Another test for Obama

[hibsbollah]

Left wing democratically elected Govt overthrown in a coup. (CIA have been involved there in the past). What does Obama do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123126.stm


Troops in Honduras have detained the president and flown him out of the country after a power struggle over plans to change the constitution.
President Manuel Zelaya was flown to Costa Rica from an air force base outside the capital, Tegucigalpa.

Mr Zelaya, elected for a non-renewable four-year term in January 2006, wanted a vote to extend his time in office.

His arrest came just before the start of a referendum ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and opposed by Congress.

There was also resistance within Mr Zelaya's own party to the plan to hold the vote.

Reuters news agency reports that police fired teargas at about 500 supporters of Mr Zelaya who had gathered outside the presidential palace.

'Arrested in pyjamas'
Protesters reportedly hurled rocks at the soldiers, shouting "Traitors", AP news agency reports, as tanks rolled through the streets and air force jets flew over the capital.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Early on Sunday, witnesses saw dozens of troops surround Mr Zelaya's residence.


In other developments:
• At an emergency meeting in Washington, the Organization of American States condemned what it called a "coup" in Honduras
• Mr Zelaya's ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, blamed "the Yankee empire"
• US President Barack Obama called on Honduras to "respect democratic norms, the rule of law"; the EU condemned Mr Zelaya's arrest

From Costa Rica, Mr Zelaya told Venezuelan TV that Honduran soldiers had arrested him in his pyjamas.

"I'm in San Jose in Costa Rica," he said. "I've been the victim of a kidnapping by a group of Honduran soldiers.

"This was a plot by a very voracious elite, an elite which wants only to keep this country isolated, in an extreme level of poverty. It doesn't care about the people, it's not sensitive to them."

The military's dramatic move came after President Zelaya defied a court order that he should re-instate the chief of the army, Gen Romeo Vasquez.
The president sacked Gen Vasquez late on Wednesday for refusing to help him organise the referendum.

Mr Zelaya, who under current regulations leaves office next January, also accepted the resignation of the defence minister.

'US opposed coup'
The referendum was to ask the population if they approved of a formal vote next November on whether to rewrite the Honduran constitution.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifMANUEL ZELAYA




Elected for Liberal Party in Nov 2005; beat ruling National Party candidate
Has moved Honduras away from its traditional ally the US
Enjoys the support of Venezuela's leftist President, Hugo Chavez
A civil engineer and rancher by profession


On Thursday, the Honduran Congress approved plans to investigate whether the president should be declared unfit to rule.

In an interview with Spain's El Pais newspaper published on Sunday, Mr Zelaya said a planned coup against him had been thwarted after the US refused to back it.

"Everything was in place for the coup and if the US embassy had approved it, it would have happened. But they did not," Mr Zelaya said.

The arrest of Mr Zelaya took place an hour before polls were due to open.
Ballot boxes and other voting materials had been distributed by Mr Zelaya's supporters and government employees throughout the Central American country.

The president has vowed to transform Honduras, saying the system currently favours the wealthy elite. But his opponents accused him of seeking to rule indefinitely.

Honduras - an impoverished coffee and banana-exporting nation of more than 7 million people - has experienced military coups in the past.

Soldiers overthrew elected presidents in 1963 and again in 1975; the military did not turn the government over to civilians until 1981.

[Green Mikey]

It looks like the US have already opposed the coup. What else can Obama do, why should unrest in Latin America be seen as a problem for him?

Should the US be seen as an international police for issues such as this?

[givescotlandfreedom]

It looks like the US have already opposed the coup. What else can Obama do, why should unrest in Latin America be seen as a problem for him?

Should the US be seen as an international police for issues such as this?

It seems t think it's got the right to tell Cuba and Venezula what to do. In Cuba's place it's even tried to invade it as well as isolate it internationally. Unlike its chums Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who apparently are beacons of light to the rest of the world.

[Woody1985]

It seems t think it's got the right to tell Cuba and Venezula what to do. In Cuba's place it's even tried to invade it as well as isolate it internationally. Unlike its chums Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who apparently are beacons of light to the rest of the world.

That's the way of the world though.

Most of it is about self interest. By having allies that they don't necessarilly like or agree with doesn't mean they're not good allies in strategic places. It reeks of double standards but that's just how it is.

[Green Mikey]

That's the way of the world though.

Most of it is about self interest. By having allies that they don't necessarilly like or agree with doesn't mean they're not good allies in strategic places. It reeks of double standards but that's just how it is.

:agree:

Sad but true, unfortunately morality does not rate very highly in international politics.

givescotlandfreedom - my point was not about the US's current allies, but that the OP was seeing a crisis in Honduras as a US issue. Should we be imploring them to intervene when, as you pointed out, the US may not be the best country to do so.

[NYHibby]

It seems t think it's got the right to tell Cuba and Venezula what to do. In Cuba's place it's even tried to invade it as well as isolate it internationally.

When did the US try to invade Cuba? Don't try to claim the Bay of Pigs was it. That was native Cubans returning to their own country. We had every right to isolate Cuba. They had nuclear missiles that were ready to be launched at any number of American cities.

[hibsbollah]

If Obama wants to prove his 'break from the past' credentials, he should be campaigning for the return of the democratically elected Govt. Chavez has already claimed the CIA is behind it.

[Woody1985]

If Obama wants to prove his 'break from the past' credentials, he should be campaigning for the return of the democratically elected Govt. Chavez has already claimed the CIA is behind it.

Does he not claim that about everything that happens?

[hibsbollah]

Does he not claim that about everything that happens?

No. I believe Chavez blamed the Michael Jackson death on the perils of excessive childhood fame, and the demise of Tiffany on the fact she was ginger.

[hibbykeef]

When did the US try to invade Cuba? Don't try to claim the Bay of Pigs was it. That was native Cubans returning to their own country. We had every right to isolate Cuba. They had nuclear missiles that were ready to be launched at any number of American cities.

1898-1902 approx still there i believe:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

I understand the Honduran Supreme Court have said they authorised the removal of Zelaya in order to 'defend the rule of law'.

Putting aside political affiliations, if an elected but time-bound leader looks to change the constitution to allow themselves to potentially remain in power, and such a move is ruled illegal by the courts and the leader acts to carry on regardless - and given that the Honduran constitution is clear that the rules on terms of office are not allowed to be amended - isn't the Supreme Court merely upholding the constitution, as distasteful as that might be for some of us :dunno:

I'm naturally suspicious of who stands to gain when any leftist government comes to any sort of end, but leaving that aside it's hard to see how any notion of liberal democracy is achievable without justice as its central precept. The mechanisms we use to achieve that tend to be based around constitutional law and a judiciary as arbiters of that. If we don't sign up to that process then it's difficult to see how we can claim to be truly interested in liberalism or democracy.

Obviously that's no concern for the revolutionaries :greengrin

[Green Mikey]

If Obama wants to prove his 'break from the past' credentials, he should be campaigning for the return of the democratically elected Govt. Chavez has already claimed the CIA is behind it.

What is your point here, why are you giving so much credence to Chavez's opinion? Zelaya has said the US did not ratify the coup. The quote below is from your your original post:

"Everything was in place for the coup and if the US embassy had approved it, it would have happened. But they did not," Mr Zelaya said.


Obama quote below from the BBC article, what more can he do...Military intervention to support democracy...that was an unprecendented success in Iraq and Vietnem.....

The White House denied any involvement; President Barack Obama urged Honduras to "respect the rule of law"

[Green Mikey]

Does he not claim that about everything that happens?

Almost everything....I might try to kill him if he spread all these rumours about me....:wink::wink::wink:


http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/25/77002.html

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/12/02/68996.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66651&sectionid=351020704

http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/23/stories/2005112305281700.htm

[Woody1985]

Almost everything....I might try to kill him if he spread all these rumours about me....:wink::wink::wink:


http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/25/77002.html

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/12/02/68996.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66651&sectionid=351020704

http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/23/stories/2005112305281700.htm

:LOL:

He certainly knows a lot about everything eh.

[Betty Boop]

If Obama wants to prove his 'break from the past' credentials, he should be campaigning for the return of the democratically elected Govt. Chavez has already claimed the CIA is behind it.
I wouldn't hold your breath! :rolleyes:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I understand the Honduran Supreme Court have said they authorised the removal of Zelaya in order to 'defend the rule of law'.

Putting aside political affiliations, if an elected but time-bound leader looks to change the constitution to allow themselves to potentially remain in power, and such a move is ruled illegal by the courts and the leader acts to carry on regardless - and given that the Honduran constitution is clear that the rules on terms of office are not allowed to be amended - isn't the Supreme Court merely upholding the constitution, as distasteful as that might be for some of us :dunno:

I'm naturally suspicious of who stands to gain when any leftist government comes to any sort of end, but leaving that aside it's hard to see how any notion of liberal democracy is achievable without justice as its central precept. The mechanisms we use to achieve that tend to be based around constitutional law and a judiciary as arbiters of that. If we don't sign up to that process then it's difficult to see how we can claim to be truly interested in liberalism or democracy.

Obviously that's no concern for the revolutionaries :greengrin

There was to be democratic vote on a new constitution, I think that's laudable. Would anyone really want an entirely immutable constitution? What's the good of that?

Also, term limits are really, really stoooopid.

[LiverpoolHibs]

When did the US try to invade Cuba? Don't try to claim the Bay of Pigs was it. That was native Cubans returning to their own country. We had every right to isolate Cuba. They had nuclear missiles that were ready to be launched at any number of American cities.

1) The embargo/isolation of Cuba was put into place nearly a year before the missile bases were built. And that's not to say that was the beginning of attempts to destabilise the country.

2) I'd be very surprised if the U.S. didn't have nukes trained on Havana.

What's your point?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh, and although it would be slightly foolish to say outright that the CIA/US were behind it, it's not really a surprise to learn that the leader of the coup, Romeo Vazquez, is a graduate of the School of the Americas.

[Mibbes Aye]

There was to be democratic vote on a new constitution, I think that's laudable. Would anyone really want an entirely immutable constitution? What's the good of that?

Also, term limits are really, really stoooopid.

Putting aside what kind of vote Zelaya was trying to offer, and whether you think immutable aspects of a constitution are wrong (maybe you have no immutable beliefs? :devil:)and putting aside your view on term limits;

If his actions were ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court then isn't it intrinsically unjust for him to be allowed to carry on trying to carry them out?

As I said, it might not sit comfortably with a lot of us but if you have a constitutional democracy, you have a mechanism for interpreting it (and that tends to be the judiciary) and in this case the mechanism acted, it would appear, within the legal framework granted to it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Putting aside what kind of vote Zelaya was trying to offer, and whether you think immutable aspects of a constitution are wrong (maybe you have no immutable beliefs? :devil:)and putting aside your view on term limits;

If his actions were ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court then isn't it intrinsically unjust for him to be allowed to carry on trying to carry them out?

As I said, it might not sit comfortably with a lot of us but if you have a constitutional democracy, you have a mechanism for interpreting it (and that tends to be the judiciary) and in this case the mechanism acted, it would appear, within the legal framework granted to it.

I don't think so, technically illegal maybe but not unjust. I suppose it depends on why the referendum (which, so I've read, was actually about whether a referendum on whether a referendum should be held rather than a referendum to change the constitution) was deemed illegal.

Then again, maybe I'm just a despot at heart and don't have the requisite level of respect for 'venerable' democratic institutions. :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't think so, technically illegal maybe but not unjust. I suppose it depends on why the referendum (which, so I've read, was actually about whether a referendum on whether a referendum should be held rather than a referendum to change the constitution) was deemed illegal.

Then again, maybe I'm just a despot at heart and don't have the requisite level of respect for 'venerable' democratic institutions. :greengrin

That's the beauty of despotism though, it cuts right throught the bureaucracy :agree: :greengrin

[khib70]

Another left wing Latin American head of state wanting to extend his term of office without the inconvenience of a democratic mandate. What a surprise! The certifiable Hugo Chavez has been trying this one on for years, and Castro wouldn't know a democratic mandate if it got tangled in his beard. A sizeable chunk of his population has already voted with their feet (or boats, rafts or whatever will get them away from the economic disaster inflicted on their country).

The Nicaraguan Sandanistas - darlings of the North London Guardianistas, at least did submit themselves to democratic elections - and were roundly humped. Their comrades are obviously determined not to repeat that mistake.

Conveniently, when the people they claim to represent get teed off with these power-greedy Marxist demagogues, they can always blame the CIA.

Amending your country's constitution can be a good and positive thing. Doing it to cling on to power in the face of yet another populace discovering that socialism is just state-created poverty in the making is just the first step on the road to dictatorship.

[hibsbollah]

Another left wing Latin American head of state wanting to extend his term of office without the inconvenience of a democratic mandate. What a surprise! The certifiable Hugo Chavez has been trying this one on for years, and Castro wouldn't know a democratic mandate if it got tangled in his beard. A sizeable chunk of his population has already voted with their feet (or boats, rafts or whatever will get them away from the economic disaster inflicted on their country).

The Nicaraguan Sandanistas - darlings of the North London Guardianistas, at least did submit themselves to democratic elections - and were roundly humped. Their comrades are obviously determined not to repeat that mistake.

Conveniently, when the people they claim to represent get teed off with these power-greedy Marxist demagogues, they can always blame the CIA.

Amending your country's constitution can be a good and positive thing. Doing it to cling on to power in the face of yet another populace discovering that socialism is just state-created poverty in the making is just the first step on the road to dictatorship.

Thats a complete reversal of whats actually happening. In reality, left wing Governments are getting voted in all over latin america, and the only right wing Govts left are US-supported dictatorships. I guess you know that though, and are just hoping other people havent noticed:thumbsup:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Another left wing Latin American head of state wanting to extend his term of office without the inconvenience of a democratic mandate. What a surprise! The certifiable Hugo Chavez has been trying this one on for years, and Castro wouldn't know a democratic mandate if it got tangled in his beard. A sizeable chunk of his population has already voted with their feet (or boats, rafts or whatever will get them away from the economic disaster inflicted on their country).

Hold on, a democratic referendum on whether to hold a democratic referendum on changing the constitution that would entail removing term limits (which is one of the most ludicrous ways of enshrining democracy anyone could possibly think of) is 'extending his term of office without a democratic mandate'? Seriously?


The Nicaraguan Sandanistas - darlings of the North London Guardianistas, at least did submit themselves to democratic elections - and were roundly humped. Their comrades are obviously determined not to repeat that mistake.

You mean the Nicaragua Sandinistas who are currently the democratically elected government of Nicaragua? Again, seriously?


Conveniently, when the people they claim to represent get teed off with these power-greedy Marxist demagogues, they can always blame the CIA.

Hmmm, I'm struggling to think of a single right-wing coup d’état against a democratically elected left-wing/progressive government in Latin America that hasn't been fairly conclusively linked back to the U.S./C.I.A. in one form or another. If anyone could provide me with an example I'd be much obliged.


Amending your country's constitution can be a good and positive thing. Doing it to cling on to power in the face of yet another populace discovering that socialism is just state-created poverty in the making is just the first step on the road to dictatorship.

Any evidence of the Honduran population that 'socialism is just state created poverty'. Are the Honduran armed forces the voice of the people?

All in all, one of the most astonishingly innacurate posts I think I've ever read on here.

[khib70]

Hold on, a democratic referendum on whether to hold a democratic referendum on changing the constitution that would entail removing term limits (which is one of the most ludicrous ways of enshrining democracy anyone could possibly think of) is 'extending his term of office without a democratic mandate'? Seriously?



You mean the Nicaragua Sandinistas who are currently the democratically elected government of Nicaragua? Again, seriously?



Hmmm, I'm struggling to think of a single right-wing coup d’état against a democratically elected left-wing/progressive government in Latin America that hasn't been fairly conclusively linked back to the U.S./C.I.A. in one form or another. If anyone could provide me with an example I'd be much obliged.



Any evidence of the Honduran population that 'socialism is just state created poverty'. Are the Honduran armed forces the voice of the people?

All in all, one of the most astonishingly innacurate posts I think I've ever read on here.
IYHO
The Sandanistas were defeated in the 1990 elections and remained in opposition until 2006. They won that election due to a last minute split in their major opponents, the Liberals, who would otherwise have won easily.
This much is conceded even by the Wikipedia article on the FSLN which is outrageously biased in their favour. Or to put it in your terms, "accurate".

Mel Zelaya's referendum was judged unconstitutional by the country's supreme court, not the armed forces. After his removal a member of Zelaya's own party was sworn in to replace him by the Honduran Congress, who I think are closer to the voice of the Honduran people than Hugo Chavez. So there has been no military coup and the same party remains in power.

The only threat of outside intervention so far has come from the increasingly demented Chavez, who has threatened military intervention to reinstall Zelaya. Now who's nosing into other countries' affairs? Or is Chavez perhaps a tool of the CIA?

[RyeSloan]

IYHO
The Sandanistas were defeated in the 1990 elections and remained in opposition until 2006. They won that election due to a last minute split in their major opponents, the Liberals, who would otherwise have won easily.
This much is conceded even by the Wikipedia article on the FSLN which is outrageously biased in their favour. Or to put it in your terms, "accurate".

Mel Zelaya's referendum was judged unconstitutional by the country's supreme court, not the armed forces. After his removal a member of Zelaya's own party was sworn in to replace him by the Honduran Congress, who I think are closer to the voice of the Honduran people than Hugo Chavez. So there has been no military coup and the same party remains in power.

The only threat of outside intervention so far has come from the increasingly demented Chavez, who has threatened military intervention to reinstall Zelaya. Now who's nosing into other countries' affairs? Or is Chavez perhaps a tool of the CIA?

Indeed I think perhaps he may be!! :greengrin

Chavez goes on about Yankee involvement in everything yet it is he that is busy using his oil to further his own political agenda in South America (and beyond..fuel for London buses anyone?).

As for the OP, I don't see this as an American problem or issue but it is forever interesting that despite being denounced regularly for meddling America is always the first port of call when such problems as these arise and might need some sort of resolution...

[LiverpoolHibs]

IYHO
The Sandanistas were defeated in the 1990 elections and remained in opposition until 2006. They won that election due to a last minute split in their major opponents, the Liberals, who would otherwise have won easily.
This much is conceded even by the Wikipedia article on the FSLN which is outrageously biased in their favour. Or to put it in your terms, "accurate".

They lost the 1990 election due to the country being completely ungovernable and the economy completely destroyed in the face of an American embargo and political and paramilitary activity of the Contras against their democratically elected government. And I'm sure we all know who funded and armed the Contras.

Your point about the 2006 election is correct, but you also fail to mention that there was an almost exactly equivalent split within the Sandinistas.


Mel Zelaya's referendum was judged unconstitutional by the country's supreme court, not the armed forces. After his removal a member of Zelaya's own party was sworn in to replace him by the Honduran Congress, who I think are closer to the voice of the Honduran people than Hugo Chavez. So there has been no military coup and the same party remains in power.

Removing one leader and replacing him with another of their own choice (who was otably Zelaya major opponent within the party) isn't a coup? And it seems very much to me like the military are calling all of the shots so far.


The only threat of outside intervention so far has come from the increasingly demented Chavez, who has threatened military intervention to reinstall Zelaya. Now who's nosing into other countries' affairs? Or is Chavez perhaps a tool of the CIA?

Any evidence that he's threatened restorative military action? He has, probably unhelpfully I agree, threatened military action should anything happen to the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Cuban ambassadors who had/have been arrested by the Honduran military.

I notice I still haven't been furnished with an example of a right wing coup against democratically elected, Latin American left-wing government that hasn't had the support or backing of the U.S./C.I.A.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh and it's rather interesting to compare and contrast the OAS response to events in Honduras with their response to the overhrow of Aristide in Haiti in 2004. Rather enlightening.

[khib70]

They lost the 1990 election due to the country being completely ungovernable and the economy completely destroyed in the face of an American embargo and political and paramilitary activity of the Contras against their democratically elected government. And I'm sure we all know who funded and armed the Contras.

Your point about the 2006 election is correct, but you also fail to mention that there was an almost exactly equivalent split within the Sandinistas.

And that split was caused by the objection by many in the FSLN leadership to the increased authoritarianism and absolutism of the saintly Daniel Ortega. Seemingly a bit of a pandemic amongst left wing Latin American leaders?



Removing one leader and replacing him with another of their own choice (who was otably Zelaya major opponent within the party) isn't a coup? And it seems very much to me like the military are calling all of the shots so far.

The choice of replacement was made by the democratically elected congress, not the military, from all the reports I have read.



Any evidence that he's threatened restorative military action? He has, probably unhelpfully I agree, threatened military action should anything happen to the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Cuban ambassadors who had/have been arrested by the Honduran military.

"The Times" p 27 quoting Chavez on Venezuelan TV "We will bring them down, we will bring them down, I tell you."

I notice I still haven't been furnished with an example of a right wing coup against democratically elected, Latin American left-wing government that hasn't had the support or backing of the U.S./C.I.A.

I didn't suggest that the US was not involved in coups against left wing governments. Of course it was. What I was saying was that this allows any left wing government to shout "CIA" whenever they inevitably screw up.

[LiverpoolHibs]

And that split was caused by the objection by many in the FSLN leadership to the increased authoritarianism and absolutism of the saintly Daniel Ortega. Seemingly a bit of a pandemic amongst left wing Latin American leaders?


Really? Where's that information coming from? Everything I've read on it suggests it was pretty much the equivalent of the SDP split from the Labour Party.


The choice of replacement was made by the democratically elected congress, not the military, from all the reports I have read.

Having read a bit on this just know it seems we're both wrong. It's in the constitution that the Head of Congress assumes control if the President is forced from office or leaves office.


"The Times" p 27 quoting Chavez on Venezuelan TV "We will bring them down, we will bring them down, I tell you."

Oh come on! That's the basis for saying he's threatened military action to reinstate Zelaya?


I didn't suggest that the US was not involved in coups against left wing governments. Of course it was. What I was saying was that this allows any left wing government to shout "CIA" whenever they inevitably screw up.

What I'm saying is that they're usually justified historically in shouting that...

[khib70]

Really? Where's that information coming from? Everything I've read on it suggests it was pretty much the equivalent of the SDP split from the Labour Party.



Having read a bit on this just know it seems we're both wrong. It's in the constitution that the Head of Congress assumes control if the President is forced from office or leaves office.



Oh come on! That's the basis for saying he's threatened military action to reinstate Zelaya?



What I'm saying is that they're usually justified historically in shouting that...
With reference to the split in the FSLN, the Wikipedia article seems fairly clear on the reasons. This piece from the "Observer" (stablemate of my beloved Guardian:wink:)this year, seems to show that the fears of Ramirez and the others who split to form the MRS were pretty justified, and that Ortega is going the way of Chavez etc right enough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/11/nicaragua-world-ortega

[hibsbollah]

Indeed I think perhaps he may be!! :greengrin

As for the OP, I don't see this as an American problem or issue but it is forever interesting that despite being denounced regularly for meddling America is always the first port of call when such problems as these arise and might need some sort of resolution...

Thats not my point at all. Its not that complicated. 1. Obama has come to office on a (vague) mandate for a new foreign policy dynamic 2. Latin America is full of left wing Govts with genuine democratic legitimacy 3. One of those Govts has just been toppled by a military-backed coup.

Now the moral action from Obama would be to join with the OAS, the EU, and all of South America in demanding a return to civilian rule. Any sign of accepting the coup would send a message to the rest of South America that he doesnt really give a damn about genuine democracy. However, if he could also make some enemies among the more fanatical Cuban exile elements, the CIA and the military industrial complex, if hes seen as not supporting US 'interests'.

It is a genuine dilemma for him, much more so than if there was a left wing overthrow of civilian rule somewhere.

[hibsbollah]

IYHO


Mel Zelaya's referendum was judged unconstitutional by the country's supreme court, not the armed forces. After his removal a member of Zelaya's own party was sworn in to replace him by the Honduran Congress, who I think are closer to the voice of the Honduran people than Hugo Chavez. So there has been no military coup and the same party remains in power.



:faf: Are you related to former Iraqi information spokesman Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf by any chance?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123434.stm

[Green Mikey]

Thats not my point at all. Its not that complicated. 1. Obama has come to office on a (vague) mandate for a new foreign policy dynamic 2. Latin America is full of left wing Govts with genuine democratic legitimacy 3. One of those Govts has just been toppled by a military-backed coup.

Now the moral action from Obama would be to join with the OAS, the EU, and all of South America in demanding a return to civilian rule. Any sign of accepting the coup would send a message to the rest of South America that he doesnt really give a damn about genuine democracy. However, if he could also make some enemies among the more fanatical Cuban exile elements, the CIA and the military industrial complex, if hes seen as not supporting US 'interests'.

It is a genuine dilemma for him, much more so than if there was a left wing overthrow of civilian rule somewhere.

Think you have missed the point here. The question posed by Simar and myself earlier in the thread is not what Obama has to do but why should he have to do anything.

From you post it is clear that you see American intervention as important in the Honduran situation. However, you (probably more than anyone on this site) have been critical of America's previous interventions in Latin American politics. Why then are you so eager to see continuing intervention from America when you are so well versed on the ills that they have caused in the past?

[hibsbollah]

Think you have missed the point here. The question posed by Simar and myself earlier in the thread is not what Obama has to do but why should he have to do anything.

From you post it is clear that you see American intervention as important in the Honduran situation. However, you (probably more than anyone on this site) have been critical of America's previous interventions in Latin American politics. Why then are you so eager to see continuing intervention from America when you are so well versed on the ills that they have caused in the past?

As i've already said, If he chooses to do nothing, he will be accused of a)double standards (at least in regard to previous US administrations interventions in other parts of the world) and b) representing a continuation of Bush-era policy.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Think you have missed the point here. The question posed by Simar and myself earlier in the thread is not what Obama has to do but why should he have to do anything.

From you post it is clear that you see American intervention as important in the Honduran situation. However, you (probably more than anyone on this site) have been critical of America's previous interventions in Latin American politics. Why then are you so eager to see continuing intervention from America when you are so well versed on the ills that they have caused in the past?

I hardly think that, for example, refusing to recognise the new government equates to an 'intervention'.

[Green Mikey]

Thats not my point at all. Its not that complicated. 1. Obama has come to office on a (vague) mandate for a new foreign policy dynamic 2. Latin America is full of left wing Govts with genuine democratic legitimacy 3. One of those Govts has just been toppled by a military-backed coup.[QUOTE]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;2083058]As i've already said, If he chooses to do nothing, he will be accused of a)double standards (at least in regard to previous US administrations interventions in other parts of the world) and b) representing a continuation of Bush-era policy.

How can he develop a new foreign policy dynamic when if he is seen to be breaking from the policy of previous administrations he is accused of double standards?

You have yet to give me a reason from the Latin American perspective supporting intervention from Obama. Accusations of double standards and being Bush-like are American concerns not a reason for intervention in the politics of another nation.

[hibsbollah]

x

[khib70]

:faf: Are you related to former Iraqi information spokesman Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf by any chance?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123434.stm
Do pay attention. The President's proposed action was ruled unconstitutional by the country's Supreme Court, and its elected Congress. He decided he was going to do it anyway. He was therefore removed. That is not a military coup by any definition, and certainly not just because you say so.

The guy was another hero of the revolution who got a wee bit pissed on power like Chavez, who he was clearly copycatting, and Ortega, who went for the rigged election option instead.

[hibsbollah]

That is not a military coup by any definition

Look it up in the dictionary, and then read how the rest of the world is defining events in Honduras. Im afraid you are making yourself look a bit silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8124154.stm
What exactly happened?
At dawn on the 28 June, 200 to 300 troops came to Mr Zelaya's home, and, in his own words, told him to surrender or they would shoot him.
He was driven to the airport and put on a flight to Costa Rica. Later on Sunday, the speaker of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, constitutionally second in line to the presidency, was sworn in as interim leader. He declared an overnight curfew for Sunday and Monday.

[khib70]

Look it up in the dictionary, and then read how the rest of the world is defining events in Honduras. Im afraid you are making yourself look a bit silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8124154.stm
What exactly happened?
At dawn on the 28 June, 200 to 300 troops came to Mr Zelaya's home, and, in his own words, told him to surrender or they would shoot him.
He was driven to the airport and put on a flight to Costa Rica. Later on Sunday, the speaker of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, constitutionally second in line to the presidency, was sworn in as interim leader. He declared an overnight curfew for Sunday and Monday.
Don't be patronising. I don't need a dictionary to know what a military coup is. You are taking your custonmary selective view of the facts.

Zelaya was declared by the Supreme Court and Congress to be acting against the Constitution. He refused to desist. He was replaced by the Speaker as per the Constitution. Those are the facts. If you want to call that a military coup, please yourself, but don't expect a dictionary to back you up.

Imagine what this forum would be like if George Bush had decided to mess about with the Constitution to extend his term, like Zelaya proposed to do, and Chavez has already done.

[hibsbollah]

Don't be patronising. I don't need a dictionary to know what a military coup is. You are taking your custonmary selective view of the facts.

Zelaya was declared by the Supreme Court and Congress to be acting against the Constitution. He refused to desist. He was replaced by the Speaker as per the Constitution. Those are the facts. If you want to call that a military coup, please yourself, but don't expect a dictionary to back you up.

Imagine what this forum would be like if George Bush had decided to mess about with the Constitution to extend his term, like Zelaya proposed to do, and Chavez has already done.

:faf: He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

[hibsbollah]

Obama says Honduras coup 'illegal'...
Be interesting to see developments over the next few days...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8125292.stm
Obama says Honduras coup illegal

US President Barack Obama has described the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya as illegal.
His remarks came after left-wing Latin American leaders declared their support for the deposed leader, who was expelled by the military on Sunday.

In Honduras, pro-Zelaya protestors have been demonstrating in the country's capital, Tegucigalpa.

Mr Zelaya's removal followed a power struggle over his plans for constitutional change.

The BBC's Stephen Gibbs in Tegucigalpa says all day hundreds of pro-Zelaya protesters have been taunting the thousands of soldiers deployed around the presidential residence, accusing them of taking part in a "criminal coup".

The ousted president, who was in office since 2006, had wanted to hold a referendum that could have led to an extension of his non-renewable four-year term in office.

Expulsion condemned
Polls for the vote were due to open early on Sunday, but instead troops stormed the presidential palace at dawn, detained Mr Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica.

The military, Congress and the Supreme Court in the Central American nation had all opposed Mr Zelaya's referendum.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Our correspondent says that even though the international community regards the exiled leader as the legitimate leader of the country, any comeback will not be easy.
Speaking after a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Mr Obama said Mr Zelaya remained the democratically-elected leader of Honduras.

And he said a "terrible precedent" would be set if the coup were not reversed.

Earlier on Monday, speaking in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez spelled out his opposition to the situation in Honduras.

"We cannot allow a return to the past. We will not permit it," Mr Chavez said.

He spoke after talks with Mr Zelaya, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.

'Voracious elite'
After turning up in Costa Rica on Sunday, Mr Zelaya called his ouster a plot "by a very voracious elite, an elite which wants only to keep this country [Honduras] isolated, in an extreme level of poverty".

In Tegucigalpa protestors defied a curfew order between Sunday night and Monday morning, imposed by Mr Micheletti.

As Speaker of Congress, Mr Micheletti had been the next in line to the presidency. His swearing-in was greeted with applause in Congress.
In a speech, he said that he had not assumed power under the "ignominy" of a coup d'etat.

The army had complied with the constitution, he said, and he had reached the presidency "as the result of an absolutely legal transition process".
Congress said he would serve until 27 January, when Mr Zelaya's term had been due to expire.

Presidential elections are planned for 29 November and Mr Micheletti promised these would go ahead.





.

[Green Mikey]

:faf: He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.

Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me :faf:

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

[givescotlandfreedom]

1) The embargo/isolation of Cuba was put into place nearly a year before the missile bases were built. And that's not to say that was the beginning of attempts to destabilise the country.

2) I'd be very surprised if the U.S. didn't have nukes trained on Havana.

What's your point?

:agree: Plus the shipping of missiles within range of the US was a response to the US doing the same thing in Turkey which could reach the USSR.

[Betty Boop]

:faf: He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.
Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me :faf:

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

Is it not two consecutive terms?

[Green Mikey]

Is it not two consecutive terms?

Sorry, should have said consecutive.

[hibsbollah]

:faf: He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.

Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me :faf:

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a military coup, as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a military coup, as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

Not even that, a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. The dastardly, undemocratic, power hungry, tyrannical ****bag!

[khib70]

:faf: He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.
Whatever happened to the Pot and Kettle smiley?

[khib70]

:faf: He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.

Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me :faf:

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?
Cheers:greengrin Couldn't have put it better myself

[Green Mikey]

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a militarycoup as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

Contradiction is something you clearly do:wink:

When have I commented on wether or not there was a military coup in Honduras? I pointed out that you had misinterpreted khib70's post and had ridiculed him as a result.

My earlier posts were asking why you believe this to be an issue for Obama.

[hibsbollah]

Contradiction is something you clearly do:wink:

When have I commented on wether or not there was a military coup in Honduras? I pointed out that you had misinterpreted khib70's post and had ridiculed him as a result.

My earlier posts were asking why you believe this to be an issue for Obama.

Which ive answered ad infinitum.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Don't be patronising. I don't need a dictionary to know what a military coup is. You are taking your custonmary selective view of the facts.

Zelaya was declared by the Supreme Court and Congress to be acting against the Constitution. He refused to desist. He was replaced by the Speaker as per the Constitution. Those are the facts. If you want to call that a military coup, please yourself, but don't expect a dictionary to back you up.

Imagine what this forum would be like if George Bush had decided to mess about with the Constitution to extend his term, like Zelaya proposed to do, and Chavez has already done.

My dictionary defines a coup as a 'sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a change in government carried out violently and illegally'

I'm struggling to see how that doesn't relate pretty much exactly to what has happened in Honduras.

Two/three questions. Do you believe that every nation's constitution (those that have them anyway) should be immune from ever being altered, and should it be legally enshrined within the constitution that to question it is illegal? Do you think term limits are an admirable thing, and why?

N.B. It's not just Zelaya who has been arrested, a whole section of the political left in Honduras. Trade unionists, peasant activists, indigenous people activists, human rights activists and other assorted supporters of Zelaya have been interned.

[Green Mikey]

Which ive answered ad infinitum.

You didn't answer my question on why Obama's intervention is advantageous from a Latin American perspective.

Doesn't matter though...I'm getting used to your contrradictions now:wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

You didn't answer my question on why Obama's intervention is advantageous from a Latin American perspective.

Doesn't matter though...I'm getting used to your contrradictions now:wink:

Probably because it should be a fairly obvious answer depending on what you mean by this term 'intervention'? Refusing to recognise the new government (if you count that as 'intervention') would put pressure on the military and the oligarchs to allow the return of Zelaya to power whereas recognising it would cement its (false) legitimacy.

Notably the Americans are refusing to officially label it a coup.

[Green Mikey]

Probably because it should be a fairly obvious answer depending on what you mean by this term 'intervention'? Refusing to recognise the new government (if you count that as 'intervention') would put pressure on the military and the oligarchs to allow the return of Zelaya to power whereas recognising it would cement its (false) legitimacy.

Notably the Americans are refusing to officially label it a coup.


Intervention...have a look in your dictionary:wink:

So for all the problems America has caused in Latin America when a coup takes place they are charged with some aspect of the resolution. Sounds like thery are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

[LiverpoolHibs]

Intervention...have a look in your dictionary:wink:

So for all the problems America has caused in Latin America when a coup takes place they are charged with some aspect of the resolution. Sounds like thery are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

No, not really - well not at all actually. It's no more than would be expected of any other prominent international neighbour of a country in crisis.

I fail to see how, for example, publically refusing to recognise the new government is, in your mind, apparently similar in any way to the umpteen cases of them overthrowing progressive Latin American governments.

[hibsbollah]

You didn't answer my question on why Obama's intervention is advantageous from a Latin American perspective.

Doesn't matter though...I'm getting used to your contrradictions now:wink:

I have decided you are definitely on the wind up:greengrin

[khib70]

My dictionary defines a coup as a 'sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a change in government carried out violently and illegally'

I'm struggling to see how that doesn't relate pretty much exactly to what has happened in Honduras.

Two/three questions. Do you believe that every nation's constitution (those that have them anyway) should be immune from ever being altered, and should it be legally enshrined within the constitution that to question it is illegal? Do you think term limits are an admirable thing, and why?

N.B. It's not just Zelaya who has been arrested, a whole section of the political left in Honduras. Trade unionists, peasant activists, indigenous people activists, human rights activists and other assorted supporters of Zelaya have been interned.
In answer to your questions:
I've already said that I don't think any constitution is immutable. However, changing it with the sole aim of extending your term of office is not a legitimate amendment.

It follows from the above that I don't think that questioning the constitution should be illegal. The constitution, like the government, should be accountable to the people.

Term limits are essential to allow democratic accountability. It's very easy for an elected leader to become a dictator simply by abolishing inconvenient checks on his power.

When I say I don't see this as a military coup, I mean that the elected Congress is still running the country, and the President has been replaced according to the law of the land, and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I also agree with the other poster who says that calling for US interference in another country when your guys are losing, and condemning it when they're winning, is a contradictory position based more on knee-jerk anti-Americanism than any kind of consistent political stance.

[LiverpoolHibs]

In answer to your questions:
I've already said that I don't think any constitution is immutable. However, changing it with the sole aim of extending your term of office is not a legitimate amendment.

Ok, as that wasn't his sole aim - in any way shape or form - you'll no doubt be changing your position on matters. :wink::greengrin

The term-limits debate is a handy smokescreen for opponents of Zelaya and is one of the 'protected clauses' of the constitution. Meaning they could get him on that if nothing else whereas the opposition actually comes from his desire to democratise the political system - one of the most inequitable and oligarchical in Latin America if not the world. As I've said before, and as this bit from an op-ed piece in the Nation states...


The US media have also falsely yet unanimously presented Zelaya's moves as a power grab, an effort to end term limits to allow him to run for re-election. But the referendum Zelaya was pushing--which prompted the coup--asked citizens only if there should be a vote on "whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political Constitution. (http://noticias.terra.com/articulos/act1690222/%20Zelaya_decide_iniciar_consulta_popular_para_ref ormar_Constitucion_de_Hon%20duras/)" In other words, Hondurans weren't being asked to vote on term limits or even on revising the Constitution. They were simply being asked to vote on whether or not to have a vote on revising the Constitution, with the terms of that revision being left to an elected assembly.

Zeyala is truly a modern day Caesar...


It follows from the above that I don't think that questioning the constitution should be illegal. The constitution, like the government, should be accountable to the people.

Agreed. This one wasn't though, quite explicitly.


Term limits are essential to allow democratic accountability. It's very easy for an elected leader to become a dictator simply by abolishing inconvenient checks on his power.

Britain has never had term limits. Did I miss the ease with which we've had P.M.s establishing themselves as dictators?


When I say I don't see this as a military coup, I mean that the elected Congress is still running the country, and the President has been replaced according to the law of the land, and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I think you're just about the only person in the world who doesn't recognise it as a coup d'etat.

The President hasn't been replaced 'according to the law of the land'. There's nothing in the constitution that validates the action taken by the military.

The parallels with the coup against Chavez in 2002 are stark (just as with Haiti). Right down to a fake letter of resignation supposedly from Zelaya.


I also agree with the other poster who says that calling for US interference in another country when your guys are losing, and condemning it when they're winning, is a contradictory position based more on knee-jerk anti-Americanism than any kind of consistent political stance.

And as I've said...

No, not really - well not at all actually. It's no more than would be expected of any other prominent international neighbour of a country in crisis.

I fail to see how, for example, publically refusing to recognise the new government is, in your mind, apparently similar in any way to the umpteen cases of them overthrowing progressive Latin American governments.

It's a ridiculous criticism.

[khib70]

Ok, as that wasn't his sole aim - in any way shape or form - you'll no doubt be changing your position on matters. :wink::greengrin

The term-limits debate is a handy smokescreen for opponents of Zelaya and is one of the 'protected clauses' of the constitution. Meaning they could get him on that if nothing else whereas the opposition actually comes from his desire to democratise the political system - one of the most inequitable and oligarchical in Latin America if not the world. As I've said before, and as this bit from an op-ed piece in the Nation states...



Zeyala is truly a modern day Caesar...



Agreed. This one wasn't though, quite explicitly.



Britain has never had term limits. Did I miss the ease with which we've had P.M.s establishing themselves as dictators?



I think you're just about the only person in the world who doesn't recognise it as a coup d'etat.

The President hasn't been replaced 'according to the law of the land'. There's nothing in the constitution that validates the action taken by the military.

The parallels with the coup against Chavez in 2002 are stark (just as with Haiti). Right down to a fake letter of resignation supposedly from Zelaya.



And as I've said...

No, not really - well not at all actually. It's no more than would be expected of any other prominent international neighbour of a country in crisis.

I fail to see how, for example, publically refusing to recognise the new government is, in your mind, apparently similar in any way to the umpteen cases of them overthrowing progressive Latin American governments.

It's a ridiculous criticism.
No it isn't. You've failed to produce any convincing argument to refute the assertion that you seek US intervention when the outcome suits your political agenda, but shout from the rooftops when it doesn't. This is "four legs good" politics at its worst. Still, it must be enjoyable - the Guardian has been doing it for half a century.

[hibsbollah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8127772.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8127772.stm)
I think i'm broadly happy with the statements from Obama and his administration so far. Substantially different from what we've had had from the previous administration...

[LiverpoolHibs]

No it isn't. You've failed to produce any convincing argument to refute the assertion that you seek US intervention when the outcome suits your political agenda, but shout from the rooftops when it doesn't. This is "four legs good" politics at its worst. Still, it must be enjoyable - the Guardian has been doing it for half a century.

You don't like the Guardian - we get it...

Why do both of you keep using this term 'intervention'? A prominent neighbour of a country in crisis making a diplomatic comment (you can contrast this with what I said about Iran where such a pronouncement was, pragmatically and historically, misjudged) is in no way comparable with the numerous cases of American military, economic or covert sabotage of governments that it does not like in its 'sphere of influence'. To continue to argue otherwise is even more risible than your assertion that a coup has not happened in Honduras.

It is nothing whatsoever to do with 'four legs good' politics.

N.B. - Good job on answering my other points.

[hibsbollah]

You don't like the Guardian - we get it...

Why do both of you keep using this term 'intervention'? A prominent neighbour of a country in crisis making a diplomatic comment (you can contrast this with what I said about Iran where such a pronouncement was, pragmatically and historically, misjudged) is in no way comparable with the numerous cases of American military, economic or covert sabotage of governments that it does not like in its 'sphere of influence'. To continue to argue otherwise is even more risible than your assertion that a coup has not happened in Honduras.

It is nothing whatsoever to do with 'four legs good' politics.

N.B. - Good job on answering my other points.

LH, do you agree that so far the Obama administration is making the 'right' noises? (to placate the Guardian-reading, jesus sandal-wearing, yoghurt munching pinko-liberal class of which I am clearly a cardcarrying member:greengrin) We had a discussion a few weeks back about what kind of break from the past he represents...

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH, do you agree that so far the Obama administration is making the 'right' noises? (to placate the Guardian-reading, jesus sandal-wearing, yoghurt munching pinko-liberal class of which I am clearly a cardcarrying member:greengrin) We had a discussion a few weeks back about what kind of break from the past he represents...

Yeah, I was just about to reply to the link you posted. I think he's handled this event rather well - credit where it's due. I'm duly placated and am off for a read of George Monbiot. :wink:

It will be interesting to see if any conditions are placed on his return - if indeed he is to return to power - (ie. with an agreement to institute neo-liberal policies, break with ALBA or something along those lines), as with Aristide when he was returned from exile by the US in '94.

[Green Mikey]

You don't like the Guardian - we get it...

Why do both of you keep using this term 'intervention'? A prominent neighbour of a country in crisis making a diplomatic comment (you can contrast this with what I said about Iran where such a pronouncement was, pragmatically and historically, misjudged) is in no way comparable with the numerous cases of American military, economic or covert sabotage of governments that it does not like in its 'sphere of influence'. To continue to argue otherwise is even more risible than your assertion that a coup has not happened in Honduras.

It is nothing whatsoever to do with 'four legs good' politics.

N.B. - Good job on answering my other points.



Your focus on the word intervention is pedantic and quite clearly a tactic to deflect the discussion away from the question being asked. However, making a comment is an action that influence the situation for good or bad, hence it is some variety of intervention or interference.

It is obvious that making a comment on a situation and overthrowing governments are different things and they are incomparable.
My point is why should America's 'sphere of influence' include Latin America and why should they be urged to comment. Surely America taking a backseat on some issues would be beneficial considering the gross errors of judgement thay have made in the past.

[RyeSloan]

Your focus on the word intervention is pedantic and quite clearly a tactic to deflect the discussion away from the question being asked. However, making a comment is an action that influence the situation for good or bad, hence it is some variety of intervention or interference.

It is obvious that making a comment on a situation and overthrowing governments are different things and they are incomparable.
My point is why should America's 'sphere of influence' include Latin America and why should they be urged to comment. Surely America taking a backseat on some issues would be beneficial considering the gross errors of judgement thay have made in the past.

True, sometime America might gain from just being quiet for once but the thing is though that like it or not America's sphere of influence happens to be the whole globe. Being the worlds only superpower, biggest ecomomy, biggest consumer, creator of the worlds global currency and most modern and expensive military tends to ensure that no matter what or where America will have to 'interevene' to some degree. Frequently it is the ONLY power that can effect some situations and the world needs and asks for such authority. Therefore in my mind Obama commenting on Honduras or Iran is entirely to be expected (I don't think they could be silnet on these things even if they wanted to!) and really it's not whether they do comment or intervene it is how or what they do that matters.

Still the level of intervention and the intentions behind it are often subject to wide debate but I think it is clear already that Obama's administration has made significant departures from the previous one and it can only be hoped that America over the next 8 years can and will heal some of the damage it's previous more misguided interventions have caused!

[Green Mikey]

True, sometime America might gain from just being quiet for once but the thing is though that like it or not America's sphere of influence happens to be the whole globe. Being the worlds only superpower, biggest ecomomy, biggest consumer, creator of the worlds global currency and most modern and expensive military tends to ensure that no matter what or where America will have to 'interevene' to some degree. Frequently it is the ONLY power that can effect some situations and the world needs and asks for such authority. Therefore in my mind Obama commenting on Honduras or Iran is entirely to be expected (I don't think they could be silnet on these things even if they wanted to!) and really it's not whether they do comment or intervene it is how or what they do that matters.

Still the level of intervention and the intentions behind it are often subject to wide debate but I think it is clear already that Obama's administration has made significant departures from the previous one and it can only be hoped that America over the next 8 years can and will heal some of the damage it's previous more misguided interventions have caused!

:agree:

It is inevitable that America will be drawn into most political issues for the reasons that you have outlined. Obama could be a force for good around the world and IMO has already made great departures form the foreign policy of the previous administration.

What I was looking for was confirmation from people is why they saw the Honduran crisis as an issue for Obama when they have been so fervent in their criticism of America in the past.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Your focus on the word intervention is pedantic and quite clearly a tactic to deflect the discussion away from the question being asked. However, making a comment is an action that influence the situation for good or bad, hence it is some variety of intervention or interference.

It is obvious that making a comment on a situation and overthrowing governments are different things and they are incomparable.
My point is why should America's 'sphere of influence' include Latin America and why should they be urged to comment. Surely America taking a backseat on some issues would be beneficial considering the gross errors of judgement thay have made in the past.

I'm focussing on the word intervention because it keeps being used! And used for two entirely different issues, I'm attempting to deflect nothing whatsoever.

Why would it be benificial for them to say nothing if they're getting it right for once?

[hibsbollah]

It could all be coming to a head today, he's on a plane now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8135358.stm

[LiverpoolHibs]

It could all be coming to a head today, he's on a plane now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8135358.stm

Not allowed to land...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8135358.stm

Clashes at the airport between police and Zelaya supporters leave two dead. Pictures...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8135485.stm

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH, do you agree that so far the Obama administration is making the 'right' noises? (to placate the Guardian-reading, jesus sandal-wearing, yoghurt munching pinko-liberal class of which I am clearly a cardcarrying member:greengrin) We had a discussion a few weeks back about what kind of break from the past he represents...


Yeah, I was just about to reply to the link you posted. I think he's handled this event rather well - credit where it's due. I'm duly placated and am off for a read of George Monbiot. :wink:

It will be interesting to see if any conditions are placed on his return - if indeed he is to return to power - (ie. with an agreement to institute neo-liberal policies, break with ALBA or something along those lines), as with Aristide when he was returned from exile by the US in '94.

I think I was a bit quick to congratulate there.

Things are getting a bit heated over there between Venezuela and Colombia. See this rather laughable Beeb report...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8349745.stm

It seems like Obama isn't really as willing to let Central and South America break away as it initially appeared.

A recent IMF loan to stabilise the Honduran junta, deals signed to turn over Colombian military bases into American hands, logistical support for right-wing paramilitary incursions into Venezuela...

[hibsbollah]

I was reading something similar the other day. Zelaya is hiding in the Brazilian embassy and Obama's reps are making noises supporting the coup leaders. Doesn''t look good.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a military coup, as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

Didn't have to look far.

Post 26 (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2237040#post2237040)

[hibsbollah]

Didn't have to look far.

Post 26 (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2237040#post2237040)

I make an exception for really special cases:greengrin

[Flynn]

When did the US try to invade Cuba? Don't try to claim the Bay of Pigs was it. That was native Cubans returning to their own country. We had every right to isolate Cuba. They had nuclear missiles that were ready to be launched at any number of American cities.

Cubans funded and trained by the CIA so indirectly, or not, the USA invaded Cuba. Black Ops. Also, the US had nukes in Turkey pointed at Russia for 1st strike capability. The way I see it, the Russians were just redressing the balance. It's called a Nuclear deterrent, I highly doubt the Russians would have nuked any US cities as it would have guaranteed both countries (and perhaps the worlds) total annihilation.

The US have made umpteen attempts to kill Castro over the years as well as interfere in many South American democracies for solely selfish economic reasons. Coups, assassinations and rigging elections. They are truly the bully of the world.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmaes5-Mg8g

:blah: :idiot: