ความคิดเห็นที่ 1 This is not a good topic for debate.  For one reason at least, it is a "leading topic".  Look at the language you use: "how wrong is it for the military...to led [sic] the people to believe that the country is doom [sic]" You use the expression "how wrong" to start off your question, which assumes that it is not right to do so.  Clearly, this is your clever attempt to establish your own version of reality, and doing so directly influences the reader's answer.  Then, you also choose to say "the military...led the people to believe that...".  This implies to the reader that the military DID lead people into that way of thinking and that people already BELIEVE what the military said.  But do you have evidence for this?  Isn't it your way to lead people and guide them to a specific answer you're looking for? Obviously, there is one inescapable answer: in any country, it is WRONG, VERY WRONG for the military to do so.  But this is not a fair question, as I said above, and the expected answer then is not a good answer. แก้ไขเมื่อ 24 เม.ย. 52 13:34:55 จากคุณ : krisdauw (krisdauw) - [ 24 เม.ย. 52 13:28:55 ]

ความคิดเห็นที่ 2 Holy cow! This guy followed me from the Library Forum. WOW! Too lazy to edit it here, but had done so already in the Library Forum. Tee hee. จากคุณ : iamdanai - [ 24 เม.ย. 52 17:48:39 ]

ความคิดเห็นที่ 3 Agree with #1 จากคุณ : หมูกรอบ - [ 24 เม.ย. 52 21:26:39 ]

ความคิดเห็นที่ 4 Yup, agree with #1. How can it be a good debate if the question has already created bias for the reader? Perhaps you might want to rephrase the question? จากคุณ : คนรักแมวตี๋ - [ 25 เม.ย. 52 01:40:40 ]

ความคิดเห็นที่ 5 Since the topic is not an open-ended one, I completely agree with K. Krisdauw that it is not a good topic for this particular purpose. Though, K. Iamdanai's statement was right that democratic institutions should not be intervened by the military. Unlike military junta, democracy, by definiton, is a form of government which highly upholds its citizens' rights and freedom. Should it be stated by law that democracy is practiced by the country, it is indisputably wrong if the military lays its hands on political issues. The military should only be there for national security and defense sake. Nevertheless, I would not say that it might undoubtedly pose any danger to the country, depends on its intention and degree of intervention. I would say that we, in Thailand, literally have a relatively strange democracy. People are proud to say that the country's government is democratic, yet the people themselves are ignorant do not respect the democracy. As we can probably see from the recent chaos in Thailand, if we do not change ourselves, it is my belief that this is even more dangerous than military intervention. Military intervention cannot seperate we Thais into two sides, but our stupid pride and ignorance can. IF YOU LITERALLY LOVE THE KING, DO NOT JUST SAY IT. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS! (เข้ามาเพิ่มเรารักในหลวงครับผม ) แก้ไขเมื่อ 25 เม.ย. 52 07:27:41 แก้ไขเมื่อ 25 เม.ย. 52 07:26:09 จากคุณ : Mente Hermosa - [ 25 เม.ย. 52 07:22:33 ]