http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...55R0US20090628

Happened in Hondouras. Basically the leftist president tried to get people to vote for his second term... which is not legal in Hondouras.
That angered a lot of people including the military (and I'm sure, a lot of rich folks too) and so they staged a coup.
How's that for checks and balances?

Honduras Coup - UN slams the coup

I can't believe I'm doing this..... but let's keep it to one topic.

Woops. Yeah the other one was about the UN's reaction but whatever.

I am on the fence on this, basically I am against the coup only because it is not for the military to change the head of state when they are in disagreement. In general, when the Army interfers in politics its usually to install one of its unelected own in its place, and in general Soldiers make lousy heads of state. If you look at the worst dictators, with the exception of a few like Stalin, they all come from military or paramilitary organizations. Military coups almost always mean the end of democracy in a nation.

The duly-elected President of Honduras has every right to fire the Head of the Army for any reason (which is why they launched the coup) and he is even allowed to push for a modification of the constitution to allow for him to run again. I grant you hes serving his own personal interest but their isnt anything illegal about it.

The point is the people of Honduras made their choice, if they want a ultra-left socialist in power that is entirely their choice. The only way to change it is at the Ballotbox.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I am on the fence on this, basically I am against the coup only because it is not for the military to change the head of state when they are in disagreement. In general, when the Army interfers in politics its usually to install one of its unelected own in its place, and in general Soldiers make lousy heads of state. If you look at the worst dictators, with the exception of a few like Stalin, they all come from military or paramilitary organizations. Military coups almost always mean the end of democracy in a nation.

The duly-elected President of Honduras has every right to fire the Head of the Army for any reason (which is why they launched the coup) and he is even allowed to push for a modification of the constitution to allow for him to run again. I grant you hes serving his own personal interest but their isnt anything illegal about it.

The point is the people of Honduras made their choice, if they want a ultra-left socialist in power that is entirely their choice. The only way to change it is at the Ballotbox.

There is nothing to be on the fence about the guy is a democratically elected official in what I can only assume were free and fair elections it is not the responsibility of the military to determine when a term of office is up.

Surprisingly and much to the contrary of popular belief on these forums the military are not the providers of democracy.

He may be the biggest plonker on the face of the planet I don't know and don't care as the only people legitimately able to remove him from office are the nations voters.

On the fence in the sense that I am not unhappy to see Zelaya go, just in the method in how he was ousted. And I sincerely hope we were not involved in his removal, I doubt that we were but you never know. We tried to oust Chavez (another one of Bush's trademark SNUFU's) and wound up with Chavez in a far more stronger position than he was before.

The courts condemned Zelaya's actions and he wanted to go ahead with it anyways. One way or another, it was likely to become a dictatorship.
I believe in electing leaders through democratic means and updating laws through proper channels. Using a hyped up public to back a move that is not yet considered constitutional (therefore unconstitutional) is not an example of going through proper channels. The public can be all for one thing one moment and all for something else the next. The fact that these things take a long time to change is an advantage. It gives people a lot of time to think about stuff.
Look at our example of intense security. The public was screaming for that sort of stuff back right after 9/11.... they're not so crazy about it anymore. Now they're screaming that it's becoming a police state.
If the military does not cling to power and helps organize another democratic election, it would really save its image. I'm not really counting on them to do it, but I'd rather see a military dicatorship than a Communist dictatorship. The former tends to be more reasonable to deal with than the latter.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

On the fence in the sense that I am not unhappy to see Zelaya go, just in the method in how he was ousted. And I sincerely hope we were not involved in his removal, I doubt that we were but you never know. We tried to oust Chavez (another one of Bush's trademark SNUFU's) and wound up with Chavez in a far more stronger position than he was before.

Oh.... the USA isn't involved.... Obama supports that Commie of a President.

If the POTUS is involved, the US is involved... unfortunately.

You have to look at the big picture. Chavez and Obama are both against the lawful coup in Honduras. Obama didn't say **** about Ahmanutjob taking office again in a very, VERY shady election with mass protests.