Another test for Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

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...

Quote:

---

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." 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

Didn't have to look far.

Post 26

---

I make an exception for really special cases:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYHibby

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.

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

:blah: :idiot: