Chavez accuses U.S. of coup role as ties restored

[Zorro]

Source: The Hill

Just days after reestablishing diplomatic ties with Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez is accusing the U.S. of staging a coup in Honduras as President Obama expressed concern over President Manuel Zelaya's arrest.

Zelaya was arrested and forced into exile on Sunday after pressing ahead with a constitutional referendum that would have allowed for his re-election. The referendum had been judged illegal by Honduras' highest court and was opposed widely through political and military circles. Zelaya had fired the chief of the country's armed forces, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, when he refused to help with the referendum.

Soldiers took away Zelaya, still in his pajamas, from the presidential palace Sunday morning and put him on a plane to San Jose, Costa Rica, where he planned to seek political asylum.

Chavez, who succeeded on his second try to push a similar referendum that allows his indefinite re-election, lashed out at the U.S. and Obama in Caracas, alleging "the Yankee empire had a lot to do" with the "coup d'etat" against his fellow leftist leader.

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/chavez-accuses-u.s.-of-coup-role-as-ties-restored-2009-06-28.html

[imdjh]

1. I thought Zelaya just said that the US is the only reason he's still alive and that the coup failed.

What's going on?

[geek tragedy]

4. Because Chavez is an anti-American demagogue.

Wait for the "he was mistranslated" apologists to pipe up.

[Peace Patriot]

16. Chavez IS an American. nt

[imdjh]

23. Shit is hitting the fan and you want to play word games. Cute. nt

[Peace Patriot]

35. It's not a word game. I mean it. The use of the word "American" to mean only us

up here in the north is a big part of the problem in U.S./Latin American relations. Most South Americans are as "American" as we are--believe in democracy, hold progressive values, fight for education, medical care and fairness and social justice for all, and do not hate north Americans. It is only our "Empire" that many Latin Americans hate, and we should hate it, too, for Empires are anti-democratic, aggressive, oppressive, and think nothing of slaughtering a hundred million people to get their oil.

You want to support Empire? That's your right. I support American democracy and social justice--whether in the north or in the south. Chavez has harmed no one, invaded no one, bombed no one, jailed no one unfairly, and has run a scrupulously lawful and Constitutional government for the benefit of the poor majority and the whole country. Venezuela has never had a better government--ever! He has a right to criticize the many ways that the U.S. has sought to defeat democracy and social justice in Latin America. And I respect his opinion about this event, that the U.S. was involved. He himself, and his government, and the people of Venezuela, were victims of just such a rightwing coup in Venezuela not that long ago. And we have seen the Bushwhacks try it again as recently as this last September, against Bolivia's government. Has our government changed stripes all that much? I don't know. Obama says he wants a cooperative, respectful Latin American policy. We'll see if he really does, or has the power to implement it.

I sometimes use the phrase "the American people," meaning citizens of the U.S. But I try not to use it when discussing Latin Americans, because it is inaccurate and condescending. Latin Americans are Americans. They have been here as long, and have sought independence, democracy and social justice, as long and as hard as we have-- often with our supposed democratic government committing and fomenting every kind of atrocity to oppress and enslave them and steal their resources. In some ways they are more "American" than we are--or than our government is. Currently, they hold far, far more transparent elections than we do; their passion for democracy is fervid; and the vast majority of people--and now the vast majority of governments--are not militaristic, and want only a fair shake, and to "live and let live." We are the ones with a problematic government--tool of global corporate predators--which has been causing death and mayhem all over the world. If to be an "American" is to be pro-democracy, pro-world peace, pro-freedom and independence, and pro-social justice, then Latin Americans, these days, are better "Americans" than we are, or than our government permits us to be.

Chavez is not "anti-American." He is pro-American, in the best sense. It is our global corporate predators, and war profiteers, and Bushwhacks, and DINOs, who are "anti-American"--that is, they oppose the highest ideals of our revolution, as it was in the beginning and as it has evolved over the centuries. Pro-torture, pro-war, pro-rich and corporate, pro-lobbyist, pro-corruption, pro-gerrymandering, anti-labor, anti-poor, anti-social justice, anti-democratic.

Who are the "Americans"? It's a valid and sincere question.

[SkyDaddy7]

40. Chavez believes in democracy?

I'm lost?

[BuddhaGirl]

74. really!

that was quite a rationalization, wasn't it?

[fascisthunter]

116. oh yes you are

[ProudDad]

123. Sounds like it

Chavez DOES believe in Democracy...

[vincent_vega_lives]

157. Chavez believes in pro-Chazez Democracy

He also believes in ruling Venezuela for life.

[imdjh]

44. We're Americans because it's the traditional short form for our country.

Mexico is the United States of Mexico, and they are Mexicans. We are the United States of America, and we are Americans. It's a tradition, one began long before anyone gave a shit.

Mexicans call us Americans. Canadians call us Americans. The British, the French, the Cubans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, you name it and they call us Americans. Even when, or perhaps especially when they are insulting us, they call us Americans. Only in Freak World will you hear the term , "ugly United Stateser". When the French ministry of language tries to make up something they approve of, you can be certain that whatever they are trying to replace is the established term.

You're free to try to redefine this usage, but I have no obligation to.

[EFerrari]

47. Right, and we settled a vast empty continent. n/t

[imdjh]

48. Because your thought follows mine like morning follows aquarium. nt

[EFerrari]

50. Slowly: we "settled a vast empty continent" just as this nation

is "America" but the rest of the continent is not, both fictions of "American" culture.

Your thought seems to be lagging. Might want to up the protein.

[imdjh]

54. No, America is the traditional short form for USA, and North America is the continent

....with lots of different countries. So, we are Americans, but we are also North Americans. Just like Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, and Guatemalans, etc.. are North Americans.

Jesus, you must be a ball to hang out with. Do people say, "Sorry I asked." when they ask "How are you?" and you go off on some tangent about the injustice of the English language?

[EFerrari]

55. My post is why "America" is short form, not the other way around.

Never mind. Whoooooooooooosh.

[imdjh]

56. You flatter yourself.

[subcomhd]

60. It's just like "Mexico" is the short form for

Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Although Mexicans usually mean Mexico City when they say "Mexico" and say 'La Republica' for the nation When Europeans say America, they usually mean the US. But yes, in LA calling the US "America" is bad form at worst and confusing at best. In Mexico:

America = Western Hemisphere
Estados Unidos = United States or "America'
Norte Americano = "American" sometimes Canadians
Estado Unidense = American (as in US Citizen)
Mexico = Mexico City
La Republica = Mexico

And no, the continent was far from empty. My wife's family was already here Western hemisphereMy family came from Ireland. her's crossed the Bearing Straight.

[EFerrari]

63. The vast empty continent thing is from modernist novels like Gatsby

and My Antonia. It's always figured in those works like a blank canvas. Conveeeeeeeeeenient, no?

lol

:hi:

[Dr.Phool]

68. The US was more densly populated than Europe in 1492.

This is from the Spaniards own diaries, quoted in "A Peoples History of The United States, 1492-Present" by Howard Zinn.

The myth of an empty continent makes the genocide easier to digest.

[Bacchus39]

72. the Spanish didn't arrive in the "United States" until the 1500s

and I doubt the "US" was more densely populated than Europe.

[subcomhd]

81. I doubt it too, but her/his point is still valid

the myth of our europen ancestors and the vast, empty continent is BS. Yeah, it was relatively empty by today's standards - or even central MX at the time. but the 'vast, empty' crap is an historical dehuminization of the indigeonous population that was here - from the Iroquois to the Pueblo to the Cherokee.

[Bacchus39]

91. who ever said the continent was empty?? n/t

s

[subcomhd]

98. Until the last few decades

It has been how American (US) history was researched and taught. And there is still much progress to be made. It is still a problem, although even crappy high school texts have started to give more attention to the pre-conquest peoples of the Americas - though usually clumsily and inadequately. But traditionally history has been the study of white men in government after the establishment of the English colonies. Even the average white man was invisible to history.

The 'vast empty continent' was not a literal, but accurate, description of the narrow focus of American history.

[imdjh]

111. Let's walk through this mythical school I never attended and book I never read

American History books, even those printed before 2009, tell the story of the beginnings of the United States to the children of the United States. The goal is to lay the early foundation and the events leading up to the nation we now live in.

Columbus arrives in 1492 and "discovers for Spain" (terminology consistent with any discovery of something which already existed) an island on which there are people. He goes to other islands on which there are people. He and others go to the mainland and discover major societies, which they write about in remarkably flattering terms for a bunch of evil Europeans.

Then we jump back in time to the Vikings visiting North America about 1000 AD, where they are presumed to have encountered (and perhaps genetically contributed to) existing populations. Then we move right along to French trappers and other hunters who come to North America and find people already there.

Then we do Jamestown, where the English and Scots encounter existing population up and down the coast.
Then we do Plymouth, where the religious folks encounter existing populations.
Then we have a long list of western movements in which existing populations are encountered.
Along the way we have alliances formed with some existing peoples and wars against others.
At every step in the migration westward, we find existing peoples.

So where exactly did this allegedly standard public school history book say that the continent was empty?

[subcomhd]

120. Here you go.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/d5/63.pdf

[imdjh]

122. His primary complaint is that these books are US history books

and that they don't spend enough time in ancient history and don't contain a great deal about Indian cultures. To his credit, he notes that the books neither say a great deal about the daily lives of non-Indians other than major figures in the history. Which means that that thesis doesn't counter what I have said, ie that American school children are not taught that North America was empty. US History is the history of the US.

I do find his sample suspect. He looked at six history books from five private schools and one public school, in New York. If one were indicting the public schools and history books of the US, wouldn't you think that you would have a look at the books used by the largest school systems in the nation? He says however, that he goal isn't to indict the history books, merely to promote the idea to teachers that additional enrichment materials and time should be spent on giving an Indian perspective and making it clear that they continued and continue to exist throughout US history. That is not really a shock, but we also need to consider that the author had made it his mission in life to promote what he considers the absent perspectives including Indian "militancy" as he himself describes it.

[subcomhd]

126. he gives specific examples of the 'vast empty continent'

concept in text-books. I'm not asking you to buy into his overall thesis - which yes, is much broader. You simply asked where these textbooks that imply the continent was relatively uninhabited, and this paper provides them.

[subcomhd]

127. American History: A Survey, 1987 edition. (a high school textbook)

“For thousands of centuries—centuries in which human races were evolving, forming communities, and building the beginnings of national civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe—the continents we know as the Americas stood empty of mankind and its works.”

[imdjh]

128. delete wrong position in thread

[imdjh]

129. delete wrong position in thread

[imdjh]

130. What's wrong with that statement?

[subcomhd]

132. it is false

When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about. ”
—Bernal Díaz del Castillo, The Conquest of New Spain

edited for quote

[imdjh]

135. It is not false.

The statement doesn't mention a timeframe. Whenever the Indians migrated to the Americas, it would have been after civilization had already begun in the cradle lands.

Tenochtitlan was built in 1325 and no one of any repute and certainly not any history book has claimed that the Americas were not inhabited at that time.

[subcomhd]

137. nobody said "not inhabited"

but the implication is it wasn't inhabited by many - and they certainly weren't doing anything significant like those plucky people in the rest of the world.

[imdjh]

138. "stood empty of mankind" means not inhabited.

[subcomhd]

139. well, those weren't my words

they were the words of a very popular high school textbook. If you take them literally then you have contradicted your original point that such a thing wasn't in textbooks. remember? that's how this started.

[imdjh]

142. Let's have a little continuity here.

"If you take them literally then you have contradicted your original point that such a thing wasn't in textbooks. remember?"

No, I haven't because the statement you quoted isn't referring to when the Europeans arrived. It's referring to before the Indians arrived. The accusation was that US history books teach that North America was a vast and empty place when Europeans arrived. That is false, the books do not claim that. The passage you quoted does not contradict that, because the passage you quoted refers to a much earlier time by thousands of years.

[subcomhd]

143. Then it would still be wrong

way before the Mexica were the Maya way before them were the the Toltecs before them were the Teotihuacan civilization and before them the Olmecs.

[imdjh]

144. Jesus fucking Christ, do you not pay attention at all?

The remark you quoted is referring to BEFORE THE INDIANS GOT HERE.

[subcomhd]

145. can you read?

i said it is wrong either way. If it was when the Earopeans arrived - it is wrong because of the Aztecs. if it is refereing to centuries past it is wrong because of the maya, and the toltec and the teotihuacano and the olmec.

[imdjh]

146. Before them too. It's referring to a period before HUMAN colonization of the Americas.

[subcomhd]

147. 20,000 years ago?

[imdjh]

148. Give or take, yes.

Now let's look at the statement again: "
“For thousands of centuries—centuries in which human races were evolving, forming communities, and building the beginnings of national civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe—the continents we know as the Americas stood empty of mankind and its works.”"

So it's not saying that while the pyramids were being built in Egypt the Americas had no people. It's a logical statement, that the Eurasians who migrated to the Americas, who we know by several names, came from someplace and that the place they came from was the place where they began as a people thousands of centuries before. This would logically hold true unless you believe that the ancient Americans arrived naked, with no language, with no tools.

[subcomhd]

149. you are debating yourself

imdjh (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-30-09 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #137
138. "stood empty of mankind" means not inhabited.

vs

So it's not saying that while the pyramids were being built in Egypt the Americas had no people.

[subcomhd]

133. you are right about one thing

there are some serious thread problems here

[imdjh]

131. Why isn't this threading properly?

[Zorro]

97. North America remains vast and empty even today

Drive cross-country and you'll see.

[subcomhd]

99. Having driven from Austin to Los Angeles, I'll have to agree LOL

[imdjh]

113. I love that- the particulars aren't valid but the point is still valid

What you are saying is that the truth is irrelevant, it's how people feel about it that matters. That's only true in therapy.

[subcomhd]

80. Bigger than Europe? I don' know. Warning about Pop. Numbers

Maybe all of North America (if you include the the densely populated central Mexican Plateau.) I doubt present day Canada and the US had a population bigger than Europe at the time. There were probably more people living in Central Mexico than all of the present day US, pre-conquest. I won't argue it, because one thing I have learned is that any population estimate before the 1800s is usually worthless.

Another problem with population figures for Spanish America during the conquest is the reliance on de la Casas. He was one of the indigenous peoples' only advocate during those early days. His description of the brutality is spot on, but most historians (today)will agree that he inflated (or was just a bad guestimator of) native population numbers in the Caribbean. Zinn (who I love) may have been talking about the whole continent or the whole hemisphere - but nevertheless, be wary of his numbers in "People's History." I seem to remember he relied on de la Casas - which was common wheen P's H was written.

I'm currently working on my master's degree in history. My thesis is much related to initial "contact" as we say. Population numbers are very unreliable, so I just stay away from it. But that said, if it were a vast empty continent, I'd be wasting my time. Your right that it makes the ethnic cleansing easier to swallow if you just forget anyone was here.

[Odin2005]

101. That's ridiculous.

The continent sure wasn't empty (until European diseases did their worst), but large parts of what is now the US was populated by widely dispersed hunter-gathers. Areas with complex, settled farming cultures (SW desert farmers, The Mound Builders, the Eastern Forest peoples), were not old enough in many areas to have such dense populations. We aren't talking the Aztecs and the Incas here, we are talking about societies similar in complexity to the Celtic peoples in the ancient world at best in the US. Chiefdom-level societies, not state-level ones

[subcomhd]

104. delete

[imdjh]

109. Of course it is. And you're a racist.

That's the goal of this pseudo-history manufactured and deliciously packaged bullshit: to frame the history of the world in racism and injustice rather than in objective observation.

Joe reads that there were "as many as" X million people in North America in 1491 and that becomes his baseline. He speculates that since the figure he read had a variation of 100%, then his new extreme could be 100% more than his arbitrary baseline. This process is repeated in academia, each citing one another, and X million becomes 2X million, which becomes 4X million and so on. So you challenge these figures on common sense or scientific grounds, and you get screamed at because the only reason you could be challenging the idea that America had highways, hospitals, and airports before Europeans got here is because you are a racist.

[Odin2005]

121. Ack, remember to use the sarcasm smiley, LOL!

:rofl:

Some recent claim I've read somewhere about there being 200 million people in North America just before contact is just as loony as the old BS that there were only 2 million The 2 million number may be, however, an accurate portrayal of the population in the US after disease ravaged the Eastern native cultures, it is thought that it was European diseases that destroyed the Mound Builder culture, for example.

[imdjh]

134. Something no one mentions in the "European diseases" complaint

....is that the "European diseases" would have been introduced to the Americas through peaceful trade or exploration, and may well have arrived long before Columbus.

Van Sertima, whom I wouldn't cite in restroom poetry, claims that black Africans arrived in the Americas long before Columbus. We're also told that East Asians arrived before Columbus. If this is true, then they would have brought the "European diseases" with them, would they not?

[AlphaCentauri]

150. I would like to see this events in a chronological order

opinions are good just don't distort history

[imdjh]

154. Which events?

The various claims are not from a single source. There are claims that Asians (possibly Chinese) visited the Americas by ship fairly recently but prior to Colombus as well as Ethiopian sailors who were apparently stranded on the west coast of Mexico. Van Sertima claims that black east Africans arrived centuries before Colombus, by ship. Somewhere in this mess is that Colombus landed on an island in the Caribbean which had blond caucasians on it. There is also signficant challenge to the idea that the people called "Indians" and various other names in the Americas are indeed the descendants of the most ancient humans to come to the Americas. As I understand it, there is no evidence linking any of the earliest human remains so far found in the Americas to any extant people called "Indian, Native American, Eskimo, or indigenous peoples". DNA tracking of extant American Indians, according to a Russian website show the most commonality between American Indians and a Eurasian people in Siberia believed to be the descendants of European men and Mongolian women.

If people didn't get their nuts in a knot about this, it would be a lot of fun.

[EFerrari]

155. Yes, and how this land was seen by the colonizers can still be tracked

by words like "pioneers" and "settlers". Both terms imply there were no people or human settlements here. The genocide is erased.

[vincent_vega_lives]

158. you REALLY think they spoke SPANISH in

South and Central America?

[Bacchus39]

76. yep, that's what we call ourselves. maybe others can suggest an alternative

in latin america they call us norteamericanos as well as estadounidenses. but Mexico, Canada, and Central America are in North America so that is not fitting either.

we can call ourselves what we please. surely everyone in this hemisphere is "American" in general, but we use it to refer to ourselves in the particular. and all other nations use their national name to label themselves. no big deal.

[imdjh]

110. This all got started at some conference in Spain years ago

Some jackass with not enough to worry about put forth the notion that calling Americans Americans was "culturally aggressive" and that a new term had to be created. Naturally, the French ministry of language couldn't resist actually having something to do, so they started the "United Statesian (Étatsunien)" idea. Open borders people in the US (legal and illegal) recently decided that this was useful in their propaganda, because the Mexica folks are claiming oneness with US citizens who are American Indian as part of their claim that Mexican nationals have a "right" to illegally enter and immigrate to the US. Hence EFerrari thinking she has the one righteous position on the subject.

[ProudDad]

124. The non-specific is implicit

when you say "ugly American".

But for any other purposes it's typical USAmerican exceptionalism to expect American to be only USAmerican.

Those of us who hate the USAmerican Empire give a shit...

And, yes, Chavez is an American.

[Odin2005]

65. Oh geez, you are making a big deal with what is just an English vs. Spanish vocab issue

In English "American" refers to citizens of the US. In Spanish "Americano" refers to anyone from the western hemisphere. If I am speaking Spanish I'll call myself a Norteamericano, If I am speaking English I'll call myself an American.

We called ourselves "Americans" since before the American Revolution, we are not going to change that just because the Spanish-speaking world uses different labels. Or do you want me to bring out the "USAians" jokes?

[Xenotime]

86. Doesn't he realize that we are on his side...* is gone.

Somebody needs to tell him this is the era of Change around the world.

[MasonJar]

17. Let's see! We know that the good old USA backed the illegal coup

attempt against Chavez and the the USA media is constantly depicting him as a big bad wolf so what's with this mistranslation pap? Why should he trust us? As to the Honduras coup, according to other reports, the rightists didn't want the vote, which was not definitive, but more like a poll to see if the people were interested in rewriting their constitution, (which is currently very weak in the sense that it gives few rights to the people.) If the poll turned out positive for reform, a more formal vote would have been in November. So there is no reason for the coup on any grounds except Rightist power, demogagory and refusal to relinquish anything they can avoid to the citizens. The rightists did not want the vote to proceed; even with no teeth the results might have given the world a view of the will of the people of Honduras. The US government should be backing the democratically elected president with all our muscle. No more aid, trade or etc. of any kind until he is restored.

[AlphaCentauri]

21. John Kerry is doing it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5946351

[EFerrari]

41. Obama's people are backing Zelaya but the fact remains

this was done very like Haiti was done and that was ours.

[JackRiddler]

11. Link, please.

Both can be true, of course: that US Pentagon or CIA supported the coup, even as open diplomatic efforts may have helped to keep him alive.

[imdjh]

24. links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x16691

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55R0US20090628?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Honduras's Zelaya says U.S. helped thwart coup: report ...
Jun 28, 2009 ... MADRID (Reuters) - Honduran President Manuel Zelaya told Spain's El Pais that a planned attempt to wrest power from him was thwarted after ...
feeds.reuters.com/~r/.../rf.../idUSTRE55R0US20090628 - 7 hours ago - Similar

[Peace Patriot]

31. That was yesterday. And it's hard to know what's going on, as to U.S. involvement.

Zelaya--who was kidnapped in the middle of the night, beaten and flown to Costa Rica--thought (was told? I don't know) that the U.S. did not support the rightwing military coup against him, and believed that it therefore would not happen. It is possible that the U.S. ambassador lied to him; or, that the Honduran military proceeded on their own, without U.S. support. Lots of unknowns.

What is known is that Zelaya did absolutely nothing to deserve this. He was merely promoting an advisory vote of the people on the issue of whether or not to hold Constitutional assemblies, to discuss and re-write the Constitution, as several other Latin American countries have done over the last few years, to good effect (as to improved civil rights and public participation). Honduras' current Constitution was written during the Reagan "reign of terror"--and greatly favors the rich elite against the majority poor.

The Honduran military has also kidnapped three foreign ambassadors--Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba--and the OAS is now involved. They have condemned the coup, as has the EU. The U.S. so far has only expressed "concern."

Your guess is as good as mine as to whether or not Obama (who just reopened diplomatic relations with Venezuela) has been betrayed--or disobeyed--by someone (CIA? Military? Clinton?), or approved covert support of the coup, or what.

I hope and pray that the military and the fascists in Honduras have not gone on a killing spree of leftists, with the president ousted and chaos and unrest a clear threat. There is ample precedent for fascists doing just that--taking the opportunity to decimate the ranks of the left. That's what they would have done in Venezuela, had the people of Venezuela not poured out of their hovels, in the tens of the thousands, to stop the U.S./Bushwhack-supported coup attempt in 2002. The coupsters had immediately suspended the Constitution, the courts, the legislature and all civil rights. That is my fear tonight. I think, long term, that the leadership of South America is perfectly capable of handling this crisis, and restoring order and rightful, legitimate government in Honduras. But relations with the U.S. may suffer if Obama doesn't act quickly to change the likely perception of most Latin Americans that the U.S. is behind this.

[bbgrunt]

57. thanks, PP for all these great insights.

[ProudDad]

125. Anyone checked on the whereabouts

of April Glaspie?

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

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

[Common Sense Party]

153. Please point to the part of the Honduran Constitution that oppresses the poor.

The pro-Zelaya and pro-Chavez posters keep claiming this, without providing anything to back up the claim.

[cali]

2. Chavez is nothing if not predictable.

[JackRiddler]

89. Whereas the CIA is what?

If this is without involvement of them or freelancers associated with them, it would be the first time.

How will Chavez go down in history? That remains to be seen.

How will the CIA go down? As the international mass murder mafia of the post-1945 period.

[cali]

156. thinking that the CIA is behind every nefarious act is really no

different than thinking al-Qaeda is. Yes, they have an ugly history, but it's still prudent to look at every event such as the coup in Honduras, individually and not through a lens of preconception.

[geek tragedy]

3. Hugo and his DU flunkies can go to hell. n/t

[mudplanet]

5. Long live Hugo and the revolution

I tried to think up a good addendum to this but it's so freaking obvious it staggers the mind.

[Cerridwen]

8. Including Zelaya?

Over the past year, Zelaya has alienated Honduras’s political and business elite by aligning with the Chavez-led group of socialist Latin American leaders, Berkman said. Opposition presidential candidate Porfirio Lobo, who lost the 2005 race, said in a statement on the National Party Web site last month that Zelaya’s aim is to scrap the country’s one-term limit so he can run again. link to Bloomberg article(emphasis added)

Zelaya, who was elected as a conservative, has shifted dramatically to the left during his presidency.

He is the latest in a long list of Latin American leaders, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, to seek constitutional changes to expand presidential powers and also ease term limits. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/troops-oust-honduran-president-in-feared-coup-20090628-d1cf.html">link to Syndey Morning Herald article

[Peace Patriot]

36. So that's where the rightwing talking point came from--that the referendum was

about term limits! The rightwing opposition candidate! Thank you!

The referendum in Honduras that Zelaya was backing had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERM LIMITS. It was an advisory vote on forming Constitutional assemblies.

Things begin to clarify. So, they have taken all the corpo/fascist garbage about Chavez and the term limit referendum in Venezuela, and have tried to paint Zelaya with that brush!

I did wonder how this started, when the referendum has not one word about term limits. It's just the twisty, jerky, lying rightwing once again, and their twisty, jerky, lying, toady, corpo/fascist media, quick to pick up on the latest "talking points" (lies). Even the BBC repeated this obvious and checkable falsehood!

[Greyhound]

106. The parasites hate a traitor almost as much as they despise "little people", n/t

[DainBramaged]

28. Hear hear

For anyone to cheer Chavez and his thuggery and personal wealth grabs while trying to be "Little Castro" is just ignorant and quite simply asinine.

DU loves tin pot dictators, and Chavez certainly is one of them.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. But it is more likely that you will.

[EFerrari]

39. You guys kill me.

lol

[imdjh]

49. Drama queen. nt

[EFerrari]

51. That was humor, son.

lol

[Hippo_Tron]

6. If the CIA had been behind the Venezuela coup, Chavez would be dead

And yes Bush was an idiot for not denouncing it.

[EFerrari]

37. He's not dead because the firing squad refused to fire. n/t

[subcomhd]

96. The CIA isn't all powerful -Or Castro would be dead

The CIA undoubtdedly played a role in the attempted overthrow of Chavez. The people rose up and the military (the pro-coup faction) lost it's nerve. The CIA backed an undemocratic coup, they didn't invent it.

[imdjh]

114. Unless the CIA actually wants Castro alive.

It's been quite handy for the "godless communists" crowd to have the godless communists at our side door all these years.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Why that's just ridiculous,

The US would never plot a coup against a foreign government. Especially in Central America. Or South America. Or Indo-China. Or Africa. Or Asia. Or, Awww forget about it.

[bread_and_roses]

33. a nod to Dr.Phool (n/t)

[EFerrari]

38. I know! What a kidder, that Chavez.

SOA connection here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5947188

And I wonder if this wasn't planned when the US lost El Salvador recently. :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

117. their grudge against this man for political reasons keeps them ignorant

good luck

[RandomThoughts]

9. Its always seems to be someone else's fault

It seems some leaders are always blaming everyone else.

[JackRiddler]

13. Platitudes and a Twilight Zone episode.

Thanks for playing!

[RandomThoughts]

19. Yea it didn't really fit, I was somewhere else, took it out.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[JackRiddler]

90. You're welcome!

I hope to be as open-minded and willing to go back on my own mistakes, at the right times. Thank you.

[Peace Patriot]

15. The referendum had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERM LIMITS!

See my post above.

If you take your lessons from rightwing, corpo/fascist "talking points," then you will be wrong most of the time.

For godssakes, QUESTION AUTHORITY!

[RandomThoughts]

18. Good point, I will fix statement to match better.

By the way I am not saying I support what happened in Hondurus, only how Chavez blames everything on someone else.

The episode probably did not fit as well as I thought, I think I was mixing together many events. Took it out of post, thanks for pointing out my mistake in thinking on it.

Note: I avoid talking points as a rule.

[proteus_lives]

88. "For godssakes, QUESTION AUTHORITY!"

Except for Chavez's. NEVER QUESTION HIS AUTHORITY!

[RandomThoughts]

92. ? Chavez has gotten worse and worse over the years.

I don't consider that he has authority in most cases, and seems like a bit of a blowheart in my thoughts.

[EFerrari]

140. You'd think people would get exhausted, being so consistently wrong.

Chavez has mustered all of Latin America behind Zelaya. And because of that unity, OAS, UN, more world bodies are ALSO BEHIND ZELAYA.

He plans to go home on Thursday and all over Honduras, people are planning to drive into the capitol to meet him.

[EFerrari]

53. If you look at a map of Latin American, you'll be hard pressed to find

a country where we haven't forced a regime change.

[RandomThoughts]

93. Yes, for many years the US economic interest put pressure on many countries.

Where I was limited in my posts accuracy was to post on a broad topic in a specific instance.

I haven't read up on Honduras yet, still have to do that.

[Odin2005]

10. Right after we support the good guys and denounce the RW coup in Honduras. Idiot!

Fuck you, Chavez!!! You are a big attention whore!

[JackRiddler]

12. Who is "we"?

There are multiple power centers in the USG. Elements at Pentagon and CIA (or completely hidden ones in the "intelligence community" of contractors and satellites and freelancers) can support a coup, even as Obama denounces it.

[Odin2005]

20. IIRC that is why Obama got Panella (sp?) in there, instead of an insider.

[Peace Patriot]

29. My opinion Leon Panetta was not a "civilian."

Do you recall when he was up for confirmation as head of the CIA, Diane Feinstein immediately piped up criticizing his "lack of experience" publicly, and then just as quickly piped down, and that criticism was never heard of again?

Now think this through. The Bushwhacks were waging a bloody war against the CIA. They outed the head of the CIA WMD counterproliferation project, Valerie Plame, and didn't stop there, but outed her front company as well, putting every one of the CIA's counterproliferation agents/contacts around the world at risk of death. It is unknown how many may have been killed. This was high treason. And it was a warning to any dissenters within government as to Bushwhack war plans. The Bushwhacks also tried to blame the CIA for bad intelligence on Iraq's WMDs, when it had been Cheney and Rumsfeld who insisted on doctored intelliegence, to the point that Rumsfeld set up his own shop, the "Office of Special Plans," to funnel false reports--like those of Ahmed Chalabi--to our government and to the public, as war propaganda. And I'm sure that is not the half of it, as to Bushwhack assaults on this agency--including purges of non-toady agents and counter-spying, blackmail and worse.

A new President comes in--a smart one, who is well aware of the disarray and demoralization in this agency. Do you think this very smart guy is going to appoint a civilian to straighten out this dangerous mess that the Bushwhacks have made of the CIA? I think it's something of an insult to Obama to buy into the absurd cover story, touted dutifully by the corpo/fascist media (who also quickly shut up about Panetta's "inexperience" as did the Pukes in Congress), that Panetta is from the "outside." I think Panetta was the CIA's guy in the Clinton White House. I think he's been CIA for a long time (since Vietnam), is "deep CIA"--the kind you just don't hear about (high up in the organization)--and was called out of retirement partly as a soothing measure--to assure the professionals at the CIA that the "war" is over--to root out any Bushwhack moles, and to put the agency back on track doing its job--feeding reliable intelligence to the President and other officers of the government. I read that there were cheers at Langley when Panetta showed up for work. Would they have cheered an unknown "civilian"? Their reaction would have been much more cautious and wary. (What was this "civilian" going to do? Does he know anything? How can he lead experienced agents?) Their reaction was one of a homecoming.

Granted, this is all speculation and guesses. But that is all that we, the voters and taxpayers, are allowed to know about our own government's secret operations: what we can guess, from bits and pieces and hints that leak out. I think it's a pretty good guess.

I think that Panetta has such deep cover that Feinstein didn't know who he was, and, as soon as she was informed, she shut up about his "inexperience." Also, it was a "natural" for war profiteer Pukes to throw doubt on Obama's foreign policy aptitude. Why did they shut up about it? It just clean went away, very fast.

Not a "civilian." Never was a "civilian." Recruited after only 2 years in the military during the Vietnam War. CIA ever since.

I am not a fan of the CIA. I think they should be dismantled. There should be no secret government. I'm with James Douglass in believing that the CIA of the 1960s assassinated JFK (because of his serious peace initiatives to end the "Cold War"--as laid out in Douglass book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters.") Too powerful. Too dangerous. Too many secrets. The mechanisms of assassination--for instance, the many plots against Fidel Castro--spilled over domestically to become a means of dealing with the political problems of our "military-industrial complex"--how to maintain a big military budget, how to manufacture wars, how to use "commies" as the "enemy?" etc., against an American population that wanted world peace, and for whom the "communist threat" was beginning to wear very thin. When JFK began to question the "Cold War" and initiate policies aimed at ending it, they struck with their tried and true means of eliminating dissent in foreign lands--kill the leaders. As long as we have a CIA, this will always be a danger. Too much hidden, arbitrary power.

But as long as we are inflicted with paying for an agency over whom we have no control whatsoever, we need to learn as much as we can, and develop some sophistication in understanding events that we are not privy to. And I think this is one of them. We can only hope that the "old CIA" that was put back in charge, post-Bushwhack, is the one that somewhat reformed itself starting in the Carter era (for instance, the ban on assassinations of foreign leaders, and on torture, etc.--at least as official policy). (Bear in mind, for instance, that the Reagan war on Nicaragua was a rogue operation--it was illegal--and it was exposed.) Professionals like Plame built their careers in this somewhat reformed agency. I hope that Panetta heading the CIA means a change for the better. (However, today's events in Honduras have me wondering if what has occurred is not reform, but a return to subtler, sneakier means to the same ends. Honduras' president is still alive, but he has been illegally and roughly ousted, and this will not be good, at all, for the majority poor in Honduras, and will benefit the rich and the war profiteers.)

[EFerrari]

52. I agree with that, Peace Patriot.

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

62. LOL, take off that tin foil hat.

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

95. Such a sad and ignorant, reflexive response.

I honestly thought you might be better than this. Doubt you read a word.

[JackRiddler]

94. That's a hell of a thinking process you've got there, partner.

Thank you very much for taking the time to set it down for us. You can rightly ignore the kneebiting!

[WriteDown]

112. Yep....

Leon Panetta, superspy. He's like James Bond. :rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

22. Oscar Arias also condemned the RW coup. Is he a "big attention whore"?

Before the day is out, virtually everyone will have condemned this coup, except the U.S., which has merely expressed "concern." (I hope Obama does better than that!) The coupsters have kidnapped the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Cuban ambassodors in Honduras. The OAS will act. They have already passed a resolution in support of President Zelaya.

Chavez often says things that the other Latin American leaders are thinking, but are more reluctant to say publicly. He is a good barometer of sentiment about the U.S. among most of Latin America's leaders. For instance, when the Bushwhacks tried to topple Evo Morales this last September--funding fascist murderers right out of the U.S. embassy--Chavez was quick to condemn it publicly, and, indeed, that's when he kicked the U.S. ambassador out of Venezuela and recalled the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington. But all of Latin America's leaders were involved in backing Evo Morales. Michele Batchelet--who was especially active in stopping the coup in Bolivia--later told the following joke to a group of investors in the U.S.: "Why has there never been a coup in the United States?" Her answer: "Because there is no U.S. embassy in the United States!"

The other leaders knew very well what was going on in Bolivia, and who was behind it. Chavez said it openly and reacted immediately. Batchelet worked more behind the scenes (but highly effectively). Her joke reveals her thinking.

Similarly, when Chavez called Bush "the Devil" at the UN, and Rafael Correa (then running for president of Ecuador) was asked what he thought of that remark, he replied, "It's an insult to the Devil!" I'm sure he got roars across Latin America. He was running neck and neck with Ecuador's richest banana magnate, and this remark apparently pushed Correa way ahead in the polls. (He won with over 60% of the vote.)

Chavez may be an "attention whore"--or just an honest man who says what he thinks, let the chips fall where they may. Hard to be sure, not knowing him personally. (I tend toward the latter view. And, what politician is NOT an "attention whore"?) But that's neither here nor there. What is important to know is that Chavez is seldom wrong, when he speaks of the U.S., and he most certainly reflects the popular view in Latin America--and often the views of other leaders.

So, what most of them are thinking now is: The U.S. has done it again. Desperate to retain some base of toadying support for the Empire, they have picked on one of our weaker new leaders and ousted him, via bribes and promises to the military and the fascist party, and covert agents.

Latin American leaders have good reason to believe this--it has happened so many times before. Obama will need to get active to distance himself from this coup, if he wishes to retain good will in Latin America. Whether he knew about it or not, it occurred on his watch--and it is not yet remedied. It will likely become the litmus test of his sincerity in speaking about a new era of cooperation and respect. I think his hands are tied in many ways, but I do hope that better Latin American/U.S. relations survive this event, whatever the U.S. involvement was. There are many unknowns. I hope that the Honduran military and rightwing acted without U.S. support, and are quickly deposed, and Zelaya restored to his rightful office. But I can't say that I have much hope that that is the case, and how it will turn out. The united leadership of Latin America may act to end the coup, as they did very successfully in Bolivia. But the Bushwhacks were nearly out of office when that occurred. This may be different--more difficult to resolve--with so much at risk re future relations with the U.S. (Venezuela and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations just this week. Think there are forces within our "war on drugs" and corpo/fascist establishment that want to foul that up? You bet there are!)

[Peace Patriot]

14. A "referendum that would have allowed for his re-election." That is NOT true!

The referendum was an advisory vote on whether or not to convene assemblies to discuss re-writing the Constitution (which was written during the Reagan era)--a process that has occurred in a long term and orderly fashion in several other Latin American countries over the last decade, most recently in Ecuador and Bolivia, to the great benefit and increased civil rights of most people.

The referendum had NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS!

For more recent news and better commentary, see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3942632#3942981

Yes, Zelaya was kidnapped by the rightwing Honduran military--dragged out of his house in the middle of the night, beaten and flown against his will to Costa Rica. Someone else was appointed president, and there are reports of the media and all electricity being shut down in Honduras. It is a rightwing coup. What Zelaya had done was merely to promote this advisory vote on a Constitutional process. The vote had no force of law. But it would likely have indicated a high level of discontentment among Honduras' vast poor majority. The reaction of the rightwing elite has been violence and repression. Oscar Arias, president of Costa Rica, just issued a statement condemning the coup. And Zelaya, in a statement from Costa Rica, has asked for calm and non-violence in public response.

[ohio2007]

30. referendum was to convene assemblies to discuss re-writing the Constitution

The referendum was an advisory vote on whether or not to convene assemblies to discuss re-writing the Constitution


The referendum had NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3942632#3942981

Does the constitution mention term limits ? somebody wanted to change something other then term limits?

Got any links as to what was to be changed ?

btw

who is now president?

[Peace Patriot]

45. The referendum would have changed NOTHING. It was an advisory vote.

And it did not propose any changes. It did not present a new Constitution, or any suggestions as to what might be in a new Constitution. It was simply a yes/no vote--advice of the people to the legislature and other powers that be--about starting the process of discussion and re-write.

And I'm thinking it's pretty clear that "yes" would have won, because the rightwing acted so precipitously and wrongfully to stop it (kidnapping the president, for godssakes). A "yes" advisory vote would have had no legal force, but would likely have established the reality of vast discontent in the country with the old order. And once democracy gets going among discontented people--as King George III learned, and the rich elites in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela have learned, more recently--it is hard to stop. People have a right to conduct such assemblies and to make the rules by which their society is governed. Latin America is much more liberal, in this regard, than our country is. They re-write their Constitutions frequently. The trend in Latin America is overwhelmingly leftist and democratic, and that's how things likely would have gone, in Honduras--a new Constitution that provided more civil rights, better representation for the poor majority and even acknowledgment of new concepts (such as the right of Mother Nature to exist and prosper, apart from human needs and wants, as in the new Constitution in Ecuador).

This, of course, is why the fascists took such extreme action to prevent the poor majority from being heard, and to prevent any potential change in the rules. The rules now favor them. But there was nothing substantive that they were reacting to, or feared--just the precedent of empowerment of the majority in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, in a Constitutional process.

It is apparently the rightwing opposition candidate who started the B.S. that the referendum was about term limits--a "talking point" that has now been picked up and repeated in many corpo/fascist 'news' outlets including the BBC, as a slander point against Zelaya. Whatever his personal ambitions may be, it is entirely false to say that he proposed lifting his term limit in this referendum.

[ohio2007]

83. but ...why do they even CONSIDER the NEED to review the constitution unless "change' is wanted ?

But a PASSED referendum could have changed ANYTHING seems to be the point you do not want to address .

Why ?

[timeforpeace]

25. I wonder if he just says these things to get a rise out of the administration?

[iandhr]

26. Why are

we even listening to this loon.

[ohio2007]

27. Venezuela's Chavez praises Ahmadinejad's "great victory"

Honduran military acted with the support of that country's supreme court, who had ruled Zelaya's proposals to change the constitution so that he could remain in power illegal.

Still don't see the connection Judy ? I see that Kool Aid is really GRrrrreat !

Venezuela's Chavez praises Ahmadinejad's "great victory"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5851559

The news was so big,





it had to be moved to another forum

:bounce:

[DRoseDARs]

34. Thank you. I really wish Chavez would just stfu already, stupid obnoxious clown. nt

[EFerrari]

42. You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. n/t

[Bacchus39]

61. there they are hugging each other. where was Chavez on Iran's election?

hugging Ahmadinejad.

[BuddhaGirl]

78. Ugh!

a couple of thugs :-(

[Simplyaverage]

43. Too soon to tell

I think more evidence and patience is in order before claiming that this or that country had a role in the coup.

[EFerrari]

46. Except the M.O. is just like what they did to Haiti.

And remember, the right wing nutcases at State and the Defense Department just "lost" El Salvador to the FMLN in the last election.

It is too soon to know but it has fingerprints all over it.

[Peace Patriot]

58. Well, I would say that Chavez has a lot more information than we do,

and, given the evidence for cooperative intelligence sharing among South American leaders (--they have foiled several assassination plots and coup attempts over the last several years, and I think good intelligence, and sharing intelligence, is part of how they did it), I suspect that there must be some evidence for U.S. complicity in this coup that is commonly known by now among South American leaders. Chavez tends to speak more openly than the others. And he is rarely wrong when he speaks about the U.S. government. Also, he has reason to be silent--if the evidence if very iffy--because he just reopened diplomatic relations with the U.S. That has been an important goal of his. I doubt that he would want to sour relations, unnecessarily, days after repairing them, if he did not have good reason to.

I tend to believe that Obama is sincere in wanting better relations with Latin America, but I don't know how much power he has to implement better policy, nor how fully in control of our foreign policy apparatus he is. Yes, there are a lot of unknowns.

Zelaya spoke just the other day about all this, and said that he felt assured that the U.S. embassy did not support the rightwing coupsters, and that the coup was thereby foiled. Then the coup happened anyway. Mixed signals? Mixed up orders? Underhandeness? Who knows? But I can tell you this: It took me more than 25 years to learn what that rat bastard Reagan did in Guatemala, and I don't want that to happen again. My taxes are paying for KILLING PEOPLE--in that case, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND MAYAN VILLAGERS! Maybe I can't do anything about it, but I have an obligation to know it, and to fight against it as well as I can. And, given our collusive corpo/fascist media, we really do need to learn to read between the lines and consult alternative sources. I do not intend to wait--and have not waited--for the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies to tell me what happened in Honduras and what I should think about it. Obama has so far only expressed "concern" about events in Honduras. He has not condemned this coup (as has the OAS and the EU, and numerous leaders throughout the Americas). That may be our first clue that something has gone on there, contrary to Obama's spoken policy--in support of the coup. You are correct that we don't know. But that doesn't mean we should be passive. And if Obana's new, more cooperative, more respectful Latin American policy is to succeed, he needs to immediately correct the understandable impression among many Latin Americans that the U.S. was behind it.

Perhaps the U.S. wasn't. Or perhaps they "just let it happen"--but saved Zelaya from being assassinated. (What about others, though? His supporters? Labor leaders? The poor? Activists? What is their fate in Honduras tonight?) Did Obama "just let it happen" but cautioned that it must not be too bloody? That is a good possibility, given the U.S. military's strong strategic interest--and other corpo/fascist interests--in retaining a foothold in Central America, which they are fast losing to the election of leftist governments all over the Central and South American maps. Nicaragua to the south (of Honduras), leftist government elected. El Salvador to the west, leftist government just elected. Guatemala to the north, leftist government elected. And leftist governments elected all over South America. Our corpo/fascists and "war on drugs" profiteers loathe these developments and want to undo them. They want free reign to exploit resources, and militarize these societies. And Obama has a curious, hard-to-describe political stance in relation to these forces within our government and corporate ruler establishments. The word "flexible" comes to mind. Flexible can be good--and smart--when you're dealing with such forces. But it also can be very hard to read, and can border on lack of principle. I do think that Obama is well aware of how he is hemmed in. But I truly wonder--if, for instance, the Pentagon or the CIA has disobeyed him on this coup, what he would do about it. Bend? And I wonder, too, if he could have been talked into it, 'as long as it wasn't too bloody.'

The U.S. has such thick fingers in Honduras--and such a dirty history there--that it is almost inconceivable that the Honduran military and rightwing elite would go forward with this coup without U.S. permission. And if they had such permission, who gave it? And if they didn't, what is the the U.S./Obama going to do about it? They haven't even condemned it--yet.

[Zorro]

59. Chavez saw the hand of the US behind the Iranian protests, too

and behind anyone or any group in Venezuela that dares challenge his policies.

I think he's just being the braying loudmouth that he is, and not because he has superior intel.

[EFerrari]

64. You mean that destabilization in Iran for which there was a $4 million budget.

What a loon.

lol

[Zorro]

66. So how about pointing out the $4M line item in the budget

for "destabilization in Iran"?

[Cha]

67. Reallly. n/t

[EFerrari]

73. Our national policy was destabilization.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

[EFerrari]

71. This was widely reported and among others, by Sy Hersh.

And, you can use the google, can't you?

[Zorro]

75. You made the assertion, you have the burden of proof

[EFerrari]

77. I have long since divested myself of any burden of proof

to your shit stirring.

[Zorro]

79. So you're just making shit up, then

Pretty much par for the course.

[EFerrari]

82. Nope. You're not reading your own thread. Par for the course.

And has it ever occurred to you that posting slams like that against me here, when hundreds of DUers trusted me with their personal and financial information when we raised money for Andy, is just stupid?

Seriously, you don't even know where you are.

[Zorro]

85. If you can't defend your assertion

Then it calls your credibility into question.

You seem to want a free pass to insult others without consequence. That doesn't work.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohio2007]

84. SY said Iran was going to be invaded in June 2003,

just saying.

Maybe this is a pre emptive strike by Hugo to take his revolution into Honduras.

The invasion of Honduras may be undrway ;)
viva Huge ego

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

107. No he didn't, just saying. nt

[MaineDem]

69. Is United Fruit involved?

Sorry, flashback.

[IntravenousDemilo]

70. Nice dangling participle at the beginning of the first sentence.

I had no idea Chavez had broken off ties with Venezuela in the first place.

[ohio2007]

87. Chavez threatens military action over Honduras coup ( INVASION )

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday put troops on alert after a coup in Honduras and said he would respond militarily if his envoy to the Central American country was kidnapped or killed Chavez said Honduran soldiers took away the Cuban ambassador and left the Venezuelan ambassador on the side of a road after beating him during the army's coup against his leftist ally, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

snip

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, part of a coalition of leftist governments headed by Chavez that includes Honduras, said he would support military action if Ecuador's diplomats or those of its allies were threatened

snip

The socialist Chavez has in the past threatened to use his armed forces in the region but never followed through. He said that if a new government is sworn in after the coup it would be defeated.

snip
Washington still has several hundred troops stationed at Soto Cano Air Base, a Honduran military installation that is also the headquarters for a regional U.S. joint task force that conducts humanitarian, drug and disaster relief operations. Chavez and other Latin American leaders from his ALBA coalition, including Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and Bolivia's President Evo Morales, were headed to Nicaragua on Sunday to discuss what action to take over Honduras.
ALBA's nine members also include Cuba, Honduras and Nicaragua. Ecuador said Sunday it will not recognize any new government in Honduras.


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55R1S820090628?sp=true


just saying;
looks like a duck,quacks like a duck


Natinalizes and ignores overdue 'bills' like a duck.

Gotta be a distraction looking for US congressional bailout $$
:sarcasm:


A prediction of a long awaited June invasion can finally come true .
er...liberation ?

[EFerrari]

100. They kidnapped his ambassador.

And this report is old. This was before the White House and State and OAS repudiated the coup.

[SuperTrouper]

102. Zelaya is not coming back. So Chavez should STFU. Big Chicken Chavez invading

Honduras? Yeah right...and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...

[EFerrari]

103. Did you read my post? Nobody is going to invade anyone.

[IndianaGreen]

105. How come Obama still has the School of the Americas running full blast?

Why are we still training murderers and torturers at Fort Benning? What role did SOA graduates play in the Honduran coup, and why was CIA involved?

[imdjh]

108. Some decisions are made at a much higher level. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

152. Like we are not living in a democracy? n/t

[WriteDown]

115. That's easy....

Look no further than the executive board room at Coke Zero

[subcomhd]

141. Wouldn't it be great if this was the

beginning of the end for the vile SoA? I know, I know I'm naive.

Hey IG, is that Marx or Bakunin?

[fascisthunter]

118. most who read news rather than eat the corporate trash knew about this

after it happened. Wow... I'm surprised by the surprise...lol

[IndianaGreen]

136. What was the US Air Force doing in Honduras on the weekend of the coup?

From US military website:

U.S. Air Force Teams Participate in Honduran Air Show, Donate Proceeds to Hospital

Posted On: Jun 26 2009 12:59PM
By Capt. Candace Park
12th Air Force Public Affairs

6/26/2009 - SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras (AFNS) -- An international air show united aviators, air forces and Hondurans to share their love of flying to help save lives at a local hospital June 20 and 21 here.

More than 30 U.S. Air Forces Southern Airmen, a KC-135 Stratotanker, two F-16 Fighting Falcons and an F-16 demonstration team deployed to the Honduran Armando Escalon Air Base to participate in the show, which raised more than $35,000 for Mario Catarino Rivas Hospital here.

http://www.southcom.mil/appssc/news.php?storyId=1850

Isn't this a remarkable coincidence, or was this just a cover story?

[Adir Pykhtin]

151. It's possible, but i don't see enough evidence yet

I think it's premature to say that this or that nation was involved in the coup. As more news comes in we will form a better idea.