Liberation of Thailand
The Thai government has just charged Thai protesters for exercising their freedom of speech. This cannot be allowed to stand. My loyalty is totally with those protesters and they shouldn't have to spend 1 second in jail.
I propose that the free world assembles a military coalition to go and liberate Thailand. If the UN Security Council doesn't bless the operation because this is an "internal issue" then we should abandon the UN en masse so we are no longer bound by their archaic thinking.
Before anyone says "what about Hong Kong?" - the fact that we don't have the military capacity to quickly liberate Hong Kong should not hold us back from doing the right thing in Thailand.
I propose that the free world assembles a military coalition to go and liberate Thailand. If the UN Security Council doesn't bless the operation because this is an "internal issue" then we should abandon the UN en masse so we are no longer bound by their archaic thinking.
Before anyone says "what about Hong Kong?" - the fact that we don't have the military capacity to quickly liberate Hong Kong should not hold us back from doing the right thing in Thailand.
Comments (30)
You're asking individual Thais to be willing to risk more than a decade in jail, or maybe being mowed down by automatic weapons, in order to liberate themselves.
I would not be willing to do that myself. Would you? Those Thai protesters are braver than me. The Thai protesters shouldn't have their human rights dictated by their fellow countrymen who are not as brave as them.
It's time that those Thai protesters had some automatic weapons on their side. Bigger and better automatic weapons. That's a fair fight.
And any innocent deaths in that fight are the responsibility of the Thai government for refusing to surrender to our Thai allies. It will be the last crime they commit. You can add that crime to the list that includes sending our Thai allies to jail for exercising their freedom of speech.
On a more serious note, @Paul Edwards, have you considered that not all inhabitants of Thailand think the same thing, and that there may even be a majority of people who disagree with your notion of free speech? At the very least, a large majority is likely to be adamantly against foreign occupation. So what about their rights and freedoms?
Absolutely I have considered that. Those Thais are my enemy, who think they have the right to suppress the freedom of speech of my allies. I don't really give a shit what my enemies think (and I don't recognize such a "right"), other than taking that into account in military planning to liberate my allies.
But yes, I intend to put automatic weapons into the hands of my Thai allies and letting them set the rules in the constitution that will protect their rights, even if from an (alleged) majority. I think the Americans did something similar with their constitution.
BTW, don't forget that 87% of Afghans supported foreign military intervention. We don't have data from a liberated Thailand.
Instead of tossing the lives of tens of millions of Asians to the wind (again) as well as possibly starting WWIII, why don't concerned parties (or "you") have a dialog about how the world is aware, upset, and changes perhaps need to be made to avoid further tension in the region as well as further domestic unrest, starting with the release of all protestors or if not asylum outside of the country, judging from your.. selfless concern for your fellow man, why not yours. They will be allowed to thrive, grow, prosper, and yes, protest to their heart's content. You don't want sanctions because it would harm those who believe in the right to speak out against injustice. That's fair. Few could argue with that. However you nevertheless cast them as expendable by saying a "fair fight" is sufficient. Instead of strongly encouraging the government of Thailand to be reasonable by means of government-to-government relations and dialog, or perhaps even reaching out to the them/educating them via social media, you'd easily dispose of the majority of Thais simply due to the fact they were raised with beliefs different than yours by no consequence of their own. They believe they're defending their homeland from foreign influence and control, perhaps even religiously. Do you seek to reach out to them? To show them the joys and pleasures the freedom of an open society allows, freedoms you would allegedly fight and die for? No, you simply "don't give a shit" and have also stated -- clearly and unequivocally -- you would rather them slaughter each other. Please, leave diplomacy to the diplomats. Or at least be more tactful ffs. Jesus Christ. If this is what we have to work with, I'm turning commie. lol
Quoting Echarmion
Quoting Paul Edwards
Anyway, setting aside for a moment the sheer madness of this fantasy, there are a few things worth knowing about the situation that I've found out just from googling around. I don't know much about Thailand, but it seems to me that the situation is more complicated than you realize:
1. What the OP is referring to is the law against criticizing the king, which has been on the books since 1908 (and I'd guess that a similar law existed in some form prior to that). The law was relaxed a few years ago, only now being brought back to full force in the face of intensifying protests.
2. Protests against the government--which have included calls for the reform of the monarchy, and even criticism of the king--have been going on since earlier this year. Back in August: "Such open criticism of Thailand’s monarch by non-elites at a public place within Thailand with the police simply standing by is the first of its kind in Thai history." (source)
3. Protesters have not, as far as I know, asked for outside help in the form of armed intervention.
This doesn't scratch the surface of recent Thai history, but from what I can tell, it's a country in transition, and the appearance of open criticism of the monarchy must be significant. In this situation, I don't see how armed intervention could be helpful. If you were running the "free world", Paul, I think you'd merely fuck things up for the Thai people, as well as killing lots of them and destabilizing the region.
I noticed that your first topic on this forum invoked the responsibility to protect. Is that your justification in this case? Because it doesn't apply to the curtailment of free speech:
[quote=UN]The responsibility to protect embodies a political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution. It seeks to narrow the gap between Member States’ pre-existing obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law and the reality faced by populations at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.[/quote]
There's nothing like that going on in Thailand, so how else would you justify such drastic action? There is no principle that I know of that could provide such a justification.
Nobody has a right to intervene militarily in Thailand.
Also, I don't want to indulge in whataboutism but I'm curious as to why you're ignoring China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other regimes that curtail freedom of speech. Is it because you want to pick off what you see as the easy targets, thereby enlarging the "free world"?
I don't believe in evacuating the entire population of a country because of a crappy government. I believe that if the government is so crappy it should be toppled instead.
The exception is Hong Kong. I think the pro-democracy 60% of the country should be evacuated to the Anglophone countries.
Because we can't solve that problem militarily, and we basically created that problem by giving them a different identity.
The responsibility to protect is also a program intended to give a framework for the UN, and the UN only, to approve the use of armed force. It's not a blueprint for countries to go at it alone.
And I hadn't heard a single Afghan call for armed intervention in 2001 either. But 87% of them secretly harbored such a desire.
1. It needs to be expanded to include freedom of speech and democracy.
2. It needs to be enforced by the free world instead of the UN.
I consider that I have such a right.
Yes to both of those things. We should take easy targets (like Haiti) whenever opportunities arise. And yes, it is in the free world's interests for it to be enlarged. I'd like to see 20 easy liberations done so that the difficult liberations are seen in context. We don't have enough data on wars of liberation. Panama is probably the gold standard.
Hey Paul, nobody here will stop you if you do undertake to liberate Thailand. So go right ahead. I have to get busy liberating Washington DC myself. All American citizens secretly wish for my intervention. Doing London next.
This is in fact the world we live in. Communists will attempt to "liberate" capitalists if they see the opportunity to do so. Our ancestors have already done the hard work defeating the Nazis and the Communists. We just need to finish our enemies off. I can see the whites of their eyes.
Note for the record that Americans, like Afghans, don't speak with one voice either.
Most Americans say horrible things of their regime in Washington. They all want it to get fixed, and that's where I come in. I haven't decided yet it's better to kill only the fascists, which would imply a lot of work, or just nuke the whole place and start afresh.
Start afresh to create what exactly? They already have democracy and freedom of speech. You'll end up where you started. I'm all for a realistic plan to fix America, but they already have the "best technology" we know of, which is democracy and freedom of speech. They need to use those tools to muddle through life. I see nothing for a military intervention to actually DO. Quite apart from the fact that the US is completely impregnable anyway, so we should be looking elsewhere for a softer target.
Formally yes but in fact, Murdock rules them.
Murdoch has freedom of speech like everyone else in America. If you wish to counter his message you are free to do so in the free marketplace of ideas. That's the "best technology" we have. You are already using that technology now to try to influence American readers of this forum to not listen to Murdoch and to listen to you instead. There's nothing to be done here, ie no need for a military intervention in America.
Indeed, we should start with Australia, where he’s based and started his malevolent empire. Invading them shouldn’t be too hard. Then dismantle said empire and use the money to fund the next phase: the US and UK.
Nah we've all been there I'm sure.
Australia also has the "best technology" we know of - democracy and freedom of speech. So does the UK. No need for a military intervention in any of the 3 countries you mentioned. There is a need in Thailand though. You need to be able to distinguish between countries that have the best technology we know of, and countries that don't.
I don't think so. They mass murdered the aborigines and gave rise a world-class disinformation enterprise leading the world right into the wall of climate change. They must be dealt with, one way or another.
That stopped many years ago. You may as well say you want to invade China to stop foot-binding. I'm interested in current violations of human rights, not past ones. I have no interest in invading Japan either. CURRENTLY, it is a democracy with freedom of speech. Again, best technology we know of.
If you believe Australia's information about climate change is inaccurate, you are free to challenge that in the free marketplace of ideas. Again, best technology we know of.
Nukes work better though. I don't care about what these enemies of mankind have to say in their defense.
It is YOU that is the enemy of mankind. You are trying to attack liberal democracies instead of dictatorships.
Anyway, we have irreconcilable views, so we will meet on the battlefield. Good luck. I've got the US military on my side.
:up: