109 replies to this topic
Posted 2009-11-27 08:21:53
 rixalex, on 2009-11-26 19:26:04, said:
caf, on 2009-11-26 18:37:00, said: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.
Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?
quote
So who decided the coup? quote
If you don't know, find out yourself. quote You say the Thai people broadly accepted the coup. quote
Did everyone agree with it? No. Did it cause widespread outrage and disgust that compelled people to take to the streets in numbers? No.
caf, on 2009-11-26 18:37:00, said: Is that why they then elected a pro-taksin government.
When you say "they" are you aware of what percentage of the population you are talking about?
Breaking up my quote into short sections is a clever way to ignore the issue.
Clever but not honest.
It is a cheap device to mention the coup but not fully explain it. Either don't mention it or make your point explicitly.
The pro-taksin government was elected. That is fact. It is clear signal of what people thought.
Edited by caf, 2009-11-27 08:32:33.
Posted 2009-11-27 08:36:21
gregb, on 2009-11-27 01:01:45, said: Kitsch22, on 2009-11-26 18:44:13, said: But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people.
I respect you for being willing to stick to your opinion Kitsch, but just keep in mind, that is exactly what demagogues do. It doesn't mean you should respect them for it.
The unfortunate reality is democracies are useless when in the presence of a demagogue. I don't care how corrupt the guy was. There is lots of corruption in Thai politics, and there always will be. That is not why Takki had to go. The fact that he is a demagogue IS why he has to go.
Leaving a country to people like that gives rise to things like Hitler. I will forever disagree with your position, as much as I respect your right to be wrong. A coup was completely justified in this case, just as a coup would have been justified to remove Hitler before WWII.
No ideology or system of government is perfect. The military has a responsibility to protect the people from all enemies of the country, even if the enemy is the PM. I am glad the military did not shy away from their responsibilities.
You make a good point about Hitler in Germany. But is Thailand with its history of regular coups a good parallel. I think not. A coup in Germany would have had a single and clearly understood purpose; a coup here is more shall we say traditional and acceptable. My own view is that Germans and Thais have different ways of looking at politics and how differences are resolved.
Edited by caf, 2009-11-27 08:40:10.
Posted 2009-11-27 13:47:56
caf, on 2009-11-27 08:21:53, said: Breaking up my quote into short sections is a clever way to ignore the issue.
I simply dealt with each of your comments individually. I'm sorry if that didn't follow the route that you wanted the discussion to follow. I can't see that i ignored any of your questions. Please tell me which ones. And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.
caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.
me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?
Well?
caf, on 2009-11-27 08:21:53, said: The pro-taksin government was elected. That is fact. It is clear signal of what people thought.
You are using the fact that a pro-Thaksin government was elected after the coup as evidence that the coup was not broadly accepted by Thai people, after i stated that it was and you disagreed.
The problem you have is that it only shows what 30 odd percent of the voting population were thinking. The 30 odd percent who voted that way may well have been in some way opposed to the coup (note that being opposed is different from not accepting something).
But what about the other 70 odd percent? If we are happy to simplistically conclude that the 30 odd percent voting for the pro-Thaksin party were against the coup, do we then also assume that the 70 odd percent who voted another way were either in favour of the coup or at the very least, not opposed to it?
Too many unknowns involved i would say.
The truth is, if you were here and you lived through the coup amongst Thai people, you would know that indeed the coup was broadly accepted. I'm not saying everyone agreed with it and i'm not saying everyone was in favour of it, but broadly speaking was it accepted? Absoultely "YES". Were people out on the streets hailing abuse and throwing objects at soldiers and tanks? Absolutely "NO" - offering refreshments and flowers more like. Was there any sort of an uprising of the people? "NO". What did people do then at the time of the coup? Well all those that i saw simpy carried on with their lives, as if little had happened. I don't think they could have been more accepting had they tried.
Posted 2009-11-27 14:02:48
Kitsch22, on 2009-11-26 19:44:13, said: If, on the other hand, Taksin had declared himself to be "Prime Minister For Life" and had abolished elections, then a coup would most certainly have been justified. But in actuality, he did the opposite. When in trouble, he turned to the people. And they backed him. To say that they have "accepted" the post-coup situation is firstly untrue and secondly begs the question of the real nature of one's acceptance when one is looking down the barrel of a gun.
I see you are still being a drama queen.
Posted 2009-11-27 14:06:32
Kitsch22, on 2009-11-27 06:28:49, said: My final paragraph was a "Yes".
You'll have to forgive me but my patience is limited for the sort of long and winding, evasive, round the houses response you gave to the very simple "yes" or "no" question below.
Are there any circumstances in which, in your opinion, a coup is a necessary evil?
And at the end of it all you still couldn't bring yourself to answer the question directly. Too busy trotting out all your clauses, conditions and justifications to mutter a simple "yes" it seems.
Posted 2009-11-27 14:17:17
how people fall into the argument of "an elected government" if this "elected Government" was dissolved and it's prime minister was only in a CARETAKER Position - then the Country started to be in gridlock already - why those who use this argument, refuse to take the simple truth and swallow it - and discuss issues from there on?
I understnad that then theyre whole argument would have no base no more!
Baseless to discuss on this very shaky base!
These grounds are the only (fabricated) straw to legalize the advance against a coup, the cleaning of political shrapnel who wished to cling to power, whatsoever and keep the power against ALLL DEMOCRATIC rules!
These are only part of the Facts of those times.
TH EC ruled there was massive meddling, other parties boycotted the call for new elections because there was a too smal window for preparations and, and, and....
The very essence of the trouble was being brewed in those days.... and not after the PAD occupied the airport!
Had nothing to do with an "democratically elected government"!
It was all about a man and his mighty-majority party didn't want to let go of it's grip of power which was so close at their disposal....so close and then the dream turned for those involved into a nightmare, so close, yet so far, one step too far, they had crossed the line!
That is why - none else!
Posted 2009-11-27 16:55:52
rixalex, on 2009-11-27 13:47:56, said: caf, on 2009-11-27 08:21:53, said: Breaking up my quote into short sections is a clever way to ignore the issue.
I simply dealt with each of your comments individually. I'm sorry if that didn't follow the route that you wanted the discussion to follow. I can't see that i ignored any of your questions. Please tell me which ones. And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.
caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.
me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?
Well?
caf, on 2009-11-27 08:21:53, said: The pro-taksin government was elected. That is fact. It is clear signal of what people thought.
You are using the fact that a pro-Thaksin government was elected after the coup as evidence that the coup was not broadly accepted by Thai people, after i stated that it was and you disagreed.
The problem you have is that it only shows what 30 odd percent of the voting population were thinking. The 30 odd percent who voted that way may well have been in some way opposed to the coup (note that being opposed is different from not accepting something).
But what about the other 70 odd percent? If we are happy to simplistically conclude that the 30 odd percent voting for the pro-Thaksin party were against the coup, do we then also assume that the 70 odd percent who voted another way were either in favour of the coup or at the very least, not opposed to it?
Too many unknowns involved i would say.
The truth is, if you were here and you lived through the coup amongst Thai people, you would know that indeed the coup was broadly accepted. I'm not saying everyone agreed with it and i'm not saying everyone was in favour of it, but broadly speaking was it accepted? Absoultely "YES". Were people out on the streets hailing abuse and throwing objects at soldiers and tanks? Absolutely "NO" - offering refreshments and flowers more like. Was there any sort of an uprising of the people? "NO". What did people do then at the time of the coup? Well all those that i saw simpy carried on with their lives, as if little had happened. I don't think they could have been more accepting had they tried.
My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?
And don't confuse voter turnout with voters not voting a particular way. The election was won by a particular party.
Posted 2009-11-27 17:25:43
caf, on 2009-11-27 16:55:52, said: rixalex, on 2009-11-27 13:47:56, said: And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.
caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.
me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?
Well?
My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?
Please don't bother asking me questions when you have shown yourself unable/unwilling to answer mine.
Posted 2009-11-27 17:43:38
rixalex, on 2009-11-27 17:25:43, said: caf, on 2009-11-27 16:55:52, said: rixalex, on 2009-11-27 13:47:56, said: And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.
caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.
me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?
Well?
My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?
Please don't bother asking me questions when you have shown yourself unable/unwilling to answer mine.
I'll answer for you. Newspaper reports and media coverage.
Posted 2009-11-27 18:14:43
caf, on 2009-11-27 17:43:38, said: rixalex, on 2009-11-27 17:25:43, said: caf, on 2009-11-27 16:55:52, said: rixalex, on 2009-11-27 13:47:56, said: And whilst we are on this subject of ignored questions, here's one of the ones you didn't seem inclined to address.
caf: You say the coup could not have occured if Taksin had been running the country honestly.
me: Yes i do. Do you think otherwise?
Well?
My experiences of the coup are obviously different from yours then. Yours were from newspaper reports?
Please don't bother asking me questions when you have shown yourself unable/unwilling to answer mine.
I'll answer for you. Newspaper reports and media coverage.
|
Sponsored by ...
|
0
