Military ousts The President of Honduras

[cutthemdown]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/28/honduras.president.arrested/index.html


EGUCIGALPA, Honduras (CNN) -- Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya said he awoke to gunfire in his home and was still in his pajamas when the military forced him to leave the country Sunday.

This was a brutal kidnapping of me with no justification," Zelaya said of the military-led coup. He was speaking from Costa Rica where a military plane had taken him after he was held Sunday morning.

In Tegucigalpa a growing crowd, including families with children, gathered outside of the presidential residence. Video showed soldiers walking down some of the streets of the capital, and military helicopters flew overhead.

Zelaya, a leftist elected in 2005, had found himself recently pitted against other branches of government and military leaders over a referendum planned for Sunday that could have allowed the president to run for another term.

Honduras' Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, and the military and Congress agreed.

[cutthemdown]

Now that my friends is an Ole Fashioned Coup.

[barryr]

Chavez states if anything happens to Zelaya, he will send troops in to essentially invade that country. I wonder what Chavez apologists would think of that move?

[Dukes]

Chavez states if anything happens to Zelaya, he will send troops in to essentially invade that country. I wonder what Chavez apologists would think of that move?

They'll blame the US

[frerottenextelway]

Chavez states if anything happens to Zelaya, he will send troops in to essentially invade that country. I wonder what Chavez apologists would think of that move?

Seems like he would have a lot more justification for doing that than we would in invading Iraq.

[cutthemdown]

Seems like he would have a lot more justification for doing that than we would in invading Iraq.

The military just says nope to no ending term limits. They realize the MO in the region is to just control everything and make elections easy to win IE Venezuela. We have to watch more I'm not sure what to think but it looks like military moving to insure that Presidents cant become lifetime leaders.

I'm curious to hear you explain how he would have more right. Iraq invaded kuwait, shot at american planes in a un no fly zone etc.

What has happened that concerns Hugo enough to justify his intervention.

If anything it proves he was in cahoots with a leftist brother on a way to change Honduras into a state that this guy could be El Presidente for life.

[cutthemdown]

Chavez states if anything happens to Zelaya, he will send troops in to essentially invade that country. I wonder what Chavez apologists would think of that move?

Zelaya out of the country already. Chavez said if they kill the Venezualen Ambassador, or moved on the embassy he would consider military action.

He has never had balls to follow through.

Obama supporting Zelaya. I guess he feels democracy is not being served by this. But the Supreme Court felt President was violating the rule of law in the country. Hard to so. Personally I feel he is a leftist trying to stay in power so he can eventually get rid of term limits. His approval rating 30% though so he probably would have lost anyways. I think military and Supreme Court afraid of the guy ruing the changes Honduras made when the got rid of dictators.

Only 7 million people in Hondurous. So this tiny country becomes Obamas first Latin American test. And here we thought it would be immigration.

[cutthemdown]

They'll blame the US

Chavez already saying America and the CIA behind this. I wish Gaff would tell us what is up.

[Dukes]

Chavez already saying America and the CIA behind this. I wish Gaff would tell us what is up.

Strange how Gaff and LABF have nothing to say......

[Rohirrim]

Where was Ollie North? ;D

[footstepsfrom#27]

Now that my friends is an Ole Fashioned Coup.
It sounds more like they prevented him from assuming powers he didn't legally have....the Honduran SC already ruled his attempt to continue in power illegal, and apparently he found out he wasn't the sole authority.
Zelaya, a leftist elected in 2005, had found himself recently pitted against other branches of government and military leaders over a referendum planned for Sunday that could have allowed the president to run for another term.

Honduras' Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, and the military and Congress agreed.

[Garcia Bronco]

Seems like he would have a lot more justification for doing that than we would in invading Iraq.

Huh? I would love to here this.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Looks like we were more than willing to 'meddle' in THIS country's business, but not Iran's...Interesting.

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington's ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president's office, the Honduran parliament and the military.



Zelaya was basically trying to pull a Hugo Chavez by consolidating and extending his own power contrary to Honduran Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court told him no and he chose to press on anyway in an abuse of power. I guess rigging an election isn't a violation of the democratic process, but a people forcefully removing a dictator who violated the rule of law is.

[rastaman]

Chavez states if anything happens to Zelaya, he will send troops in to essentially invade that country. I wonder what Chavez apologists would think of that move?

Bush invaded a soverign nation so why can't Chavez.

[rastaman]

Looks like we were more than willing to 'meddle' in THIS country's business, but not Iran's...Interesting.



Zelaya was basically trying to pull a Hugo Chavez by consolidating and extending his own power contrary to Honduran Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court told him no and he chose to press on anyway in an abuse of power. I guess rigging an election isn't a violation of the democratic process, but a people forcefully removing a dictator who violated the rule of law is.

Careful now, you do know that our country has just survived an 8 your coup b/c the Supreme Court selected GW Bush for the WH back in 2000. We cite many instances whereas GW abused his Supreme Court selected powers over an 8 year period. The votes in FLA were rigged in 2000 and in Ohio 2004, once again there were vote riggings to ensure Bush stole a 2nd term.

Don't you think Republicans/conservatives just should let the Houndorans and Hugo solve this matters themselves???

[rastaman]

The military just says nope to no ending term limits. They realize the MO in the region is to just control everything and make elections easy to win IE Venezuela. We have to watch more I'm not sure what to think but it looks like military moving to insure that Presidents cant become lifetime leaders.

I'm curious to hear you explain how he would have more right. Iraq invaded kuwait, shot at american planes in a un no fly zone etc.

What has happened that concerns Hugo enough to justify his intervention.

If anything it proves he was in cahoots with a leftist brother on a way to change Honduras into a state that this guy could be El Presidente for life.

Central America and South America must be given the leeway to settle their own political disputes and issues w/o the interference of the U.S. Can't understand why we have Americans in this country who continue to believe that uninvited "Yankee Imperialism" and meddling solves anything---but we do know from a historical reference American imperialism and meddling has been the culprit/cancer as to why both Central & South America remain unstable today.

[mhgaffney]

Interesting that the Honduran president had accused the US of interference in the months before the coup.

The Coup in Honduras

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

Could the diplomatic thaw between Venezuela and the United States be coming to an abrupt end? At the recent Summit of the Americas held in Port of Spain, Barack Obama shook Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s hand and declared that he would pursue a less arrogant foreign policy towards Latin America. Building on that good will, Venezuela and the United States agreed to restore their ambassadors late last week. Such diplomatic overtures provided a stark contrast to the miserable state of relations during the Bush years: just nine months ago Venezuela expelled the U.S. envoy in a diplomatic tussle. At the time, Chávez said he kicked the U.S. ambassador out to demonstrate solidarity with left ally Bolivia, which had also expelled a top American diplomat after accusing him of blatant political interference in the Andean nation’s internal affairs.

Whatever goodwill existed last week however could now be undone by turbulent political events in Honduras. Following the military coup d’etat there on Sunday, Chávez accused the U.S. of helping to orchestrate the overthrow of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. “Behind these soldiers are the Honduran bourgeois, the rich who converted Honduras into a Banana Republic, into a political and military base for North American imperialism,” Chávez thundered. The Venezuelan leader urged the Honduran military to return Zelaya to power and even threatened military action against the coup regime if Venezuela’s ambassador was killed or local troops entered the Venezuelan Embassy. Reportedly, Honduran soldiers beat the ambassador and left him on the side of a road in the course of the military coup. Tensions have ratcheted up to such an extent that Chávez has now placed his armed forces on alert.

On the surface at least it seems unlikely that Obama would endorse an interventionist U.S. foreign policy in Central America. Over the past few months he has gone to great lengths to “re-brand” America in the eyes of the world as a reasonable power engaged in respectful diplomacy as opposed to reckless unilateralism. If it were ever proven that Obama sanctioned the overthrow of a democratically elected government this could completely undermine the U.S. President’s carefully crafted image.

Officially, the military removed Zelaya from power on the grounds that the Honduran President had abused his authority. On Sunday Zelaya hoped to hold a constitutional referendum which could have allowed him to run for reelection for another four year term, a move which Honduras’ Supreme Court and Congress declared illegal. But while the controversy over Zelaya’s constitutional referendum certainly provided the excuse for military intervention, it’s no secret that the President was at odds politically with the Honduran elite for the past few years and had become one of Washington’s fiercest critics in the region.

The Rise of Zelaya

Zelaya, who sports a thick black mustache, cowboy boots and large white Stetson hat, was elected in late 2005. At first blush he hardly seemed the type of politician to rock the boat. A landowner from a wealthy landowning family engaged in the lumber industry, Zelaya headed the Liberal Party, one of the two dominant political parties in Honduras. The President supported the Central American Free Trade Agreement which eliminated trade barriers with the United States.

Despite these initial conservative leanings, Zelaya began to criticize powerful, vested interests in the country such as the media and owners of maquiladora sweatshops which produced goods for export in industrial free zones. Gradually he started to adopt some socially progressive policies. For example, Zelaya instituted a 60 per cent minimum wage increase which angered the wealthy business community. The hike in the minimum wage, Zelaya declared, would “force the business oligarchy to start paying what is fair.” “This is a government of great social transformations, committed to the poor,” he added. Trade unions celebrated the decision, not surprising given that Honduras is the third poorest country in the hemisphere and 70 per cent of its people live in poverty. When private business associations announced that they would challenge the government’s wage decree in Honduras’ Supreme Court, Zelaya’s Labor Minister called the critics “greedy exploiters.”

In another move that must have raised eyebrows in Washington, Zelaya declared during a meeting of Latin American and Caribbean anti-drug officials that drug consumption should be legalized to halt violence related to smuggling. In recent years Honduras has been plagued by drug trafficking and so-called maras or street gangs which carry out gruesome beheadings, rapes and eye gouging. “Instead of pursuing drug traffickers, societies should invest resources in educating drug addicts and curbing their demand,” Zelaya said. Rodolfo Zelaya, the head of a Honduran congressional commission on drug trafficking, rejected Zelaya’s comments. He told participants at the meeting that he was “confused and stunned by what the Honduran leader said.”

Zelaya and ALBA

Not content to stop there, Zelaya started to conduct an increasingly more independent foreign policy. In late 2007 he traveled to Cuba, the first official trip by a Honduran president to the Communist island in 46 years. There, Zelaya met with Raul Castro to discuss bilateral relations and other topics of mutual interest.

But what really led Zelaya towards a political collision course with the Honduran elite was his decision to join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (known by its Spanish acronym ALBA), an alliance of leftist Latin American and Caribbean nations headed by Chávez. The regional trade group including Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Dominica seeks to counteract corporate-friendly U.S-backed free trade schemes. Since its founding in 2004, ALBA countries have promoted joint factories and banks, an emergency food fund, and exchanges of cheap Venezuelan oil for food, housing, and educational investment.

In an emphatic departure from previous Honduran leaders who had been compliant vassals of the U.S., Zelaya stated “Honduras and the Honduran people do not have to ask permission of any imperialism to join the ALBA.” Speaking in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa before a crowd of 50,000 unionists, women’s groups, farmers and indigenous peoples, Chávez remarked that Venezuela would guarantee cheap oil to Honduras for “at least 100 years.” By signing onto ALBA, Zelaya was able to secure access to credit lines, energy and food benefits. As an act of good faith, Chávez agreed to forgive Honduran debt to Venezuela amounting to $30 million.

Infuriating the local elite, Chávez declared that Hondurans who opposed ALBA were “sellouts.” “I did not come here to meddle in internal affairs,” he continued, “but…I cannot explain how a Honduran could be against Honduras joining the ALBA, the path of development, the path of integration.” Chávez lambasted the Honduran press which he labeled pitiyanquis (little Yanqui imitators) and “abject hand-lickers of the Yanquis.” For his part, Zelaya said “we need no one’s permission to sign this commitment. Today we are taking a step towards becoming a government of the center-left, and if anyone dislikes this, well just remove the word ‘center’ and keep the second one.”

It wasn’t long before private business started to attack Zelaya bitterly for moving Honduras into Chávez’s orbit. By joining ALBA, business representatives argued, the President was endangering free enterprise and the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Former President Ricardo Maduro even claimed that the United States might retaliate against Honduras by deporting Honduran migrants from the United States. “Don't bite the hand that feeds you,” Maduro warned, alluding to Washington. Zelaya was piqued by the criticisms. “When I met with (U.S. President) George W. Bush,” he said, “no one called me an anti-imperialist and the business community applauded me. Now that I am meeting with the impoverished peoples of the world, they criticize me.”

Zelaya’s Letter to Obama

In September, 2008 Zelaya further strained U.S. relations by delaying accreditation of the new U.S. ambassador out of solidarity with Bolivia and Venezuela which had just gone through diplomatic dust ups with Washington. “We are not breaking relations with the United States,” Zelaya said. “We only are (doing this) in solidarity with [Bolivian President] Morales, who has denounced the meddling of the United States in Bolivia's internal affairs.” Defending his decision, Zelaya said small nations needed to stick together. “The world powers must treat us fairly and with respect,” he stated.

In November, Zelaya hailed Obama’s election in the U.S. as “a hope for the world,” but just two months later tensions began to emerge. In an audacious letter sent personally to Obama, Zelaya accused the U.S. of “interventionism” and called on the new administration in Washington to respect the principle of non-interference in the political affairs of other nations. According to Spanish news agency EFE which saw a copy of the note, Zelaya told Obama that it wasn’t his intention to tell the U.S. President what he should or should not do.

He then however went on to do precisely that. First of all, Zelaya brought up the issue of U.S. visas and urged Obama to “revise the procedure by which visas are cancelled or denied to citizens of different parts of the world as a means of pressure against those people who hold different beliefs or ideologies which pose no threat to the U.S.”

As if that was not impudent enough, Zelaya then moved on to drug trafficking: “The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking…should not be used as an excuse to carry out interventionist policies in other countries.” The struggle against drug smuggling, Zelaya wrote, “should not be divorced from a vigorous policy of controlling distribution and consumer demand in all countries, as well as money laundering which operates through financial circuits and which involve networks within developed countries.”

Zelaya also argued “for the urgent necessity” of revising and transforming the structure of the United Nations and “to solve the Venezuela and Bolivia problems” through dialogue which “yields better fruit than confrontation.” The Cuban embargo, meanwhile, “was a useless instrument” and “a means of unjust pressure and violation of human rights.”

Run Up to June Coup

It’s unclear what Obama might have made of the audacious letter sent from the leader of a small Central American nation. It does seem however that Zelaya became somewhat disenchanted with the new administration in Washington. Just three months ago, the Honduran leader declined to attend a meeting of the System for Central American Integration (known by its Spanish acronym SICA) which would bring Central American Presidents together with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden in San José, Costa Rica.

Both Zelaya and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua boycotted the meeting, viewing it as a diplomatic affront. Nicaragua currently holds the presidency of SICA, and so the proper course of action should have been for Biden to have Ortega hold the meeting. Sandinista economist and former Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Trade Alejandro Martínez Cuenca declared that the United States had missed a vital opportunity to encourage a new era of relations with Central America by “prioritizing personal relations with [Costa Rican President] Arias over respect for Central America's institutional order.”

Could all of the contentious diplomatic back and forth between Tegucigalpa and Washington have turned the Obama administration against Zelaya? In the days ahead there will surely be a lot of attention and scrutiny paid to the role of Romeo Vasquez, a General who led the military coup against Zelaya. Vasquez is a graduate of the notorious U.S. School of the Americas, an institution which trained the Latin American military in torture.

Are we to believe that the United States had no role in coordinating with Vasquez and the coup plotters? The U.S. has had longstanding military ties to the Honduran armed forces, particularly during the Contra War in Nicaragua during the 1980s. The White House, needless to say, has rejected claims that the U.S. played a role. The New York Times has reported claims that the Obama administration knew that a coup was imminent and tried to persuade the military to back down. The paper writes that it was the Honduran military which broke off discussions with American officials. Obama himself has taken the high road, remarking “I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms [and] the rule of law…Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”

Even if the Obama administration did not play an underhanded role in this affair, the Honduran coup highlights growing geo-political tensions in the region. In recent years, Chávez has sought to extend his influence to smaller Central American and Caribbean nations. The Venezuelan leader shows no intention of backing down over the Honduran coup, remarking that ALBA nations “will not recognize any [Honduran] government that isn't Zelaya’s.”

Chávez then derided Honduras’ interim president, Roberto Micheletti. “Mr. Roberto Micheletti will either wind up in prison or he'll need to go into exile… If they swear him in we'll overthrow him, mark my words. Thugetti--as I'm going to refer to him from now on--you better pack your bags, because you're either going to jail or you're going into exile. We're not going to forgive your error, you're going to get swept out of there. We're not going to let it happen, we're going to make life impossible for you. President Manuel Zelaya needs to retake his position as president.”

With tensions running high, heads of ALBA nations have vowed to meet in Managua to discuss the coup in Honduras. Zelaya, who was exiled to Costa Rica from Honduras, plans to fly to Nicaragua to speak with his colleagues. With such political unity amongst ALBA nations, Obama will have to decide what the public U.S. posture ought to be.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008) Follow his blog at senorchichero.blogspot.com

[cutthemdown]

Bush invaded a soverign nation so why can't Chavez.

Huga can try whatever he wants. It's called free will. Of course it would be his last move as America will never, I repeat never, let a Latin American country use it's military to do anything outside of it's borders unless they are attacked first. No way we let Hugo roll into Hondurous for any reason.

[Dukes]

They'll blame the US

Interesting that the Honduran president had accused the US of interference in the months before the coup

Hilarious!

[ant1999e]

Don't you think Republicans/conservatives just should let the Houndorans and Hugo solve this matters themselves???

I don't think anyone here said we should intervene. What was said is that when the Iranian people had their votes stolen and were protesting in the streets, Obama barely whispered about it but when a Latin American leftist who is in bed with Hugo attempts to become a closet dictator, Obama attempts to prevent the coup.

[rastaman]

Huga can try whatever he wants. It's called free will. Of course it would be his last move as America will never, I repeat never, let a Latin American country use it's military to do anything outside of it's borders unless they are attacked first. No way we let Hugo roll into Hondurous for any reason.

And you wonder why the U.S. is hated so badly.......you imperilistic conservatives just never learn---do you.

[rastaman]

I don't think anyone here said we should intervene. What was said is that when the Iranian people had their votes stolen and were protesting in the streets, Obama barely whispered about it but when a Latin American leftist who is in bed with Hugo attempts to become a closet dictator, Obama attempts to prevent the coup.

Point I am trying to make, is that the years of U.S. meddling and imperialism should be over and done with. All the U.S. accomplishes is further destabilize those country's and to engender more generational hatred toward America.

[cutthemdown]

And you wonder why the U.S. is hated so badly.......you imperilistic conservatives just never learn---do you.

You're kidding right? You think it would be smart for America to let Brazil, Venezuela, Peru whoever start using military to go into other countries to gain power?

No friggin way we are the big dog on this block and no President, not dem, not repub, will ever allow that.

I said nothing about making a colony, I said we won't allow Hugo to take his army outside of his borders for the purpose of engaging another countries military. Will never happen. We would get a UN mandate ane bomb the crap out of him, or maybe just do it regardless.

Everyone should let Honduras settle this themselves but if some country like Venezuela feels they can start throwing there power around for sure I would want our military to let them know who is boss.

It's how we have always been, it's how we will always be. When will you learn that? You probably love on land we snagged somehow from some poor country like Mexico or the Indians.

I suggest you find a country that has never engaged in stuff like that and go live there. But don't try and act like America has lost its way, we are the same we have always been and we are still in first place.

[cutthemdown]

Point I am trying to make, is that the years of U.S. meddling and imperialism should be over and done with. All the U.S. accomplishes is further destabilize those country's and to engender more generational hatred toward America.

So had we not been like that would we be better off?

We wouldn't have New Mexico, California, Texas. Hell go back further and we don't have a country because the indians were already here.

Had you been captian of the Mayflower you probably would have said, nope turn around, not fair to take this land someone already here.

So the point you make is you love America, all its power, but now want to change the rules because how we did it is the wrong way. What makes it different today then it was when our President said we have a destiny to stretch to both great oceans?

[frerottenextelway]

The military just says nope to no ending term limits. They realize the MO in the region is to just control everything and make elections easy to win IE Venezuela. We have to watch more I'm not sure what to think but it looks like military moving to insure that Presidents cant become lifetime leaders.

I'm curious to hear you explain how he would have more right. Iraq invaded kuwait, shot at american planes in a un no fly zone etc.

What has happened that concerns Hugo enough to justify his intervention.

If anything it proves he was in cahoots with a leftist brother on a way to change Honduras into a state that this guy could be El Presidente for life.

Their military just staged a coup to overthrow a democratically elected President. That is not acceptable. To make a simplistic analogy, if Felipe Calderon of Mexico got overthrown, we would have more justification to get involved than we did invading Iraq (of course, we shouldn't militarily get involved in that hypothetical either...). That should be common sense.

And how ****ing retarded to bring up Desert Storm. Our invasion had nothing to do with Desert Storm, nor the events that lead up to that.

Thank God the EU, Canada, America and most nations around the world are all standing up for democracy here. The neocons, as many did with Iran, Palestine, etc are showcasing that their support for democracies around the world are nothing more than a front to support their own ideologies.

[cutthemdown]

And you wonder why the U.S. is hated so badly.......you imperilistic conservatives just never learn---do you.

Also people hating us is blown out of proportion. Turns out the stats say Americans not victims of more crime when traveling then other western countries.

I was treated well in Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica. My mom was treated well in New Zealand and Australia.

We have plenty of countries that like us. Isn't it really true it's only our enemies that hate us?

[frerottenextelway]

So had we not been like that would we be better off?

We wouldn't have New Mexico, California, Texas. Hell go back further and we don't have a country because the indians were already here.

Had you been captian of the Mayflower you probably would have said, nope turn around, not fair to take this land someone already here.

So the point you make is you love America, all its power, but now want to change the rules because how we did it is the wrong way. What makes it different today then it was when our President said we have a destiny to stretch to both great oceans?

America was largely built on, and became a Super Power because of, slavery. Would you like to continue to use your rational in that regards?

[cutthemdown]

Their military just staged a coup to overthrow a democratically elected President. That is not acceptable. To make a simplistic analogy, if Felipe Calderon of Mexico got overthrown, we would have more justification to get involved than we did invading Iraq (of course, we shouldn't militarily get involved in that hypothetical either...). That should be common sense.

And how ****ing retarded to bring up Desert Storm. Our invasion had nothing to do with Desert Storm, nor the events that lead up to that.

Thank God the EU, Canada, America and most nations around the world are all standing up for democracy here. The neocons, as many did with Iran, Palestine, etc are showcasing that their support for democracies around the world are nothing more than a front to support their own ideologies.

Well the Supreme Court ordered the military, and because of that I don't see it as a military thing 100%. In the end don't you support just letting Honduras settle this themsleves?

Iraq was different they invaded Kuwait, they shot at planes, they paid terrorists for suicide bombings and had used chemical weapons before. Your not really comparing that to a country having an internal coup are you.

Sorry I love to argue but I fail to see the connection and feel it is a huge reach.

Since when do outside countries attack when countries have a coup? If anything you support it proxy by sending one side weapons.

[cutthemdown]

I know it happened in Lebonon right? Syria and Isreal have both went in over stuff like this right?

IMO you don't want to let countries in S AMerica start using military against each other. I feel it's important we don't allow that under any circumstances.

[cutthemdown]

America was largely built on, and became a Super Power because of, slavery. Would you like to continue to use your rational in that regards?

Thats not true we didn't have that many African slaves. Just not true we are what we are because of that. In fact we exploited more cheap Chinese labor then anything and they probably worked under as bad of conditions.

Of course I dont advocate as strong of an approach as we used to. I don't want to start a war with Canada for Vancouver or take anymore of Mexico.

I do agree though with maintaining a status, in our hemisphere, that we are the big dogs and no military action will be taking place unless we ok it. Sure we are still bullies, but I don't advocate expansion or slavery and feel your point was once again something that is not a good comparison.

[frerottenextelway]

Well the Supreme Court ordered the military, and because of that I don't see it as a military thing 100%. In the end don't you support just letting Honduras settle this themsleves?

Iraq was different they invaded Kuwait, they shot at planes, they paid terrorists for suicide bombings and had used chemical weapons before. Your not really comparing that to a country having an internal coup are you.

Sorry I love to argue but I fail to see the connection and feel it is a huge reach.

Since when do outside countries attack when countries have a coup? If anything you support it proxy by sending one side weapons.

I'm quite sure our invasion of Iraq had little to do with Kuwait. We invaded in 2003, the Gulf War ended in 1991. Obv, there was justification for our 1991 ousting of the Iraqi miliatry from Kuwait during the Gulf War.

I don't support Chavez getting involved militarily, what I said was he would have more justification for doing so then we had for our invasion in Iraq. Which should be clear. A coup has been staged on a democratically elected ally of his. That is real. What we used to justify an invasion Iraq was manufactured.

[frerottenextelway]

Thats not true we didn't have that many African slaves. Just not true we are what we are because of that. In fact we exploited more cheap Chinese labor then anything and they probably worked under as bad of conditions.

Of course I dont advocate as strong of an approach as we used to. I don't want to start a war with Canada for Vancouver or take anymore of Mexico.

I do agree though with maintaining a status, in our hemisphere, that we are the big dogs and no military action will be taking place unless we ok it. Sure we are still bullies, but I don't advocate expansion or slavery and feel your point was once again something that is not a good comparison.

snip from wiki

Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there were a small number of white slaves as well. The majority of slaveholding was in the southern United States where most slaves were engaged in an efficient machine-like gang system of agriculture, with farms of fifteen or more slaves featuring a higher factor of productivity compared to those farms without slaves. According to the 1860 U.S. census, nearly four million slaves were held in a total population of just over 12 million in the 15 states in which slavery was legal.[4] Of all 8,289,782 free persons in the 15 slave states, 393,967 people (4.8%) held slaves, with the average number of slaves held by any single owner being 10.[4][5] The majority of slaves were held by planters, defined by historians as those who held 20 or more slaves.

[cutthemdown]

Exactly those number 4.3% and only in the south really, 4 million people, are not responsible for building America. It was a period were we did the wrong thing but not the reason we are powerful today.

Your snippet from wiki proves nothing IMO.

[frerottenextelway]

Exactly those number 4.3% and only in the south really, 4 million people, are not responsible for building America. It was a period were we did the wrong thing but not the reason we are powerful today.

Your snippet from wiki proves nothing IMO.

8 million free people, 4 million slaves.

With the vast productivy done by the slaves (obv).

W/e. Spin away.

[cutthemdown]

8 million free people, 4 million slaves.

With the vast productivy done by the slaves (obv).

W/e. Spin away.

Ok I will bite. The number you cite it by 1860. They were freed shortly after that.

So between the 16th century, and 19th century 12 million slaves left Africa, but not all for the Americas. Of those 12 million 645 thousand. So a ton to the other countries which even out the advantage you say we got. Sure it advanced our progress that we had slavery, no doubt about it. It was wrong no doubt about it. But we were really arguing about American expansionism which really is not the same issue. Slavery was a world issue that thankfully most countries have done away with.

So if slaves fueled so much, what countries made out with the other 11.5 million of them? Also if the black slaves were so powerful a force how come Africa always a **** hole? Do they need to be slaves to accomplish anything in your opinion? See I can put words into your mouth as well *%#$.

[cutthemdown]

Ferrotte is saying 600 thousand original slaves did more in America then all the other 11.5 million slaves, or all the black people in Africa.

Slavery was horrid, and Americans used them bad, but we would still have same land mass and be super powerful without slavery because really whole world exploited it. The losers were the Africans whose culture just left them wide open to the evils of expansion and exploitation.

But to say we only have slavery to credit all the hard work non slaves have done in America is a joke.

600 thousand slaves brought within 3 centuries. But we brought in 100 thousand chinese during the gold rush who also were used to further our country.

There bones are strung along the railroad lines in pits with hundreds in each one all over our country.

There are a lot of things done in the past that were not right but it is what it is.

[frerottenextelway]

It seems your circular logic on the 'ends justify the means' mentality in regards to America's dominace in the world has led to an epic clusterf_ck. When the other person in a debate has to resort to blatant strawmen tactics, then the point has been made and the debate has been decided. So I will just move on now.

[cutthemdown]

It seems your circular logic on the 'ends justify the means' mentality in regards to America's dominace in the world has led to an epic clusterf_ck. When the other person in a debate has to resort to blatant strawmen tactics, then the point has been made and the debate has been decided. So I will just move on now.

You started it by bringing up the stupid slavery comparison. I only played your game. Don't hate the playa baby!!!!!!

[cutthemdown]

So let's get back to the issue the coup in Honduras and how Latin America and America should react. Instead of trying some we built country on slavery angle that really had no bearing on the issue.

Ferrotte are you saying that this coup so unnacceptable you want military action to avert it. It's already over you know right? It will take force to put Zelya back in.

Or are you saying you support Hugo Chavez using military to do it?

Or are you saying you want the international community to shun honduras and embargo them? They are already poor remember that.

[Bronco Bob]

Huga can try whatever he wants. It's called free will. Of course it would be his last move as America will never, I repeat never, let a Latin American country use it's military to do anything outside of it's borders unless they are attacked first. No way we let Hugo roll into Hondurous for any reason.

And exactly why should the US butt in?

[Bronco Bob]

I don't think anyone here said we should intervene. What was said is that when the Iranian people had their votes stolen and were protesting in the streets, Obama barely whispered about it but when a Latin American leftist who is in bed with Hugo attempts to become a closet dictator, Obama attempts to prevent the coup.

Get it through your thick head. The Iranian leadership is itching to blame
the US for the protests. Obama sticking his nose in is exactly the wrong
thing to do. There is no comparison.

[Rohirrim]

America was largely built on, and became a Super Power because of, slavery. Would you like to continue to use your rational in that regards?

That's not true at all. America didn't become a super power until the end of WWII.

[ant1999e]

Get it through your thick head. The Iranian leadership is itching to blame
the US for the protests. Obama sticking his nose in is exactly the wrong
thing to do. There is no comparison.

So what is your opinion of him sticking his nose in the Honduras situation?
Zelya (and Chavez ) would love to blame the US for a coup. Oh, wait. Obama was supportive of the wanna be dictator.

[Garcia Bronco]

With the vast productivy done by the slaves (obv).



Obvioulsy Slavery was very much an economic issue, but I don't think you can make that statement clean. From reliable economic data to industrial growth through paid labor both children and adults alike I can't conclude Slavery alone is responsible for our economic prowess. By 1828 the North was legally getting tariffs passed that severly hurt the ecomony of the South and what ultimately led to the Civil War.

[Garcia Bronco]

So what is your opinion of him sticking his nose in the Honduras situation?
Zelya (and Chavez ) would love to blame the US for a coup. Oh, wait. Obama was supportive of the wanna be dictator.

It's not even a Coup. If fact based on what is listed above they stopped a coup. This of course doesn't sit well with the tyrant Chavez because his country was unable to stop him for siezing Venezuela

[Rohirrim]

It wasn't slaves that made America powerful, it was her machines. Slaves were part of the rural landscape that disappeared as the industrial revolution kicked into gear. Had the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation never happened, slavery would have been replaced by machinery.

[TexanBob]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon063009.gif

Tells it like it is.

[Rohirrim]

Hope this doesn't drive up the cost of bananas.

[frerottenextelway]

That's not true at all. America didn't become a super power until the end of WWII.

Well, that's not true. The term ''super power'' didn't exist unitl after WWII, but the definition of ''super power'' makes America one as far back as the 19th century.

When America Became a Superpower (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200808/ai_n28082048/?tag=content;col1)

Pluralism, Expansionism, and Democracy
A History of the U.S. Military (http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/020military.html)

Historians agree!

[frerottenextelway]

Obvioulsy Slavery was very much an economic issue, but I don't think you can make that statement clean. From reliable economic data to industrial growth through paid labor both children and adults alike I can't conclude Slavery alone is responsible for our economic prowess. By 1828 the North was legally getting tariffs passed that severly hurt the ecomony of the South and what ultimately led to the Civil War.

I didn't say ''alone''. I said it accounted for the vast majority of production, which is different, and true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Economy of the Confederate States of America

The Confederate States of America had an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe and the northern US states. If ranked as an independent nation, it would have been the fourth richest country of the world in 1860.[1] When the Union blockaded its ports in summer 1861, exports of cotton fell 95 percent and the South had to restructure itself to emphasize food production and munitions production. After losing control of its main rivers and ports, it had to depend on a rickety railroad system that, with few repairs, no new equipment and federal raids, crumbled away. The financial infrastructure collapsed during the war as inflation destroyed banks and forced a move toward a barter economy for civilians. The government seized needed supplies and livestock (paying with certificates that were supposed to be paid off after the war, but never were.) By 1865 the economy was in ruins.

[cutthemdown]

Get it through your thick head. The Iranian leadership is itching to blame
the US for the protests. Obama sticking his nose in is exactly the wrong
thing to do. There is no comparison.

What do you mean itching to? They already have blamed us. Also we probably do give money to dissident groups, that in turn supply the reform movement with money. Anyone who thinks we don't is naive. We also probably do all sort of other sneaky things.

Hell I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the CIA is behind all this in Honduras. How genius would it be. You tell the world one thing, we condemn it, all the while being behind it through CIA. Evil genius baby. You never know really.

If the CIA thought Honduras was under the thumb of Hugo and going down that path I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Hell maybe Obama doesn't even know what is really up, this could have been set in motion months before he was elected.

[cutthemdown]

And exactly why should the US butt in?

Actually IMO there is no reason to. Seems like they are going to hold elections and there Supreme Court feels they are acting within there laws. I couldn't say I have no idea about anything from that country.

My point is if something is going to be done in this hemisphere it will be the USA doing it. I doubt we get to the point were we say well if Venezuela wants to attack Honduras, and put back in Zelya, and let him stay President for as many terms as he wants etc, we would be cool with that.

I think if we think that needs to be done we would always do it ourselves, or at least lead a coalition.

In this case I don't see one reason to but in. Honduras has nothing that matters and the people are poor, but there isn't blatant human rights violations going on now is there?

IMO only countries that flaunt power, challenge the USA military, or attack us, shoot at our planes, etc etc deserve a but kicking. Honduras just a bunch of banana fields, no reason to do anything unless the bananas stop flowing!!!!!!!!

[cutthemdown]

I do like bananas.

[Garcia Bronco]

I didn't say ''alone''. I said it accounted for the vast majority of production, which is different, and true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Well...if it was in economic ruin, all the gains made through slavery were lost.

[mhgaffney]

Actually IMO there is no reason to. Seems like they are going to hold elections and there Supreme Court feels they are acting within there laws. I couldn't say I have no idea about anything from that country.

My point is if something is going to be done in this hemisphere it will be the USA doing it. I doubt we get to the point were we say well if Venezuela wants to attack Honduras, and put back in Zelya, and let him stay President for as many terms as he wants etc, we would be cool with that.

I think if we think that needs to be done we would always do it ourselves, or at least lead a coalition.

In this case I don't see one reason to but in. Honduras has nothing that matters and the people are poor, but there isn't blatant human rights violations going on now is there?

IMO only countries that flaunt power, challenge the USA military, or attack us, shoot at our planes, etc etc deserve a but kicking. Honduras just a bunch of banana fields, no reason to do anything unless the bananas stop flowing!!!!!!!!


No state on earth is stupid enough to challenge the US militarily -- except maybe N Korea, whose leaders have the courage of the desperate. Not actual courage -- mind you -- more like reckless stupidity.

But the case of Honduras is pretty clear. Central America has been our backyard since the time of Pres Monroe. The US has intervened militarily in most of the nations in this region -- often repeatedly -- as in the case of Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala.

No doubt -- this was a US backed coup -- despite Obama's remarks to the press. The elected pres Zelaya tried to raise the minimum wage and make some other progressive changes to benefit the nation's poor majority.

The powers that be reacted -- true to form. Honduras has a tiny middle and upper class -- that opposed Zelaya. The Honduran military is US trained and supplied. We must also assume the CIA was involved.

This is another in a long line of crimes -- trashing democracy whenever there is a "threat" REAL social and economic change.

The US is now eager to restore Zelaya to power -- but even if this happens he will be stripped of real power. It will be a PR circus -- for show.

[Rohirrim]

Hard to pick sides in this one. Looks like both sides are idiots. Which idiot do you prefer?

[cutthemdown]

No state on earth is stupid enough to challenge the US militarily -- except maybe N Korea, whose leaders have the courage of the desperate. Not actual courage -- mind you -- more like reckless stupidity.

But the case of Honduras is pretty clear. Central America has been our backyard since the time of Pres Monroe. The US has intervened militarily in most of the nations in this region -- often repeatedly -- as in the case of Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala.

No doubt -- this was a US backed coup -- despite Obama's remarks to the press. The elected pres Zelaya tried to raise the minimum wage and make some other progressive changes to benefit the nation's poor majority.

The powers that be reacted -- true to form. Honduras has a tiny middle and upper class -- that opposed Zelaya. The Honduran military is US trained and supplied. We must also assume the CIA was involved.

This is another in a long line of crimes -- trashing democracy whenever there is a "threat" REAL social and economic change.

The US is now eager to restore Zelaya to power -- but even if this happens he will be stripped of real power. It will be a PR circus -- for show.


Dude they have like 9 jets, no Navy to speak of, nothing really. What have we given them? Maybe some helicopters and small arms? This country has no military to speak of. Am I wrong about this? I mean Honduras hasn't had enough money to buy weapons have they?

I wouldn't doubt we are behind this coup one bit. We would love to stick it to Chavez if he had designs on adding Hoduras to his block of leftist power.

Well if he does get re-instated think about it gaff. I bet it wouldn't be in time to change the law of his country to allow him to run again. He tries to delay election, the courts rule against him, and he is not even allowed to run. I could see it ending like that.

No way outside countries can force Honduras to change there laws without force IMO. Hell Obama may not even know what's going on. There is a chance the CIA put all this in motion under Bush.

[mhgaffney]

Cut you miss the point.

The Honduran military is US trained and supplied. Many of the ones in the military police -- i.e. death squads -- were trained at the school of the Americas in the US.

We gave them what they needed to repress the Honduran poor majority. We didn't back the coup to intimidate Chavez. We did it because this is what we always do -- we support United Fruit, Coca Cola, and other US corporations in Central America -- who are allied with the tiny class of oligarchs who rule these nations for their own profit.

So much for US rhetoric about suporting democracy. The media is now trying to defend the removal of Zelaya -- saying it was NOT a coup. But I heard that the armed men who came to seize Zelaya were wearing masks.

Do defenders of the Honduran Constitution come in the night wearing masks?

No of course not.

[cutthemdown]

Cut you miss the point.

The Honduran military is US trained and supplied. Many of the ones in the military police -- i.e. death squads -- were trained at the school of the Americas in the US.

We gave them what they needed to repress the Honduran poor majority. We didn't back the coup to intimidate Chavez. We did it because this is what we always do -- we support United Fruit, Coca Cola, and other US corporations in Central America -- who are allied with the tiny class of oligarchs who rule these nations for their own profit.

So much for US rhetoric about suporting democracy. The media is now trying to defend the removal of Zelaya -- saying it was NOT a coup. But I heard that the armed men who came to seize Zelaya were wearing masks.

Do defenders of the Honduran Constitution come in the night wearing masks?

No of course not.

Special forces often wear masks don't they? I wouldn't know really.

If America did do this it was pretty slick. I mean Obama denying it everyone believes him. Your not saying Obama lying are you?

Also is there a humanitarian problem in this country as far as human rights go? DO they have a lot of political prisoners etc? I admit I know nothing about honduras.

[mhgaffney]

Once again Cut mis-perceives what is happening. He thinks Chavez is getting too big for his britches.

But this misconstrues the growing regional disgust with the big super power in the North (Gringo land).

The Latino states have had enough of CIA interference. This pattern of interference by the colossus to the north has been going on for too long. Chavez is merely saying what all Latinos know.

And now we have evidence that at least two of the plotters were trained at the school of the Americas.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/06/key-leaders-of-honduras-military-coup-trained-in-us.html

[cutthemdown]

Yeah but it looks really like we didn't do it. People actually believe Obama.

The fact we are going with the world in condemning, cancelling military plans to train etc, gives us all we need to say to Brazil, Columbia, Mexico we have nothing to do with it.

Hell we can even say that to good ole Hugo. Say we will not even recognize anyone but Zelya.....that is until new elections....HEHEHE.

By the way Hugo way to big for his britches and is itching for a beatdown. I bet if he stays im power long enough he will get some.

[Bronco Bob]

So what is your opinion of him sticking his nose in the Honduras situation?
Zelya (and Chavez ) would love to blame the US for a coup. Oh, wait. Obama was supportive of the wanna be dictator.

He should stay out of that one too.

[Bronco Bob]

I do like bananas.

Enjoy them while you can. They'll be extinct in a few years.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-06/can-fruit-be-saved

[cutthemdown]

Meh the will crossbreed me another banana to eat I have faith.

[mhgaffney]

Chavez already saying America and the CIA behind this. I wish Gaff would tell us what is up.

OK, Cut,

I had to go back to early July to find this thread on the HOnduran coup.

But now finally we have a motive for a US coup. Check it out. The issue was the big us air base at Palmerola.


MHG

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07222009.html

July 22, 2009

Zelaya, Negroponte and the Controversy at Soto Cano

The Coup and the U.S. Airbase in Honduras

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

The mainstream media has once again dropped the ball on a key aspect of the ongoing story in Honduras: the U.S. airbase at Soto Cano, also known as Palmerola. Prior to the recent military coup d’etat President Manuel Zelaya declared that he would turn the base into a civilian airport, a move opposed by the former U.S. ambassador. What’s more Zelaya intended to carry out his project with Venezuelan financing.

For years prior to the coup the Honduran authorities had discussed the possibility of converting Palmerola into a civilian facility. Officials fretted that Toncontín, Tegucigalpa’s international airport, was too small and incapable of handling large commercial aircraft. An aging facility dating to 1948, Toncontín has a short runway and primitive navigation equipment. The facility is surrounded by hills which makes it one of the world’s more dangerous international airports.

Palmerola by contrast has the best runway in the country at 8,850 feet long and 165 feet wide. The airport was built more recently in the mid-1980s at a reported cost of $30 million and was used by the United States for supplying the Contras during America’s proxy war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua as well as conducting counter-insurgency operations in El Salvador. At the height of the Contra war the U.S. had more than 5,000 soldiers stationed at Palmerola. Known as the Contras’ “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” the base housed Green Berets as well as CIA operatives advising the Nicaraguan rebels.

More recently there have been some 500-to-600 U.S. troops on hand at the facility which serves as a Honduran air force base as well as a flight-training center. With the exit of U.S. bases from Panama in 1999, Palmerola became one of the few usable airfields available to the U.S. on Latin American soil. The base is located approximately 30 miles north of the capital Tegucigalpa.

In 2006 it looked as if Zelaya and the Bush administration were nearing a deal on Palmerola’s future status. In June of that year Zelaya flew to Washington to meet President Bush and the Honduran requested that Palmerola be converted into a commercial airport. Reportedly Bush said the idea was “wholly reasonable” and Zelaya declared that a four-lane highway would be constructed from Tegucigalpa to Palmerola with U.S. funding.

In exchange for the White House’s help on the Palmerola facility Zelaya offered the U.S. access to a new military installation to be located in the Mosquitia area along the Honduran coast near the Nicaraguan border. Mosquitia reportedly serves as a corridor for drugs moving south to north. The drug cartels pass through Mosquitia with their cargo en route from Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

A remote area only accessible by air, sea, and river Mosquitia is full of swamp and jungle. The region is ideal for the U.S. since large numbers of troops may be housed in Mosquitia in relative obscurity. The coastal location was ideally suited for naval and air coverage consistent with the stated U.S. military strategy of confronting organized crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism. Romeo Vásquez, head of the Honduran Joint Chiefs of Staff, remarked that the armed forces needed to exert a greater presence in Mosquitia because the area was full of “conflict and problems.”

But what kind of access would the U.S. have to Mosquitia? Honduran Defense Secretary Aristides Mejía said that Mosquitia wouldn’t necessarily be “a classic base with permanent installations, but just when needed. We intend, if President Zelaya approves, to expand joint operations [with the United States].” That statement however was apparently not to the liking of eventual coup leader and U.S. School of the Americas graduate Vásquez who had already traveled to Washington to discuss future plans for Mosquitia. Contradicting his own colleague, Vásquez said the idea was “to establish a permanent military base of ours in the zone” which would house aircraft and fuel supply systems. The United States, Vásquez added, would help to construct air strips on site.

Events on the ground meanwhile would soon force the Hondurans to take a more assertive approach towards air safety. In May, 2008 a terrible crash occurred at Toncontín airport when a TACA Airbus A320 slid off the runway on its second landing attempt. After mowing down trees and smashing through a metal fence, the airplane’s fuselage was broken into three parts near the airstrip. Three people were killed in the crash and 65 were injured.

In the wake of the tragedy Honduran officials were forced at long last to block planes from landing at the notoriously dangerous Toncontín. All large jets, officials said, would be temporarily transferred to Palmerola. Touring the U.S. airbase himself Zelaya remarked that the authorities would create a new civilian facility at Palmerola within sixty days. Bush had already agreed to let Honduras construct a civilian airport at Palmerola, Zelaya said. “There are witnesses,” the President added.

But constructing a new airport had grown more politically complicated. Honduran-U.S. relations had deteriorated considerably since Zelaya’s 2006 meeting with Bush and Zelaya had started to cultivate ties to Venezuela while simultaneously criticizing the American-led war on drugs.

Bush’s own U.S. Ambassador Charles Ford said that while he would welcome the traffic at Palmerola past agreements should be honored. The base was used mostly for drug surveillance planes and Ford remarked that “The president can order the use of Palmerola when he wants, but certain accords and protocols must be followed.” “It is important to point out that Toncontín is certified by the International Civil Aviation Organization,” Ford added, hoping to allay long-time concerns about the airport’s safety. What’s more, the diplomat declared, there were some airlines that would not see Palmerola as an “attractive” landing destination. Ford would not elaborate or explain what his remarks were supposed to mean.

Throwing fuel on the fire Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte, a former U.S. ambassador to Honduras, said that Honduras could not transform Palmerola into a civilian airport “from one day to the next.” In Tegucigalpa, Negroponte met with Zelaya to discuss Palmerola. Speaking later on Honduran radio the U.S. diplomat said that before Zelaya could embark on his plans for Palmerola the airport would have to receive international certification for new incoming flights. According to Spanish news agency EFE Negroponte also took advantage of his Tegucigalpa trip to sit down and meet with the President of the Honduran Parliament and future coup leader Roberto Micheletti [the news account however did not state what the two discussed].

Needless to say Negroponte’s visit to Honduras was widely repudiated by progressive and human rights activists who labeled Negroponte “an assassin” and accused him of being responsible for forced disappearances during the diplomat’s tenure as ambassador (1981-1985). Moreover, Ford and Negroponte’s condescending attitude irked organized labor, indigenous groups and peasants who demanded that Honduras reclaim its national sovereignty over Palmerola. “It’s necessary to recover Palmerola because it’s unacceptable that the best airstrip in Central America continues to be in the hands of the U.S. military,” said Carlos Reyes, leader of the Popular Bloc which included various politically progressive organizations. “The Cold War has ended and there are no pretexts to continue with the military presence in the region,” he added. The activist remarked that the government should not contemplate swapping Mosquitia for Palmerola either as this would be an affront to Honduran pride.

Over the next year Zelaya sought to convert Palmerola into a civilian airport but plans languished when the government was unable to attract international investors. Finally in 2009 Zelaya announced that the Honduran armed forces would undertake construction. To pay for the new project the President would rely on funding from ALBA [in English, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas] and Petrocaribe, two reciprocal trading agreements pushed by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. Predictably the Honduran right leapt on Zelaya for using Venezuelan funds. Amílcar Bulnes, President of the Honduran Business Association [known by its Spanish acronym COHEP] said that Petrocaribe funds should not be used for the airport but rather for other, unspecified needs.

A couple weeks after Zelaya announced that the armed forces would proceed with construction at Palmerola the military rebelled. Led by Romeo Vásquez, the army overthrew Zelaya and deported him out of the country. In the wake of the coup U.S. peace activists visited Palmerola and were surprised to find that the base was busy and helicopters were flying all around. When activists asked American officials if anything had changed in terms of the U.S.-Honduran relationship they were told “no, nothing.”

The Honduran elite and the hard right U.S. foreign policy establishment had many reasons to despise Manuel Zelaya as I’ve discussed in previous articles. The controversy over the Palmerola airbase however certainly gave them more ammunition.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008)

[cutthemdown]

I love it, great find Gaff. I knew you would not let me down.

I don't really believe this is all over one airbase, I think more likely enough people in the Honduran govt and military didn't want to see a hugo chavez type situation.

I'm confused though what makes us need this base now? I understand why Reagan wanted it, makes sense Bush felt he didn't really, now for some reason Obama felt we did? Or is it bigger then Presidents?

[mhgaffney]

"A Hugo Chavez type situation..." ?

You mean the US armed, trained and backed Honduran military decided not to support the policy of their own popularly elected president...

But why not? If you asked 100 Hondurans on the street probably 90% of them support Zelaya 's confrontation with the US over the base.

But for some reason Washington decided NOT to open the base to use by Hondurans -- even though doing so would have benefited the Honduran people.

I suspect the key here is the drug issue. Notice -- Kozloff mentions that Zelaya became disenchanted with the US war on drugs. What does this mean?

Do you think maybe Zelaya found out about US government corruption -- that the US was aiding and abetting some of the drug smugglers. Why? Obviously - for cold cash.

We already knew -- thanks to Sen Levin's hearings some years ago -- that $500-1,000 billion a year in drug money is being laundered through the New York banks.

We also already knew -- thanks to CIA whistleblowers -- that the CIA has a long history of drug smuggling.

The US economy is now so weak it needs the lubrication of drug money. I suspect Zelaya learned the truth -- and so had to be removed.

Can't prove it of course -- not yet.

MHG

[cutthemdown]

I have no doubt the CIA uses drugs to make money.