as long as it suits them.

 

[rubl]

 

 

 

In other words, no.  It's never worked before, but you're happy to let a small group of generals risk Thailand's future, in the hope that this will be the first time.

 

 

=heybruce= please.

 

My answer is just, a ironic joke.

 

1st,

I lazy to think and check to answer your question, regarding  

"any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results?"

 

2nd

I, do not   ""let" a small group of generals risk Thailand's future."

 

Because, I do not manage, handle and steer the situation. I am only onlooker and witness. 

 

 

3rd please quantify 'long military rule'. It is months, 1-1/2 year, longer than that?

 

Anyway there seems to be a profound unwillingness to cooperate and belief in the work the NCPO is doing coupled with a near naive belief that democracy solves all especially in the 'perfect' democracy like Thailand had before the military stepped in.

 

 

No, there's a profound preference for a system of government in which the people in charge can be changed through elections, as opposed to an unelected government in which the people in charge stay as long as it suits them.

 

 

 

As I wrote, naive in relation to Thailand.

[heybruce]

 

 

 

 

 

My answer is just, a ironic joke.

 

1st,

I lazy to think and check to answer your question, regarding  

"any historical example of a long period of military rule giving good results?"

 

2nd

I, do not   ""let" a small group of generals risk Thailand's future."

 

Because, I do not manage, handle and steer the situation. I am only onlooker and witness. 

 

3rd please quantify 'long military rule'. It is months, 1-1/2 year, longer than that?

 

Anyway there seems to be a profound unwillingness to cooperate and belief in the work the NCPO is doing coupled with a near naive belief that democracy solves all especially in the 'perfect' democracy like Thailand had before the military stepped in.

 

 

No, there's a profound preference for a system of government in which the people in charge can be changed through elections, as opposed to an unelected government in which the people in charge stay as long as it suits them.

 

 

 

As I wrote, naive in relation to Thailand.

 

 

Are you among the ranks of those who claim the Thai people are unfit for democracy?

 

[KevinB]

Again we have drifted off the point. If half the NLA is going to be military men - then the question is what are the rules. If everyone appointed has to follow the military rules - keep your mouth shut, follow orders. don't question the wisdom of your senior officers etc - we will have some real problems. if we accept that the big boys are going to make all the big decisions we can imagine that many of the more mundane things in life (minor laws, ordinances and regulations) are going to be left to the NLA to discuss and debate. If half the members are going to be following orders there is going to be no debate and discussion - an important element in governance.

History (some folk have mentioned it) - is littered with examples of real debacles caused by arrogant military Commanders who refused to take advice or listen to the rank and file on the ground and in the trenches. If half the members of the NLA are going to be "under orders" then why the hell bother to have it. This then will not in anyway represent the feelings of ordinary folk (assuming that even military men have families and can collect opinions / views from friends and neighbours) - this doesn't look very promising as a form of government - it looks more like absolute Military rule.    

[rubl]

 

 

No, there's a profound preference for a system of government in which the people in charge can be changed through elections, as opposed to an unelected government in which the people in charge stay as long as it suits them.

 

As I wrote, naive in relation to Thailand.

 

 

Are you among the ranks of those who claim the Thai people are unfit for democracy?
 

 

No, I only referred to the idea that Thailand is a democratic country. Mind you, now that you mention it, the way Thai handle democracy a wee bit of education on rights and duties supposed in a democracy wouldn't really be a waste of time.

[Bluespunk]

Again we have drifted off the point. If half the NLA is going to be military men - then the question is what are the rules. If everyone appointed has to follow the military rules - keep your mouth shut, follow orders. don't question the wisdom of your senior officers etc - we will have some real problems. if we accept that the big boys are going to make all the big decisions we can imagine that many of the more mundane things in life (minor laws, ordinances and regulations) are going to be left to the NLA to discuss and debate. If half the members are going to be following orders there is going to be no debate and discussion - an important element in governance.
History (some folk have mentioned it) - is littered with examples of real debacles caused by arrogant military Commanders who refused to take advice or listen to the rank and file on the ground and in the trenches. If half the members of the NLA are going to be "under orders" then why the hell bother to have it. This then will not in anyway represent the feelings of ordinary folk (assuming that even military men have families and can collect opinions / views from friends and neighbours) - this doesn't look very promising as a form of government - it looks more like absolute Military rule.    

Most of the problems you mention in relation to shut up and do as your told, don't question or debate decisions made by the leaders, accepting your leaders wisdom unconditionally, as well as arrogant leaders not listening to those below them leading to a debacle, could apply to the last PT govt. Edited August 1, 2014 by Bluespunk

[BSJ]

I think it is great news!   The military is top heavy on Generals so this will give 100 of them something useful to do in the mornings.  After lunch it will be golf as usual.

[heybruce]

 

 

 

No, there's a profound preference for a system of government in which the people in charge can be changed through elections, as opposed to an unelected government in which the people in charge stay as long as it suits them.

 

As I wrote, naive in relation to Thailand.

 

 

Are you among the ranks of those who claim the Thai people are unfit for democracy?
 

 

No, I only referred to the idea that Thailand is a democratic country. Mind you, now that you mention it, the way Thai handle democracy a wee bit of education on rights and duties supposed in a democracy wouldn't really be a waste of time.

 

 

Clearly Thailand is not currently a democracy.  Education on the rights of citizens and the duties of the military in a democratic society would be an excellent idea, especially in the military.

 

[heybruce]

 

Again we have drifted off the point. If half the NLA is going to be military men - then the question is what are the rules. If everyone appointed has to follow the military rules - keep your mouth shut, follow orders. don't question the wisdom of your senior officers etc - we will have some real problems. if we accept that the big boys are going to make all the big decisions we can imagine that many of the more mundane things in life (minor laws, ordinances and regulations) are going to be left to the NLA to discuss and debate. If half the members are going to be following orders there is going to be no debate and discussion - an important element in governance.
History (some folk have mentioned it) - is littered with examples of real debacles caused by arrogant military Commanders who refused to take advice or listen to the rank and file on the ground and in the trenches. If half the members of the NLA are going to be "under orders" then why the hell bother to have it. This then will not in anyway represent the feelings of ordinary folk (assuming that even military men have families and can collect opinions / views from friends and neighbours) - this doesn't look very promising as a form of government - it looks more like absolute Military rule.    

Most of the problems you mention in relation to shut up and do as your told, don't question or debate decisions made by the leaders, accepting your leaders wisdom unconditionally, as well as arrogant leaders not listening to those below them leading to a debacle, could apply to the last PT govt.

 

Really?  Did they also impose martial law and censorship, put military checkpoints on the streets, rule by decree and make it illegal to call for elections?

[Bluespunk]

 

Again we have drifted off the point. If half the NLA is going to be military men - then the question is what are the rules. If everyone appointed has to follow the military rules - keep your mouth shut, follow orders. don't question the wisdom of your senior officers etc - we will have some real problems. if we accept that the big boys are going to make all the big decisions we can imagine that many of the more mundane things in life (minor laws, ordinances and regulations) are going to be left to the NLA to discuss and debate. If half the members are going to be following orders there is going to be no debate and discussion - an important element in governance.
History (some folk have mentioned it) - is littered with examples of real debacles caused by arrogant military Commanders who refused to take advice or listen to the rank and file on the ground and in the trenches. If half the members of the NLA are going to be "under orders" then why the hell bother to have it. This then will not in anyway represent the feelings of ordinary folk (assuming that even military men have families and can collect opinions / views from friends and neighbours) - this doesn't look very promising as a form of government - it looks more like absolute Military rule.    

Most of the problems you mention in relation to shut up and do as your told, don't question or debate decisions made by the leaders, accepting your leaders wisdom unconditionally, as well as arrogant leaders not listening to those below them leading to a debacle, could apply to the last PT govt.
 

Really?  Did they also impose martial law and censorship, put military checkpoints on the streets, rule by decree and make it illegal to call for elections?

Did you actually read either post you quote here? If you had you might see that my point is that the actions that KevinB describes mirror the actions of PT quite closely. Edited August 1, 2014 by Bluespunk

[kimamey]

I think it is great news!   The military is top heavy on Generals so this will give 100 of them something useful to do in the mornings.  After lunch it will be golf as usual.

 

I've run out of likes so, nice post. Made me laugh.

[kimamey]

 

 

 

Again we have drifted off the point. If half the NLA is going to be military men - then the question is what are the rules. If everyone appointed has to follow the military rules - keep your mouth shut, follow orders. don't question the wisdom of your senior officers etc - we will have some real problems. if we accept that the big boys are going to make all the big decisions we can imagine that many of the more mundane things in life (minor laws, ordinances and regulations) are going to be left to the NLA to discuss and debate. If half the members are going to be following orders there is going to be no debate and discussion - an important element in governance.
History (some folk have mentioned it) - is littered with examples of real debacles caused by arrogant military Commanders who refused to take advice or listen to the rank and file on the ground and in the trenches. If half the members of the NLA are going to be "under orders" then why the hell bother to have it. This then will not in anyway represent the feelings of ordinary folk (assuming that even military men have families and can collect opinions / views from friends and neighbours) - this doesn't look very promising as a form of government - it looks more like absolute Military rule.    

Most of the problems you mention in relation to shut up and do as your told, don't question or debate decisions made by the leaders, accepting your leaders wisdom unconditionally, as well as arrogant leaders not listening to those below them leading to a debacle, could apply to the last PT govt.
 

Really?  Did they also impose martial law and censorship, put military checkpoints on the streets, rule by decree and make it illegal to call for elections?

Did you actually read either post you quote here? If you had you might see that my point is that the actions that KevinB describes mirror the actions of PT quite closely.

 

 

Basically what I was going to write. The obvious, ploy as your post is accurate is to divert attention to something that whilst, wasn't mentioned.

[heybruce]

 

 

 

Again we have drifted off the point. If half the NLA is going to be military men - then the question is what are the rules. If everyone appointed has to follow the military rules - keep your mouth shut, follow orders. don't question the wisdom of your senior officers etc - we will have some real problems. if we accept that the big boys are going to make all the big decisions we can imagine that many of the more mundane things in life (minor laws, ordinances and regulations) are going to be left to the NLA to discuss and debate. If half the members are going to be following orders there is going to be no debate and discussion - an important element in governance.
History (some folk have mentioned it) - is littered with examples of real debacles caused by arrogant military Commanders who refused to take advice or listen to the rank and file on the ground and in the trenches. If half the members of the NLA are going to be "under orders" then why the hell bother to have it. This then will not in anyway represent the feelings of ordinary folk (assuming that even military men have families and can collect opinions / views from friends and neighbours) - this doesn't look very promising as a form of government - it looks more like absolute Military rule.    

Most of the problems you mention in relation to shut up and do as your told, don't question or debate decisions made by the leaders, accepting your leaders wisdom unconditionally, as well as arrogant leaders not listening to those below them leading to a debacle, could apply to the last PT govt.
 

Really?  Did they also impose martial law and censorship, put military checkpoints on the streets, rule by decree and make it illegal to call for elections?

Did you actually read either post you quote here? If you had you might see that my point is that the actions that KevinB describes mirror the actions of PT quite closely.

 

My apologies, I thought you were implying an equivalence between the PTP government and the junta government.  But even if your comment was limited to internal government discipline, I disagree.  I did not get the impression the PTP government was run with military discipline and control. 

 

[rijb]

This is all part of Suthep's master plan.

[tartempion]

Didn't I read news the king approved a list of 200 members yesterday 31st July?
I would like to see the names and jobs these people have then.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[tartempion]

Deutsche Welle reports 105 military, 11 police and 84 civilians in NLA.
First assembly to be hold 7 august.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[sjaak327]

 

 

 

No, I only referred to the idea that Thailand is a democratic country. Mind you, now that you mention it, the way Thai handle democracy a wee bit of education on rights and duties supposed in a democracy wouldn't really be a waste of time.

 

 

Clearly Thailand is not currently a democracy.  Education on the rights of citizens and the duties of the military in a democratic society would be an excellent idea, especially in the military.

 

 

 

You hit the nail right on the head. It's not the Thai population that needs education, it's the Thai militairy that doesn't seem to understand, or much more likely, isn't willing to understand.

 

The militairy isn't meant to run the country, and they proven time and time again that they are incapable of running the country, yet they still seem to believe they should intervene. Only to be dealt another blow once the Thai electorate have their say. Some people never learn.

[gemini81]

Bizarro democracy. 

 

Its a constitutional monarchy; always has been. 

[rijb]

 

Bizarro democracy. 

 

Its a constitutional monarchy; always has been. 

 

 

 Without an elected Parliament...

[heybruce]

 

Bizarro democracy. 

 

Its a constitutional monarchy; always has been. 

 

 

It used to be, but the constitution has been suspended.

 

Were you suggesting a constitutional monarchy can't be a democracy?  Citizens of the UK will be surprised to learn that.
 

[sjaak327]

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only referred to the idea that Thailand is a democratic country. Mind you, now that you mention it, the way Thai handle democracy a wee bit of education on rights and duties supposed in a democracy wouldn't really be a waste of time.

 

 

Clearly Thailand is not currently a democracy.  Education on the rights of citizens and the duties of the military in a democratic society would be an excellent idea, especially in the military.
 

 

You hit the nail right on the head. It's not the Thai population that needs education, it's the Thai militairy that doesn't seem to understand, or much more likely, isn't willing to understand.

 

The militairy isn't meant to run the country, and they proven time and time again that they are incapable of running the country, yet they still seem to believe they should intervene. Only to be dealt another blow once the Thai electorate have their say. Some people never learn.

 

 

The Yingluck government wasn't a real shiny example of how to run a country either.

 

BTW some like the stress rights of citizens, but forget that those rights come with duties which make it possible to claim those rights. If you make a mess of your duties, you shouldn't complain of others treating on your rights. IMHO

 

 

I am dying to hear which duties the Thai electorate have been neglecting.

 

The militairy have indeed neglected their duties, that much is certain without any doubt.

[sjaak327]

 

 

Bizarro democracy. 

 

Its a constitutional monarchy; always has been. 

 

 

It used to be, but the constitution has been suspended.

 

Were you suggesting a constitutional monarchy can't be a democracy?  Citizens of the UK will be surprised to learn that.
 

 

 

As are citizens of Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and countless others.

[rubl]

 

 

 

Clearly Thailand is not currently a democracy.  Education on the rights of citizens and the duties of the military in a democratic society would be an excellent idea, especially in the military.
 

 

You hit the nail right on the head. It's not the Thai population that needs education, it's the Thai militairy that doesn't seem to understand, or much more likely, isn't willing to understand.

 

The militairy isn't meant to run the country, and they proven time and time again that they are incapable of running the country, yet they still seem to believe they should intervene. Only to be dealt another blow once the Thai electorate have their say. Some people never learn.

 

 

The Yingluck government wasn't a real shiny example of how to run a country either.

 

BTW some like the stress rights of citizens, but forget that those rights come with duties which make it possible to claim those rights. If you make a mess of your duties, you shouldn't complain of others treating on your rights. IMHO

 

 

I am dying to hear which duties the Thai electorate have been neglecting.

 

The militairy have indeed neglected their duties, that much is certain without any doubt.

 

 

Come on, Sjakie, I wrote "the way Thai handle democracy a wee bit of education on rights and duties supposed in a democracy wouldn't really be a waste of time." and with Brucy mentioning citizens rights only I think my comment still stands. Rights and Duties go together. One of the duties is to act responsible which includes not buying into vote buying promises or finding it acceptable to have bribery on all levels as long as it suits you.

 

Now as for the military having neglected their duties, would you care to list which duties you not only feel they have neglected, but even makes you state "certain without any doubt"?

[Roadman]

 

 
 
No, I only referred to the idea that Thailand is a democratic country. Mind you, now that you mention it, the way Thai handle democracy a wee bit of education on rights and duties supposed in a democracy wouldn't really be a waste of time.
 

 
Clearly Thailand is not currently a democracy.  Education on the rights of citizens and the duties of the military in a democratic society would be an excellent idea, especially in the military.

 
 

 
You hit the nail right on the head. It's not the Thai population that needs education, it's the Thai militairy that doesn't seem to understand, or much more likely, isn't willing to understand.
 
The militairy isn't meant to run the country, and they proven time and time again that they are incapable of running the country, yet they still seem to believe they should intervene. Only to be dealt another blow once the Thai electorate have their say. Some people never learn.

You struggle with the same painful dilemma as Brucie with a leg either side of the fence with the painful point in the middle. Clearly Thailand is not a democracy...well done it's not a democracy as it is under martial law, and with the legality under Thai law of the Martial Law Act the Army does have the right to intervene and run the country. The Army is well aware of its rights and duties under said Matial Law Act and is legally following said rules. The blows I see being delivered in modern day Thailand to itself are not by the hand of the electorate or by the Army having to come in and restore order but by the main group who need the biggest education delivered which is the scum bag politicians on all politicial sides who consider their rights and responsibilities of being above the law and to their own making. That is the group that requires the biggest level of understanding that with rights go responsibilities as your Dutch Uncle has been trying to rightfully point out to you.
As to the said make up of the final 220 members the Junta has it dead right. If you are going to enforce change then you ensure a majority to deliver your objectives. Especially when you have had the past 13 years history of law and order meltdown since the 2001 Thaksin is above the law ruling to show that the previous system was a complete failure. Edited August 1, 2014 by Roadman