HONDURAS DEFENDS IT'S DEMOCRACY
-
@calfoxwc said:
Obama, Chavez, Hillary and Fidel OBJECT.Everyone is condemning the coup:
Mr. Zelaya himself pushed this tension with institutions to its limits in his clash with Honduras’s judiciary last week over his call for a referendum intended to clear the way for term limits to be eased. On Sunday, the Supreme Court of Honduras said that the military had acted in accordance with the Constitution to remove Mr. Zelaya.
But such legalistic arguments failed to dissuade governments from condemning the coup, particularly in countries like Chile, Argentina and Brazil, where bitter memories linger over human rights abuses by military officials that toppled civilian rulers in the 1960s and 1970s.
“The notion of military involvement in such an ouster is an anathema in much of the region,” said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy group in Washington that focuses on Latin America.
Condemnations of the coup quickly united governments as ideologically disparate as Havana’s Communist rulers and conservative Colombia, a close ally of the United States. “It is a legal obligation to defend democracy in Honduras,” said Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, a former foreign minister of Colombia.
And it's clear that the US tried to stop it:
As the crisis escalated, American officials began in the last few days to talk with Honduran government and military officials in an effort to head off a possible coup. A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, said the military broke off those discussions on Sunday.
So why should we legitimize a coup that we didn't want to happen and everyone else is now condemning? That'd be counterproductive at best.
-
Al: your own post:
"Mr. Zelaya himself pushed this tension with institutions to its limits in his clash with Honduras’s judiciary last week over his call for a referendum intended to clear the way for term limits to be eased. On Sunday, the Supreme Court of Honduras said that the military had acted in accordance with the Constitution to remove Mr. Zelaya."
It's the same thing that Chavez did. And, the same thing Obama, Pelosi, and the like, will consider some year.
It is NOT gov of Hondura's by popular international vote, Al..
The UN doesn't run the Honduras government.
The Honduras Supreme Court, I'm certain, knows MORE about what is going on behind the scenes than
the international community knows.
So, if Obama and the leftist Dems in Congress went to disarm all Americans, shut down free speech, dissolved our electoral
process, Al, and our Supreme Court ruled those moves unConstitutional...but couldn't stop them...
would you still be rationalizating that it's okay
because the international community sides with Obama and Co.? Really ?
But I see that Obama, Pelosi and co. will be wanting to have the international community come to their aid, too,
when they want to dissolve our rights to bear arms, free speech, and no doubt from me, term limits....
Well, if that day ever comes, I hope OUR MILITARY protects US, TOO>
(once again, Obama SAID HE WANTED A CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE, FUNDED AND EQUIPPED JUST LIKE OUR MILITARY.)
Birds of a leftist dictatorship flock together.
-
I guess if Chavez and Castro like cheeseburgers, Obama and I should hate them? It isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be (as always). Do you really think Chavez and Obama have the same reasons for supporting the ousted leader, or did Rush tell you how to feel/you just want to be against our Government and President at every turn?
How is Obama supposed to be in favor of a coup of a Democratically-elected leader of a country, anyway?
-
We aren't talking cheeseburgers or Parchesi.
We are talking moves, by leftist leaders, to gain
control for longer periods of time than they are allowed.
This IS what dictators do - they get power and position,
and they will NOT give it up.
We have already had one of the most corrupt presidential elections,
by any stretch, in our country the last election, thanks to ACORN, Obama's
vague posturings to get elected, the media swaying the election by being in the tank
for Obama....
But to diss our Constitution (Obama has), work to undermine our right to bear arms one subtle way or another,
and work to undermine our freedom of speech (Obama and Pelosi have), yeah. a lot of people see a trend.
-
I guess if Chavez and Castro like cheeseburgers, Obama and I should hate them? It isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be (as always). Do you really think Chavez and Obama have the same reasons for supporting the ousted leader, or did Rush tell you how to feel/you just want to be against our Government and President at every turn?
How is Obama supposed to be in favor of a coup of a Democratically-elected leader of a country, anyway?
mz. said:
I guess if Chavez and Castro like cheeseburgers, Obama and I should hate them? It isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be (as always). Do you really think Chavez and Obama have the same reasons for supporting the ousted leader, or did Rush tell you how to feel/you just want to be against our Government and President at every turn?How is Obama supposed to be in favor of a coup of a Democratically-elected leader of a country, anyway?
Their Constitution doesn't not allow their President to serve an unlimited number of terms. Their President tried to end term limits for himslef and both their Legislature and Surpreme Court said hell no. He defied both bodies and the military was ordered to peacefully remove him from office. After he was removed, the Constitution was properly followed and Congress elected a new, temperary leader. This was not a coup or an over-throw attempt, it was an attempt to uphold their Constitution and uphold their government. What is wrong with that? Why is anyone upset Honduras's Democracy succeeded perfectly by peacefully removing a dictator hopeful and quickly restoring its power?
-
From what I understand the former President of Honduras did not have the Constitutional Right to run for another term as President. Just like the Presidential term limits that we have via the 22nd Amendment. Zeleya decided that he wanted to serve beyond his term limit and issued what would be akin to our Executive Order to give him the right to run. BOTH the Honduras' Congress and Supreme Court ruled that his actions were unconstitutional but he attempted via Military Rule to carry out his Executive Order. How does any of the above fall under the guise of a democracy? It would seem to me at the very least President Obama should have taken the same tack as he did with Iran and let the Honduras people and rule of law sort it out instead of taking any sides at all.
If I have misunderstood the general situation please let me know.
-
mz. said:
I guess if Chavez and Castro like cheeseburgers, Obama and I should hate them? It isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be (as always). Do you really think Chavez and Obama have the same reasons for supporting the ousted leader, or did Rush tell you how to feel/you just want to be against our Government and President at every turn?How is Obama supposed to be in favor of a coup of a Democratically-elected leader of a country, anyway?
Their Constitution doesn't not allow their President to serve an unlimited number of terms. Their President tried to end term limits for himslef and both their Legislature and Surpreme Court said hell no. He defied both bodies and the military was ordered to peacefully remove him from office. After he was removed, the Constitution was properly followed and Congress elected a new, temperary leader. This was not a coup or an over-throw attempt, it was an attempt to uphold their Constitution and uphold their government. What is wrong with that? Why is anyone upset Honduras's Democracy succeeded perfectly by peacefully removing a dictator hopeful and quickly restoring its power?
Sivlerback DPOY said:
Their Constitution doesn't not allow their President to serve an unlimited number of terms. Their President tried to end term limits for himslef and both their Legislature and Surpreme Court said hell no. He defied both bodies and the military was ordered to peacefully remove him from office. After he was removed, the Constitution was properly followed and Congress elected a new, temperary leader. This was not a coup or an over-throw attempt, it was an attempt to uphold their Constitution and uphold their government. What is wrong with that?Ask Obammy. He was the one working behind the scene in an attempt to pre-empt the 'coup'. In other words, to maintain the presence of a dictator over a democratically elected official.
Meet the new boss.
-
We aren't talking cheeseburgers or Parchesi.
We are talking moves, by leftist leaders, to gain
control for longer periods of time than they are allowed.
This IS what dictators do - they get power and position,
and they will NOT give it up.
We have already had one of the most corrupt presidential elections,
by any stretch, in our country the last election, thanks to ACORN, Obama's
vague posturings to get elected, the media swaying the election by being in the tank
for Obama....
But to diss our Constitution (Obama has), work to undermine our right to bear arms one subtle way or another,
and work to undermine our freedom of speech (Obama and Pelosi have), yeah. a lot of people see a trend.
I have to admit, cal, you were making a modicum of sense until...
We have already had one of the most corrupt presidential elections,
by any stretch, in our country the last election, thanks to ACORN, Obama's
vague posturings to get elected, the media swaying the election by being in the tank
for Obama....
-
I have to admit, cal, you were making a modicum of sense until...
We have already had one of the most corrupt presidential elections,
by any stretch, in our country the last election, thanks to ACORN, Obama's
vague posturings to get elected, the media swaying the election by being in the tank
for Obama....
mz. said:
I have to admit, cal, you were making a modicum of sense until...Guys is there any chance that we can keep this on Zeleya's attempt to 'man handle' the Honduras Constitution. And mz the pussy you still haven't answered how what Zeleya did is inline with democratic principles?
-
President Zelaya sought to amend the constitution via a national referendum. When the army chief refused to help ready the country for the referendum, Zelaya fired him. In response, the army kidnapped Zelaya and shipped him to Costa Rica.
What some of you guys may be missing here is that the formal checks and balances established in our constitution are mirrored by de facto, far more negotiable ones in other countries. While Zelaya represents the democratic majority of lower income Hondurans, the military and the courts represent the established elite and moneyed interests. The sides seemed to hold each other in check until both sides overreached, with the result being a situation that the international community will have to step in and repair through some type of power-sharing agreement.
As for the "he's another Chavez" argument: we only care about Chavez because Venezuela's got oil, which gives him enough money to wreak havoc across the hemisphere. Also, Chavez has consolidated power to a point that Zelaya could only dream of: just look at how Chavez controls his military, whereas Zelaya gets kidnapped by his.
So there doesn't seem to be much reason to argue that Zelaya is some powerful, nefarious figure who threatens our interests. It's pretty much the opposite: supporting a military coup would only further tarnish our reputation in the region, and it could radicalize Zelaya, which is what happened when we kinda supported the failed coup against Chavez.
-
President Zelaya sought to amend the constitution via a national referendum. When the army chief refused to help ready the country for the referendum, Zelaya fired him. In response, the army kidnapped Zelaya and shipped him to Costa Rica.
What some of you guys may be missing here is that the formal checks and balances established in our constitution are mirrored by de facto, far more negotiable ones in other countries. While Zelaya represents the democratic majority of lower income Hondurans, the military and the courts represent the established elite and moneyed interests. The sides seemed to hold each other in check until both sides overreached, with the result being a situation that the international community will have to step in and repair through some type of power-sharing agreement.
As for the "he's another Chavez" argument: we only care about Chavez because Venezuela's got oil, which gives him enough money to wreak havoc across the hemisphere. Also, Chavez has consolidated power to a point that Zelaya could only dream of: just look at how Chavez controls his military, whereas Zelaya gets kidnapped by his.
So there doesn't seem to be much reason to argue that Zelaya is some powerful, nefarious figure who threatens our interests. It's pretty much the opposite: supporting a military coup would only further tarnish our reputation in the region, and it could radicalize Zelaya, which is what happened when we kinda supported the failed coup against Chavez.
Aloysius said:
President Zelaya sought to amend the constitution via a national referendum. When the army chief refused to help ready the country for the referendum, Zelaya fired him. In response, the army kidnapped Zelaya and shipped him to Costa Rica.What some of you guys may be missing here is that the formal checks and balances established in our constitution are mirrored by de facto, far more negotiable ones in other countries. While Zelaya represents the democratic majority of lower income Hondurans, the military and the courts represent the established elite and moneyed interests. The sides seemed to hold each other in check until both sides overreached, with the result being a situation that the international community will have to step in and repair through some type of power-sharing agreement.
As for the "he's another Chavez" argument: we only care about Chavez because Venezuela's got oil, which gives him enough money to wreak havoc across the hemisphere. Also, Chavez has consolidated power to a point that Zelaya could only dream of: just look at how Chavez controls his military, whereas Zelaya gets kidnapped by his.
So there doesn't seem to be much reason to argue that Zelaya is some powerful, nefarious figure who threatens our interests. It's pretty much the opposite: supporting a military coup would only further tarnish our reputation in the region, and it could radicalize Zelaya, which is what happened when we kinda supported the failed coup against Chavez.
What media source did you derive this information from?
You are correct in saying Zelaya is currently not a threat to the US. That's becuase unlike Iraq, Venezuela, and Cuba, Hunduras was able to stand up for their Constitution and keep a peaceful democracy.
The militray, courts and legislature were simply following their Constitution.....
-
Here's a fairly even-handed account of what happened.
-
Here's a fairly even-handed account of what happened.
Aloysius said:
Here's a fairly even-handed account of what happened.Thanks for the article. Good read.
-
Actually, John is right - Al's article is a solid read.
Zelaya was manuevering toward solidifying his power to control and KEEP
his power to control. What Chavez did in Argentina is exactly what Zelaya
was looking to accomplish.
Any law that gets in your way, diminish it. Term limits have to be circumvented,
and politicizing the military is next ...
The Honduras military did the right thing. It's just very, very troubling that Obama
is upset about it.
-
mz. said:
I have to admit, cal, you were making a modicum of sense until...Guys is there any chance that we can keep this on Zeleya's attempt to 'man handle' the Honduras Constitution. And mz the pussy you still haven't answered how what Zeleya did is inline with democratic principles?
mz the pussy you still haven't answered how what Zeleya did is inline with democratic principles?
I left that part for someone more learned on the subject.
-
mz the pussy you still haven't answered how what Zeleya did is inline with democratic principles?
I left that part for someone more learned on the subject.
mz. said:
I left that part for someone more learned on the subject.So you just threw the first comment out there for shts and giggles? Is that like our Congressman voting for a bill they couldn't have possibly read?
-
Actually, John is right - Al's article is a solid read.
Zelaya was manuevering toward solidifying his power to control and KEEP
his power to control. What Chavez did in Argentina is exactly what Zelaya
was looking to accomplish.
Any law that gets in your way, diminish it. Term limits have to be circumvented,
and politicizing the military is next ...
The Honduras military did the right thing. It's just very, very troubling that Obama
is upset about it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login