“Do they wish Cambodia’s soldiers to fight with Thailand using slingshots?” he said.

**chitown** · 06-11-2009, 10:12 PM

Govt defends military budget hike | National news | The Phnom Penh Post - Cambodia's Newspaper of Record

Govt defends military budget hike

Friday, 06 November 2009 15:05 Cheang Sokha and Sebastian Strangio

Photo by: AFP

Soldiers ride atop their tanks during a parade at the Brigade 70 headquarters in Phnom Penh last month. Government plans to boost military spending in next year’s budget have come under fire.

OFFICIALS have dismissed criticisms of the government’s proposed hike in defence and security spending, saying that the funds will strengthen Cambodia’s capabilities and improve conditions in the military.

A draft budget approved by the Council of Ministers last week shows military spending increasing by 24.2 percent – from US$223 million this year to $277 million in 2010.

The draft has come under fire from critics who argue that military spending, which accounts for 14 percent of the US$1.97 billion proposed budget, dwarfs the amount spent on agriculture, rural development and water resources, which account for 5 percent.

Speaking to local media on Wednesday, Information Minister Khieu Kanharith dismissed concerns about the spending gap.

“Do they wish Cambodia’s soldiers to fight with Thailand using slingshots?” he said.

“When our soldiers wore flip-flops and used old guns, they said that the government did not pay attention, but when we turn to support the soldiers, they say these things.”

Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Council of Ministers, said activists had the right to criticise the budget, but that they were ignorant of “the real situation” in the military.

“Based on the Constitution, the government has an obligation to defend its territorial integrity,” he said.

Phay Siphan said the money would also focus on creating a “social safety net” for military personnel and providing pensions for retired soldiers.

Critics agreed that action was needed in order to reform the military, but said the government should address the root problems rather than simply bumping up its budget.

“It’s good if the government has an intention of cleaning up the military, but this doesn’t have anything to do with [increasing] the budget,” said Ou Virak, president of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights.

Despite being intended as a social safety net, he said, the extra money would more likely be used to shore up the patronage networks of powerful military officers.

“The government keeps granting benefits to the military in order to secure loyalty,” he said.

“The higher levels are trying to please the lower levels so that they get support.”

Ou Virak also noted the phenomenon of “ghost soldiers” – nonexistent enlistees that funnel salaries and other benefits into the pockets of their superiors – as a target for reform.

Yong Kim Eng, president of the People’s Centre for Development and Peace, said a defence force was important for every country, but agreed the lack of oversight made military expenditures a concern.

“I am concerned about the expenditures of the military and how it will manage [them]. In a country like Cambodia, we should have a mechanism to check the expenditures of each institution,” he said.

He added that the government currently possesses the necessary auditing authorities, but that they had not yet been put to full use.

“If they use [these institutions] well, it could make the country more transparent.”

**StrontiumDog** · 06-11-2009, 10:36 PM

So they expect conflict...

Right...

**Rural Surin** · 06-11-2009, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

So they expect conflict...

Right...

I think it's more of interest in Farang forum camps than it might be throughout the countries' respective populations.

**buriramboy** · 06-11-2009, 10:49 PM

Don't know what the Cambodians are worried about, Thailand couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

**dirtydog** · 06-11-2009, 10:53 PM

I've heard good reports about Thailand and wet paper bags though buriram boy.

**Rural Surin** · 06-11-2009, 10:57 PM

Has the ASEAN body taken any such official stance?

**Spitfire** · 06-11-2009, 11:00 PM

^That would require them to grow a spine.

I don't think either side are capable of a conflict, most of the Thai army are conscipts on foot and the pictures of the Cambodian forces from the temple dispute hardly inspire fear, the photo above of Cambodian soldiers on tanks is wildly misleading as they look like T-54s to me, oooo.....scary.

**Muadib** · 06-11-2009, 11:02 PM

^^ Over what??? The Thais ability to fight their way out of a wet paper bag -or- to roll over and pee themselves if open conflict actually breaks out...

watterinja · 06-11-2009, 11:41 PM

T55, or T62? Russian tanks.

These will push Thailand's stupid little light-weight tanks into the river. They are fast, tough & have pretty heavy firepower. Thailand would get a hiding if a conventional frontal assault were to be used - I'd wager.

Love those tanks - used to drive one...

**Thetyim** · 07-11-2009, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by watterinja

These will push Thailand's stupid little light-weight tanks into the river.

Depends who controls the sky.
Wiki lists Cambo as only having 9 fighter planes, Mig 21 & J7's

**ItsRobsLife** · 07-11-2009, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

So they expect conflict...

Right...

I think it's more of interest in Farang forum camps than it might be throughout the countries' respective populations.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, the Cambodians I spoke to seemed quite sure of themselves when they laughed of the thought of conflict with Thailand. War can only be won by whoever has ability to inflict the most brutality and if the home audience doesn't have the stomach for it, they cannot win, so who has the most to lose?

And as one poster here reminded me about the Vietnam war, the US may have the jets and tanks and the Viets only flip flops, ak's and rpg's, but the Vietnamese won that war.

My money is on an escalation in this cold war, with Thailand finally backing down and making a face saving compromise, the Thai elite is unpopular with at least half the population and an external conflict will only come back to them and bring them down. Look at all the major conflicts, the result is the troops come home battle hardened and demand more equality.

**mtone9317** · 07-11-2009, 06:20 AM

It is a misconception that the US lost the war, the US forces withdrew under pressure from the people of the US. The government at that time was very unpopular. For every American soldiers killed there were more than twice as many Viet-Cong and NVA killed. Pictures of American soldiers killed filled the newspapers (during WWII) the press did not publish pictures of killed American soldiers. The US media killed popular support at home for the war. During the Tet offensive the NVA got their a""es kicked--they lost thousands in a conventional batter. Losing means surrendering, the US withdrew their forces.
As for a battle between the Cambodians and the Thai--there are simply too many Brits, Austrialians, and US here. The Cambodians would be facing the combined military of Thai, US, British,Oz. There is no love for Cambodians in Viet-nam and a weak Cambodia would once again open the door to VN forces, which have already defeated twice in twice in the last 50 years.
The Cambodian Generals remind me of Saddam Hussein in pre-US invasion of Iraq.

**the dogcatcher** · 07-11-2009, 07:18 AM

Cambo has 9 tanks. Thailand has at least 2 apache gun ships. Game over.

**PlanK** · 07-11-2009, 07:43 AM

I expect Cambodian forces to thrust inland at an alarming rate, until they hit Pattaya and get sent packing by all those ex-SAS/marine/Delta/Commandos.

**Butterfly** · 07-11-2009, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by mtone9317

It is a misconception that the US lost the war,

are you delusional ? how do you call running to choppers on a roof ? a full victory ?

**donald36** · 07-11-2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by mtone9317

It is a misconception that the US lost the war, the US forces withdrew under pressure from the people of the US. The government at that time was very unpopular. For every American soldiers killed there were more than twice as many Viet-Cong and NVA killed. Pictures of American soldiers killed filled the newspapers (during WWII) the press did not publish pictures of killed American soldiers. The US media killed popular support at home for the war. During the Tet offensive the NVA got their a""es kicked--they lost thousands in a conventional batter. Losing means surrendering, the US withdrew their forces.
As for a battle between the Cambodians and the Thai--there are simply too many Brits, Austrialians, and US here. The Cambodians would be facing the combined military of Thai, US, British,Oz. There is no love for Cambodians in Viet-nam and a weak Cambodia would once again open the door to VN forces, which have already defeated twice in twice in the last 50 years.
The Cambodian Generals remind me of Saddam Hussein in pre-US invasion of Iraq.

So if they didnt lose the war then they must have won it, just like theyre going to do in Afghanistan and Iraq

**Mid** · 07-11-2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Has the ASEAN body taken any such official stance?

so far NO

only comment I've seen from a member state is Singapore expressing concern .

**corned dog** · 07-11-2009, 08:20 AM

Sure the CIA are not involved ? - setting up confrontation to promote the idea of the New World Order !!!

**Mr Lick** · 07-11-2009, 08:36 AM

The thought that a single life may be lost over the Mr T issue is more than a little alarming. In the circumstances and if the former PM truly has the interests of Thai people at heart (as he often preaches) then he should withdraw from his exalted position of advisor to Hun Sen. He has certainly harmed his image by accepting the 'post', not entirely sensible if he wishes to return to a hero's welcome at anytime in the future. (one of his own political aims, i believe)

**pickel** · 07-11-2009, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by mtone9317

The Cambodians would be facing the combined military of Thai, US, British,Oz.

Highly doubtful. You won't see the US fighting another war in a SE Asian jungle for a long, long time to come.

**Tom Sawyer** · 07-11-2009, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by corned dog

Sure the CIA are not involved ? - setting up confrontation to promote the idea of the New World Order !!!

The CIA is operating in Thailand to prop up the elites in case you hadn't noticed. They are supporting an unchanged US foreign policy to ensure Thailand remains a plutocracy. The claims of supporting democracy around the world are nonsense and this has been proved time and again.

The US clearly has strategic plans for Thailand. Not clear what that is yet, but they usually look 10-20 years ahead in their contingencies. Maybe they want bases or maybe something else.

And of course the US is - by principal it seems - antagonistic to every left-leaning Government in the world. Whether by ballot box or left-wing coup, the US will oppose it (e.g. South America). Sort of like Wal Mart's scorched earth tactics or Reagan's union-busting. The apples don't fall far from the tree, ya know?

**reinvented** · 07-11-2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by mtone9317

It is a misconception that the US lost the war, the US forces withdrew under pressure from the people of the US. The government at that time was very unpopular. For every American soldiers killed there were more than twice as many Viet-Cong and NVA killed. Pictures of American soldiers killed filled the newspapers (during WWII) the press did not publish pictures of killed American soldiers. The US media killed popular support at home for the war. During the Tet offensive the NVA got their a""es kicked--they lost thousands in a conventional batter. Losing means surrendering, the US withdrew their forces. As for a battle between the Cambodians and the Thai--there are simply too many Brits, Austrialians, and US here. The Cambodians would be facing the combined military of Thai, US, British,Oz. There is no love for Cambodians in Viet-nam and a weak Cambodia would once again open the door to VN forces, which have already defeated twice in twice in the last 50 years. The Cambodian Generals remind me of Saddam Hussein in pre-US invasion of Iraq.

No offense mate but thats pretty much the most wrong ive ever seen anybody be in 1 post
the fact that the communist party are still in power disproves your opening gambit
and the rest of the world, especially the vietnamese wont give a flying fuck if 2 banana republics slug it out with bowls of fruit and pygmies
ijn the border terrain technology isnt gonna make that much difference anyway
and im sure the khmer have a greater will to win

**Tom Sawyer** · 07-11-2009, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by mtone9317

It is a misconception that the US lost the war, the US forces withdrew under pressure from the people of the US.

Then, using your logic about 'lose' versus 'withdrawal', the British did not 'lose' the US 'War' of Independence, correct? The British forces 'withdrew'..

You can't have it both ways Chief..

**crazy dog** · 07-11-2009, 11:04 AM

was just going to write the same thing about the war of independence. How could the yanks lose 50,000 men and spend years and billions fighting a war in Vietnam and not lose when they ran back home?

watterinja · 07-11-2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by mtone9317

It is a misconception that the US lost the war, the US forces withdrew under pressure from the people of the US. The government at that time was very unpopular.

Bollocks... they lost fair & square.

Thread: “Do they wish Cambodia’s soldiers to fight with Thailand using slingshots?” he said.

Thread Tools

Display

“Do they wish Cambodia’s soldiers to fight with Thailand using slingshots?” he said.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions