quote:

Originally posted by ConservativeHawkP:

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:

quote:

Originally posted by ConservativeHawkP:
So its okay for Obama to loudly demand and dictate to Hondura's that it must "cease and desist" its fight to keep democracy alive?? while its unimaginable for him to demand the theocracy in Iran stop its nuclear weapons program, stop its brutal suppression of protestors..etc??

Why doesn't Mr.Obama talk tuff to Iran? The liberals should be OUTRAGED that he is meddling in Honduras..

What you obviously don't realize is that any interference or involvement in Iran's situation WILL backfire on us - they remember all too well Operation Ajax. The one thing it would accomplish is making sure that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei stay in power for the forseeable future.

The legally elected Honduran government was just overthrown by a military coup - something that directly affects our stability here - and is a situation that demands a more direct and "big stick" approach.

So a nuclear armed theocracy in the Middle East with established links to terrorism won't directly affect the United States and its security...

Anyways....Obama is meddling in South America and needs to knock it off, OR apply the same approach to more serious problems in other parts of the world..

Meddling in Iran's affairs at this juncture would be the easiest way to ensure that the above mentioned theocracy remains in power.

quote:

Originally posted by ronald45:
Could it be that Obama is scared sh*tLiss that the AMERICAN PEOPLE might start to take their cues from those in Honduras

It wasn't the Honduran people that overthrew Zelaya - it was the Honduran military, done with the backing of the Honduran ogliarchs.

It's been announced several times that the Supreme Court, the legislatures, his own party, has denounced Zelaya attempt to overstep his authority and change the Constitution holding on to the office of president past the Constitional requirements.

This ousting of Zelaya action didn't happen overnite. One report said it was planned over a three week period and the US reps were included. The military carried out their instructions from the freely elected official and the Supreme Court. So, it's not a military coup, but a impeachment of Zelaya and his record for over three years in office.

All of the socialist countrys in the area have recalled their representatives and cut trade with little Honduras, all 8 million of them. Zelaya is making headway with the international community for reinstatement in New York and the United Nations. So, my idea. An even trade. New York City and the UN for Honduras. Seems logical since they're more American than we are.

I'm still at loss as to what, precisely, determines the "legality" of a coup. I might buy the use of the word "legitimate" (or "illegitimate") to describe one ...

That aside, when Castro, Chavez, and Obama all come out on the same side of an issue, I start to worry.

Obama's characterization of the coup, IMHO, is pure BS and intended to influence US public opinion rather than define "truth".

quote:

Originally posted by Proudformermarine:
"President" Obama is just pizzed because one of his Socialist "Comrades" got kicked to the curb......

Duane A. Brinson Key West, Fl.
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

"In the face of terrorism and murder; the call for peace is NOT patriotic, it's COWARDICE"

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyRet03:

quote:

Originally posted by Proudformermarine:
"President" Obama is just pizzed because one of his Socialist "Comrades" got kicked to the curb......

Duane A. Brinson Key West, Fl.
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

"In the face of terrorism and murder; the call for peace is NOT patriotic, it's COWARDICE"

Ain't that the truth ... and here I thought that Obama and his administration were going to put American principles over expediency ...

quote:

It's been announced several times that the Supreme Court, the legislatures, his own party, has denounced Zelaya attempt to overstep his authority and change the Constitution holding on to the office of president past the Constitional requirements.

This ousting of Zelaya action didn't happen overnite. One report said it was planned over a three week period and the US reps were included. The military carried out their instructions from the freely elected official and the Supreme Court. So, it's not a military coup, but a impeachment of Zelaya and his record for over three years in office.

Yup, This was done "by the book" according to the constitution and is supported fully by the people. Zelaya was trying to unconstitutionally hold on to power after his term ends.

Is anyone going to justify/defend Obama's position? Or do we assume it is not justifiable and therefore to be ignored in the hopes that it will fade into oblivion?

The most interesting part of the equation is how our stance is with the countries the cozy up to during the recent America's meeting. Danial Ortega, Hugo Chavez and not present the Catro Brother's. Each one was part of bloody coups in their own right, some more than one, some a product of a impeachment process, and at least one being displaced from another mid American country for practicing insurrection.

Impeachment in the Honduran constitution is vague but such as it is was pronounced legal by THEIR highest authority in their land.

Following is interesting history of impeachment of American countries.


Over the last decade, impeachment has replaced traditional military coups as the standard
way to depose presidents in Latin America. Legislatures ousted the president in Brazil
(1992), Venezuela (1993), Ecuador (1997), and Paraguay (1999). Other, unsuccessful
attempts took place in Perú (1991), and Colombia (1996-7). This paper claims that two
institutional factors facilitate (or hinder) the emergence of impeachment: the constitutional
provisions for ousting the chief executive, and the president’s ability to control legislators.
Those elements are formalized in a simple model, and their historical significance is
explored in the cases of Brazil, Venezuela, and Ecuador. The conclusions suggest that
constitutional rules interact with political actors (parties, factions, and leaders) to explain
the fall of elected presidents in the 1990s.


"http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/Lasa2000/Perez-Linan.PDF

quote:

Hugo Chavez

If anyone knows "coups", this lefty POS does ... as I recall, he led one that was "illegal" ... at least he went to jail for it. Not sure, were I Obama, that I would want to be in the same bed, much less the same bedroom, as Chavez.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
I thought that Obama and his administration were going to put American principles over expediency ...

It IS a principled position to oppose the overthrow of an elected government by force, no matter what we may think of that government's politics. It gains us nothing in the long run to support such coups because the people in those countries will remember our position and strike back. We are still resented in Central & South America for our support of many previous coups and military juntas. The same in places like Iran, where we toppled the Mossadegh Government and brought in the Shah. We are now the "Great Satan" there.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
I'm still at loss as to what, precisely, determines the "legality" of a coup. I might buy the use of the word "legitimate" (or "illegitimate") to describe one ...

That aside, when Castro, Chavez, and Obama all come out on the same side of an issue, I start to worry.

Obama's characterization of the coup, IMHO, is pure BS and intended to influence US public opinion rather than define "truth".

I thought his comment was a gaffe, it seems that his is a serious comment.

All of Latin America from Right to Left opposes this coup. Uribe and Chavez are not exactly names that one expects to see on the same side of an issue.

Plain and simply this was an act of totalitarianism on the part of the Honduran Olicharchy which felt it's interests threatened by an essentially moderate politician.

I would absolutely oppose our invading or using military force in this matter. On the other hand, we certainly have a right to put presure, in any way we can on these Olicharhs. We provide them with aid, it's our money which trains and supports their military - We have a right to Complain about how our money is used.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
I thought that Obama and his administration were going to put American principles over expediency ...

It IS a principled position to oppose the overthrow of an elected government by force, no matter what we may think of that government's politics. It gains us nothing in the long run to support such coups because the people in those countries will remember our position and strike back. We are still resented in Central & South America for our support of many previous coups and military juntas. The same in places like Iran, where we toppled the Mossadegh Government and brought in the Shah. We are now the "Great Satan" there.

You're wrong about Mossedeq (why bring that up?) and you're wrong about the Honduran government. The government didn't go anywhere they are the ones that shed the embarassment. Zelaya was going to change the Constitution to remain in office. In his scheme of things while the voting occurred he would stay as President until his initiatives were met. One person does not make a government. I know that's hard for some to beleive, but Kings went out of style in the 18th century. So you wesre against the Shah in Iran in 52' but for the dictator in Honduras in 09'. Great reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
Perhaps I've missed it over the years ... but is there a regulation, guidance memo, or something that lays out what is a "legal" coup ... and what is not?

I doubt it. But a coup against and illegally installed government (call it counter-coup, revolt, revolution, etc.) that brought in a more acceptable government would probably pass muster in the court of world opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by ConservativeHawkP:

Anyways....Obama is meddling in South America and needs to knock it off, OR apply the same approach to more serious problems in other parts of the world..

Different countries, different issues, different strategic situations. Iran is far more important to us than Honduras and must therefore be handled differently. In Honduras there was a coup against an elected government. In Iran there was an election that lost popular credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by psychoABN:
That's a very good point...
As far as the legislature and the Supreme Court of Honduras is concerned, it's very legal becuase they considered what Zelaya was doing, illegal...checks and balances in action. If you take a look at the leaders that are speaking out against this example of checks and balances, it's very telling...

I don't think their constitution gives the judiciary, or the legislature, the legal power to use the Army to overthrow the President.

It's a good thing the US constitution doesn't allow the Supreme Court to use the armed forces to oust a Commander in Chief, or clear a disaffected legislature. Or that the CinC isn't in the habit of removing the other two 'checks'.

What's gone on in Honduras goes well beyond any rational, or constitutional, 'checks and balances'. That's why the history of the Americas, south of the Rio Grande, is littered with 'juntas' and tinpot dictators.

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
Perhaps I've missed it over the years ... but is there a regulation, guidance memo, or something that lays out what is a "legal" coup ... and what is not?

I doubt it. But a coup against and illegally installed government (call it counter-coup, revolt, revolution, etc.) that brought in a more acceptable government would probably pass muster in the court of world opinion.

I agree that it is "opinion based" ... and find it disquieting that Obama ... Chavez ... and Castro share the same view on this issue ... and that it is hardly "illegal" by any functional standard ...

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr:

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
I thought that Obama and his administration were going to put American principles over expediency ...

It IS a principled position to oppose the overthrow of an elected government by force, no matter what we may think of that government's politics. It gains us nothing in the long run to support such coups because the people in those countries will remember our position and strike back. We are still resented in Central & South America for our support of many previous coups and military juntas. The same in places like Iran, where we toppled the Mossadegh Government and brought in the Shah. We are now the "Great Satan" there.

You're wrong about Mossedeq (why bring that up?) and you're wrong about the Honduran government. The government didn't go anywhere they are the ones that shed the embarassment. Zelaya was going to change the Constitution to remain in office. In his scheme of things while the voting occurred he would stay as President until his initiatives were met. One person does not make a government. I know that's hard for some to beleive, but Kings went out of style in the 18th century. So you wesre against the Shah in Iran in 52' but for the dictator in Honduras in 09'. Great reasoning.

No, I am not "for" Zelaya, but I am not "for" the coup either. What I am for is a legal political process to play itself out. The Honduran military has no business getting involved in that process. If these countries are going to advance their democratic institutions, then they have to work these things out peacefully and the military needs to stay in their barracks.

The so-called coup was a return to constitutional government, a slap in the face to Chavez and Obama-style collectivist politics. Clinton called for a return to rule of law; if she knew what that is, then she'd have seen that rule of law is exactly what Honduras moved toward. The obamanation's influence in that part of the world AIN'T, and that is good for liberty.

quote:

No, I am not "for" Zelaya, but I am not "for" the coup either. What I am for is a legal political process to play itself out. The Honduran military has no business getting involved in that process. If these countries are going to advance their democratic institutions, then they have to work these things out peacefully and the military needs to stay in their barracks.

There I have to disagree ... when there is a real threat to a country's Constitution, that is precisely when the military needs to come out of its barracks and defend it ... even here in the U.S. of A should the situation arise.