Then start learning the facts before you make declarative statements like "we are on the wrong side".
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Honduran Democracy -- Central American style ...
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
Then start learning the facts before you make declarative statements like "we are on the wrong side".
Don't be a douche bag Flash.
If you did not chop that statement where you did an quote it out of context, you will see that it's not a "declarative statement". He was making an observation/statement of opinion while admitting that he is not an expert on the subject. That's a hell of a lot better than pretending like he knows everything about everything...kind of like your shtick.
At least my 'shtick' isn't being an asshole and making every political argument here personal, instead relying on facts and reason. I guess that makes things a little too boring around here for some.
I guess. Brett is going to be pissed about you talking about him in a thread where he is not posting though.
And a bush league move like you just pulled isn't "personal"? Pot, meet kettle. If you have to cut a statement out of context to try and take a shot at a new kid on the board to make a "point", then just do us all a favor and avoid the "reply" button.
There I go "protecting AW's bandwidth". Damn, I took a page from your playbook.
And a bush league move like you just pulled isn't "personal"? Pot, meet kettle. If you have to cut a statement out of context to try and take a shot at a new kid on the board to make a "point", then just do us all a favor and avoid the "reply" button.
There I go "protecting AW's bandwidth". Damn, I took a page from your playbook.
It's not a matter of splitting hairs. The opening paragraph of that Wikipedia entry which quotes a military historian states that
There was a change of political control. The president of the National Congress is now the interim president of Honduras.
Not that it matters, and not that I really care..but for the sake of argument..and the fact that this tangent is just a "definition argument"...a few points.
1. We are talking about a wiki-link. That's kind of silly in and of itself.
2. The guy that wrote the wiki-page was of the mind that you could have several kinds of coups, some require force. Some don't. (in their opinion)
3. If we go to a real reference, like Webster, for a definition, we get this:
coup d'etat
One entry found.
Ads by Google
Free Dictionary
1 Click Definitions & Translations.
www.Babylon.com
Main Entry:
coup d'état Listen to the pronunciation of coup d'état
Variant(s):
or coup d'etat Listen to the pronunciation of coup d'etat \?kü-(?)d?-?tä, ?kü-(?)d?-?, -d?-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural coups d'état or coups d'etat Listen to the pronunciation of coups d'etat \-?tä(z), -?tä(z)\
Etymology:
French, literally, stroke of state
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics ; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
Who knew that the French has a word for "force". I guess you learn something every day. Anywho, someone could argue that getting el presidente' out of bed in his PJ's and sticking him on a plane is "sudden decisive exercise of force". you could also argue that it was NOT political and therefore not fitting the definition. IE, the people who took action did not do so for political gain, they enforced the legal decision of their supreme court. It was more of a police action than a military action. It was also not violent.
My only real point in this is that what happened in Honduras does not fit the common definition of a coup d'etat. I don't know what word would fit it better, maybe "term limit enforcement".
Interesting article. Still, the basis for that "definition" was that the military could be a "threat to civil authority". In this case, it does not look like the military was a threat to civil authority, they enforced the civil authority of the supreme court. I am sure that their president sees himself as the ultimate civil authority, and that was the root of many of the problems.
The more I read, the more this comes off as a protection of constitutional authority. El Presidente was in the middle of pulling off a "non-binding" referendum to see if he could get away with an extended/unlimited term limit for the upcoming election.
His populist policies are popular with just about everyone who contributes the least/ contributes negatively to the country...read: poorest, least educated, most likely to engage in illegal/corrupt activities, but happen to be the same people are the most likely to vote him into office for life, a la Hugo. It's a dick comment, but it's true.
I don't think this counts as a coup...the constitutional succession process worked, it just had to be nudged that way by the professionals in uniform. They have an acting president calling the shots for now and a restored judiciary. I often wonder what people would say if the same thing happened here...military stepping in to protect the Constitution, but I digress.
That being said, just about every government/organization in the world is supporting the ousted dictator/President. Especially the UN. Take that for what it's worth.
His populist policies are popular with just about everyone who contributes the least/ contributes negatively to the country...read: poorest, least educated, most likely to engage in illegal/corrupt activities, but happen to be the same people are the most likely to vote him into office for life, a la Hugo. It's a dick comment, but it's true.
I don't think this counts as a coup...the constitutional succession process worked, it just had to be nudged that way by the professionals in uniform. They have an acting president calling the shots for now and a restored judiciary. I often wonder what people would say if the same thing happened here...military stepping in to protect the Constitution, but I digress.
That being said, just about every government/organization in the world is supporting the ousted dictator/President. Especially the UN. Take that for what it's worth.
A coup is a coup, and calling this anything but is a denial of reality. The military pulled the President out of bed in the middle of the night and forcibly removed him from the country. How the hell is that not a coup? You all are pissing into the wind anyways since pretty much every country in the world, including close allies like Colombia and Britain, are condemning it.
Other countries condemning an action is not a good basis for determining either the "rightness" or the "legality" of the action. It appears that the military was, in fact, "defending the constitution", but went a little too far in the process they used. Removing him from office was appropriate; removing him from the nation wasn't the best choice.
I'm curious (can't dig into it right now) as to what our diplomatic responses have been over the years with Turkey when the General Staff decided to "relieve" the civilian government of their authority on several occasions. The Turkish General Staff has historically been the most pro-American power group in Turkey, so I'm interested in how DoS handled that. Flash?
Brett
Brett
I might as well keep my head down and qualify up front that I'm no expert, but isn't this what was supposed to happen? A guy made a play towards dictatorship, supreme court ruled in favor of the constitution, and the executive branch acted quickly and decisively to fix the problem. Maybe kicking him out of the country was a bit overkill, but isn't that their perogative? Sounds like the system worked, for once.
To me, when other leaders around the world condemn this sort of thing, they come of like they're scared of being ousted the same way. I mean, if you're no threat to the constitution, you shouldn't have to worry, right?
To me, when other leaders around the world condemn this sort of thing, they come of like they're scared of being ousted the same way. I mean, if you're no threat to the constitution, you shouldn't have to worry, right?
Easy. Just ignore the previous definitions (including the "alteration of an existing government by a small group" which this action seems to fit), and voila, it is no longer a coup.:icon_wink
I guess you could argue whether it was justified, or "right or wrong", but it seems like it meets all the standards of a coup.