Should Gates and Clinton be forced out over Honduras coup?

[rbonilla18]

A este comemierda ojala que lo maten.

[SleepWhenIamDead]

...this girl is so annoying...she must have drank a gallon of coffee before the interview....

[bigstU25]

Liberal=misinformed... Ze-liar was not president when they kicked his punk ass out of Honduras. He was a convict cause he skipped trial when the courts called him in to try him. Ze-liar is a punk.

So these 2 birds for brains reporting on this video need to shut the fuck up and find a new job..

In the words of The Notorious B.I.G., "Dont be mad, UPS is hiring"!!

Oh! wAIT A MIN!! No their not, cause Obama is not giving tax breaks to the rich... Damn you 2 fucks are out of luck! (Spit)

[lordhighexecutioner]

During the first years of this Honduran constitution, the civilian president was eclipsed by the head of the military, widely seen as the real ruler. That Moonie Alvarez, for one. The constitution makes it nearly impossible for the civilian president to sack the military leader.

No elections under the coup regime would be in any way legitimate.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

Clinton is just a slab of fatty pork. Pure fat for brains. I cannot explain how corrupt and stupid this "woman" is.

[bigstU25]

Wayne Madsen, You are a SHITTY commentator along w/ your Liberal dumb asses.

Your talking about Zelaya should be restored? What are you a Crack Head? I can bet 1 or 2 things..

You believe in Communism and a 1 world Gov't or your just so fucking stupid that you had to suck a dick just to get your job!

I cant believe this chump said Zelaya should be restored! I CHALLENGE you to read the Honduran Constitution and look at the charges brought on Zelaya, you will see he should NOT be Pres!

[bigstU25]

And that BITCH thats interviewing Wayne is STUPID for not doing her research on this issue!

HONDURAN GOVERNMENT DID NOT PERFORM A COUP ON ZE-LIAR!

READ THEIR CONSTITUTION WHY DONT YOU? LOOK AT THE CHARGES BROUGHT ON ZE-LIAR, REALIZE THAT ZE-LIAR SKIPPED TRIAL! Wouldnt that make him a fugitive? OF COURSE IT WOULD!

I swear to everything holy, LIBERALS SUCK!

GOD WILL rain his WRATH on you for your support in taking the freedom of anybody in this world! WATCH!

LOLOLOLOL!

[wanabyastick]

CIA takes Zelaya down then Obama acts like he opposes the new gov and wants him returned only later to say he will recognize the new gov wasn't that the plan all along?

[chekist1917]

The CIA had jack dick to do with this. Zelaya tried to pull a Chavez and his own court system and Congress gave him the boot. The mistake they made was ejecting him. they should arrested the bastard and put him on trial.

[wanabyastick]

I am not fond of Zelaya but the CIA definatley had there hands in it and have admitted some envolvement so you need to look a little deeper.

[chekist1917]

What exactly did they do then?

[Nitrorus]

"Переворот в Гондурасе: о чем не пишут российские СМИ."

newsland. ru/News/Detail/id/390325/cat/1­0

[wanabyastick]

I'll try to see if I can find the news report that i saw it was right before Zelaya was ousted and it talked about the US in South America and the cia support in the removal of

Zelaya

[dopeskies]

Fuck Micheletti as well he was looking for another Re-Election not permanent position and to make it worse the military killed the only candidate for the left in Honduras same day zelaya was forced out.

[Djelomou]

Common like they are not all together in this. The US don't Zelaya to come back because he doesn't play the game of the corporations.

[Nitrorus]

>Common like they are not all together in this. The US don't Zelaya to come back because he doesn't play the game of the corporations.

2 aspects:

1. Hohduras has US airfoce base Soto Kano on its territory. Officers school for H. army is placed here - on the base territory. It means officers of H. army have their education on the US territory. + annual maneuvers and trainings of H. army here.

2. Honduras was one of the countries, which provides new regional currency - sucre.

[sniper6081]

There was no coup. They were following their constitution, unlike some other governments.

[dogcrapgreen]

The coup was Obama over throwing a Democratic Constitution in suport for Dictatorship.

HE IS JUST WARMING UP.

[murk2002]

Fuck Zeleya, who cares about him. He wanted to illegally change the Honduran constitution and be dictator for life, just like his buddy Chavez in Venezuela. Let him sit and stew in the Brazillian embassy.

[julian7650]

Dina is a traitor, engaged in continuous defamation of the US. The current Honduran regime was ordered by their Supreme Court to depose the president who was planning illegally to be r-elected.

[mrshutter77]

Getting rid of Robert gates and Hillary Clinton, that will not happen because let's not forget, this is not an Obama administration, he is just a PR face, this is Billy boy and dyke Hillary III--this is theri third term, so he knwo if he gets rid of the clintons andhis peple they will come back with the trinity church and his ex-pastor and paint him as an Americn hater and even pander to the racism of the US people by saying he really isn't even an american. SO OBAMA IS FUCKED!!!

[flyyspit]

Theres a short documentary on here called

School of ASSASSINS aka: School of The Americas

[flyyspit]

Gen. Romeo Vasquez the leader in the coup is a graduate of the School of the Americas at Ft Bening and if you know anything about the SOA then you will know that some ' lovely ' Dictators and some of the worst human rights violators came from there...

And people talk about LMFAO 'subverting' the constitution ???...If you know what a referendum IS then you will realize how stupid that is to say...

A vote by the PEOPLE not a government body but who are they to have a choice...right ??

[charlessmyth]

There was no coup in Honduras, and the interim government is de-jure, not de-facto, as is mischievously propagated. And there is no significant unrest in Honduras beyond that which is fomented by foreign agents provocateurs.

[eros1057]

@charlessmyth Where do you get your information!? Are you crazy man, there has been huge amounts of unrest and nearly every day since the coup there has been mass protests by the people of Honduras, not foreign entities. That's why the coup government suspended civil rights for a while but was forced out of that position by international protest, if you do recall. The removal of Zelaya was not by the demands of the people, only by business interests.

[charlessmyth]

Zelaya was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the judgment was expedited by the military. It can be argued that business interests were an underlying motivation, but only to the extent that Honduras must promote business and investment to avoid becoming another beggar state, and the business interests in Honduras have the well being of Honduras at heart, or they would simply relocate to someplace else and take their money with them.

[eros1057]

@charlessmyth I thoroughly disagree. Most big business in Honduras is foreign, the reason they are there is for the cheap (below subsistence) labor. Honduras would do quite well to rid itself of economic dictatorship by the US and EU and ally itself with ALBA. The US already murdered masses of people in the 80's to try and stem the "pink tide" which is washing over the whole of the Latin America, but the spirit of economic equality lives. Latin America is giving birth to a new economic model.

[charlessmyth]

There is no below subsistence labour in Honduras, since there would be no incentive for labour to work for less than it could earn by staying at home. That said, when other costs are factored in, the amount of money remaining from a week's work, may well be very little greater, or possibly less, than if labour had stayed at home. This is not uncommon, even in the west under minimum wage legislation. And Honduras does not have a monopoly on cheap labour for foreign firms to employ.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Perhaps THE main problem with the Latin American business elites is that, unlike in some more prosperous countries, they have never cared a fig for the wellbeing of their countries, have been a law unto themselves, more loyal to Spain Britain or the US than to the locals.

[bandaidmafia]

Our glorious leaders are against people overthrowing a tyrannical government. I wonder why...

[droogie76]

This guy is a tool. Is it just me or is there some trend for peopel to be siding with leftist dictators now.

[Armando7654]

those 'dictators' are not subject to the global monster government, that's why the US is trying to arrogantly overthrow them!

[Isawanangel1X]

what the hell is this i read something about a blackout do they have oil down there, cause yesterday i saw a peak oil vid about an increase coming:o(

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I don't think they have oil. One thing Zelaya did that displeased those who carried out the coup was to switch to buying oil from Venezuela at 'friendly' cheaper rates, instead of from the US, I believe.

[droogie76]

Ok? In the same regard is America suppose to back every South American wanna be dictator on the rise? I actually saw an article on prisonplanet praising Chavez. Insane!!!

[welcomegohome]

who cares. zelaya sucked, the people stood up for what they believed and overthrew a terrible leader. the US was built up on this concept and now wtf happened?

[eros1057]

@welcomegohome Um... That's actually not what happened at all. If you've been paying attention you'd notice that the popular movement has been AGAINST the coup, not in support of it. The masses support Zelaya, business supports the coup. It's not hard to see where US interest lies.

[welcomegohome]

i actually know three, count em THREE hondurans who i see on a regular basis, i talked to em about the coup right when it happened, and they and their families hated zelaya, the crook, they were actually pleased with the coup.

[eros1057]

@welcomegohome well, I actually know that hundreds of thousands of protesters, count em, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS didn't hate Zelaya and did NOT want to see him go. The business class doesn't want Zelaya. The fact of the matter is Zelaya raised the minimum wage by 60%, allowing the starving masses of impoverished Hondureños to maybe have a chance of a better, healthier life. This upsets corporations like Chiquita banana and Nike. Gee, I wonder why the US supports the coup?

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

These things happen. There is a video online of a presentation at the International Republican Institute a few months before the coup, where the speaker describes Honduras as a good place for a coup, because polls showed that support for democracy in that country was weak. The thing is: I don't like any number of elected leaders, I would never support a coup againt them because that would undermine democracy for everyone, not just them.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

(Video, if interested, is entitled: "IRI Podcast 051: Good Governance in Honduras". The homepage is currently proudly displaying an IRI "freedom" award to that good friend of Pinochet, Suharto, Videla and others of their ilk, Henry K.)

[EP4LFC]

@NicosNicosNicosNicos get your facts straight, there were articles describing Zelaya disobeying Supreme Court (Honduras') orders before he was removed. Same thing that Ortega (another Chavez ally) is trying in Nicaragua right now. It's so sad the US is so blind right now to the real deal. But we will not be Chavez & Zelaya's plaything. We want real democracy, not term limit free gov't. Thats why you'll see us free and Nicaragua turning into a dictatorship in the next few years.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I don't know if you're trying to prove the IRI right, but there was controversy before just about every coup in Latin America. Funny someone who wants democracy would object to being able to vote on a new constitution, preferring instead the one imposed in 1982 by a genuine dictatorship, and would approve of a coup to defend his right not to be able to vote on a constitution!!!

Luckily most of the continent sees through the coup's posturing.

[EP4LFC]

@NicosNicosNicosNicos you see we would have been able to vote whether a new constitution would be written NOT WHAT WOULD BE IN IT. In terms of the actual changes, we would have no say. From there we would see Zelaya claim support of the people in trying to throw away term limits in the new constitution. Its a slippery slope, in other words, from La Cuarta Urna to a term-limitless gov't w/ a president/dictator keen on staying there until his "21st Century Socialism" dream comes true.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

"what would be in it" is what a constituyente is for (more specifically the question in the ballot 4th paper, you may recognise:'do you want a constituyente to write a new constitution?' A profoundly democratic process.)

I read your "slippery slope" idea, but the chain appears to be missing crucial links: 1)Why do you presume Z would have tried 1) to remove term limits 2) w/out consulting the constituyente?

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

and if you're concerned with the people not being able to decide what's in the national constitution, YOU MUST BE FURIOUS that Honduras has a constitution written by a dictatorship, that did not consult the people AT ALL, and had no elected constituyente to do it.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I'll tell you one thing: Micheletti's accusations should be made with him looking in the mirror:

A coup is presented as democratic. The elected removed leader is accused of "wishing" to make a coup!!

The undemocratic constitution is presented as democracy which must be defended (by golpistas who then suspend this constitution!!!!!!!). A popularly mandated one is presented as authoritarian.

This is no accident. It is like cold war rhetoric:says more about those who invent it.

[bigstU25]

Uhh, i got a question for you... If Honduras's constitution is UNdemocratic the how the FUCK did they get accepted into the OAS/UN?

Make some sense out of that for me, why dont you....

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Is Burma not in the UN?China's on the

Security Council.Of course it's subtler than that:As with Pinochet's Chile,a blatant dictatorship gave way to a form of democracy but one written on the dictators' terms. Democracy is an ideal that no country practices 100%but that is always worth striving for,I feel.A popularly mandated constitution has more chance of being representative of the majority than one written by an elite w/out consultation.The birth of the 1982 constitution is public knowledge.

[latinchico22]

gees i school u in every fucking time now u want to talk here i'll make your life a living hell til u fucking give up THIS CONSTITUTION WAS MADE DURING THE CIVIL WARS IN LATIN AMERICA!!! !GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING BRAIN , I ALREADY TOLD U THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT WANT THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED PLEASE WHY DON'T U FUCKING SHOW ME TELL ME WHERE ZELAYA HAS SAID HE WAS GOING TO EXTEND HIS TERM BESIDES GETTING IT FROM FOX NEWS AND OTHER RIGHT WINGERS FROM HONDURAS

[EP4LFC]

Whoever wrote the constitution is irrelevant, the contents is what is important. Nevertheless, the real problem in Honduras is NOT the constitution its the freakin politicians and presidents who dont care about the poor. Zelaya is the same, and I'm pretty sure Micheletti is no different. Why the hell did Zelaya spend millions of lempiras on advertising this cuarta urna when he could have spent that money to help the people????

[EP4LFC]

Furthermore, Why did he put so much effort in writing a new constitution when there were a plethora of other problems such as, uh, lets see...POVERTY. This follows the same pattern as all those communists who say they are down with the people but all are interested in their own personal power. Like Chavez who sponsers the FARC, and buys weapons from Russia. Why is it so hard to find a leader who is for the poor and doesnt just use that to advance their own personal goals.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Ok: 1) The 2 are linked: The constitution is written specifically to maintain the status quo which is one of monstruous inequality, for the benefit of the rich. Anyone wanting equality and democracy in Honduras would need to address this at some point. The authors are relevant: they made sure to write it on their own terms to keep screwing the poor, which is why the latter had no say.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

2) Zelaya raised the minimum wage by 60%, which is an EXCEPTIONAL policy in favour of the poor (however much I would agree with you that much more is needed) sought links with ALBA countries whose policies favour development for the poor over the FTAA (ALCA) tendencies which benefit US corporations, among others. In other words, he did do several things for the poor majority INCLUDING seeking to ask their participation in a constitution that might represent their interests.

[bigstU25]

So what? MOST of Honduras doesnt want him in office cause he was trying to become Dictator, taking away Democracy for Honduras and he broke the laws plenty of times.

SO Who cares what Ze-liar did. The people in his party(Micheletti) and most of congress voted in rasing the wages..

Ze-liar is a criminal. Good riddance!

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I was answering a question by EP4LFC,so evidently some people do care even if you don't.

Latinchico22 has begged you to substantiate your Zelaya"dictator"claims with minimal evidence.Might be a good excercise to clarify where you got that idea.Lastly:trying an individual with due process is one thing.A coup d'etat is completely different.You may not like Zelaya,but coups as means of changing governments are horrible news for all Latin America.Can you clarify:do you dis/approve of Pinochet?

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

"Why is it so hard to find a leader who is for the poor and doesnt just use that to advance their own personal goals."That sounds like a sincere question.I suppose popular movements need to be very vigilant of their leaders.I must say that uniquely, there ARE leaders trying to improve things for the poor.Evo definitely is,so are Lula, Lugo,even Chavez has done a pile of things for the majority.His weakness is this presidential'personality cult'.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I would add Allende to the list showing such people exist. To me, one like those you decry is Peron. (Although he definitely benefitted the working class, despite being a genuine pro-nazi.)

[bigstU25]

Dont worry urself with me and latinchica22 convo. That guy is a functioning vegetable. I repeated to him over 10x already, he just doesnt want 2 look up what i told him. Hes arguing instead of debating, so lets close that book.

And to answer you, to have a Coup d'etat means the military General takes over the Gov't like how Chavez did his country. As you can see, NO General took over Honduras. Micheletti was the head of congress he was put there by congress and courts, so there was no coup.

[bigstU25]

And CHavez? If he did so much for the poor why cant anybody get rich in his country other than the Gov't? Lets be real here..

[latinchico22]

like i said i have given u % of how many people want the constitution in honduras changed i have given u % of how many people support zelaya which is more then your so called 10% i gave u the very low % of people that actually approved of what roberto has done and the exile of zelaya , and i have shown that since his start in office roberto only seems to get more people against him ,

[latinchico22]

chavez a man who has increased min wage , chavez a man who has not increased gas price , a man who keeps food at a low cost for people to afford it , a man who has brought computers to all children in classes a man who has given health care , so really what your trying to say is chavez has made this country for the people and not the rich and powerful and that kills u inside because u hate that the poor have voice and power

[EP4LFC]

But we also we cant distract ourselves from the fact that Zelaya outrightly disobeyed the Supreme Court, the National Congress, The Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and The Attorney General. He disregarded the civilian governmental bodies and broke into a military base to take the seized ballots back. For those scary hours, he was ruling simply by mob rule. If he really wanted a new constitution he should have gone about it in a legal manner - following the law and the rulings of the courts.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

You are right, one shouldn't brush facts aside: there was indeed a conflict of powers. Zelaya would have had no right to close down the S.Court or Congress or send them to Costa Rica in their pyjamas, and neither did they. The military are *supposed* to be under the orders of the Supreme Commander in chief:the president. Would a "yes"vote for a new constitution have scared you as "mob rule"as well?

[EP4LFC]

huh? you still have no explanation as to why zelaya should be excused from disobeying the supreme courts ruling. "We will not obey the Supreme Court" look that Zelaya quote up on BBC news. article title: "Honduran leader defies top court."

Also, just to be clear, I completely disagree w/ the decision to deport Zelaya. I would rather have had him be arrested and tried than deported.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

As you imply, there is a monumental difference between a court initiating a proper legal process, with all guarantees, against someone accused of something, and on the other hand instituting a coup d'etat. The one is not "nearly the same" as the other. They are radically different propositions and of the two, a legal process is not the one that occurred.

[EP4LFC]

I see your point and as i said, i do not support Zelaya's deportation. However, i must note that when the government said they did this to prevent violence, I can see their point because when Zelaya popped up at Brasil's embassy, more violence took place than before.

What I am against is people labeling the Honduran people and gov't as people who do not support democracy. Even if you think it was a coup, the gov't did this because Zelaya disobeyed the gov't (cont. next comment)

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I have to say what I have seen was that, far from being mindlessly violent, people crowded around the embassy to welcome Zelaya back. (They had less than zero reasons to be violent: they were pleased) Then the police came and violently dispersed the crowd, subsequently sealing the area off and violently harassing the emb. inhabitants. Several people took refuge from the police in the embassy at this stage. To me this is clearly a case of a pro-golpista "news" source trying to make Z look evil.

[EP4LFC]

I really want to see where you heard that version of the story. These are the same lies I've been hearing since the airport incident. If you watch the full length video of what happpened at Toncontin when Z tried to land you can see that the military only began to fire tear gas(not bullets as many say) when the crowd was about to break down the fence and storm the airfield. You can see even those who were firing bullets were firing them into the ground to scare off the people.

[EP4LFC]

I'm also not going to swing the other way and say the zelayistas are all violent people because this is simply just a case of a reoccuring theme in world history. Put hundreds of angry (but non violent) protesters right in the face of a far outnumbered riot police force and you have a recipe for disaster. So what I meant was that simply the presence of Zelaya would have caused violence.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

The more controversial things Zelaya may have actually done, the more convenient that is for the Honduran establishment; just the way the relative chaos in Argentina and Chile were very handy for the military when they seized power in 1973 and 1976. They played at being those who "saved the day" for as long as they could. At the end of the day, they had no right to seize power, regardless of prior events, but a lot of people accepted their version, and in both countries many still do.

[EP4LFC]

(cont. from prev) - and they were genuinely trying to prevent chavismo from spreading into Honduras. Because even if Chavez scrapped term limits legally I still dont believe that to be as democratic as having term limits.

This is why I first commented on one of your comments because you said some poll said Hondurans have little support for democracy. That's just not true. This conversation has gotten a little far off what i was first trying to point out (kinda my fault).

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Ok. The comment was by Susan Zelaya-Fenner (no relation) of the IRI in the US, when speaking favourably around March 2009 of the possibility of a coup in Honduras against Zelaya. (Video is online: google "IRI Podcast 051: Good Governance in Honduras"if interested.) She quoted some kind of poll that supported this. I commented that reaction to the coup showed it wasn't necessarily that true.

[EP4LFC]

So then you're referring to zelaya's supporters as the ones who proved this wrong. Not the thousands of people who marched against Zelaya after his removal in not only San Pedro & Tegucigalpa but also La Ceiba, Puerto Cortes, Tela and Villanueva all of which were completely ignored by the international media.

Nope, I guess the only democratic ones are those who supported Zelaya as he disobeyed every other branch of the gov't & claimed "no one will stop La Cuarta Urna"

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I am certain they were genuinely against "Chavismo": but let's be clear: that means being against politics that serve the interests of the majority rather than US and rich elite interests. The thing about term limits was an arguably clever propaganda cover in Zelaya's case, however one may criticise it in Chavez' in the terms you state, which are perfectly valid ones.

[EP4LFC]

Thats the sort of mierda that really angers me. According to you, you are either w/ Chavez, Castro & "21st Century Socialism" or you're with the rich and elite.

WTF?! When i said i wonder why the only people willing to help the poor just use it as a cover to acheive their personal goals this is what i was referring to. You're saying the best I can hope for my people is Chavez policy or Bush policy. Even people who support Z in Honduras admit that he should not have gotten so close w/Chavez

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Ok, I'll try to be clearer (a recurrent problem with me!). There are any number of ways of attempting to approach resolving inequality and poverty. The fundamental thing is to do something about it.

I think we agree there. (no?)

Now, the problem I see is also the same as you do, though from another angle: there are powerful rightwing forces in Latin America who reject pretty much any attempt at doing so, and that includes rejecting whatever Chavez does in this sense.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

[cont.] While a few decades ago the rationale for repressing social progress was "el comunismo es un pulpo con su cabeza en Moscu y testiculos por todas partes"(attributed to a brilliant military mind of the day), the current cry among the local right when they disapprove of, say Evo Morales introducing state pensions, is the very very idiotic"he is just following Chavez". That is the same mierda you dislike, and it is insidious.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

When you know 1)that THE problem in the continent is inequality,2)that recent decades have seen rightwing dictatorship followed by IMF cuts that have exacerbated said injustice, it is no surprise that many people are turning to more popular gvts to do something positive for a change. So Chavez is just ONE facet of that, regardless of how one judges his actual performance.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Take the US bases in Colombia: Just about every Latin American country present at the Bariloche summit expressed dismay against this. But what hits the headlines most? "Chavez brings troops to Colombian-Venez border" The effect is to say: "the only ones who object are crazy-Chavez people", thus dismissing a very grave military threat to continental peace with ample opposition.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

To conclude:since there are no acceptable sane or moral arguments against improving equality,those who think they benefit from inequality will try anything, and one such recourse is to label anything leftwing as "chavista" and consequently dangerous, etc. Given this political climate, and a coup which was not in the S.Court's or Congress' powers to commit, among others, the 'chavista' attacks focusing on unproven claims of an intended re-election clause I believe are a new mask for an old face.

[EP4LFC]

You make a good point and you describe well the kind of stuff i hate: meaningless political rhetoric and labels. W/ Chavez, there are two facets of the man & his policy:

1) His willingness to help the poor (whether this be to gain support from the majority in order to push through his personal power goals is irrelevant here)

2) His personal drive to have power (or be prez of a very powerful country) for an indefinite amount of time - this translates to increased authoritarianism

[EP4LFC]

What caused Z's removal (lets forget whether it was legal or not for now) was that he was aiming for #2. He had already aimed for #1 and got it. I have no problem with this (even tho the wage increase was so drastic it did more bad than good). The govt had no problem w/ this either (as they shouldnt). This is why the wage bill passed through Congress. The genuine feeling i mentioned earlier was because they knew Zelaya was trying part 2 of chavismo.

[EP4LFC]

Helping out the poor is not chavismo, taking out term limits when the constitution explicitly says you cannot, is chavismo.

So although I completely agree w/ you that there are way too many people using the Chavez label for anything leftwing the problem does not apply to Honduras. The Chavez comparisons only came out after everyone realized he was trying the same term limit scrap Chavez did & Ortega is trying now in Nicaragua.

[EP4LFC]

Yes, some people didnt like his already increasing relationship w/ Chavez, but not too many people made a fuss about it because they knew, even if they didnt like Chavez, it would help strengthen the economy. I know the rich right wing have their hands deep in Honduran politics but if they really were in as deep as the zelayistas think and as a result were the architects of Zs removal, then they would have never allowed the wage bill and other reforms to pass in the first place.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

You make some interesting points re: the fact congress passed the wage increase, etc. and the awareness that (if I understood correctly) alliance with the ALBA countries+ purchasing cheaper fuel from Venezuela would be positive for the economy (the truth is that politics has its black-and-white sides to a degree, but then nuances and paradoxes can be the most fascinating part).

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Although I might still suggest that there was a limit as to where Z could be allowed to go, and that Congress, although instrumental in placing its seal of approval on the coup, is unlikely to have been the force that originated it -despite that, the main point goes back to the question: [cont]

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

[cont]: how does proposing a referendum,albeit one opposed by various state bodies, on an asamblea constituyente (a demand that pre-dated Zelaya), equal an attempt for Z himself to remain in power? Is this not a perfect example of the pre-emptive strike doctrine that says "I can do xx against you because if I didn't, I claim that you would do it yourself.", thereby justifying a real crime with a hypothetical one?

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I mean: you are familiar with the argument that the ref. regarded a call for a constituyente on Nov 29, simultaneous with the election of a new president -probably Lobo?- who would have been sworn in, making the call for a constituyente (if approved by voters) more prominent in the political arena, (despite the 1982 constitutions' "locks" against reform). One can claim Z wanted to practice "Urubismo" (Uribe did not put term-limit extensions to popular vote btw), but one could claim anything,no?

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

["Uribismo" with an "i" of course -Urubu is a particularly disgusting scavenging bird seen in Brazil -but at least it cannot be accused of supporting paramilitary death squads!) "El innombrable", Argentinean president from the 1990s also changed the constitution so he could be re-elected. Although he was execrably popular, I could swear he didn't put it to popular vote either. -cierro el paréntesis]

[EP4LFC]

(cont: ...or Nov29") then he would have used the pueblo's approval to re write anything he wanted. No one knows how they were gonna select the people for the asamblea. **I would have been fine w/ the Cuarta if he had been specific!!!** i.e. "modify X article" or "add X article"

So to answer your question, by getting a go ahead from the pueblo to rewrite the const., in no specific way, he would have been given the backing to rewrite the parts which are unmodifiable such as term limits.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Let's examine this: There is a non-binding referendum. People vote "Yes" to a constituent assembly, up to this point todo bien, right?

Now, after this, things get tricky: a process follows whereby the "yes" translates into political action -(I would imagine the pro-constituent assembly movement could demonstrate with the added legitimacy to the demand given by the poll, this might have effects, etc.)someone, either Lobo or the following president organises a constituent assembly one day[cont-]

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

[-cont]: Now, according to what I got from what you said,this constituent assembly is somehow organised undemocratically, it draws up the constitution w/out consulting the population,in favour of some narrow power interests (in other words: the way the current constitution came about). At this point Z still isn't in power because the const. still says 1 term only, so it ain't him anyway.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Waiddaminit! I reread your post and I realise:You are suggesting that in the(max.)2 months between the results of the Nov.29 2009election and 27Jan 2010, Z might have said:"Right:you said you wanted a new constitution:I just happened to write one last night:here it is; it says I am Emperor for life"..[cont]

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

[cont]:I'm exaggerating,but something like this?!Ok: to me this involves a very huge leap:there is no way anyone,either Zelaya in theory or the golpistas in practice, could sustain this with a straight face. One thing is to run a referendum on a new, democratically supported constitution. Another, very different one indeed is to organise the drawing up of this constitution like in 1982, i.e. entirely undemocratically. The thing is: one of these things is current history, the other speculation.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Now:If Z had behaved like this in fact,instead of just in theory,could he then have legitimately remained in power?Well:he WAS elected until 27 Jan. 2010! After that....life goes on!

If he had tried to impose a new constitution as illegitimately as in 1982(Even I can write a new Honduran constitution on this laptop),I'd imagine he'd be the laughingstock of democrats everywhere, like Vasquez/Micheletti[...] are today.

[EP4LFC]

Yes, I have heard that argument and I don't find it very convincing because if term limits were scrapped then Zelaya would have been able to run against whoever who won this one (as u said, probably Lobo - which would be perfect cuz then Z could run under the Liberales). The problem would still remain.

Also, the main problem that w/ the ref is that it was extremely unspecific. It was a mask which gave Z's actions a democratic facade. If the pueblo had voted yes (either June 28 or Nov29)

[EP4LFC]

If helping out the poor was the true reason, then Congress would have put up much more of a fight esp when that wage bill went through.

So, in Honduras, the Chavez labels were used for Chavez' ugly side, not his good side or both sides.

Additionally, the anti-Zelaya sentiments didn't settle in until La Cuarta Urna (although in April he had one of the lowest approval ratings in Latin America) so the pro-poor policies are not what got him the boot, it was his desire to stay in power a la Chavez

[EP4LFC]

This oppressive socialism of the Chavez variety is not the only hope. How do you know the majority (the 70% poor of Honduras) want Chavez policy. They want change, they want politicians who are actually interested in helping them (& not just talk about it). Those who supported Zelaya did so because he seemed to actually care, not because they wanted chavismo. So to be clear, the interests of the majority is not chavismo, its simply policies which focus on eliminating poverty.

[EP4LFC]

btw, don't take any of this personal, this is a good discussion

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Yeah, I like it :)

[OrphanPaper]

the reason for the expulsion of the Honduras president was for an attempt by him to subvert the constitution of that country and hold on to power beyond his term ,, as set out by that constitution ,,

[eros1057]

@OrphanPaper No. It was because Zelaya was supporting a referendum which could have assembled a new constitutional committee which then could have allowed Zelaya to be re-elected, but he was not actively seeking re-election. In Honduras it is "against the law" to try to form a new constitution, this was the reasoning in their supreme court's decision.

[OrphanPaper]

that why he was sursended from office ,,,, thanks for the detail's ,,,,

[eros1057]

@OrphanPaper Sursended? o.O I'm not sure what that means, but I'm guessing you meant suspended from office which is a very quaint way to pain the picture since he was sleeping and the military burst into his home and told him with guns pointed at him "you die, or you come with us." He decided not to die and was whisked away to Costa Rica.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I'd like to qualify that: Such a constitution would not have enabled Zelaya's reelection in 2010, as it could not possibly have existed by then. IF, in theory, a theoretical constituent assembly approved by the people in the referendum and later set up (a big step from a referendum)decided to enable a pres. to be reelected (happens in the US for 2 terms) then, as of 2014 Zelaya might have been elegible as a candidate, among other candidates.