eggers Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 No, I read your post several times. When did Thailand seek funds from US? Seen no such evidence; simply your stilted American view that the world revolves around US. Not so!! The US did not start to contribute to war effort till long after Poland, France & Netherlands had been invaded, only to offer airplanes to UK to assist in repelling air attacks by Germany. Didn't declare war till PH, if you care to read an independent account,"Second World War" by Beevor, you may be amazed at what you discover! Suggest take a look at You say America is about people, so who decided to send troops & support to Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait & currently,naval aircraft to attack IS in Iraq & Syria....not the people, but Gov't. Sure people don't like wars, US people don't have that on their own. Agree, on politicians they are full of empty promises & excuses when in power, plus use as much spin as possible to cloud the real events.. Whether we agree or not is of little consequence, as events will still occur over which we have no input or control.... agree to disagree! Convert to today's dollars and find out how much money the USA has spent on and in Thailand since the end of WWII. Find out how much of Thailand's infrastructure was built by US firms and construction companies. Find out how much military equipment parts and training has and is being provided by the USA. The dollar amount is staggering. What did WWII cost? Britain 120 billion. USA 341 Billion. Japan 56 billion. Follow the money and you will find the real story about WWII. Follow the money and you will find out the real story about anything. Thailand and the USA and democracy. Tell me how much has US spent on Thailand?? Think other countries are also investing in Thailand, though you seem only to focus on what's been spent by the mighty US; it's money invested for return, i.e Ford simply didn't spend to be a "nice benevolent company" they spent for return on capital. As for your figures on cost of WWII, what is source of information???? Or, have you just plucked them out of thin air!! Think you've lost the plot!! Don't bother responding you're quite a bore!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) No, I read your post several times. When did Thailand seek funds from US? Seen no such evidence; simply your stilted American view that the world revolves around US. Not so!! The US did not start to contribute to war effort till long after Poland, France & Netherlands had been invaded, only to offer airplanes to UK to assist in repelling air attacks by Germany. Didn't declare war till PH, if you care to read an independent account,"Second World War" by Beevor, you may be amazed at what you discover! Suggest take a look at You say America is about people, so who decided to send troops & support to Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait & currently,naval aircraft to attack IS in Iraq & Syria....not the people, but Gov't. Sure people don't like wars, US people don't have that on their own. Agree, on politicians they are full of empty promises & excuses when in power, plus use as much spin as possible to cloud the real events.. Whether we agree or not is of little consequence, as events will still occur over which we have no input or control.... agree to disagree! Convert to today's dollars and find out how much money the USA has spent on and in Thailand since the end of WWII. Find out how much of Thailand's infrastructure was built by US firms and construction companies. Find out how much military equipment parts and training has and is being provided by the USA. The dollar amount is staggering. What did WWII cost? Britain 120 billion. USA 341 Billion. Japan 56 billion. Follow the money and you will find the real story about WWII. Follow the money and you will find out the real story about anything. Thailand and the USA and democracy. Tell me how much has US spent on Thailand?? Think other countries are also investing in Thailand, though you seem only to focus on what's been spent by the mighty US; it's money invested for return, i.e Ford simply didn't spend to be a "nice benevolent company" they spent for return on capital. As for your figures on cost of WWII, what is source of information???? Or, have you just plucked them out of thin air!! Think you've lost the plot!! Don't bother responding you're quite a bore!! Financial Cost of World War II 1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945 would cost $3,582,143,803,399.78 in 2005. 2 Germany $272 billion in 1945 would cost $2,857,311,186,289.56 in 2005. 3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945 would cost $2,016,925,543,263.22 in 2005. 4 Britain $120 billion in 1945 would cost $1,260,578,464,539.51 in 2005. 5 Italy $94 billion in 1945 would cost $987,453,130,555.95 in 2005. 6 Japan $56 billion in 1945 would cost $588,269,950,118.44 in 2005. Total $1.075 trillion in 1945 would cost $11,292,682,078,166.46 in 2005. I've done a lot of posting here and looked up a lot of numbers. I'll let you find out how much the USA spent on Thailand. Don't forget 100,000 Americans stationed in Thailand for 10 years. Don't forget all the construction contracts for 4 airports and deep water ports and oil and gas infrastructure projects. Don't forget all the tanks and planes and boats and spare parts and training. Don't forget the colleges built and hospitals built and equipment donated. Edited June 14, 2015 by lostoday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 It is amazing that there are so many posters on here who are unable to differentiate between 'The Americans' and 'The American Government of The Day'. Surely it can't be all that difficult to fathom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Financial Cost of World War II 1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945 would cost $3,582,143,803,399.78 in 2005. 2 Germany $272 billion in 1945 would cost $2,857,311,186,289.56 in 2005. 3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945 would cost $2,016,925,543,263.22 in 2005. 4 Britain $120 billion in 1945 would cost $1,260,578,464,539.51 in 2005. 5 Italy $94 billion in 1945 would cost $987,453,130,555.95 in 2005. 6 Japan $56 billion in 1945 would cost $588,269,950,118.44 in 2005. Total $1.075 trillion in 1945 would cost $11,292,682,078,166.46 in 2005. I've done a lot of posting here and looked up a lot of numbers. I'll let you find out how much the USA spent on Thailand. Don't forget 100,000 Americans stationed in Thailand for 10 years. Don't forget all the construction contracts for 4 airports and deep water ports and oil and gas infrastructure projects. Don't forget all the tanks and planes and boats and spare parts and training. Don't forget the colleges built and hospitals built and equipment donated. How generous! Tell us the reason for all this benevolence. Could it be their little war (sorry, police action) in a neighbouring country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Financial Cost of World War II 1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945 would cost $3,582,143,803,399.78 in 2005. 2 Germany $272 billion in 1945 would cost $2,857,311,186,289.56 in 2005. 3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945 would cost $2,016,925,543,263.22 in 2005. 4 Britain $120 billion in 1945 would cost $1,260,578,464,539.51 in 2005. 5 Italy $94 billion in 1945 would cost $987,453,130,555.95 in 2005. 6 Japan $56 billion in 1945 would cost $588,269,950,118.44 in 2005. Total $1.075 trillion in 1945 would cost $11,292,682,078,166.46 in 2005. I've done a lot of posting here and looked up a lot of numbers. I'll let you find out how much the USA spent on Thailand. Don't forget 100,000 Americans stationed in Thailand for 10 years. Don't forget all the construction contracts for 4 airports and deep water ports and oil and gas infrastructure projects. Don't forget all the tanks and planes and boats and spare parts and training. Don't forget the colleges built and hospitals built and equipment donated. How generous! Tell us the reason for all this benevolence. Could it be their little war (sorry, police action) in a neighbouring country? May 1962 Thailand asked for SEATO's help fearing the crisis in Laos and the advance of the Pathet Lao would threaten it's territorial integrity. Washington responded immediately with help. Failed Alliances of the Cold War: Britain's Strategy and ... Edited June 14, 2015 by lostoday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Financial Cost of World War II 1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945 would cost $3,582,143,803,399.78 in 2005. 2 Germany $272 billion in 1945 would cost $2,857,311,186,289.56 in 2005. 3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945 would cost $2,016,925,543,263.22 in 2005. 4 Britain $120 billion in 1945 would cost $1,260,578,464,539.51 in 2005. 5 Italy $94 billion in 1945 would cost $987,453,130,555.95 in 2005. 6 Japan $56 billion in 1945 would cost $588,269,950,118.44 in 2005. Total $1.075 trillion in 1945 would cost $11,292,682,078,166.46 in 2005. I've done a lot of posting here and looked up a lot of numbers. I'll let you find out how much the USA spent on Thailand. Don't forget 100,000 Americans stationed in Thailand for 10 years. Don't forget all the construction contracts for 4 airports and deep water ports and oil and gas infrastructure projects. Don't forget all the tanks and planes and boats and spare parts and training. Don't forget the colleges built and hospitals built and equipment donated. How generous! Tell us the reason for all this benevolence. Could it be their little war (sorry, police action) in a neighbouring country? May 1962 Thailand asked for SEATO's help fearing the crisis in Laos and the advance of the Pathet Lao would threaten it's territorial integrity. Washington responded immediately with help. Failed Alliances of the Cold War: Britain's Strategy and ... From your link "By the end of May, 6000 US troops had reached Thailand establishing a strong military presence to facilitate future air operations against the Viet Cong.........." Now tell us the request wasn't BS. Edited June 14, 2015 by halloween Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Financial Cost of World War II 1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945 would cost $3,582,143,803,399.78 in 2005. 2 Germany $272 billion in 1945 would cost $2,857,311,186,289.56 in 2005. 3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945 would cost $2,016,925,543,263.22 in 2005. 4 Britain $120 billion in 1945 would cost $1,260,578,464,539.51 in 2005. 5 Italy $94 billion in 1945 would cost $987,453,130,555.95 in 2005. 6 Japan $56 billion in 1945 would cost $588,269,950,118.44 in 2005. Total $1.075 trillion in 1945 would cost $11,292,682,078,166.46 in 2005. I've done a lot of posting here and looked up a lot of numbers. I'll let you find out how much the USA spent on Thailand. Don't forget 100,000 Americans stationed in Thailand for 10 years. Don't forget all the construction contracts for 4 airports and deep water ports and oil and gas infrastructure projects. Don't forget all the tanks and planes and boats and spare parts and training. Don't forget the colleges built and hospitals built and equipment donated. How generous! Tell us the reason for all this benevolence. Could it be their little war (sorry, police action) in a neighbouring country? May 1962 Thailand asked for SEATO's help fearing the crisis in Laos and the advance of the Pathet Lao would threaten it's territorial integrity. Washington responded immediately with help. Failed Alliances of the Cold War: Britain's Strategy and ... From your link "By the end of May, 6000 US troops had reached Thailand establishing a strong military presence to facilitate future air operations against the Viet Cong.........." Now tell us the request wasn't BS. The Americans sent troops, The Brits sent Air Force troops. The Aussies sent troops. The people on the borders who were getting shot at didn't think it was BS. There was a large communist insurgency in Thailand at that period of time. There were at least three independent armies operating in the North. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand America's background with Thailand and the Thai military is complicated and goes back a long way and so is the American commitment to Thailand. It is all part and parcel to the present wish that Thailand return to democracy as soon as possible. Edited June 14, 2015 by lostoday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggt Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Thai leaders should inform the US that they will return to democracy...soon after the US returns to democracy... Democracy a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. The key word is elected. The US has had elected representatives since they threw off the yolk of their colonial masters in 1776. The US does not have to return to electing representatives as it has never left. If you want to invent other definitions of democracy we don't have the English language in common and I'm afraid we will not be able to communicate. Much more learned people have debunked American democracy...it is not working...it is broken...it does not serve the people...it is run by powerful big money...unless you believe the propaganda fostered by a liberal press who act as a peanut gallery for the Pres. and his band of merry YES men... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Thai leaders should inform the US that they will return to democracy...soon after the US returns to democracy... Democracy a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. The key word is elected. The US has had elected representatives since they threw off the yolk of their colonial masters in 1776. The US does not have to return to electing representatives as it has never left. If you want to invent other definitions of democracy we don't have the English language in common and I'm afraid we will not be able to communicate. Much more learned people have debunked American democracy...it is not working...it is broken...it does not serve the people...it is run by powerful big money...unless you believe the propaganda fostered by a liberal press who act as a peanut gallery for the Pres. and his band of merry YES men... Many many many people all over the world in every institution of higher learning in every text in every source of information define America as selecting its leaders by democratic voting process. To say America does not elect leaders by a democratic process in not true. Websters dictionary Democracy a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. Are you trying to say America does not do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 How generous! Tell us the reason for all this benevolence. Could it be their little war (sorry, police action) in a neighbouring country? May 1962 Thailand asked for SEATO's help fearing the crisis in Laos and the advance of the Pathet Lao would threaten it's territorial integrity. Washington responded immediately with help. Failed Alliances of the Cold War: Britain's Strategy and ... From your link "By the end of May, 6000 US troops had reached Thailand establishing a strong military presence to facilitate future air operations against the Viet Cong.........." Now tell us the request wasn't BS. The Americans sent troops, The Brits sent Air Force troops. The Aussies sent troops. The people on the borders who were getting shot at didn't think it was BS. There was a large communist insurgency in Thailand at that period of time. There were at least three independent armies operating in the North. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand America's background with Thailand and the Thai military is complicated and goes back a long way and so is the American commitment to Thailand. It is all part and parcel to the present wish that Thailand return to democracy as soon as possible. From your link "Pressure on Britain led to the dispatch of a single RAF squadron." and "....the Commonwealth forces were to to remain in the country until the end of 1962." So what was Team America doing for the next 9 and a half years that required another 94,000 troops? Oh yeah, illegally bombing Laos and saving the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargeezr Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Don't worry about the USA, they have elections coming up fairly soon, and the next President and his party will be easier to deal with. Not everybody in the US was paid off by the last few leaders of Thailand. I think the USA has enough troubles in the Middle East right now, and they should learn to keep their mouths shut about other countries, but of course that would not be like the USA. I am very concerned about the people smugglers though, and hope they all get taken to prison where they belong. I do believe that Thailand had to clean up its involvement in this horrible situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIPinthailand Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) the USA are so much in debt that they are out of the big picture. even Isis is making fun of the USA on you tube. 50 years ago , the USA would have blown up these f... rs in a weekend. now, what do you get left in the USA? nothing... Thailand is becoming #1 Edited June 14, 2015 by VIPinthailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 ah, the American bashers are out in force... For once we agree, the American bashers are out in force. As are the usual crowd of posters who are using the topic as an excuse to bash the junta. I notice a lot of the "smarter" posters who are anti-junta are not touching this one. The fact is they are making a mountain out of a molehill. Relations between the two countries is not that bad, and I bet trade has not decreased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willyumiii Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 the USA are so much in debt that they are out of the big picture. even Isis is making fun of the USA on you tube. 50 years ago , the USA would have blown up these f... rs in a weekend. now, what do you get left in the USA? nothing... Thailand is becoming #1 An almost creditable post, until the last line... Thailand does not even have a number.. #1 ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willyumiii Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 ah, the American bashers are out in force... For once we agree, the American bashers are out in force. As are the usual crowd of posters who are using the topic as an excuse to bash the junta. I notice a lot of the "smarter" posters who are anti-junta are not touching this one. The fact is they are making a mountain out of a molehill. Relations between the two countries is not that bad, and I bet trade has not decreased. Yes, I am sure American consumers are still buying up all the cheap Thai frozen shrimp they can at Walmart. Keeping slavery strong in Thailand. Democracy in action! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggt Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Thai leaders should inform the US that they will return to democracy...soon after the US returns to democracy... Democracy a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. The key word is elected. The US has had elected representatives since they threw off the yolk of their colonial masters in 1776. The US does not have to return to electing representatives as it has never left. If you want to invent other definitions of democracy we don't have the English language in common and I'm afraid we will not be able to communicate. Much more learned people have debunked American democracy...it is not working...it is broken...it does not serve the people...it is run by powerful big money...unless you believe the propaganda fostered by a liberal press who act as a peanut gallery for the Pres. and his band of merry YES men... Many many many people all over the world in every institution of higher learning in every text in every source of information define America as selecting its leaders by democratic voting process. To say America does not elect leaders by a democratic process in not true. Websters dictionary Democracy a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. Are you trying to say America does not do this? Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[80][81] However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[82][83][84] One branch of US government HAS accumulated too much power and is in danger of redefining American democracy as we have known it... Democracy is more than voting...it has to function as a democracy to be a democracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Stargazer9889: Which next President and party? This one: http://proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm ? Certainly a perfect model of democracy. Edited June 15, 2015 by micmichd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Democracy a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. The key word is elected. The US has had elected representatives since they threw off the yolk of their colonial masters in 1776. The US does not have to return to electing representatives as it has never left. If you want to invent other definitions of democracy we don't have the English language in common and I'm afraid we will not be able to communicate. Much more learned people have debunked American democracy...it is not working...it is broken...it does not serve the people...it is run by powerful big money...unless you believe the propaganda fostered by a liberal press who act as a peanut gallery for the Pres. and his band of merry YES men... Many many many people all over the world in every institution of higher learning in every text in every source of information define America as selecting its leaders by democratic voting process. To say America does not elect leaders by a democratic process in not true. Websters dictionary Democracy a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. Are you trying to say America does not do this? Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[80][81] However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[82][83][84] One branch of US government HAS accumulated too much power and is in danger of redefining American democracy as we have known it... Democracy is more than voting...it has to function as a democracy to be a democracy... America is a republic that has democratic elections. America wants Thailand to have democratic election because of a 1961 law Foreign Assistance Act about not making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs and restricts assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree. It can't get much clearer. It is against US law to help Thailand while they are under an administration appointed by a coup. It has nothing to do with how many new definitions of democracy you make or what you think of American elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Yes, got it. USA only supports coups that are initiated by USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Yes, got it. USA only supports coups that are initiated by USA. I think the thread you want is, "why is Thailand different than Egypt." It's an interesting thread but it's not this thread is it? Why would the fact that the USA treats countries differently be a concern? If you are speeding and a policeman stops you for speeding you have no defense saying he didn't stop the guy next to you who was also speeding. The USA spends billions in Thailand and Egypt. Not Egypt and Thailand spend billions on the USA. You forget who the piper is. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. You may not like the piper but you took his money now play the tune or switch pipers and I don't know if Thailand will like Chinese music that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Fantastic analogy. The rich can pay the piper, but maybe the audience don't like the music. It wouldn't make a good concert then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Fantastic analogy. The rich can pay the piper, but maybe the audience don't like the music. It wouldn't make a good concert then. And its the same tune over and over. 50 consecutive renditions of Achy Breaky Heart would drive anyone insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Fantastic analogy. The rich can pay the piper, but maybe the audience don't like the music. It wouldn't make a good concert then. Then you have to pass a law that forbids the audience from answering polls with negative results. Pro-Junta Polls Only, Says Prayuth http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/pro-junta-polls-only-says-prayuth/31818/ Seems simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Fantastic analogy. The rich can pay the piper, but maybe the audience don't like the music. It wouldn't make a good concert then. Then you have to pass a law that forbids the audience from answering polls with negative results. Pro-Junta Polls Only, Says Prayuth http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/pro-junta-polls-only-says-prayuth/31818/ Seems simple to me. The law says not to publish negative results, it doesn't say skew results to be positive. Remember the "timely transparent and inclusive reform process" called for? or are you still singing your one-note song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Yes, got it. USA only supports coups that are initiated by USA. I don't think you've gotten anything for a long time. What coups have you supported, besides this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Yes, got it. USA only supports coups that are initiated by USA. I don't think you've gotten anything for a long time. What coups have you supported, besides this one? Portugal, Ghadafi's Libya. Edited June 15, 2015 by micmichd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdoglover Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Fantastic analogy. The rich can pay the piper, but maybe the audience don't like the music. It wouldn't make a good concert then. Then you have to pass a law that forbids the audience from answering polls with negative results. Pro-Junta Polls Only, Says Prayuth http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/pro-junta-polls-only-says-prayuth/31818/ Seems simple to me. The law says not to publish negative results, it doesn't say skew results to be positive. Remember the "timely transparent and inclusive reform process" called for? or are you still singing your one-note song? The law says There's a law? Why would the PM need a law? I think it was the PM just warning the pollsters... Here it is: “If they want to do polls, they can do so. But if they do polls to oppose NCPO, that’s unacceptable,” Gen. Prayuth said at the Government House yesterday, using the formal name of the junta, the National Council for Peace and Order. “They cannot do that.” That's seems clear - If I do a poll and my motivation is to oppose the NCPO, I'm in trouble - If I do a poll and I solicit some responses showing opposition to the NCPO, I'm in trouble - If I publish a critical poll, showing opposition to the Junta, I'm in trouble. Other than that, I'm free to do polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalf12 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 It is all about what is best for the USA. Thailands interests are of no concern to the US What would you have Thailand do if China damns the Mekong and stops flow of water and fish to Thailand? Who would you suggest Thailand ask for help? They could but I wouldnt think it would come without strings attached. The USA looks aftr the fw in power in the USA and has no rgard for anyone or anything. South Africa was critisized for its human rights by many countries including the USA but no one critisized Saudi Arabia whos human rights record is worse. There again the USA wanted the oil so human rights didnt matter. At one time America was out of Saudi and a strong belief among many people is that the Iraq invasion was the planned work of the CIA to get the US back into Saudi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalf12 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Yes, got it. USA only supports coups that are initiated by USA. I think the thread you want is, "why is Thailand different than Egypt." It's an interesting thread but it's not this thread is it? Why would the fact that the USA treats countries differently be a concern? If you are speeding and a policeman stops you for speeding you have no defense saying he didn't stop the guy next to you who was also speeding. The USA spends billions in Thailand and Egypt. Not Egypt and Thailand spend billions on the USA. You forget who the piper is. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. You may not like the piper but you took his money now play the tune or switch pipers and I don't know if Thailand will like Chinese music that much? Pity the piper is heading toward bankrupcy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Fantastic analogy. The rich can pay the piper, but maybe the audience don't like the music. It wouldn't make a good concert then. Then you have to pass a law that forbids the audience from answering polls with negative results. Pro-Junta Polls Only, Says Prayuth http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/pro-junta-polls-only-says-prayuth/31818/ Seems simple to me. The law says not to publish negative results, it doesn't say skew results to be positive. Remember the "timely transparent and inclusive reform process" called for? or are you still singing your one-note song? Lest you forget we were discussing the topic "Thai-US ties hinge on 'return of democracy'" If Thailand doesn't want the money and protection it is simple - don't have elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now