Honduras Wins!

Nov 16, 2009 06:48

For months now, America and the world have been trying to force the small nation of Honduras to violate her own Constitution and accept back into office former President Manuel ("Mel") Zelaya, who tried to repeal term limits as part of a bid to make himself a Chavez-style President-For-Life. Zelaya not only sought foreign aid to help reverse the ( Read more... )

micheletti. vasquez, diplomacy, nicaragua, jim demint, political, america, venezuela, honduras, barack obama, zelaya

Leave a comment

Comments 17

anonymous November 16 2009, 15:20:41 UTC
I really dislike the notion of spreading democracy. It's a stupid and unworkable system of government, which is why the Founding Fathers were vehemently against it. Note that the word democracy appears nowhere the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, and is only mentioned in private correspondence as well as the Federalist Papers in unambiguously derisive tones about how stupid a system it is. To whit ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

jordan179 November 16 2009, 15:26:37 UTC
I really dislike the notion of spreading democracy. It's a stupid and unworkable system of government, which is why the Founding Fathers were vehemently against it.

Well yes, and that was precisely the issue in Honduras. Mel Zelaya's claim to legitimacy is that he won the last election, irregardless of what he then did in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras. He was ousted by the Congress, Supreme Court and Armed Forces under Micheletti and Vasquez acting in defense of republican institutions.

The truth is that Mel Zelaya's bid for reinstatement is illegitimate on republican and democratic grounds, because Zelaya has now become extremely unpopular in Honduras owing to his demonstrated willingness to harm the nation as a whole in pursuit of his personal political agenda. The support for him is now ideologically based on the right of autocracy (from the POV of the Latin American leaders) and socialsim (from the POV of their rank and file supporters, including those in America). But autocracy from weakness is a ( ... )

Reply

spiffystuff November 16 2009, 21:09:59 UTC
I actually really don't think it's the US's place to police other countries at all, unless our interests may be affected (although "affected interests" can be pretty nebulous, as I would say it includes pollution and flooding our market with goods made by slave-labor, not just direct militaristic / terrorist threats)

Reply


reality_hammer November 16 2009, 17:28:44 UTC
I was really happy to hear that democracy had won out in Honduras.

And not surprised at all that the Obama administration is trying to suppress all analysis of the situation that shows they acted inappropriately.

Reply

jordan179 November 16 2009, 21:30:35 UTC
I was really happy to hear that democracy had won out in Honduras.

There's still a possibility that Zelaya could win, but now it would pretty much have to be by direct invasion from the Narcoterrorist Axis, and if they tried that, even Obama might feel he had no choice but to intervene. Plus, I'm not sure that even an alliance of Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuala and Uruguay could project enough force into Honduras to take the country against military and popular resistance; most of those Latin American countries have very limited logistical support.

And not surprised at all that the Obama administration is trying to suppress all analysis of the situation that shows they acted inappropriately.

What Obama did was in the first place mind-bogglingly stupid -- he reflexively sided with our enemies, and in the process reduced America's reputation in Latin America to the point where he may well have shattered the OAS.

Reply

mindstalk November 17 2009, 18:12:53 UTC
Reflexively siding against a military coup overthrowing an elected leader in a Latin American country is not mind-bogglingly stupid. It may have been wrong in this particular case, but that's different.

Reply

jordan179 November 17 2009, 19:16:03 UTC
Reflexively siding against a military coup overthrowing an elected leader in a Latin American country is not mind-bogglingly stupid.

What was mind-bogglingly stupid was Obama acting "reflexively." About 15 minutes of research would have shown him what had actually happened. He didn't stop to listen, and then he couldn't change his position because his own stubborn pride meant more to him than Honduran lives.

I say "his own stubborn pride" rather than "American interests" or "American honor," because Obama's policy dishonored our treaty with Honduras, aided our enemies (Castro, Chavez and Ortega) and may have fatally ruptured the OAS. This has been a disaster for American foreign policy in Latin America -- and a cheaply and easily avoidable disaster, at that.

Reply


polaris93 November 16 2009, 18:11:56 UTC
Let's hope this is an omen of things to come. :-)

Reply


spiffystuff November 16 2009, 21:06:49 UTC
Yaaaay, I'm glad Honduras will remain Zelaya-free :D

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

gothelittle November 17 2009, 21:13:50 UTC
Or, as the bow in Japan suggested, he may merely be blindingly incompetent in matters of foreign affairs. :P

Reply


Leave a comment

Up