The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Should We Invade Honduras?
Glyph
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Facts:
-Honduras’ democratically-elected president was ousted at gunpoint in a coup de tat orchestrated by the country’s social and political elite and carried out by the military.
-When the president tried to return, the illegitimate regime threatened to arrest him and blocked the airport runways from receiving his plane.
-Hondurans are calling for the international community to reinstate their president and restore due democratic process, by force if necessary.
-Many Latin American countries, including Venezuela, are already mobilizing their armed forces and invoking sanctions to answer the call for democratic restoration.
With this in mind, can the United States truly afford to stand idly by as a democratic neighbor in our own backyard falls to totalitarianism? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the civilized world when an elected leader can be cast aside at the whims of a powerful few? After the events in Iran, it seems like the forces of democratic progress just keep getting pushed back and now this happens. The time for semantics about whether or not this is even a coup is over. Americans must act before this regime entrenches itself as legal and just when clearly is not. We must depose this budding dictatorship. Obviously no one likes war. I consider myself an avid pacifist but as much as it pains even me to fathom it, we must declare war on Honduras. Discuss.
-Honduras’ democratically-elected president was ousted at gunpoint in a coup de tat orchestrated by the country’s social and political elite and carried out by the military.
-When the president tried to return, the illegitimate regime threatened to arrest him and blocked the airport runways from receiving his plane.
-Hondurans are calling for the international community to reinstate their president and restore due democratic process, by force if necessary.
-Many Latin American countries, including Venezuela, are already mobilizing their armed forces and invoking sanctions to answer the call for democratic restoration.
With this in mind, can the United States truly afford to stand idly by as a democratic neighbor in our own backyard falls to totalitarianism? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the civilized world when an elected leader can be cast aside at the whims of a powerful few? After the events in Iran, it seems like the forces of democratic progress just keep getting pushed back and now this happens. The time for semantics about whether or not this is even a coup is over. Americans must act before this regime entrenches itself as legal and just when clearly is not. We must depose this budding dictatorship. Obviously no one likes war. I consider myself an avid pacifist but as much as it pains even me to fathom it, we must declare war on Honduras. Discuss.
Glyph on
0
Posts
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Also, I've never seen an OP that ends with 'Dicuss.' do anything other than suck.
Really though? Really? I dont think we've got the bodies, time or money right now to jaunt off to Honduras for a quick little military excursion.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Edit - Is it possible to report a poll for awesome, cause that one is.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
And you're completely ignoring the fact that the ousted President had violated the law in the first place.
Oh, okay, I guess I can give a better reason, and it applies to Iran as well. America has a history of meddling in the affairs of other countries because we don't like the politics of whoever is in charge (or wants to be in charge), so long as we had something to gain by meddling. This is particularly true in Central and South America, where we alternately propped up dictators or democracies depending on how friendly they were likely to be to us. Us taking an active military role here would be detrimental to our foreign policy aims and would further fuel the distrust for our intentions. Like Iran, we do better to condemn violence and talk up human rights and democracy than posturing and being belligerent.
Besides, if other Central and South American countries are willing to step up, I think they'll appreciate it if we let them take the lead.
edit- Ah ok moniker answered my question.
I for one support the Netherlands getting a new overseas empire.
I remember seeing a very apropos political cartoon about the sequence of constitution shredding each side had engaged in as they tried to blame who did it first.
Didn't he only want to put forth a vote to the public on amending their constitution? I wouldn't call that oust-worthy. Especially when it seems his people want him back and its just the Congress/Military that don't like him.
I could be mis-informed.. but that's all that I heard that he did "wrong".
PSN: SAW776
Been there, done that... gawl.
That's what he did. Which happens to be illegal. With the punishment of removal from office.
You can argue all you want about whether it should be or not, but don't make assumptions on other countries's legal system.
Read this if you want some more perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07Marin.html
I'm not suggesting we should invade them, I'm just saying that its a bullshit reason to oust a president. "What? He wants to give the people a voice!? Fuck that noise!"
I'll be glad to make the assumption that that legal system sucks. :P
PSN: SAW776
Actually it's pretty rare now that the Cold War has been over for awhile.
Yes, but it's their law. It's stupid, but it is what it is.
There are better ways to change that than to invade them and blow the fuck out of their hospitals and weddings... I mean military bases.
And Hugo Chavez amending the Venezuelan Constitution to become a de jure dictator (rather than de facto) was just following the people's will. Though he followed legal channels while this guy actually broke the law.
Eh, they've got a Nobel Peace Laureate who won it due to his negotiations in Central America acting as the diplomat. Not really sure how Hillary Clinton would be a better fit.
Whenever there is political trouble in another country your first thought should not be "Lets Invade Them!"
It seems the point has been pretty much pounded into the ground by now, but yeah, none of us should invade Honduras.
I like this answer. Just imagine me typing up something close to this.
And no, we shouldn't invade.
From what I've heard, the Honduran constitution has no way to impeach a president. Since this 'coup' has the support of both the legislature and the military, it's as 'normal' as you're going to get.
I hear they can get that by returning home. Just sayin :P
Eh, Ecuador had protests and change of power 4 years ago. Guatemala has had protests over disagreements on political power, same with Bolivia recently.
My point was this isn't a military coup attempting to set up some kind of dictatorship.
Wait... they don't have oil?
Nevermind.
Look, Yar's down here below me, check his post out!
:whistle:
You would.
I'm gonna say no.
That said, I'm a little tired of how people here keep parroting the opposition's framing as if it's the truth. The Supreme Court of Justice had charged Zelaya with crimes, and was seeking to try him. The problem is when the military (which doesn't like leftists thanks to US meddling) decided that being ordered to arrest Zelaya gave them a chance to execute the Caracas Two-Step. The problem was that deporting Zelaya is clearly against the Honduran Constitution (which is more than can be said about Zelaya's actions,) meaning that by doing this, the military basically violated the Constitution they claimed they were upholding.
Already, the chinks are starting to form. The SCJ has released the documents regarding the charges against Zelaya, in part to show that the military violated the law of their own accord. There are several Assembly members who are now opposed to the coup. The front isn't nearly as unified as it looks, in large part because people are realizing that it wasn't as painless as they thought it would be. It's also important to note that there is not one single government in the world that supports the coup.
As for Chavez, I wish people would stop trying to turn him into some sort of Latin American boogieman, and actually debate his stances honestly. I understand why Western business interests hate him, since he's basically told them that the raping of Venezuela is over, but I don't get why the public shares these views...
Oh, the media. Right.
Well, if Chavez is a dictator (as someone has said here,) he's done a pretty piss-poor job of being one. He never arrested anyone involved in the 2002 coup - the only punishment that was ever meted out was that several media channels that were involved with the 2002 coup had their broadcast licenses come up for renewal, the government opted not to. He's also eliminated the covernment censorship office. This article does a good job explaining the distorted lens that a lot of us see Chavez through.