Chief of the Defense Forces receives President of the US Sasakawa Peace Foundation

BANGKOK, 13 May 2016 (NNT) – The Chief of the Defense Forces has welcomed the president of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the United States’ former Army Commander for the Pacific on an official visit to Thailand.

Chief of the Defense Forces Gen Sommai Kaotira led a welcoming party for Admiral Dennis Blair, president of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and former US Army Commander for the Pacific, who has traveled to Thailand to discuss security ties between the Kingdom and the United States.

The admiral is also in Thailand to be briefed on its political situation and the Thai military’s role in transitioning the country towards full democracy. Gen Sommai remarked to Adm Blair that he is hopeful the foundation head will help in making sure the US has a clear understanding of the circumstances prevailing in Thailand and the need for the military to ensure peace and stability.

The Chief of the Defense Forces thanked Adm Blair for his visit and said that the ties between the militaries of Thailand and the US will serve as foundation for further elevation of relations between the countries.


-- NNT 2016-05-13

More overblown prattle. Anything to manufacture a veneer of legitimacy for the Junta.

"The Chief of the Defense Forces has welcomed the president of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the United States’ former Army Commander for the Pacific on an official visit to Thailand."

Professional warriors are meeting to discuss peace, so they can put themselves out of a job? Is there anyone in this world who doesn't see through this continual and ridiculous facade?

help in making sure the US has a clear understanding of the circumstances prevailing in Thailand

Every. Dam. Day.

"The Chief of the Defense Forces has welcomed the president of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the United States’ former Army Commander for the Pacific on an official visit to Thailand."

Professional warriors are meeting to discuss peace, so they can put themselves out of a job? Is there anyone in this world who doesn't see through this continual and ridiculous facade?

Exactly. War is big business and the bigger and longer the war the better.

"The admiral is also in Thailand to be briefed on its political situation and the Thai military’s role in transitioning the country towards full democracy. Gen Sommai remarked to Adm Blair that he is hopeful the foundation head will help in making sure the US has a clear understanding of the circumstances prevailing in Thailand and the need for the military to ensure peace and stability"

BRAINWASHED and bored to death they really mean.

AS if he cares or is concerned.

Probably more like a FRIENDLY US visit ADVISING Thailand of what will come next if they do not toe the line.

If I was a US citizen I'd be pretty annoyed at this nonsense.

Do the Thai leaders really think this guy will now report to Obama who will say "Gosh, I never realised it was like that".

What do the Thai's think a proper ambassador does, in this case the US one.?

This is a back channel visit. That way the USA can say he does not represent us and they can talk about anything they want. Like how much money the world bank has invested in Thailand.

Next it will be a delegations from Kiribati, Tuvalu, Botswana and The Seychelles to discuss trade and security matters.

If I was a US citizen I'd be pretty annoyed at this nonsense.

Do the Thai leaders really think this guy will now report to Obama who will say "Gosh, I never realised it was like that".

What do the Thai's think a proper ambassador does, in this case the US one.?

They do not care if he delivers the message. It is all about face...a dull, confused, face with "blah blah blah" coming out of it's pie hole.

This is a back channel visit. That way the USA can say he does not represent us and they can talk about anything they want. Like how much money the world bank has invested in Thailand.

Back channel visits normally get done behind the glare of publicity, not glad handing with a military junta leader in front of the press. Also they tend to be done by trusted representatives of the nations current govt whereas this admiral was effectively sacked by Obama.

This is a back channel visit. That way the USA can say he does not represent us and they can talk about anything they want. Like how much money the world bank has invested in Thailand.

Back channel visits normally get done behind the glare of publicity, not glad handing with a military junta leader in front of the press. Also they tend to be done by trusted representatives of the nations current govt whereas this admiral was effectively sacked by Obama.

Indeed. I suspect that the US government would choose someone from a more reputable source to do their 'back-channeling', And as you say, it would not be done in the full glare of publicity. I suspect that if it was 'back-channeling' it will be the last piece of 'back-channeling' now that the Thai side has shown it can't control their mouths or desire for publicity and legitimacy.

Back channeling - wishful thinking methinks.

Winnie

ties between the militaries of Thailand and the US will serve as foundation for further elevation of relations between the countries

Will the further elevation still exist AFTER the upcoming joint China-Thailand military manuevers?

The Junta in its desire to play off superpowers seems to create more confusion to those powers as to what exactly ithe Junta government stands for. Unfortunately for the Thai Junta, seeing itself as King of the Hill in SE Asia doesn't resonate with any of the superpowers. Maybe in reality the superpowers see Thailand as the Hub of Floormats.

The admiral is also in Thailand to be briefed on its political situation and the Thai military’s role in transitioning the country towards full democracy. This all sounds well and good, but the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. There is a difference. Some the actions being carried out in the US would lead some to think President Obama has appointed himself to be Emperor Obama.

The admiral is also in Thailand to be briefed on its political situation and the Thai military’s role in transitioning the country towards full democracy. This all sounds well and good, but the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. There is a difference. Some the actions being carried out in the US would lead some to think President Obama has appointed himself to be Emperor Obama.

Emperor Obama eh? I must have missed something there - I mean I thought he won the relevant election for each term, and he is standing down soon as his term in office will be over. Emperors don't often (ever) stand down....

Or are you one of those who still, 8 years on, are unable to come to terms with a coloured chap, (worse, with an uppity wife) occupying the White House. A point of view which has utterly shamed parts of the US political spectrum over the last two presidential terms.

Anyway getting back to the topic this Retired Admiral is hired by Japanese big business interests. Given his less than stellar record when he was working for the Obama administration I very much doubt that he is delivering any sort of back door message. There are many other channels open for that.

The junta are making themselves look silly claiming that he in any way represents the US.

Edited May 14, 201610 yr by JAG

The admiral is also in Thailand to be briefed on its political situation and the Thai military’s role in transitioning the country towards full democracy. This all sounds well and good, but the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. There is a difference. Some the actions being carried out in the US would lead some to think President Obama has appointed himself to be Emperor Obama.

the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. There is a difference.

The USA is a Democratic Republic. As you said, there IS a difference between Democracy and Republic because they are not synonomous. Democracy and Communism (for example) are ideologies while a Republic is a FORM of governance. As such, Vietnam is Communist Republic while Venezuela is a Socialist Republic.

Another example. South Korea is a Democratic Republic versus North Korea as a Communist Republic.

Like The Philippines and South Korea, the USA uses a presidential republic system of government. There is no emperor except in someone's fantasy.

Like they said to Musharraf the pakistan prime minister after 9-11

... you do what we want or we bomb you back to the stone age

american diplomacy... just like israel

The admiral is also in Thailand to be briefed on its political situation and the Thai military’s role in transitioning the country towards full democracy. This all sounds well and good, but the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. There is a difference. Some the actions being carried out in the US would lead some to think President Obama has appointed himself to be Emperor Obama.

the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. There is a difference.

The USA is a Democratic Republic. As you said, there IS a difference between Democracy and Republic because they are not synonomous. Democracy and Communism (for example) are ideologies while a Republic is a FORM of governance. As such, Vietnam is Communist Republic while Venezuela is a Socialist Republic.

Another example. South Korea is a Democratic Republic versus North Korea as a Communist Republic.

Like The Philippines and South Korea, the USA uses a presidential republic system of government. There is no emperor except in someone's fantasy.

A republic is just a form of democracy as is a constitutional monarcy - the key to democracy is a mandate from the people of some sort to define, implement and enforce rules.

Like they said to Musharraf the pakistan prime minister after 9-11

... you do what we want or we bomb you back to the stone age

american diplomacy... just like israel

Bullies learn from each other in the schoolyard, it's a problem.

Winnie

Edited May 14, 201610 yr by Winniedapu

Like The Philippines and South Korea, the USA uses a presidential republic system of government. There is no emperor except in someone's fantasy.

There is little established academic political vocabulary (the corporations now control the universities) to describe the current American political system which has morphed into a corporatocracy, an offshoot of facism. There is clearly an American Empire our there given the large number of US military bases scattered across the globe with US military personnel often exempt from local laws under the various Status of Forces Agreements in effect. Yet there is no "emperor" and the president now serves as the titular CEO of US Inc with only modest powers. Obama, once in office, was unable to steer US foreign policy away from the established Neo-Con foreign policy direction nor the Neo-liberal financial direction. The real emperors remain well clothed and if you look in their direction they will release a new rabbit through their media empires to divert your attention back towards secondary social issues such as transgender bathrooms. And between gerrymandering, super-delegates, the electoral college, voter ID laws, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (decided by a corporate appointed failed railroad CEO-cum-court clerk and not even the Justices), Citizen United, etc, etc, one must be politically tone deaf to perceive the current US political system as a Democracy.

Yes, yes, yes, the people will vote in November and perhaps choose between Trump and Clinton, and like Obama, neither will be allowed to alter the current course. Although Trump would be allowed to have, like Obama, a few small symbolic personal victories, the cost of doing business and buying off the elected official. The Clintons are already 100% vested behind the true emperors.

Like The Philippines and South Korea, the USA uses a presidential republic system of government. There is no emperor except in someone's fantasy.

There is little established academic political vocabulary (the corporations now control the universities) to describe the current American political system which has morphed into a corporatocracy, an offshoot of facism. There is clearly an American Empire our there given the large number of US military bases scattered across the globe with US military personnel often exempt from local laws under the various Status of Forces Agreements in effect. Yet there is no "emperor" and the president now serves as the titular CEO of US Inc with only modest powers. Obama, once in office, was unable to steer US foreign policy away from the established Neo-Con foreign policy direction nor the Neo-liberal financial direction. The real emperors remain well clothed and if you look in their direction they will release a new rabbit through their media empires to divert your attention back towards secondary social issues such as transgender bathrooms. And between gerrymandering, super-delegates, the electoral college, voter ID laws, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (decided by a corporate appointed failed railroad CEO-cum-court clerk and not even the Justices), Citizen United, etc, etc, one must be politically tone deaf to perceive the current US political system as a Democracy.

Yes, yes, yes, the people will vote in November and perhaps choose between Trump and Clinton, and like Obama, neither will be allowed to alter the current course. Although Trump would be allowed to have, like Obama, a few small symbolic personal victories, the cost of doing business and buying off the elected official. The Clintons are already 100% vested behind the true emperors.

What utter rubbish.

Like The Philippines and South Korea, the USA uses a presidential republic system of government. There is no emperor except in someone's fantasy.

There is little established academic political vocabulary (the corporations now control the universities) to describe the current American political system which has morphed into a corporatocracy, an offshoot of facism. There is clearly an American Empire our there given the large number of US military bases scattered across the globe with US military personnel often exempt from local laws under the various Status of Forces Agreements in effect. Yet there is no "emperor" and the president now serves as the titular CEO of US Inc with only modest powers. Obama, once in office, was unable to steer US foreign policy away from the established Neo-Con foreign policy direction nor the Neo-liberal financial direction. The real emperors remain well clothed and if you look in their direction they will release a new rabbit through their media empires to divert your attention back towards secondary social issues such as transgender bathrooms. And between gerrymandering, super-delegates, the electoral college, voter ID laws, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (decided by a corporate appointed failed railroad CEO-cum-court clerk and not even the Justices), Citizen United, etc, etc, one must be politically tone deaf to perceive the current US political system as a Democracy.

Yes, yes, yes, the people will vote in November and perhaps choose between Trump and Clinton, and like Obama, neither will be allowed to alter the current course. Although Trump would be allowed to have, like Obama, a few small symbolic personal victories, the cost of doing business and buying off the elected official. The Clintons are already 100% vested behind the true emperors.

"There is clearly an American Empire our there given the large number of US military bases scattered across the globe with US military personnel often exempt from local laws under the various Status of Forces Agreements in effect."

With the exception of Guantanamo in Cuba, if the US is asked to remove the bases by the government of any of these countries, it will. It rarely happens, but when the US was asked to close Subic Bay Naval Base and the Clark Air Base in the Philippines, it did. Even though these were the largest overseas military bases in the US military at the times and both bases were key to US military plans and operations.

How many Empires do that?

So now we have:

1. The Emperor President

2. The Hidden Corporate Masters

Any others? Here's your chance to reveal the truth to the sheeple .

Anyone? Bueller?

With the exception of Guantanamo in Cuba, if the US is asked to remove the bases by the government of any of these countries, it will. It rarely happens, but when the US was asked to close Subic Bay Naval Base and the Clark Air Base in the Philippines, it did. Even though these were the largest overseas military bases in the US military at the times and both bases were key to US military plans and operations.

How many Empires do that?

Clark was closed after the Pinatubo eruption caused it to become inoperable. The Philippines did attempt to lure back the Americans but a lease agreement could not be reached. Clearly the bases in the Philippines were no longer necessary. So the short answer to your question is that empires with options can close a military base just as they can open a new base. No empire is permanent, they all retain some flexibility.

So now we have:

1. The Emperor President

2. The Hidden Corporate Masters

Any others? Here's your chance to reveal the truth to the sheeple .

I did not call the president a emperor, on the contrary, if you had not been playing hooky in high school like Bueller and leaned to read properly, I referred to the president as a CEO. And you deny that there are corporate masters behind the government? I bet you deny global warming as well. Little use in attempting to reveal the truth to sheeple like yourself. But knowing the mindset of the ThaiVisa sheeple may I suggest viewing the podcasts of Abby Martin and her Empire Files on Youtube. There are more academic discussions on the subject available but they may be too dense for your comprehension and at least Ms. Martin is easy on the eyes.

Edited May 15, 201610 yr by Johpa

With the exception of Guantanamo in Cuba, if the US is asked to remove the bases by the government of any of these countries, it will. It rarely happens, but when the US was asked to close Subic Bay Naval Base and the Clark Air Base in the Philippines, it did. Even though these were the largest overseas military bases in the US military at the times and both bases were key to US military plans and operations.

How many Empires do that?

Clark was closed after the Pinatubo eruption caused it to become inoperable. The Philippines did attempt to lure back the Americans but a lease agreement could not be reached. Clearly the bases in the Philippines were no longer necessary. So the short answer to your question is that empires with options can close a military base just as they can open a new base. No empire is permanent, they all retain some flexibility.

So now we have:

1. The Emperor President

2. The Hidden Corporate Masters

Any others? Here's your chance to reveal the truth to the sheeple .

I did not call the president a emperor, on the contrary, if you had not been playing hooky in high school like Bueller and leaned to read properly, I referred to the president as a CEO. And you deny that there are corporate masters behind the government? I bet you deny global warming as well. Little use in attempting to reveal the truth to sheeple like yourself. But knowing the mindset of the ThaiVisa sheeple may I suggest viewing the podcasts of Abby Martin and her Empire Files on Youtube. There are more academic discussions on the subject available but they may be too dense for your comprehension and at least Ms. Martin is easy on the eyes.

The agreement to close Clark pre-dated the Pinatubo eruption, and it was at the request of the Philippine government. The Philippine government attempted to get the US government to clean up mess caused by the eruption and then turn it over to the Philippines, but the US declined.

The Subic Bay Naval Base was considered key to US east Asia operations and the US government tried its best to convince the Philippine government to let it remain. However the Philippine people demanded it be closed so is was closed. Had the Philippine government agreed to let the Subic Bay base remain with the US in exchange for the Clark clean-up, the US probably would have agreed.

US military bases, both domestic and overseas, do not remain where they are not wanted. Clearly this runs contrary to what you want to believe. Can you give an example of the US telling an allied government that it was keeping a base in place against the will of that government?

Edited May 15, 201610 yr by heybruce