Jump to content

On Behalf Of the Rural Farang.


Julian2

Recommended Posts

PM,

 

You can spin this any way you want, but Thaksin was brought down, because other democratic parties refused to compete in elections, because they knew they would lose. The coup d'etat was used to effectiively remove Thaksin and TRT from their power. TRT was outlawed and in the next election they could not compete.

 

The 2007 constitution is a shameful document that was developed by those who staged the coup to effectively control 'democracy' in Thauland.

 

The PPP party was outlawed. Samak had to resign as president, the main reason because he was a proxy for Thaksin.

 

The elite doesn't want Thaksin, period! although I can understand that sentiment because he is an asshole extraordinaire, it is bad, bad for democracy, because you dismiss half of the voters in Thailand, and that is what is causing the shit storm right now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You can spin it how you want, but Flashermak & PM have the facts.

 

Yes, of course! Neither of them is taking sides and/or spinning the facts that supports their arguments. This only happens on the reds' side, right? :content:

 

BTW, Thaksin and his cronies are as elite as anyone else in Thai politics...

 

Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of that... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I agree with you. I sympathize with the reds, but that is not done on this board.

 

If a country wants democracy, you have to sit out the shit storm if a bad government is elected. You can't overturn two governments who won the elections by a huge margin and expect the rural people to move on as if it's business as usual.

 

I understand the elite's concern that Thaksins' reign could spell the end of democracy, but that is no reason to end democracy yourself and outlaw the winning party of the next elections based on relatively minor issues. That was a stupid, stupid move that backfired.

 

My understanding from a poll taken in the past was the red-shirt supporters, when the protest began, were a majority on the board, not vice versa. That may have changed in light of what they've revealed themselves to be beneath the 'crusaders for democracy' facade. Or it may not have.

 

I think you, J2, and Kim all have some good points. Hell, J2 is one of my favorite posters here, though he may have become a little obtuse since going on the wagon. ;) Some of you curmudgeons get a bit cranky at times, ya know?

 

But the bottom line, past all the rhetoric, is simple: is the destruction of Bangkok and the initiation of a violent campaign in the country justified? Where will it take things? What is the outcome? Who stands to gain?

 

You can write of questionable past political maneuvering in the country all you want, I still can't see the justification for this course of action.

 

Most people here certainly don't mean to free the government/military from criticism.

 

The point is, take ownership that a lot of what the reds are doing is fucked up. And as time passes, it becomes more evident that violent conflict was where some were taking this regardless of the government's actions, short of fleeing the country.

 

Are these the people you really want in power? Have you listened to their speeches and broadcasts. I listened to a few in BKK and had someone translate, that was pretty much my turning point. Some of the most vile, hate-ridden garbage I've ever heard.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the bottom line, past all the rhetoric, is simple: is the destruction of Bangkok and the initiation of a violent campaign in the country justified?

 

For me, the violence is certainly not justified. That doesn't take away from the reason to protest though. But I agree, it shouldn't have come to this.

 

 

Are these the people you really want in power? Have you listened to their speeches and broadcasts. I listened to a few in BKK and had someone translate, that was pretty much my turning point. Some of the most vile, hate-ridden garbage I've ever heard.

 

No, I most certainly don't want these people in power. And I don't want Thaksin back either. I do think though that the Thai people have a right to choose their leaders without interference from the army or the elite in case they don't like the outcome of the elections.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ihung out a few weeks ago in the protest area and listened to the speeches. It was vile hatred filled anger and yes my Thia isgood enough to get 80-90%. My impression at the time was that they were being manipulated and yes there are some issues that need attention but ummm burning dwon the city and taking over the central business district in not the way to do it.

This will :sad: not end for along time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soongmak,

 

Difficult to discuss when you don't have a firm grasp of the facts or events.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_political_crisis_2005-2006

 

And for a really rosy view of the Feb 2005 elections -

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2005

 

Then we can talk about why the election (just one year in) was boycotted. The fact that the opposition was going to lose was not a factor at all.

 

And why that only Samak was removed from office for something that he willfully did - even after he was giving rulings telling him he could not do it.

 

Then go ahead and list the major (or even minor) differences between the 2007 and 1997 constitutions.

 

Then we can discuss.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shyge,

 

So again - pointless to discuss with you.

 

Of course the show was not the issue - it was the PM being paid to work at the same time as being the PM.

 

He should have just taken Thaksin's money (corruption is tolerated right)?

 

He was told it was illegal.

 

He lied about it.

 

He was called to task by a concerned citizen (the charge was not from the state).

 

He was investigated and found guilty and lost the ability to be PM.

 

Now the precedence is clear - the PM cannot be directly paid employee of anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...