Obama punishes small country opposed to dictatorial ex-president

[Skybird]

Pragmatic, okay, nationalist: no. I see certain qualities and characteristics of our western culture as superior in principle in humane quality to certain other still existing "cultures" or ideologies, although I see our time fading and our culture degenerating and falling apart. But it was both build upon and formed by images and ideas that in my conviction make these ideas the climax of human civilisational developement, even if we sell them off now. But by the definition of the term "nationalist", that way of thinking does not make me a nationalist, I think. In some aspects of my thinking, I am deeply uncivilised (by conviction), and a cultural outlaw. For example when it comes to "war". I hate simplifying reality in catchphrases and slogans, and I see the world as a web of interdynamic complexity so high that we cannot see the order in it and thus easily classify events as being chaotic. But often they can be explained - one only needs to widen one's view sufficiently. With many popular political slogans, like "equality of man" and "social justice", I am at war with. Many words are being made these days - but without meaning anything anymore. and worse it is when terms are being used in violation of their original meaning, only to trigger irrational emotions and by that manipulate the crowds.

I see myself as a realist, a bit stoic at times, a bit stubborn at others, eclectic in your meaning of "pragmatic" and open to needed or valuable chnages, but being conservative too: not so much in values but in keeping what I see as proven and valuable from the past. I pragmatically use terms like "politically left" and "right" in communication to refer to popular categories of political orientation, and make communication easier by simplifying that way - but I have no use for them to define my own views. And I do not care what stamp people use to describe my ideas. My ideas are one thing - people's stamp is a very different.

For lefties, I am usually too right, and for rightwingers, I am usually too left. If that makes sense! Maybe it does - if you had enough drinks at the end of the day.

Congress and Supreme Court acted on behalf of valid Hondurean laws and the constitution.

Really ?
So what Honduran laws allow for the military overthrow and exile of elected representatives ?
Where does the constitution allow for such moves?
Oh they don't do they, so the legal and constitutional arguement is bollox .
Maybe thats why 192 countries unanimously condemned the illegal coup.

To call the events a coup is simply absurd and total rubbish.

A coup is a coup.

The military did not stage a coup by itself, but followed calls by the supreme court.

Hey you called it a coup.
But anyway the supreme court cannot make those calls and the military is barred from taking those actions , its against the constitution and against the law.

It is lightyears apart from the coups central America has seen twenty years ago.

The genocide in Rwanda was light years apart from the industrialised genocide in the third reich ...it was still a genocide though just like this coup in Honduras is still a coup.

They know how Venezuela's Hugo Chávez went from being democratically elected the first time, in 1998, to making himself dictator for life. He did it by destroying his country's institutional checks and balances.

Thats a strange quote from the article , very strange indeed as Chavez hasn't been made dictator for life, he hasn't even secured the right to run for election again because he didn't get the votes of the people in the referendum . I suppose voting and the constitution articles about changing the constitution must have been some of those checks and balances he destroyed .
Where was all the outrage when Uribe abolished term limits ?
Come to think of it didn't this new bloke who has taken over in the coup support a previous Presidents attempt to abolish term limits in Honduras.

All in all its a rather sloppy article , I didn't expect the WSJ to go downhill so fast after the buyout.
As for the US government imposing Visa restrictions , thats pretty standard for a country to do when another country gets its government overthrown isn't it , not really news at all .

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really ?
So what Honduran laws allow for the military overthrow and exile of elected representatives ?
Where does the constitution allow for such moves?

Article 239, didn't you read?

Article 239, didn't you read?

Yes I did , would you like to quote the actual constitution ?
Would you then like to quote all the other articles which show the removal was unconstitutional , perhaps then you can read the actual court ruling and see why it is very dodgy , then you camn read the warrant and see why it was not only illegal but was illegaly enacted and even then not even followed , then perhaps for good measure you can view the actions of the remaining "congress" and see how just about every action they have taken is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Or you could of course just go by a very sloppy piece of journalism presented as an editorial and form your views from that......oh thats what you did didn't you.

[Leandros]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

And this is one of our biggest problems. We can't mind our own frickin' business. That and we feel the need to police the world when we can't even solve our own problems here at home first.

And Honduras hasn't even got WMD. Or have they.....?

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes I did , would you like to...

...Would you then...

...you can view the actions of the remaining "congress" and see how just about every action they have taken is both illegal and unconstitutional....

Now why should I? The sites owner has posted a reference to the appropriate article in their constitution. You're the one who is making the claim that this is illegal so it should be up to you to prove it.

Personally I'd go with the word of the Honduran Supreme Court over some anonymous Irish forum troll but that's just me.

Personally I'd go with the word of the Honduran Supreme Court over some anonymous Irish forum troll but that's just me.

Which is why this topic is so funny.
We have a pile of people in this topic who regularly demonstrate problems with understanding their own nations constitution somehow claiming to know about another nations constitution.
To bring even more hilarity to the topic you have people who complain about judgements from their own supreme court lining up to back a dodgy ruling from a supreme court that their own government describes as one of the most corrupt in the whole of latin America.

BTW that last bit is a description from your government under Bush just to be on the safe side as some people seem to think they can simply reject such things if it was the current administration saying it

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is why this topic is so funny.
We have a pile of people in this topic who regularly demonstrate problems with understanding their own nations constitution somehow claiming to know about another nations constitution.
To bring even more hilarity to the topic you have people who complain about judgements from their own supreme court lining up to back a dodgy ruling from a supreme court that their own government describes as one of the most corrupt in the whole of latin America.

BTW that last bit is a description from your government under Bush just to be on the safe side as some people seem to think they can simply reject such things if it was the current administration saying it

So in other words you got nothing and are just trying to stir the pot. I understand now.

So in other words you got nothing and are just trying to stir the pot.

I have all I need , its called the constitution .
You know the document you don't know , the document that those journalists don't appear to know either.

Though as a backup you could also ask the head lawyer for the military in Honduras, he says the actions he advised in favour of were indeed actually illegal and unconstitutional...but he felt at the time that they were neccesary.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You know the document you don't know

You mean the document that you don't know because so far you haven't demonstrated the least bit of knowledge about it.

Honduran Supreme Court 1
Tribesman 0

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

When a country's legislative and judicial branch, along with the vast majority of the people want Mr. Manuel Zelaya to leave office. I'd say the US should support that decision.

I like how George Bush won the 2000 election, by a vote of 5 to 50,999,897.I also like how he said some months later "I come from a democracy, and in a democracy, whatever gets the most votes wins!!" (I paraphrase)

[August]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

...by a vote of 5 to 50,999,897.

Democrat math? You must work for ACORN.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by August

Democrat math? You must work for ACORN.

I suppose I could explain, but you don't appear to have the requisite brainpower to understand.

[August]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I suppose I could explain, but you don't appear to have the requisite brainpower to understand.

I suppose you could explain but given your eagerness to insult people I doubt it'd be any less idiotic than your last post so don't bother.

You mean the document that you don't know because so far you haven't demonstrated the least bit of knowledge about it.

Honduran Supreme Court 1
Tribesman 0

So you mean articulo 239 which was amended in 1998 and 2002 and re ratified in 2003...which you havn't read so obviously can't undertand, just like you havn't read anything else in the constitution, which is why your knowledge appears to be based on nothing but a few badly written newspaper articles.
If you want to try and argue a point August it might help if you had even the slightest grasp of the basics on the subject