Envoy rejects US paper's attack on Thai government

[brucec64]

Nicely put into context!!

Until they can appreciate that democracy is not for everyone and that other (non-Western) countries have different cultures and economies that democracy doesn't serve so well or function properly in (for a myriad of reasons) then they are never going to understand this!!

I see. Under your approach, democracy should be reserved for those of western countries and is not for everyone.

There's one significant problem with your position, and I am afraid it is a rather large one. The people in those non western countries would like to have the freedoms and liberties that democracy brings. Democracy is a very broad term and it is adapted for different cultures. Democracy as practiced in the USA is not the same as it is in the UK. Nor is democracy as it is practiced the same in the UK as it is Canada, or Japan, or Italy, or Israel, or South Africa or Samoa or India. However, all of these different democracies allow for rights and liberties found only in a democracy. Concepts such as civilian rule, habeas corpus, property rights, civil rights, environmental protection, anti corruption legislation with teeth, a separation of the powers between the judiciary, government and military, and a freedom of the press.

More specifically, there has never ever been a respect for fundamental civil liberties in Thailand when the military has been the governing body. The Thai military is not accountable to the people.

There was a time when people like you were not allowed to vote. It wasn't too long ago either. You wouldn't be too happy if people who had greater wealth than you, who were from a higher social status and more powerful removed some of your rights. Why then are you advocating for the removal of people's rights?

OK then.

The current government and continuation of marshal law have been democratically endorsed by the electorate in the numerous polls carried out meaning that both should continue until the people decide otherwise as it is their chosen path in the circumstances. These are THEIR rights (that you keep harping on about) and the US should stop interfering with them as it is none of their business!!

Polls conducted by the Thai Happiness polling group, an army organization, are now considered as a democratic endorsement? Do you actually beleive the nonsense you write? Prayuth just stated that no polls against the ncpo would be permitted.

By this logic, all future elections can be completed by a poll of 1137 people.

[diehard60]

reporters now-a-days distort everything they write. Just to make a buck. Everyione knows this so I would not put a lot into what any news paper says.

[bassman]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Simply because the US has decided that Democracy is the best system for the world and they are willing to show countries the error of their ways if they do not agree.

We have seen the success of this in places like Vietnam.....Err, no lets not use that as an example.

How about more recently in Iraq and Libya where...... No those are not good examples either.

Well Afghanistan then, OK as long as they keep troops there it should hold.

And they always come out strongly against any coup...... well except when it is in their interests such as in Egypt lately.

This is pale in comparison to the number of people that was killed by Stalin, Maoist China and N. Korea, as you will note they were all undemocratic. But then again people like you think the whole world is wrong and Thailand's elite and their puppets are correct.

So another one who wants to attack me with completely irrelevant things.

This is about the attitude of the US to Thailand and their selective indignation, not about what someone else did.

Have a look at the surrounding countries (ASEAN) if you want a comparison. Lao and Vietnam, communist, Cambodia a dictatorship dressed up as a semi democracy, Burma another semi democracy with seats reserved for the military. Then there is Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, are they democracies ?

Once again we see the fairytale of the elite totted out as an excuse for everything that is wrong with this country, easy to blame something "We cant talk about"

And you seem to be under the impression that the Washington Post represents the whole world.

"And you seem to be under the impression that the Washington Post represents the whole world."

And Robby, you seem to be under the impression that the Washington Post represents America. It was a newspaper editorial, nothing more, nothing less.

[scorecard]

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

Thailand is going backwards in time, entrenching the Elite.

i would have thought better of people in this Forum.

Perhaps you are happy with your freedoms curtailed but a lot of us are not.....put it to a vote.

Your wrong, do some deeper longer-term research.

[2fishin2]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Simply because the US has decided that Democracy is the best system for the world and they are willing to show countries the error of their ways if they do not agree.

We have seen the success of this in places like Vietnam.....Err, no lets not use that as an example.

How about more recently in Iraq and Libya where...... No those are not good examples either.

Well Afghanistan then, OK as long as they keep troops there it should hold.

And they always come out strongly against any coup...... well except when it is in their interests such as in Egypt lately.

This is pale in comparison to the number of people that was killed by Stalin, Maoist China and N. Korea, as you will note they were all undemocratic. But then again people like you think the whole world is wrong and Thailand's elite and their puppets are correct.

So another one who wants to attack me with completely irrelevant things.

This is about the attitude of the US to Thailand and their selective indignation, not about what someone else did.

Have a look at the surrounding countries (ASEAN) if you want a comparison. Lao and Vietnam, communist, Cambodia a dictatorship dressed up as a semi democracy, Burma another semi democracy with seats reserved for the military. Then there is Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, are they democracies ?

Once again we see the fairytale of the elite totted out as an excuse for everything that is wrong with this country, easy to blame something "We cant talk about"

And you seem to be under the impression that the Washington Post represents the whole world.

No, this is about a newspaper article and a Thai ambassador's reaction to it. Everybody including yourself is trying to spin it as another US attack on Thailand.....

Ha even the good old US newspapers know how to call a spade a spade . But of course we can speak freely. Can you imagine what would happen if a Thai newspaper did that? Reeducation would be in their future.

[tbthailand]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Simply because the US has decided that Democracy is the best system for the world and they are willing to show countries the error of their ways if they do not agree.

We have seen the success of this in places like Vietnam.....Err, no lets not use that as an example.

How about more recently in Iraq and Libya where...... No those are not good examples either.

Well Afghanistan then, OK as long as they keep troops there it should hold.

And they always come out strongly against any coup...... well except when it is in their interests such as in Egypt lately.

you and tomjoad are in outer space

for you, the usa did not decide that democracy is the best system. Democracy as a form of self-governance predates the USA by millennia. but you always like to take a dig at us Americans, so congratulations, points scored.

as for tomjoad, no one ever said democracy creates perfect results (although more people need to understand how Hitler weaselled his way into power... )... But "democracy" is the name we give to a system of self-governance. Most people prefer to live in a society where they have a say in their own governance rather than to be subjected to the rule of a small number of people .... That has been shown to be true throughout our history. Thailand is an example today of a country where the latter still has the upper hand.

[Rorri]

TomJoad, on 02 Mar 2015 - 09:00, said:

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Perhaps, being so wise, you could suggest a better form of government, that still maintains the people as being the nation, not a dictator, or an unelected leader. Come on, let's hear from you, or are you full of crap.

[Rancid]

US media seems to act as a propaganda arm of government, free press is a distant memory of pre-fascism days.

[Rorri]

lifeincnx, on 02 Mar 2015 - 10:45, said:

2fishin2, on 02 Mar 2015 - 10:34, said:

NeverSure, on 02 Mar 2015 - 10:27, said:

SoilSpoil, on 02 Mar 2015 - 10:11, said:

I hope that the Thais stay clear of the US version of democracy/corporatocracy.

The US isn't a democracy. Go back to school.

Then what is the government?

The USA is a Republic.

A Democratic form of government = system in which the people decide policy matters directly

A Republic form of government = system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

Hnece the phrase "and to the republic for which it stands." in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't know where you get your definitions from but

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

You also conveniently forgot Democratic Republic.

Democratic republic: A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials.

Perhaps, in order to prove your point, you use your own definitions.. are you sure you are not "Ed" from Phuketwan.

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to an external site containing dangerous comments to the Royal family has been removed:

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.*

Discussion of the Lese Majeste law or Lese Majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

Other off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[waitforusalso]

In defense of Thai people Martial Law was needed when you have political sides who don't respect freedom of speech and different views you have chaos,as we saw children for god's sake were being killed over what? random bombing's by who? and for what? shooting's It was if they were rabid animals. The military restored calm the police didn't there a part of the problem they can be bought. I sorry but having not had a real democracy Thai's don't understand the power they are given or how to use it yet. The vote is a powerful weapon and should not be sold or bought by anyone.It was written the Pen is mightier than the sword, but the vote is the voice of the people. So want change tired of same oh same oh? the use your vote and bring about change or you doom your children and your children's children. I'm not trying to justify the coup but this is Thailand it is what it took to bring back some form of order I have Thai friends who have and could have been victims. So know we watch and wait to see where it goes from here.In the US there can't be coup's cause the people are armed and there are more armed people than any countries military in the world. Good luck to all Thai people We will be watching.

So why didn't the military step in as soon as the protests started to protect the elected government and prevent all the mayhem?

I know, and I'm sure all the other supporters of democracy on here do too.

Because of several reasons; Under a democracy, that is held so dear, the people have the right to peaceful protest. Not just the right to vote.

The violence only started when the protesters were attacked and at that time and from then on it was the job of the police to prevent the violence and bring the offenders to justice. This they did not do instead protecting the attackers.

It is not the job of the military to protect an elected Government, they may be called on by an elected Government to handle a situation that is out of control as in 2010. The PT Government did not call on the military.

The military stepped in after the Government had resigned and the few remaining caretaker cabinet ministers and police under the watchful eyes of the DSI and CAPO showed they had no intention of attempting to control the violence. Indeed there was talk of civil war and setting up a government in the north of the country.

The military called the parties together and attempted to mediate a settlement with no success.

That was when they decided they had no alternative but to take over to avoid farther bloodshed and disruption.

It is certainly not the military's role to be in cahoots with a movement to oust the government. That is treason.

The violence was incited by the PRDC in order to create the situation needed for the army to step in.

The civil war argument is simply laughable. The majority of Thais are apathetic and certainly not about to start a war.

The military called parties together and told PTP they had to step down.

The military had made it quite clear in 2008 that they would not support a Thaksin government to remove yellow protesters.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/26/thai-leader-rejects-protests

[wwest5829]

I hope that the Thais stay clear of the US version of democracy/corporatocracy.

U fortunately, as an American....I must agree.

[unclueng]

The USA condemns any coup d'etat that is not sponsored by the CIA.

[scorecard]

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

In defense of Thai people Martial Law was needed when you have political sides who don't respect freedom of speech and different views you have chaos,as we saw children for god's sake were being killed over what? random bombing's by who? and for what? shooting's It was if they were rabid animals. The military restored calm the police didn't there a part of the problem they can be bought. I sorry but having not had a real democracy Thai's don't understand the power they are given or how to use it yet. The vote is a powerful weapon and should not be sold or bought by anyone.It was written the Pen is mightier than the sword, but the vote is the voice of the people. So want change tired of same oh same oh? the use your vote and bring about change or you doom your children and your children's children. I'm not trying to justify the coup but this is Thailand it is what it took to bring back some form of order I have Thai friends who have and could have been victims. So know we watch and wait to see where it goes from here.In the US there can't be coup's cause the people are armed and there are more armed people than any countries military in the world. Good luck to all Thai people We will be watching.

So why didn't the military step in as soon as the protests started to protect the elected government and prevent all the mayhem?
I know, and I'm sure all the other supporters of democracy on here do too.

Because of several reasons; Under a democracy, that is held so dear, the people have the right to peaceful protest. Not just the right to vote.

The violence only started when the protesters were attacked and at that time and from then on it was the job of the police to prevent the violence and bring the offenders to justice. This they did not do instead protecting the attackers.

It is not the job of the military to protect an elected Government, they may be called on by an elected Government to handle a situation that is out of control as in 2010. The PT Government did not call on the military.

The military stepped in after the Government had resigned and the few remaining caretaker cabinet ministers and police under the watchful eyes of the DSI and CAPO showed they had no intention of attempting to control the violence. Indeed there was talk of civil war and setting up a government in the north of the country.

The military called the parties together and attempted to mediate a settlement with no success.

That was when they decided they had no alternative but to take over to avoid farther bloodshed and disruption.

It is certainly not the military's role to be in cahoots with a movement to oust the government. That is treason.

The violence was incited by the PRDC in order to create the situation needed for the army to step in.

The civil war argument is simply laughable. The majority of Thais are apathetic and certainly not about to start a war.

The military called parties together and told PTP they had to step down.

The military had made it quite clear in 2008 that they would not support a Thaksin government to remove yellow protesters.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/26/thai-leader-rejects-protests

You wanna believe the guardian, suggest you do some more research.

[scorecard]

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

In defense of Thai people Martial Law was needed when you have political sides who don't respect freedom of speech and different views you have chaos,as we saw children for god's sake were being killed over what?

Strange the military didn't restore order in partnership with the elected government.

The most directly to the point criticism of "the military had to do it" argument I've seen. Very well put!

Maybe that's because the military didn't support a a growing dictatorship which was very falsely using the word democracy.

[scorecard]

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

Democracy is the only form of government where you get a chance to "kick the rascals out" using a vote and not blood-shed. That is it's strength.

Nice one liner with not much meaning. How you relate your comment to the fact the previous government was in fact a developing dictatorship, nothing evenly remotely like democracy?

Edited March 2, 2015 by scorecard

[Nickymaster]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Simply because the US has decided that Democracy is the best system for the world and they are willing to show countries the error of their ways if they do not agree.

We have seen the success of this in places like Vietnam.....Err, no lets not use that as an example.

How about more recently in Iraq and Libya where...... No those are not good examples either.

Well Afghanistan then, OK as long as they keep troops there it should hold.

And they always come out strongly against any coup...... well except when it is in their interests such as in Egypt lately.

The US has no problem with Saudi Arabia's system...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/large-u.s.-contingent-in-riyadh-for-saudi-kings-funeral/article/2559311

[heybruce]

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

In defense of Thai people Martial Law was needed when you have political sides who don't respect freedom of speech and different views you have chaos,as we saw children for god's sake were being killed over what?

Strange the military didn't restore order in partnership with the elected government.

The most directly to the point criticism of "the military had to do it" argument I've seen. Very well put!

Maybe that's because the military didn't support a a growing dictatorship which was very falsely using the word democracy.

"the military didn't support a a growing dictatorship"

You haven't been paying attention to current events, have you?

Once again, the elected government is defined as a dictatorship, and the anti-democracy crowd insist a military, um, equivalent is better.

Sorry, that one has been done many times on other threads, I assume by people hoping that if the lie is repeated enough times it will be accepted as the truth. This OP is about a Thai envoy objecting to an editorial in the Washington Post, though most posters are ignoring that.

Edited March 2, 2015 by heybruce

[jayboy]

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

Democracy is the only form of government where you get a chance to "kick the rascals out" using a vote and not blood-shed. That is it's strength.

Nice one liner with not much meaning. How you relate your comment to the fact the previous government was in fact a developing dictatorship, nothing evenly remotely like democracy?

It has a great deal of meaning.In fact it is a crucial distinction between governments with legitimacy and governments without.Ignoring your stupid lie about the last administration's "developing dictatorship", those of your reactionary persuasion should remember that opinion ebbs and flows.Sooner or later even the most popular governments get voted out.In Thailand the Democrats had a real opportunity to dislodge the Shinawatra influence but lacked the courage to confront the old elites and willingness to reform internally.

[rubl]

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

Democracy is the only form of government where you get a chance to "kick the rascals out" using a vote and not blood-shed. That is it's strength.

Nice one liner with not much meaning. How you relate your comment to the fact the previous government was in fact a developing dictatorship, nothing evenly remotely like democracy?

It has a great deal of meaning.In fact it is a crucial distinction between governments with legitimacy and governments without.Ignoring your stupid lie about the last administration's "developing dictatorship", those of your reactionary persuasion should remember that opinion ebbs and flows.Sooner or later even the most popular governments get voted out.In Thailand the Democrats had a real opportunity to dislodge the Shinawatra influence but lacked the courage to confront the old elites and willingness to reform internally.

Interesting you always seem to have to 'strengthen' your arguments by adding insults and otherwise calling names. Does inserting 'stupid lie' and 'reactionary persuasion' really add value otherwise maybe sadly missing?

BTW dislodge Shinawatras by confronting old elites and reform internally? Almost looks like you suggest they behave in a similar manner as those they oppose.

[tbthailand]

lifeincnx, on 02 Mar 2015 - 10:45, said:

The USA is a Republic.

A Democratic form of government = system in which the people decide policy matters directly

A Republic form of government = system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

Hnece the phrase "and to the republic for which it stands." in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't know where you get your definitions from but

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

You also conveniently forgot Democratic Republic.

Democratic republic: A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials.

Perhaps, in order to prove your point, you use your own definitions.. are you sure you are not "Ed" from Phuketwan.

thanks for that.

The US is a democracy and a republic. They are not mutually exclusive.

[jayboy]

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

Democracy is the only form of government where you get a chance to "kick the rascals out" using a vote and not blood-shed. That is it's strength.

Nice one liner with not much meaning. How you relate your comment to the fact the previous government was in fact a developing dictatorship, nothing evenly remotely like democracy?

It has a great deal of meaning.In fact it is a crucial distinction between governments with legitimacy and governments without.Ignoring your stupid lie about the last administration's "developing dictatorship", those of your reactionary persuasion should remember that opinion ebbs and flows.Sooner or later even the most popular governments get voted out.In Thailand the Democrats had a real opportunity to dislodge the Shinawatra influence but lacked the courage to confront the old elites and willingness to reform internally.

Interesting you always seem to have to 'strengthen' your arguments by adding insults and otherwise calling names. Does inserting 'stupid lie' and 'reactionary persuasion' really add value otherwise maybe sadly missing?

BTW dislodge Shinawatras by confronting old elites and reform internally? Almost looks like you suggest they behave in a similar manner as those they oppose.

I have no idea what your last paragraph means.My point was that the Democrats had an opportunity to become a party representing the interests of enough Thais to secure an election victory.They failed through cowardice, poor leadership and an unwillingness to drop their toxic links with anti democracy elites.

As to stupidity,dishonesty and reactionary views, is one meant to overlook these or pretend the purveyors of such poison are somehow respectable?

[Kondiao]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Hitler seized power because the weak democratic system was unable to block his ruthless style - using the opposition's sense of justice against them. using lies repeatedly to convince ordinary people of what he wanted them to believe; going outside of normal accepted human behavior to eliminate people opposed to him and instill hatred and fear in the masses.

Bush and his political machine used lies, took control of the media and repeatedly told nonsense to the masses until they believed his swill, while ignoring the realities out there in the world. Bush sold his ferry-tale fantasy about the bad guys out there threatening the American people - he over-rode the democratic process, ignoring the calls to answer questions about the truth of the contlicting claims that led him to conclude war was the answer.

These people were dictators, not democrats. Democracy does not have to be the BEST form of government - it is just the form that gives responsibility for the political decisions to the majority.

What would you have instead of democracy? a dictatorship by you? What about me as the dictator? I would see to it that bad people were killed or rendered harmless and only things that bring the most good to the most people were allowed. And so people - like you - would call me a ruthless tyrant. And that is why is is necessary to have a system that protects people from people like you. You don't get to make decisions that affect my life and I don't get to run your life and we can disagree openly and not resort to violence.

[NCFC]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Simply because the US has decided that Democracy is the best system for the world and they are willing to show countries the error of their ways if they do not agree.

We have seen the success of this in places like Vietnam.....Err, no lets not use that as an example.

How about more recently in Iraq and Libya where...... No those are not good examples either.

Well Afghanistan then, OK as long as they keep troops there it should hold.

And they always come out strongly against any coup...... well except when it is in their interests such as in Egypt lately.

japan. South korea? East germany? Eastern europe since 1989?

[tbthailand]

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

Strange the military didn't restore order in partnership with the elected government.

The most directly to the point criticism of "the military had to do it" argument I've seen. Very well put!

Maybe that's because the military didn't support a a growing dictatorship which was very falsely using the word democracy.

"the military didn't support a a growing dictatorship"

You haven't been paying attention to current events, have you?

Once again, the elected government is defined as a dictatorship, and the anti-democracy crowd insist a military, um, equivalent is better.

Sorry, that one has been done many times on other threads, I assume by people hoping that if the lie is repeated enough times it will be accepted as the truth. This OP is about a Thai envoy objecting to an editorial in the Washington Post, though most posters are ignoring that.

heybruce, I must disagree.

This OP is about a Thai envoy objecting to an editorial in the Washington Post, though most posters are ignoring that.

Most posters are not ignoring that. They are, in their own way, repeating the same anti-democratic rhetoric dressed up in Orwellian clothes as the Thai ambassador to the US.

I would call that "bizarrely-on-topic" - and equally as insane as the ambassador's letter to the Washington Post.

(although, yes, you are absolutely correct that Once again, the elected government is defined as a dictatorship which is the official position of the current Thai Ministry of Truth...)

[jcisco]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

Oh yes and everyone just stood by and watched these men all on their own wage those respective wars. Get a clue, no political system permitted both events to occur, the monkey shuffle of human stupidity, the attitude of us and them is more than representative not representative government.

Though you got anything else to support your opinion cause it's about as flimsy at this juntas credibility at this point.

[halloween]

You might be correct but I don't hear any alternatives from you? Robert Heinlein summed it up nicely:

“Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried.”

"Nope. Gadflies such as yourself are utterly necessary. Nor am I opposed to

'turning the rascals out'-it's usually the soundest rule of politics. But it's

well to take a look at what new rascals you are going to get before you jump at

any chance to turn your present rascals out. Democracy is a poor system of

government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is

that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever

tried. Democracy's worst faults is that its leaders are likely to reflect the

faults and virtues of their constituents-a depressingly low level, but what else

can you expect? So take a look at Douglas and ponder that, in his ignorance,

stupidity, and self-seeking, he much resembles his fellow Americans, including

you and me . . . and that in fact he is a notch or two above the average. Then

take a look at the man who will replace him if his government topples."

Stranger in a strange land - Robert A. Heinlein

Congratulations for putting a misused quote into context.

It seems to elude some posters that what they call democracy is better called representative democracy. The people don't vote on every issue, they elect (hopefully) their best and smartest to represent them to make decisions on their behalf.

the system falls down when they, through lack of information or simple greed for the dangled carrot, elect those with more interest in themselves than the good of the nation. It heads for disaster when a wealthy and venal individual is able to "buy" sufficient representatives to seize power.

There is little democratic about elected representatives who are willing to accept payment to vote to the orders of such an individual.

[gchurch259]

Why is democracy ALWAYS assumed to be the BEST form of government....?

Germany 1933 - a democracy that allowed Hitler to come to power. Millions died.

USA 2003 - a democracy that allowed George W. Bush to start a war over false claims. Hundreds of thousands died.

What false claims ?? Are you saying Sudam did not and never did have WMD ?? He killed his own people with chemicals, when I was involved in Desert Storm he fired Scud Missiles all over the area. I also believe he did move them to other countries prior to the invasion. Seems I also read here a while back they did in fact find evidence he had WMD !

We are faced today with even a bigger threat not just to Christians but to fellow Muslims as well.

[JohnnyJazz]

I believe most posters miss the big picture here. In exchange for its support the USA ask for a certain form of government. Can the USA make an exception for a "good old friend" ? I don't think so. The USA are engaged in a fight with their major rival in the area, namely China, and their main hope to destabilize the power of the communist party in Beijing is to push for more democracy, not less. So honestly we can't expect the USA to let it go and I'm afraid these papers from Forbes and the Washing Post are just the warning shots.

Edited March 2, 2015 by JohnnyJazz

[mikebike]

Prayut has "created happiness amongst the people"....LOL. Something is very wrong when a country derives its happiness from an Army General.

I like Ike!!!