Prayut and military may have misjudged US reaction

[bobmac10]

Prayuth should have refuse Russel's Thai visa.

Retro-actively revoke it now, and arrest him for entry without a junta official permit to involve politic, meet more than 4 student without permission, refuse to use the script (12 Thainess) provided by junta, the list go on.

Ah yes very clever, Thai logic at it's best

Why not a sniper? Isn't that how you deal with political nuisances?

[Old Man River]

IMHO the coup occurred when it did due to the arms caches being found and their perceived intended use. If that was allowed to occur, it would have been much more difficult for the army to step in pursuant to your comments. As you will recall, Gen. Prayuth tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, but when it became obvious that discussions wouldn't work and the threat of a civil war was elevated, he rightly took action.

Hence, I agree with your ultimate reason, but don't rule out the importance of "innocent protesters being killed" as it relates to its timing.

1. The arms caches were found after the coup, so you cannot state they triggered the coup.

2. the general tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, that is true, as long as "numerous times" means a couple of days. Did he really think the political problems of this country could be solved in days, after months and months of protests and both sides digging in? He also promised to stop the violence in the south within a year, why did he not promise to stop that in a day or 2, or a week if it is so easy?

3. hope the general has more patience with anything else in life before determining if discussions would work. Some agreements are made after years of negotiations, he gives up after a couple of days.

4. "innocent protesters being killed" and "timing", interesting 2 words in one sentence. How many people were killed the hours before the coup took place? And how many had already been killed? I can understand that when 20 people die in a shootout the army steps in to take control, but in fact there was not more violence right before the coup than weeks before the coup.

[Old Man River]

IMHO the coup occurred when it did due to the arms caches being found and their perceived intended use. If that was allowed to occur, it would have been much more difficult for the army to step in pursuant to your comments. As you will recall, Gen. Prayuth tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, but when it became obvious that discussions wouldn't work and the threat of a civil war was elevated, he rightly took action.

Hence, I agree with your ultimate reason, but don't rule out the importance of "innocent protesters being killed" as it relates to its timing.

1. The arms caches were found after the coup, so you cannot state they triggered the coup.

2. the general tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, that is true, as long as "numerous times" means a couple of days. Did he really think the political problems of this country could be solved in days, after months and months of protests and both sides digging in? He also promised to stop the violence in the south within a year, why did he not promise to stop that in a day or 2, or a week if it is so easy?

3. hope the general has more patience with anything else in life before determining if discussions would work. Some agreements are made after years of negotiations, he gives up after a couple of days.

4. "innocent protesters being killed" and "timing", interesting 2 words in one sentence. How many people were killed the hours before the coup took place? And how many had already been killed? I can understand that when 20 people die in a shootout the army steps in to take control, but in fact there was not more violence right before the coup than weeks before the coup.

1. Do you really think they declared a coup and then tripped over them?

2. Discussions were ongoing. I don't have a diary.

3. Re the south, I have no comment. Please feel free to enlighten.

4. Please confer with your friends re innocents being killed and celebrations.

[Jingthing]

I don't think there is anything to sense, it has been stated over and over again by Jen Psaki here: http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/statements.html

The curious thing is that from what I can tell nothing has really changed at all between the change in the governments. Only the flow of money from the very top has been diverted.

I would really like to know why foreigners support either of the political factions, because doing so is the equivelent of liking a football club. It is meaningless, besides for sport and loyalty. I'm polite to both sides, and whenever Thai people try to drag me into a political debate, I just politely ask them "Has anything really changed in your life?" and the answer is always is "no." So, if the U.S. knew diplomacy, they would do likewise.

Unless something has actually changed for them. If so, what has changed between U.S. Thai relations that can be observed or measured in terms of trade?

US policy has always been to promote democracy through out the world. Kind of like every religion try to achieve.

It's like a belonging to a club. I guess to be friends with the U S, you need to follow their rules. US has their fair share of problem with civil war. Thailand thankfully do not need to go this direction to solve its problem.

U.S. is a country with no national identify or deep cultures, so it will never understand other countries. It's a country that claim it's making a better country by stealing it from the indigenous people. What ever it takes for the country to distract from the attention of the world on what they have done in the past they will do.

I do not hate the US, it's a great nation. But they need to learn to respect that every country has its way to solve it's democratic problems.

The U.S. has no national identity?

Where did you get that moronic idea?

http://www.lifeintheusa.com/culture/index.html

The United States is both an old country and a new country. American values have developed over several centuries, affecting (and often being enriched by) successive waves of immigrants. The trend continues: old ways blending with new ideas. The best way to look at it is to realize that while Americans are often open to new ways of thinking, they have a deep culture, and a deep sense of being American, one that is not always that easy to describe. Those who disagree, who believe the country has no true culture compared to the “older” civilizations of Europe, Asia and elsewhere, do not truly understand the United States.

[martinhp]

No, Danny Russel did not meet with Prayuth, because Danny Russel is not a diplomat. He is a staffer promoted into a diplomatic position, and he needs to be immediately recalled. By his own admission, when he was appointed to the post in July 2013, he had only worked as a White House staffer, and had never left the four walls of his office. He's a disgrace to both the U.S. and to the diplomatic community. As a U.S. citizen, I am embarrassed by his behavior.

And you have a lack of education at al it seams P do with 99% not have the support by the Thais he thinks to rule wich means that D R show support to the Thais with no guns

i assume you come from a land with democracy so haw can you not understand ????

[fvw53]

MikeOboe57 writes :

QUOTE

In the Ukraine the USA and NATO/EU had no moral inhibitions to condone the violent coup against an elected government, instead they saw it as another opportunity to corner Russia with the possibility of expanding NATO territory right onto Putin´s doorstep. Their wet dream of thus making the position of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol untenable was sadly foiled by a referendum returning the Crimea back to Russia.

UNQUOTE

My comments : this confusion of USA, NATO and EU acting together to corner Russia is the results of the incurable inferiority complex of Russia and its sycophant bloggers.

Russia should not feel inferior because it IS a great nation...with a great history, a large territory and a powerful army.

NATO is a defensive alliance of which USA is the most important member ....but every NATO member state has a veto on any eagerness to kick some ass...

Did we forget that when Obama wanted to bomb Syria and needed some pretext of an alliance that even the UK parliament voted against it ....

NATO does NOT act as the former Soviet controlled Pact of Warsaw in which one partner (USSR) decided about war and peace.

I was once an insider and I am sure that any effort to incorporate Ukraine into NATO would have faced a veto from more than halve of the NATO members and certainly from Germany.

But what is the problem with Ukraine becoming member of EU? This would not prevent this country to become also member of other trading blocs including the one which Putin may want.

EU has nothing to do with a military alliance and has every reason to have good relations with Russia (and vice versa) because EU is about free circulation of "capital, goods and people" and nothing more. Of course IF Russia is perceived - mainly by the Germans and the French - as the old "expansive" USSR it creates problems because Germany and France have a bad memory of the Cold War so close to them.

Some member states of NATO are not member of the EU (for instance USA, Canada, Norway and most also Turkey)

Some member states of EU are not member of NATO (for instance Sweden, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Malta )

So whatever be your opinions : if you continue to put NATO and EU in one bag it means you are incompetent or you have bad intentions

[rickirs]

Much is said about Russel failing to meet with Prayuth. There was no failure.

First, did Prayuth or the US request such a meeting? I doubt either asked through diplomatic channels between the two countries and that would have been the appropriate process. Russel's visit was planned more than six months ago so obviously the lack of a meeting with Prayuth was not an oversight and communicated in advance. Prayuth is the Head of Government on par in terms of government leadership with President Obama. An Assistant to the USA Secretary of State is a position lower than even any of Prayuth's cabinet ministers.

Second, the appropriate chain of command for a member of a diplomatic mission to meet with a foreign Head of Government is through the coordination of and the participation of the USA ambassador who both represents the USA Secretary of State and the USA President. Currently, the USA has no ambassador to Thailand - perhaps intentionally.

Third, Russel did meet with both former elected Heads of State Abhisit and Yingluck. That level of contact was appropriate. Such a meeting would have to be approved in advance by Gen. Prayuth. Recall that it was Obama who met with Abhisit when Abhisit was prime minister when Obama attended the ASEAN-10 summit in 2009; Obama didn't send in a stand-in low level government executive.

Personally, I favor a meeting between Obama and General Prayuth but it would be a meeting of contrasts and not one of parnership. I don't think Prayuth could accept the risks of such a meeting given the potential unmitigated freedom of Western news media. Prayuth may have been relieved that Obama only sent Russel to Thailand.

[Bob12345]

1. The arms caches were found after the coup, so you cannot state they triggered the coup.

2. the general tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, that is true, as long as "numerous times" means a couple of days. Did he really think the political problems of this country could be solved in days, after months and months of protests and both sides digging in? He also promised to stop the violence in the south within a year, why did he not promise to stop that in a day or 2, or a week if it is so easy?

3. hope the general has more patience with anything else in life before determining if discussions would work. Some agreements are made after years of negotiations, he gives up after a couple of days.

4. "innocent protesters being killed" and "timing", interesting 2 words in one sentence. How many people were killed the hours before the coup took place? And how many had already been killed? I can understand that when 20 people die in a shootout the army steps in to take control, but in fact there was not more violence right before the coup than weeks before the coup.

So one incident is more reason for a coup than weeks on near continuous violence? interesting logic.

Do you have any reason to believe the violence would stop, or even decrease, during the years of negotiation you advocate? Who is running the country in the interim?

Interesting logic right? If you think about it, it is how it happens in the world around us. Most major conflicts can be tracked back to a single big event (or to a deadline that was passed, but that deadline was always clearly communicated beforehand). The war on terror started when planes flew in WTC, the US got involved in WWII when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Gulf war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So why did the general step in on exactly that day and not a day earlier or later? What happened right before that moment that can be identified as the straw that broke the camels back? It is hard to make a logical argument that the timing of the coup can be explained by the innocent protesters who died as no protester died right before the coup took place; protesters died, but that happened earlier. But that is the argument the poster I quoted made.

Reasons why the violence would stop or decrease? I believe the violence came from extremist red-shirt supporters who tried to stop the protests against the government. When negotiations would start, wouldn't the protesters go off the streets leaving no target for the extremist? What would the motivation be for those extremist to continue violence at that moment? And against who? And maybe the army could be deployed at some spots to give security to the people. After all, the army is there to keep peace on behalf on the government (and not to take power from the government).

And who would be running the country in the interim? Well, we need to read what the constitution has to say about this. I am sure there is a provision written into it to deal with a situation like this... What do you think the constitution will tell us what should happen? Or you think the constitution is just a funny piece of paper with some laws and rules written on there that should be broken at first chance by a group of people who control loads and loads of armed people and tanks?

[waitforusalso]

Doesn't this goddamn Yank not know that 99.99999999999% of Thai people love me????

Edited January 28, 2015 by waitforusalso

[Bob12345]

IMHO the coup occurred when it did due to the arms caches being found and their perceived intended use. If that was allowed to occur, it would have been much more difficult for the army to step in pursuant to your comments. As you will recall, Gen. Prayuth tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, but when it became obvious that discussions wouldn't work and the threat of a civil war was elevated, he rightly took action.

Hence, I agree with your ultimate reason, but don't rule out the importance of "innocent protesters being killed" as it relates to its timing.

1. The arms caches were found after the coup, so you cannot state they triggered the coup.

2. the general tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, that is true, as long as "numerous times" means a couple of days. Did he really think the political problems of this country could be solved in days, after months and months of protests and both sides digging in? He also promised to stop the violence in the south within a year, why did he not promise to stop that in a day or 2, or a week if it is so easy?

3. hope the general has more patience with anything else in life before determining if discussions would work. Some agreements are made after years of negotiations, he gives up after a couple of days.

4. "innocent protesters being killed" and "timing", interesting 2 words in one sentence. How many people were killed the hours before the coup took place? And how many had already been killed? I can understand that when 20 people die in a shootout the army steps in to take control, but in fact there was not more violence right before the coup than weeks before the coup.

1. Do you really think they declared a coup and then tripped over them?

2. Discussions were ongoing. I don't have a diary.

3. Re the south, I have no comment. Please feel free to enlighten.

4. Please confer with your friends re innocents being killed and celebrations.

1. it is very suspicious, i agree. Many theories are going around about this. Anyways, keep in mind that knowing the whereabouts of a stash of arms is no reason for a coup. There are easier ways to bring it to the attention of the right people then taking control of a complete country and toppling a government.

2. you don't need a diary as this has been covered extensively in the media including the number of days the talks lasted. Nobody is denying the accuracy of that media coverage

3. not sure what to enlighten you about. You are unaware of the problems in the south or you are unaware the general said he will have the problems solved in a year?

4. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I was referring to the "timing" part while you bring in "celebrations" out of nowhere.

[Baerboxer]

I was on the fence about the Coup until they started cleaning up the taxi mafia.

(arrested the mayor of Karon etc)

Then when EIGHT top cops get arrested, one "top drug enforcement cop" being caught with 800,000 Yaba

pills (in back seat of car) to me, it was obvious that the Army had no choice but to step in, as the cops/politicians

were so corrupt. One top cop had BILLIONS of Baht stashed at his house!

Apparently Singapore had to do the same about 50 years ago.

I would like to hear from those that are against the Coup, about how else they could have dealt with the rampant corruption.

Cheers,

NS

Don't you remember the wonderful PTP campaign. Yingluck in yet another photo op in front of a big "no to corruption" sign? There were some bewildered lackeys in the photo too.

Must have worked because she later stated there was no corruption in "her" (hahahah) government. And also stated there was none in the rice scheme she brilliantly led.

And they did all that without even having to prosecute and convict one single person. Amazing.

[Baerboxer]

Funny stuff. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Thailand has time and

time again proven itself to be a bit of a backstabbing ally for America, so at this

point I feel America has little interest in Thailand, and in the future it will play

no part in America's " strategy" in South East Asia. This reality is just beginning

to dawn on Thailand's " leadership". Thailand has slowly shifted to China's

corner which is not endearing itself to America either. My guess is we will see

a policy shift of America towards Vietnam, who hate the Chinese. First tip off

will be when America builds a naval base in Vietnam......

As Vietnam is a Communist state, wouldn't the US have to conquer them first?

And bring them American-style Democracy.

That didn't go too well last time they tried.

The US has made a commitment to move back into Subic Bay and Clark Air force base giving a huge boost to the Phil's economy, and getting a strategic location. It also has Diego Garcia and it has 11 Nimitz-class carrier groups for coverage. LINK

I don't see the US going to a communist country.

A massive boost for the Philippines - and they need it both economical and to stop others bullying them.

Doesn't the US Navy now enjoy docking facilities and niceties in Vietnam? Good move on Vietnam's part for the same reasons as Philly. And, the Americans are showing they can work with and help former adversaries. Hasn't America provided VN with assistance?

Japan and Germany would be nothing today without the American aid they received after WW2. How did the countries the communists 'aid" fair in comparrison?

Edited January 28, 2015 by Baerboxer

[Old Man River]

IMHO the coup occurred when it did due to the arms caches being found and their perceived intended use. If that was allowed to occur, it would have been much more difficult for the army to step in pursuant to your comments. As you will recall, Gen. Prayuth tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, but when it became obvious that discussions wouldn't work and the threat of a civil war was elevated, he rightly took action.

Hence, I agree with your ultimate reason, but don't rule out the importance of "innocent protesters being killed" as it relates to its timing.

1. The arms caches were found after the coup, so you cannot state they triggered the coup.

2. the general tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, that is true, as long as "numerous times" means a couple of days. Did he really think the political problems of this country could be solved in days, after months and months of protests and both sides digging in? He also promised to stop the violence in the south within a year, why did he not promise to stop that in a day or 2, or a week if it is so easy?

3. hope the general has more patience with anything else in life before determining if discussions would work. Some agreements are made after years of negotiations, he gives up after a couple of days.

4. "innocent protesters being killed" and "timing", interesting 2 words in one sentence. How many people were killed the hours before the coup took place? And how many had already been killed? I can understand that when 20 people die in a shootout the army steps in to take control, but in fact there was not more violence right before the coup than weeks before the coup.

1. Do you really think they declared a coup and then tripped over them?

2. Discussions were ongoing. I don't have a diary.

3. Re the south, I have no comment. Please feel free to enlighten.

4. Please confer with your friends re innocents being killed and celebrations.

1. it is very suspicious, i agree. Many theories are going around about this. Anyways, keep in mind that knowing the whereabouts of a stash of arms is no reason for a coup. There are easier ways to bring it to the attention of the right people then taking control of a complete country and toppling a government.

2. you don't need a diary as this has been covered extensively in the media including the number of days the talks lasted. Nobody is denying the accuracy of that media coverage

3. not sure what to enlighten you about. You are unaware of the problems in the south or you are unaware the general said he will have the problems solved in a year?

4. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I was referring to the "timing" part while you bring in "celebrations" out of nowhere.

Understand.

1. It is impossible to say if valid, but pictures were online prior to martial law being declared. The coup then came later.

2. I am convinced that Gen. Prayuth was trying to avoid a coup. There were reports it would occur months earlier, but he nixed it. He is far from the coup monger some want to make him out to be.

3. Some on TVF are alluding to the need for the coup for reasons which can't be discussed. I'm fence post sitting on this, but the timing of a possible civil war would have provided a reason to step in. It did allow the army to do some police related housekeeping.

4. On how to handle the south, I don't have a clue. Over the years, it appears authorities think they know, but solutions don't materialize. This administration is part of a long line who have had trouble finding solutions.

[rubl]

I was on the fence about the Coup until they started cleaning up the taxi mafia.

(arrested the mayor of Karon etc)

Then when EIGHT top cops get arrested, one "top drug enforcement cop" being caught with 800,000 Yaba

pills (in back seat of car) to me, it was obvious that the Army had no choice but to step in, as the cops/politicians

were so corrupt. One top cop had BILLIONS of Baht stashed at his house!

Apparently Singapore had to do the same about 50 years ago.

I would like to hear from those that are against the Coup, about how else they could have dealt with the rampant corruption.

Cheers,

NS

Don't you remember the wonderful PTP campaign. Yingluck in yet another photo op in front of a big "no to corruption" sign? There were some bewildered lackeys in the photo too.

Must have worked because she later stated there was no corruption in "her" (hahahah) government. And also stated there was none in the rice scheme she brilliantly led.

And they did all that without even having to prosecute and convict one single person. Amazing.

Must be me, I vaguely remember Ms. Yingluck stating she, her cabinet and her government took special care of corruption

[rubl]

Now we have the Generalissimo saying he needs to tap our phones, intercept our emails and conduct covert surveillance without recourse to the courts.

This place will be like Burma in 2 years.

Some interesting remarks from Sir David Omand, the former head of the British GCHQ

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150123/07461729791/former-head-gchq-warns-ethically-worse-kinds-spying-if-unbreakable-encryption-is-allowed.shtml

[rubl]

Prayut and military may have misjudged US reaction

Gen. Prayut seemed very disappointed at the one sidedness of info sharing with the NSA

[outboard]

The US can not be too heavy handed in punishing a country because of a military coup, seeing as the second amendment makes it a legal course of action

[halloween]

1. The arms caches were found after the coup, so you cannot state they triggered the coup.

2. the general tried numerous times to get all sides to talk, that is true, as long as "numerous times" means a couple of days. Did he really think the political problems of this country could be solved in days, after months and months of protests and both sides digging in? He also promised to stop the violence in the south within a year, why did he not promise to stop that in a day or 2, or a week if it is so easy?

3. hope the general has more patience with anything else in life before determining if discussions would work. Some agreements are made after years of negotiations, he gives up after a couple of days.

4. "innocent protesters being killed" and "timing", interesting 2 words in one sentence. How many people were killed the hours before the coup took place? And how many had already been killed? I can understand that when 20 people die in a shootout the army steps in to take control, but in fact there was not more violence right before the coup than weeks before the coup.

So one incident is more reason for a coup than weeks on near continuous violence? interesting logic.

Do you have any reason to believe the violence would stop, or even decrease, during the years of negotiation you advocate? Who is running the country in the interim?

Interesting logic right? If you think about it, it is how it happens in the world around us. Most major conflicts can be tracked back to a single big event (or to a deadline that was passed, but that deadline was always clearly communicated beforehand). The war on terror started when planes flew in WTC, the US got involved in WWII when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Gulf war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So why did the general step in on exactly that day and not a day earlier or later? What happened right before that moment that can be identified as the straw that broke the camels back? It is hard to make a logical argument that the timing of the coup can be explained by the innocent protesters who died as no protester died right before the coup took place; protesters died, but that happened earlier. But that is the argument the poster I quoted made.

Reasons why the violence would stop or decrease? I believe the violence came from extremist red-shirt supporters who tried to stop the protests against the government. When negotiations would start, wouldn't the protesters go off the streets leaving no target for the extremist? What would the motivation be for those extremist to continue violence at that moment? And against who? And maybe the army could be deployed at some spots to give security to the people. After all, the army is there to keep peace on behalf on the government (and not to take power from the government).

And who would be running the country in the interim? Well, we need to read what the constitution has to say about this. I am sure there is a provision written into it to deal with a situation like this... What do you think the constitution will tell us what should happen? Or you think the constitution is just a funny piece of paper with some laws and rules written on there that should be broken at first chance by a group of people who control loads and loads of armed people and tanks?

But I doubt the coup was a knee-jerk reaction. The general would have decided, and then put all pieces in position before acting.

The violence certainly came from extremist red shirts. That it would have stopped, or that protesters would have gone home is presumptuous. The protesters wanted the Yingluk government GONE, because they knew that after 180 days Thaksin would have his amnesty.

There is no provision in the constitution for such a situation. Why would there be?

Your bias against the military is obvious from your closing words. Why not go downtown and have a look, and admit that things are much better than they were before the coup?

[aimbc]

I don't think there is anything to sense, it has been stated over and over again by Jen Psaki here: http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/statements.html

The curious thing is that from what I can tell nothing has really changed at all between the change in the governments. Only the flow of money from the very top has been diverted.

I would really like to know why foreigners support either of the political factions, because doing so is the equivelent of liking a football club. It is meaningless, besides for sport and loyalty. I'm polite to both sides, and whenever Thai people try to drag me into a political debate, I just politely ask them "Has anything really changed in your life?" and the answer is always is "no." So, if the U.S. knew diplomacy, they would do likewise.

Unless something has actually changed for them. If so, what has changed between U.S. Thai relations that can be observed or measured in terms of trade?

US policy has always been to promote democracy through out the world. Kind of like every religion try to achieve.

It's like a belonging to a club. I guess to be friends with the U S, you need to follow their rules. US has their fair share of problem with civil war. Thailand thankfully do not need to go this direction to solve its problem.

U.S. is a country with no national identify or deep cultures, so it will never understand other countries. It's a country that claim it's making a better country by stealing it from the indigenous people. What ever it takes for the country to distract from the attention of the world on what they have done in the past they will do.

I do not hate the US, it's a great nation. But they need to learn to respect that every country has its way to solve it's democratic problems.

The U.S. has no national identity?

Where did you get that moronic idea?

http://www.lifeintheusa.com/culture/index.html

The United States is both an old country and a new country. American values have developed over several centuries, affecting (and often being enriched by) successive waves of immigrants. The trend continues: old ways blending with new ideas. The best way to look at it is to realize that while Americans are often open to new ways of thinking, they have a deep culture, and a deep sense of being American, one that is not always that easy to describe. Those who disagree, who believe the country has no true culture compared to the “older” civilizations of Europe, Asia and elsewhere, do not truly understand the United States.

I don't see anything in this article saying that America has an identity, just bunch of culture intermingled together. And this is his opinion.

First of all what does it mean to you to be an American. Does blacks in America considered an American? Does Asian in America consider to be an American. Does Hispanic in America consider to be an American. I don't think you can get 100% of the US citizens agree with that. Actually very few that are not Anglo-Saxon or European descent are not immediately considered Americans in most people's eyes. So there is a definite identity issue in America. Even though Hispanics, Blacks and Chinese have been in America for so long any other race, I don't think they will ever feel like an American they way they are treated.

When I talk about identity, I am talking about going back far into the family lineage. Many countries are like that. For instances traditions. What are the traditions in America that is truly American? Holloween? Valentines? There are very few I can think of that is a true American tradition. Right now nothing comes to mind. Maybe you can enlighten me.

So be for you use such childish words to flame anyone, think before you type.

[lovetotravel]

The US can not be too heavy handed in punishing a country because of a military coup, seeing as the second amendment makes it a legal course of action

That was written 220 years ago! LOL And was based on English law.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.^[8]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution}

[givenall]

It's really surprising that with all problems Thailand has, they only worry about what us does. Can someone tell them fix your internal problems first. And then.........

[soicee]

To be able to properly assess Russel´s remarks one has to scrutinize the USA´s ability to teach other countries about democracy. And what we can see here it looks rather bleak.

Even after WW2 and establishment of the UN the USA rigorously enforced the Monroe doctrine and meddled in the internal affairs of souvereign countries in Central and South America.

Here are just two examples:

When the US United Fruit Company felt inconvenienced by an impending land reform in Guatemala, President Harry Truman in 1951 authorized covert CIA action against the elected government. This culminated in 1954 in a rather pathetic coup d´etat establishing a buffoon named Castillo Armas as new President. He reversed all social decrees of the previous government including the land reform triggering a 36 year long civil war from 1960 to 1986 with 200.000 citizens killed on both sides, the majority by US trained counter insurgency military units.

Long before the USA´s 9/11, Chile had their own 9/11. In 1973, after 3 years of covert destabilizing CIA operations, the democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende was overthrown in a bloody CIA supported military coup turning the country into a military dictatorship for the next 15 years under General Augusto Pinochet. 3000 citizens lost their lives during that period and thousands more suffered imprisonment and torture.

But what about recent attempts of the USA to export its idea of democracy to other countries?

Let´s have a look at Afghanistan, the "young democracy". All that changed was that the local "chieftains", drug barons and warlords now call themselves Members of Parliament or Ministers not at least thanks to massive and widespread electoral fraud. Rule of Law is virtually nonexistent and anyone trying to speak out against the blunt and open abuse of power is quickly shown his rank in the food chain. Corruption is over the top and government officials use diplomatic luggage to routinely take large amounts of cash siphoned off aid money to the Gulf emirates and transfer them to offshore accounts. Once the foreign troops will have left, the Taliban will come back in force and most likely again establish their "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" thanks to generous support by the Pakistani armed forces, a US "ally in the war on terror".

Maybe the second attempt of the US to export democracy was more promising? Sadly no, Iraq never recovered from the US led invasion, and the "democratically elected" government understood its mandate foremost as a letter of marque to enrich themselves and harass the Sunni minority, alleged followers of the former President Saddam Hussein. And what began as insurgency against the occupying forces, thanks to Paul Bremer, turned into a vicious ethnic conflict, killing more than 150.000 civilians. The country was ripe for plucking by IS which rose to power in the wake of US attempts to fuel a minor uprising against the Syrian Government by training "moderate islamists" in dirty warfare. The country is now almost as far away from democracy as it was under Saddam Hussein, but a lot unsafer, the number of civilians killed per annum have doubled every year since 2012: 4622 - 9742 - 17049 (2014).

That leaves Libya. Another minor islamist uprising in Beghazi was more than welcome to take care of the problem "Gaddhafi" under pretext of supporting the "Arab Spring". In the first - and last - attempt to incorporate the "responsibility to protect" doctrine into UN policy, the US and several NATO countries got two sloppily written UNSC resolutions calling for a no-fly-zone and an arms embargo. UN SecGen Ban Ki-Moon went into hiding when the "coalition" expanded these resolutions into a large scale weapons delivery operation and an unrestricted bombing campaign against the Libyan Army. After Gaddhafi was injured in an airstrike, then captured and brutally massacred by the "rebels" an elated Hillary Clinton commented: "we came, we saw, he died, hehehehe...".

Today the "democratically elected" Libyan government is sitting in Tobruk, trying not to attract the attention of the powerful militias in Tripolis and Benghazi which de facto rule the country. The international airports are closed and IS has claimed the first "liberated" town in Libya.

In the Ukraine the USA and NATO/EU had no moral inhibitions to condone the violent coup against an elected government, instead they saw it as another opportunity to corner Russia with the possibility of expanding NATO territory right onto Putin´s doorstep. Their wet dream of thus making the position of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol untenable was sadly foiled by a referendum returning the Crimea back to Russia.

Russel´s statement is not only stupid, it is highly inappropriate. It would be bad enough if it was just the solo flight of some diplomatically challenged dummy, as an official opinion of the US State Department presented in such a form it is a disaster and only serves to promote Thai-Chinese cooperation.

With a long track record of supporting dictators from Pinochet to Pol Pot and being either instrumental in or supportive of overthrowing democratically elected governments from Allende to Yanukovich, the USA is in no position to lecture anybody on democracy.

Spot on!

[2fishin2]

I don't think there is anything to sense, it has been stated over and over again by Jen Psaki here: http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/statements.html

The curious thing is that from what I can tell nothing has really changed at all between the change in the governments. Only the flow of money from the very top has been diverted.

I would really like to know why foreigners support either of the political factions, because doing so is the equivelent of liking a football club. It is meaningless, besides for sport and loyalty. I'm polite to both sides, and whenever Thai people try to drag me into a political debate, I just politely ask them "Has anything really changed in your life?" and the answer is always is "no." So, if the U.S. knew diplomacy, they would do likewise.

Unless something has actually changed for them. If so, what has changed between U.S. Thai relations that can be observed or measured in terms of trade?

US policy has always been to promote democracy through out the world. Kind of like every religion try to achieve.

It's like a belonging to a club. I guess to be friends with the U S, you need to follow their rules. US has their fair share of problem with civil war. Thailand thankfully do not need to go this direction to solve its problem.

U.S. is a country with no national identify or deep cultures, so it will never understand other countries. It's a country that claim it's making a better country by stealing it from the indigenous people. What ever it takes for the country to distract from the attention of the world on what they have done in the past they will do.

I do not hate the US, it's a great nation. But they need to learn to respect that every country has its way to solve it's democratic problems.

The U.S. has no national identity?

Where did you get that moronic idea?

http://www.lifeintheusa.com/culture/index.html

The United States is both an old country and a new country. American values have developed over several centuries, affecting (and often being enriched by) successive waves of immigrants. The trend continues: old ways blending with new ideas. The best way to look at it is to realize that while Americans are often open to new ways of thinking, they have a deep culture, and a deep sense of being American, one that is not always that easy to describe. Those who disagree, who believe the country has no true culture compared to the “older” civilizations of Europe, Asia and elsewhere, do not truly understand the United States.

I don't see anything in this article saying that America has an identity, just bunch of culture intermingled together. And this is his opinion.

First of all what does it mean to you to be an American. Does blacks in America considered an American? Does Asian in America consider to be an American. Does Hispanic in America consider to be an American. I don't think you can get 100% of the US citizens agree with that. Actually very few that are not Anglo-Saxon or European descent are not immediately considered Americans in most people's eyes. So there is a definite identity issue in America. Even though Hispanics, Blacks and Chinese have been in America for so long any other race, I don't think they will ever feel like an American they way they are treated.

When I talk about identity, I am talking about going back far into the family lineage. Many countries are like that. For instances traditions. What are the traditions in America that is truly American? Holloween? Valentines? There are very few I can think of that is a true American tradition. Right now nothing comes to mind. Maybe you can enlighten me.

So be for you use such childish words to flame anyone, think before you type.

Your post has got to be one of the most WRONG statements ever posted. Its very obvious you are not American nor understand anything AMERICAN.

Oh so wrong my friend oh so wrong....

[outboard]

The US can not be too heavy handed in punishing a country because of a military coup, seeing as the second amendment makes it a legal course of action

That was written 220 years ago! LOL And was based on English law.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.^[8]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution}

thanks but i can google all by myself, doesn't matter when it was written it is still law and still allows the population to form a militia(military) to overthrow their tyrannical government, much like Thailand's military overthrew their government, whether it was tyrannical or not is a question that could only be answered in a court,

would the US government be considered tyrannical in a court ?

[lovetotravel]

The US can not be too heavy handed in punishing a country because of a military coup, seeing as the second amendment makes it a legal course of action

That was written 220 years ago! LOL And was based on English law.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.^[8]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution}

thanks but i can google all by myself, doesn't matter when it was written it is still law and still allows the population to form a militia(military) to overthrow their tyrannical government, much like Thailand's military overthrew their government, whether it was tyrannical or not is a question that could only be answered in a court,

would the US government be considered tyrannical in a court ?

Complete myth.

http://www.progressivepress.net/myth-the-second-amendment-exists-to-enable-the-american-people-to-rise-up/

Not only does the Constitution not say anything about bearing arms to use against the government, it specifically says the Militia can be called upon by the President to suppress insurrections against our government.

[outboard]

Complete myth.

if your only evidence is a propaganda website that you link , please do not accuse people of posting myths

[lovetotravel]

Complete myth.

if your only evidence is a propaganda website that you link , please do not accuse people of posting myths

It's definitely open to interpretation, but again, was written over 200 years ago!!!! It has been analyzed to death and there are a variety of interpretations. Depending on what you want to hear, you'll read the article that supports your view. But, it is NOT relevant now and would never be applied now. Never. A better source?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

It's up to interpretation and we are way off topic.

[hawker9000]

Seems to me the USA is saying it is time to set an election date.

The present U.S. administration has no credibility it can spare for the situation in Thailand. Too many others around the world already openly thumbing their noses at it. Whatever challenges the present military government in Thailand faces, they certainly need not waste any concern over what the U.S. (translation: Obama) might have to say about it.

[lovetotravel]

Seems to me the USA is saying it is time to set an election date.

The present U.S. administration has no credibility it can spare for the situation in Thailand. Too many others around the world already openly thumbing their noses at it. Whatever challenges the present military government in Thailand faces, they certainly need not waste any concern over what the U.S. (translation: Obama) might have to say about it.

It's not just the US that's critical of the coup:

http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Thailand-s-coup-leader-works-to-win-over-EU-s-diplomats

Since the May coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of then Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the EU has also suspended official visits and put military cooperation under review.

[rijb]

Seems to me the USA is saying it is time to set an election date.

The present U.S. administration has no credibility it can spare for the situation in Thailand. Too many others around the world already openly thumbing their noses at it. Whatever challenges the present military government in Thailand faces, they certainly need not waste any concern over what the U.S. (translation: Obama) might have to say about it.

Certainly as lot of fuss here, over no credibility...