3 edits
did any one notice?
it seems a democratically elected leader - likely to be reelected, was ousted by a bloodless show of military force, and an old "king".
yet - even in thailand it seems the every day life of locals is unchanged!
i am not saying democratically elected people should be ousted ... i am very impressed by the "bloodless" bit.
maybe we should all notice the methods of the thai people 🙂
peace rules!
Originally posted by flexmoreYes, i noticed.
did any one notice?
it seems a democratically elected leader - likely to be reelected, was ousted by a bloodless show of military force, and an old "king".
yet - even in thailand it seems the every day life of locals is unchanged!
i am not saying democratically elected people should be ousted ... i am very impressed by the "bloodless" bit.
maybe we should all notice the methods of the thai people 🙂
peace rules!
Here's a funnjy fact, the prime minister of Thailand was due to speak in front of the UN in New York when the Bloodless coup took place. As i remember the PM is loved by the country people, but not those in the City, and the King is loved by everyone. I think that the re-election of the PM "Thaksin Shinawatra" will be accepted.
Originally posted by flexmoreThe bloodlessness sounds like it was caused by the democratically elected PM, not the dictator who took over. The "king" threatened violence and the PM did not fight for democracy but instead gave up.
did any one notice?
it seems a democratically elected leader - likely to be reelected, was ousted by a bloodless show of military force, and an old "king".
yet - even in thailand it seems the every day life of locals is unchanged!
i am not saying democratically elected people should be ousted ... i am very impressed by the "bloodless" bit.
maybe we should all notice the methods of the thai people 🙂
peace rules!
How can this sort of thing be prevented? What if the united US military decided it wanted one of their generals to run things and tried this kind of thing? Would it work? What's the difference, if any?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi think the difference, if done in thailand, is that the locals are running the show.
...
What if the united US military decided it wanted one of their generals to run things and tried this kind of thing? Would it work? What's the difference, if any?
i imagine many thais know someone in the military and they trust their military not to be too silly.
i think they would not feel the same about a foreign military (who do not speak their language, nor know their customs).
if the us military performed a military coup in the us i wonder what would happen?
Originally posted by flexmoreWhat a tragedy. I'm glad it was bloodless -- but that's the only good thing about it. That sort of example can only lead to problems later. Will the next one be equally bloodless? I doubt it.
did any one notice?
it seems a democratically elected leader - likely to be reelected, was ousted by a bloodless show of military force, and an old "king".
yet - even in thailand it seems the every day life of locals is unchanged!
i am not saying democratically elected people should be ousted ... i am very impressed by the "bloodless" bit.
maybe we should all notice the methods of the thai people 🙂
peace rules!
Democracy is still a new concept for most of the world. People don't trust it, but they should.
The analogy would be the Mayor of Chicago taking over the state of Illinois with the help of the National Guard because they didn't like what was happening in Springfield. Senseless.
Originally posted by spruce112358i think you are putting the horse before the cart.
What a tragedy. I'm glad it was bloodless -- but that's the only good thing about it. That sort of example can only lead to problems later. Will the next one be equally bloodless? I doubt it.
Democracy is still a new concept for most of the world. People don't trust it, but they should.
The analogy would be the Mayor of Chicago taking over the sta ...[text shortened]... of the National Guard because they didn't like what was happening in Springfield. Senseless.
the goal of democracy is bloodless regime change ... not the other way round.
democracy is not always bloodless, when it is not then it has failed.
like many religions with good intentions, democracy has had much murder done in it's name.