[Bulaba Khan Jones]

In an exclusive interview granted by the Venezuelan government, the Guardian had the opportunity to observe the ongoing right-wing demonstrations and interview Venezuela's democratically-elected president, Nicolás Maduro. Facing political protests demanding his violent removal from elected office by the same people who tried to remove President Chavez in 2002, Maduro made several key claims and statements on what is happening in Venezuela right now.

Maduro claimed Venezuela was facing a type of "unconventional war that the US has perfected over the last decades", citing a string of US-backed coups or attempted coups from 1960s Brazil to Honduras in 2009.

Speaking in the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, the former bus driver and trade union leader said Venezuela's opposition had "the aim of paralysing the main cities of the country, copying badly what happened in Kiev, where the main roads in the cities were blocked off, until they made governability impossible, which led to the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine." The Venezuelan opposition had, he said, a "similar plan".

"They try to increase economic problems through an economic war to cut the supplies of basic goods and boost an artificial inflation", Maduro said. "To create social discontent and violence, to portray a country in flames, which could lead them to justify international isolation and even foreign intervention."

We have indeed seen these tactics used before. Fifth columnists funded by foreign interests throughout Latin America used to undermine an elected government and install authoritarian regimes sympathetic to Western powers. What's telling is actually watching the video interview itself.

[youtube]Te0U5rzetLc[/youtube]

"The big paradox of this situation is that the rich are protesting and the poor are working."

As noted elsewhere, the protests are largely limited to middle and upper class neighborhoods in Caracas and other major cities. Support for the right-wing reactionaries in Venezuela seeking to overthrow their elected government is not popular amongst the poor, who have benefited greatly by Chavez's socialist reforms that saw living conditions improve for the working class of Venezuela, as well as the reduction of poverty and homelessness compared to just a decade or even two decades ago. Before Chavez and Maduro, the people of Venezuela had only right-wing governments selling their nation's sovereignty to Western interests. Today, the government makes the attempt to provide housing, free public university-level education to all, and many other benefits the working class never enjoyed under the kind of right-wing governments the US-funded protesters want to see Venezuela return to.

"In Venezuela there is an attempt to overthrow the government. There is a staged attempt to tell the rest of the world that there is a supposed student movement on the street that has been repressed by an authoritarian government that does not allow them to protest. We are against what some have called the 'revolt of the rich'. Venezuela is the country where the rich protest and the poor celebrate their social wellbeing." - President Nicolás Maduro

[wat0n]

What US backed coup in Honduras exactly? Zelaya himself said Obama supported him at the time.

[Solastalgia]

What US backed coup in Honduras exactly? Zelaya himself said Obama supported him at the time.

Exclusive Interview with Manuel Zelaya on the U.S. Role in Honduran Coup, WikiLeaks and Why He Was Ousted

HuffingtonPost: WikiLeaks Honduras: State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup

the relationship of actual U.S. policy -- as opposed to rhetorical pronouncements -- to democracy in the region is very much a live issue from Haiti to Bolivia.

[wat0n]

Exclusive Interview with Manuel Zelaya on the U.S. Role in Honduran Coup, WikiLeaks and Why He Was Ousted

HuffingtonPost: WikiLeaks Honduras: State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup

That's a weak argument. Foot dragging on enacting sanctions against the coupists doesn't equal support for their actions.

As for Zelaya, yes, he did say he didn't think the US cupported the coup. Once the US decided to recognize the new elections, he simply changed his story and accused them of plotting a coup against him.

[Solastalgia]

That's a weak argument. Foot dragging on enacting sanctions against the coupists doesn't equal support for their actions.

You clearly skimmed that article. That's not all that it was saying... That was merely one point, that wasn't even made by the author of that article, but cited to an outside report that made that argument.

Conversely, I think it is you, wat0n, who has the weak argument here. Just because Obama publicly supported Zelaya at the beginning, doesn't mean that the US wasn't involved in the coup. Besides, Obama's opinion of Zelaya was a lone, while the State Department blamed the coup on Zelaya himself.

All this, despite the fact that leading coup general (Gen. Romeo Vasquez) was trained at the School of Americas. Despite the fact that Zelaya's military kidnappers refueled their plane at the US' Palmerola base.

As for Zelaya, yes, he did say he didn't think the US cupported the coup. Once the US decided to recognize the new elections, he simply changed his story and accused them of plotting a coup against him.

Yes, at the beginning of the coup, Zelaya was convinced by US officials that they weren't supporting the coup (mostly by their public rhetoric), but after the dust settled and the evidence started to surface, he knew what had happened. Of course, with any type of event like this, people don't understand what really happened until afterwards. So to argue (as you have) that Zelaya's ignorant belief at the beginning of the coup, proves the US wasn't involved is weak IMO.

Honduras: Military Coup Engineered By Two US Companies?

I recently visited Central America. Everyone I talked with there was convinced that the military coup that had overthrown the democratically-elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, had been engineered by two US companies, with CIA support. And that the US and its new president were not standing up for democracy.

Earlier in the year Chiquita Brands International Inc. (formerly United Fruit) and Dole Food Co had severely criticized Zelaya for advocating an increase of 60% in Honduras’s minimum wage, claiming that the policy would cut into corporate profits. They were joined by a coalition of textile manufacturers and exporters, companies that rely on cheap labor to work in their sweatshops.

Memories are short in the US, but not in Central America. I kept hearing people who claimed that it was a matter of record that Chiquita (United Fruit) and the CIA had toppled Guatemala’s democratically-elected president Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and that International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT), Henry Kissinger, and the CIA had brought down Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973. These people were certain that Haiti’s president Jean-Bertrand Aristide had been ousted by the CIA in 2004 because he proposed a minimum wage increase, like Zelaya’s.

I was told by a Panamanian bank vice president, “Every multinational knows that if Honduras raises its hourly rate, the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean will have to follow. Haiti and Honduras have always set the bottom line for minimum wages. The big companies are determined to stop what they call a ‘leftist revolt’ in this hemisphere. In throwing out Zelaya they are sending frightening messages to all the other presidents who are trying to raise the living standards of their people.”

It did not take much imagination to envision the turmoil sweeping through every Latin American capital. There had been a collective sign of relief at Barack Obama’s election in the U.S., a sense of hope that the empire in the North would finally exhibit compassion toward its southern neighbors, that the unfair trade agreements, privatizations, draconian IMF Structural Adjustment Programs, and threats of military intervention would slow down and perhaps even fade away. Now, that optimism was turning sour.

The cozy relationship between Honduras’s military coup leaders and the corporatocracy were confirmed a couple of days after my arrival in Panama. England’s The Guardian ran an article announcing that “two of the Honduran coup government's top advisers have close ties to the US secretary of state. One is Lanny Davis, an influential lobbyist who was a personal lawyer for President Bill Clinton and also campaigned for Hillary. . . The other hired gun for the coup government that has deep Clinton ties is (lobbyist) Bennett Ratcliff.” (1)

DemocracyNow! broke the news that Chiquita was represented by a powerful Washington law firm, Covington & Burling LLP, and its consultant, McLarty Associates (2). President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder had been a Covington partner and a defender of Chiquita when the company was accused of hiring “assassination squads” in Colombia (Chiquita was found guilty, admitting that it had paid organizations listed by the US government as terrorist groups “for protection” and agreeing in 2004 to a $25 million fine). (3) George W. Bush’s UN Ambassador, John Bolton, a former Covington lawyer, had fiercely opposed Latin American leaders who fought for their peoples’ rights to larger shares of the profits derived from their resources; after leaving the government in 2006, Bolton became involved with the Project for the New American Century, the Council for National Policy, and a number of other programs that promote corporate hegemony in Honduras and elsewhere.

McLarty Vice Chairman John Negroponte was U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, and U.S. Representative to the United Nations; he played a major role in the U.S.-backed Contra’s secret war against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government and has consistently opposed the policies of the democratically-elected pro-reform Latin American presidents. (4) These three men symbolize the insidious power of the corporatocracy, its bipartisan composition, and the fact that the Obama Administration has been sucked in.

The Los Angeles Times went to the heart of this matter when it concluded:

What happened in Honduras is a classic Latin American coup in another sense: Gen. Romeo Vasquez, who led it, is an alumnus of the United States' School of the Americas (renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). The school is best known for producing Latin American officers who have committed major human rights abuses, including military coups. (5)

All of this leads us once again to the inevitable conclusion: you and I must change the system. The president – whether Democrat or Republican – needs us to speak out.

Chiquita, Dole and all your representatives need to hear from you. Zelaya must be reinstated.

FOOTNOTES

(1)

“Who's in charge of US foreign policy? The coup in Honduras has exposed divisions between Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton” by Mark Weisbrot http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ma-clinton (July 23, 2009)

(2) http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/f ... hiquita_in (July 23, 2009)

(3) “Chiquita admits to paying Colombia terrorists: Banana company agrees to $25 million fine for paying AUC for protection” MSNBC March 15, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17615143/ (July 24, 2009)

(4) Fore more information: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.c ... ngton.html (July 23, 2009)

(5) “The high-powered hidden support for Honduras' coup: The country's rightful president was ousted by a military leadership that takes many of its cues from Washington insiders.” by Mark Weisbrot, Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 6740.story (July 23, 2009)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23211.htm

[wat0n]

You clearly skimmed that article. That's not all that it was saying... That was merely one point, that wasn't even made by the author of that article, but cited to an outside report that made that argument.

It's the only point remotely relevant to the coup in Honduras.

Conversely, I think it is you, wat0n, who has the weak argument here. Just because Obama publicly supported Zelaya at the beginning, doesn't mean that the US wasn't involved in the coup. Besides, Obama's opinion of Zelaya was a lone, while the State Department blamed the coup on Zelaya himself.

All this, despite the fact that leading coup general (Gen. Romeo Vasquez) was trained at the School of Americas. Despite the fact that Zelaya's military kidnappers refueled their plane at the US' Palmerola base.

Why did Zelaya publicly claim he had Obama's support, then, if the coupists refueled at an American base? Why did he mention this years after the fact? Is anyone else confirming this account of the coup? I followed the coup as it unfolded and Zelaya didn't mention anything like that.

As for Vázquez, I don't care where he was trained at. It is not unheard for people trained by America to turn against its interests.

[Solastalgia]

It's the only point remotely relevant to the coup in Honduras.

Now you're just trying to smear the article. There were plenty of points relevant to the coup in Honduras (especially on the Wikileaked cables). All you did was make a straw man out of one point that wasn't really raised by the author himself (but rather cited to an outside report).

Why did Zelaya publicly claim he had Obama's support, then, if the coupists refueled at an American base?

Look, there's no need to argue about Zelaya claiming Obama's support. Obama publicly supported Zelaya initially. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you continue saying that he claimed support.

Also, I'm not sure why you believe that public political rhetoric (which has been proven as lies way too many times) automatically coincides with what's happening behind closed doors (especially with the corporate and intelligence sectors involved).

Just because Obama publicly supported Zelaya (mere months after Obama was sworn in as president), doesn't mean that there weren't elements of the US corporate-intelligence complex that wanted Zelaya out, as they wanted Morales out in 1963. Just as in '63, Kennedy (like Obama) condemned the coup, while the corporate-intelligence complex was actively involved.

It's as if Obama's opinion automatically alleviates any US responsibility (which you basically argued before, "What US backed coup in Honduras exactly? Zelaya himself said Obama supported him at the time."). It's ironic that you make weak arguments like this, and call those who make arguments based on diplomatic cables, weak.

Why did he mention this years after the fact?

Why did Zelaya mention that Obama publicly supported him, years after the fact? Maybe because it was a fact that Obama publicly supported him at the time.

Kinda weird that you say you followed the coup as it unfolded, yet weren't aware that Obama publicly stated support for Zelaya at the time.

Is anyone else confirming this account of the coup?

Yes, a lot of Latin American analysts. It's no secret that Chiquitta wanted Zelaya out after he wanted to hike the minimum wage up 60% (which threatened to set a precedent for the rest of the US corporate sector in Latin America).

Just as they've done many times in the past, as United Fruit Company, they engineered coups or got direct US military support (1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925) to protect their interests in Honduras.

I followed the coup as it unfolded and Zelaya didn't mention anything like that.

Well, you clearly didn't follow it close enough, since you continue calling Obama's support, a claim of Zelaya.

As for Vázquez, I don't care where he was trained at. It is not unheard for people trained by America to turn against its interests.

So, you're blatantly dismissing the lengthy history of the School of the Americas training generals for military coups across Latin America?

From an interview on Honduras, with the School of the America's watch-dog group founder, Roy Bourgeois:

This school is well known in Latin America as a school of coups, a school of dictators, a school of torture. There is a direct connection, which we expected.

The two main players in this coup in Honduras that ousted President Zelaya are two generals, well-known graduates of the school: General Romero Vasquez, who’s the commander-in-chief, the head of the military, not only a graduate, a two-time graduate; and, of course, also General Luis Suazo, a graduate of the school in 1996, who’s the head of the air force.

This school is well known in Latin America, again, as a school of coups.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/1/ge ... itary_coup

[wat0n]

Now you're just trying to smear the article. There were plenty of points relevant to the coup in Honduras (especially on the Wikileaked cables). All you did was make a straw man out of one point that wasn't really raised by the author himself (but rather cited to an outside report).

You do realize that the cables state clearly that the event was a coup, right? The Huffington Post's article is simply criticizing the US' foot dragging on slapping sanctions on Honduras.

Look, there's no need to argue about Zelaya claiming Obama's support. Obama publicly supported Zelaya initially. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you continue saying that he claimed support.

Because he did in the same day of the coup. He didn't contradict Obama's claims or say the plane he was being transported in refueled at an American military base.

Also, I'm not sure why you believe that public political rhetoric (which has been proven as lies way too many times) automatically coincides with what's happening behind closed doors (especially with the corporate and intelligence sectors involved). It's ironic that you make weak arguments like this, and call those who make arguments based on diplomatic cables, weak.

Just because Obama publicly supported Zelaya, doesn't mean that there weren't elements of the US corporate-intelligence complex that wanted Zelaya out, as they wanted Morales out in 1963. Just as in '63, Kennedy (like Obama) condemned the coup, while the corporate-intelligence complex was actively involved.

Sure, and yet the same argument goes both sides - there is also no reason to trust Zelaya's account of the facts sorrounding the coup.

I also find it noteworthy that the US embassy's cable regarding the coup made no mention on the plane Zelaya was flought with landing in an American military base or stating that the coup was good for American interests.

Why did Zelaya mention that Obama publicly supported him, years after the fact? Maybe because it was a fact that Obama publicly supported him at the time.

You are still not answering why, exactly, did Zelaya omit an important detail like that the plane he was flought in.

Yes, a lot of Latin American analysts. It's no secret that Chiquitta wanted Zelaya out after he wanted to hike the minimum wage up 60% (which threatened to set a precedent for the rest of the US corporate sector in Latin America).

Just as they've done many times in the past, as United Fruit Company, they engineered coups or got direct US military support (1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925) to protect their interests in Honduras.

I am speaking about Zelaya's claim that the plane he was transported with refueled at an American military base.

Well, you clearly didn't follow it close enough, since you continue calling Obama's support, a claim of Zelaya.

So...? I am simply highlighting Zelaya's changing position on the matter.

So, you're blatantly dismissing the lengthy history of the School of the Americas training generals for military coups across Latin America?

From an interview on Honduras, with the School of the America's watch-dog group founder, Roy Bourgeois:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/1/ge ... itary_coup

Yes, we've heard this before. It doesn't matter or prove anything at all.

[Solastalgia]

You do realize that the cables state clearly that the event was a coup, right?

Is that a serious question? They obviously stated it was a coup. Nobody in the world could deny it was a coup. Not sure what that proves, or why you're bringing it up.

As if US embassy recognition that this was a coup, proves there wasn't any US covert involvement.

The Huffington Post's article is simply criticizing the US' foot dragging on slapping sanctions on Honduras.

That was one point in the article, which was really just a citation to an outside report on the trends of timing on US sanctions in countries that experience coups. I think it was a good point and report as well, and you really didn't address it besides smearing it with a straw man.

Because he did in the same day of the coup. He didn't contradict Obama's claims or say the plane he was being transported in refueled at an American military base.

You're referring to the article you cited earlier, correct? http://elpais.com/diario/2009/06/28/por ... 50215.html

While it says that the article was published 28 June 2009, it also says right after the quote from Zelaya, that he convened an informal referendum (which happened before the coup took place). So I'm not convinced that quote came right after Zelaya was kidnapped. As far as I'm aware, the only interview Zelaya gave that day was with Telesur, after he landed in Costa Rica, in which he denounced the coup, but made no mention of the quote from that article.

I also find it noteworthy that the US embassy's cable regarding the coup made no mention on the plane Zelaya was flought with landing in an American military base or stating that the coup was good for American interests.

I don't see that as noteworthy. It really doesn't matter that the US embassy didn't mention that. The coup was good for American interests regardless of what the US embassy wrote, as Zelaya's labor reforms were a threat not only to their profit margin in Honduras, but possibly other countries that would follow suit.

You are still not answering why, exactly, did Zelaya omit an important detail like that the plane he was flought in.

Omit from what? When was that interview with that quote about US support? The article you cite says immediately after that he was holding the referendum (which took place before the kidnapping). So, again, i'm not convinced he said that the day he was kidnapped. Even if that is the case (please further citate), why am I supposed to know why Zelaya omitted certain points? Also, how do you know that Zelaya knew they stopped and refueled the day he was kidnapped. He might not have found out about that until days or weeks after. So that might be a reason why he wouldn't have mentioned it the day of. Other than that, I have no idea why, and shouldn't be asked that, as I'm not Zelaya.

I am speaking about Zelaya's claim that the plane he was transported with refueled at an American military base.

Zelaya was kidnapped. He said he wasn't even aware he was going to Costa Rica until he landed there. I'm sure he wasn't aware (probably blindfolded) that they stopped at Palmerola base until awhile after the fact. So I'm not sure why you expect him to know and tell people the day he got kidnapped, that his plane had to refuel at Palmerola.

So...? I am simply highlighting Zelaya's changing position on the matter.

As I said earlier, when these kind of events take place, people don't understand things until after the dusts settles. Zelaya may have believed before that he had support of the US, but after everything went down, he realized that it was all just rhetorical.

Yes, we've heard this before. It doesn't matter or prove anything at all.

It doesn't matter that the generals who lead the coup in Honduras, were trained by the US DoD Institute that has historically trained military coup generals in Latin America for the past half century plus?

[wat0n]

Is that a serious question? They obviously stated it was a coup. Nobody in the world could deny it was a coup. Not sure what that proves, or why you're bringing it up.

Specifically, the cable devotes its time and space to debunk the legal arguments given by the coup's plotters. How does it prove anything at all?

As if US embassy recognition that this was a coup, proves there wasn't any US covert involvement.

Indeed, it doesn't. In fact, one cannot prove the US wasn't involved in the coup, just like one cannot prove god doesn't exist.

One could prove the US was involved in the coup, but this hasn't happened so far.

That was one point in the article, which was really just a citation to an outside report on the trends of timing on US sanctions in countries that experience coups. I think it was a good point and report as well, and you really didn't address it besides smearing it with a straw man.

The article's other points have nothing to do with whether the US was involved in the coup or not.

You're referring to the article you cited earlier, correct? http://elpais.com/diario/2009/06/28/por ... 50215.html

While it says that the article was published 28 June 2009, it also says right after the quote from Zelaya, that he convened an informal referendum (which happened before the coup took place). So I'm not convinced that quote came right after Zelaya was kidnapped. As far as I'm aware, the only interview Zelaya gave that day was with Telesur, after he landed in Costa Rica, in which he denounced the coup, but made no mention of the quote from that article.

Indeed, he was saying that Obama was against any coups against him before the coup itself occurred. Obama may as well have lied to him, yet I would expect Zelaya to say his plane refueled at an American base as soon as he could get access to the media if this did actually happen. Yet, he did not.

I don't see that as noteworthy. It really doesn't matter that the US embassy didn't mention that. The coup was good for American interests regardless of what the US embassy wrote, as Zelaya's labor reforms were a threat not only to their profit margin in Honduras, but possibly other countries that would follow suit.

I would expect the US to defend the new regime and do its best to legitimize it. The very first step for that is to provide legal arguments to support the coup's legality.

It's funny you mention Zelaya's reforms, other countries in the region have done the same yet the only other one that suffered a coup attempt was Venezuela.

Omit from what? When was that interview with that quote about US support? The article you cite says immediately after that he was holding the referendum (which took place before the kidnapping). So, again, i'm not convinced he said that the day he was kidnapped. Even if that is the case (please further citate), why am I supposed to know why Zelaya omitted certain points? Also, how do you know that Zelaya knew they stopped and refueled the day he was kidnapped. He might not have found out about that until days or weeks after. So that might be a reason why he wouldn't have mentioned it the day of. Other than that, I have no idea why, and shouldn't be asked that, as I'm not Zelaya.

Omit from the post-coup interviews.

Who could have told Zelaya that the plane stopped to refuel in a military base?

As I said earlier, when these kind of events take place, people don't understand things until after the dusts settles. Zelaya may have believed before that he had support of the US, but after everything went down, he realized that it was all just rhetorical.

How could have Zelaya realized he landed in an American base to refuel? Someone would have had to tell him, but who could that be? If the US was colluded with the coupists, I find it hard to believe they would let him know about this landing. Particularly since he was supposed to get out alive.

It doesn't matter that the generals who lead the coup in Honduras, were trained by the US DoD Institute that has historically trained military coup generals in Latin America for the past half century plus?

Correct. What does matter is if the US had a reason to topple him and if it was worth facing the risks of a failed coup.

[Solastalgia]

What does matter is if the US had a reason to topple him

The US had every ridiculous reason to remove Zelaya. From him fighting back against the US oil import hegemony in Honduras, to his integration of Honduras into Venezuela's ALBA, to his stated goals of turning the US air force base there into a civilian airport. Not to mention the most historical reason that the US has intervened covertly and overtly in Banana Republics of Central America over the past century: the protection of US fruit corporation interests.

"And we know that prior to the coup d’état in Honduras, Chiquita was very unhappy about President Zelaya’s minimum wage decrees, because they said that this would cut into their profits and make it more expensive for them to export bananas and pineapple. And we know that they appealed to the Honduran Business Association, which was also opposed to Zelaya’s minimum wage provisions.

And we also — and what I find really interesting is that Chiquita is allied to a Washington law firm called Covington, which advises multinational corporations. And who is the vice chairman of Covington? None other than John Negroponte, who your previous guest mentioned in regards to the rampant human rights abuses that went on in Honduras throughout the 1980s. " http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/f ... hiquita_in

It's important to remember that Chiquita was formerly the United Fruit Company, known infamously for it's CIA collaboration coup d'etat against Guatemala in 1954.

Now do you understand what I meant earlier, when I said that it doesn't matter what Obama's opinion is when it comes to the corporate-intelligence complex interests.

How could have Zelaya realized he landed in an American base to refuel? Someone would have had to tell him, but who could that be? If the US was colluded with the coupists, I find it hard to believe they would let him know about this landing. Particularly since he was supposed to get out alive.

The person who told on them was Patricia Valle, the deputy foreign minister at the time. Obviously Zelaya didn't just realize or find out about this by himself. He was more than likely blindfolded, and not told anything (as this was a kidnapping). So I still don't understand why you expected him to know, let a lone tell the press (the day he was kidnapped) that the plane stopped at a US base. That news came out a couple months after the kidnapping occurred. He probably didn't know himself for weeks after he was kidnapped.

Indeed, he was saying that Obama was against any coups against him before the coup itself occurred.

So now you admit that the quote is pre-coup (as I suspected). So where goes your earlier argument that this was from the day of the coup, while not talking about the plane refuel. Which I still don't understand you making a fuss over. As if Zelaya knew everything that happened during his kidnapping to tell the press right afterwords.

Omit from the post-coup interviews.

Omit from what post-coup interview? You admitted that your quote from him was actually before the coup occurred.

Obama may as well have lied to him, yet I would expect Zelaya to say his plane refueled at an American base as soon as he could get access to the media if this did actually happen. Yet, he did not.

Again, I don't understand why you expect Zelaya to know that they stopped at the US base to refuel during his kidnapping. I'm guessing he didn't find out for the first time until weeks after it happened. Once the news broke, he talked about it with the media. I really don't understand why you expected him to talk about it right after it (as if he even knew about it).

I would expect the US to defend the new regime and do its best to legitimize it. The very first step for that is to provide legal arguments to support the coup's legality.

The US did defend the new regime and did it's best to legitimize it. They recognized the undemocratic elections after the coup, which weren't recognized by most of Latin America and the international community. They then supported the newly elected right-wing, Pepe Lobo (who, of course, called the US it's #1 ally), even while there were so many human rights violations under him. They continue, to this day, their support of the right-wing regime of Honduras, and don't denounce any of the mounting human rights violations as death squads have seen a resurgence in the country. This isn't surprising though, as we've seen death squads rise up in Latin countries after US backed coups (the best examples being in Guatemala and Chile), and this isn't the first time we've seen US backed death squads in Honduras with John Negroponte in the '80s.

It's funny you mention Zelaya's reforms, other countries in the region have done the same yet the only other one that suffered a coup attempt was Venezuela.

Please name the countries you're talking about, that had reforms like Honduras and didn't experience attempted coups.

Conversely, I'd point you to Ecuador (2010) and Bolivia (2008) that had leftist labor reforms like Honduras, and experienced coup attempts.

Even if you do come up with some countries to name here, I'd argue that they're next in line to contribute to the long history of the US overthrowing leftist Latin regimes.

The article's other points have nothing to do with whether the US was involved in the coup or not.

You clearly didn't read that article if you believe all of it's other points had nothing to do with the coup. The entire article was about the coup. Just admit that you're trying to smear it. It's blatantly obvious.

Specifically, the cable devotes its time and space to debunk the legal arguments given by the coup's plotters. How does it prove anything at all?

Again, you clearly didn't read that article. The point of it WAS NOT to show that the cable proves US involvement. The point of it WAS to show the contradiction between what the US ambassador to Honduras said in the cable (a decently balanced review of the coup), and what the US state department was saying later. It was basically about how Washington went from condemning the coup initially, and in a months time was already talking shit to Zelaya (calling his attempted re-entry to the country reckless) and not legally recognizing his ousting as a military coup (despite what the cable established a month before hand).

Indeed, it doesn't. In fact, one cannot prove the US wasn't involved in the coup, just like one cannot prove god doesn't exist.

Hey man, you were the one that started all of this, by rejecting US involvement based on Obama's public support of Zelaya.

One could prove the US was involved in the coup, but this hasn't happened so far.

There never really is definitive proof for these kinds of things (and when there is, it usually doesn't surface until years later). If you're looking for a clear cut document showing exactly what happened, you're not going to find it. There's just bits and pieces that get added up together, along with taking into account motives, etc.

[wat0n]

The US had every ridiculous reason to remove Zelaya. From him fighting back against the US oil import hegemony in Honduras, to his integration of Honduras into Venezuela's ALBA, to his stated goals of turning the US air force base there into a civilian airport. Not to mention the most historical reason that the US has intervened covertly and overtly in Banana Republics of Central America over the past century: the protection of US fruit corporation interests.

"And we know that prior to the coup d’état in Honduras, Chiquita was very unhappy about President Zelaya’s minimum wage decrees, because they said that this would cut into their profits and make it more expensive for them to export bananas and pineapple. And we know that they appealed to the Honduran Business Association, which was also opposed to Zelaya’s minimum wage provisions.

And we also — and what I find really interesting is that Chiquita is allied to a Washington law firm called Covington, which advises multinational corporations. And who is the vice chairman of Covington? None other than John Negroponte, who your previous guest mentioned in regards to the rampant human rights abuses that went on in Honduras throughout the 1980s. " http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/f ... hiquita_in

It's important to remember that Chiquita was formerly the United Fruit Company, known infamously for it's CIA collaboration coup d'etat against Guatemala in 1954.

Now do you understand what I meant earlier, when I said that it doesn't matter what Obama's opinion is when it comes to the corporate-intelligence complex interests.

You forgot to include the other part of the sentence. I highly doubt the risks of a failed toppling of Zelaya were worth the supposed benefits of the operation.

The person who told on them was Patricia Valle, the deputy foreign minister at the time. Obviously Zelaya didn't just realize or find out about this by himself. He was more than likely blindfolded, and not told anything (as this was a kidnapping). So I still don't understand why you expected him to know, let a lone tell the press (the day he was kidnapped) that the plane stopped at a US base. That news came out a couple months after the kidnapping occurred. He probably didn't know himself for weeks after he was kidnapped.

Did she speak to the press saying this? If Zelaya couldn't, then she could.

So, did she?

So now you admit that the quote is pre-coup (as I suspected).

I don't think I claimed otherwise. I said Zelaya had claimed Obama supported him.

So where goes your earlier argument that this was from the day of the coup, while not talking about the plane refuel. Which I still don't understand you making a fuss over. As if Zelaya knew everything that happened during his kidnapping to tell the press right afterwords.

He could have told the press in the same week if he didn't know about it right after the coup, rather than 2 years later to a bullshit blog like Democracy Now!

Omit from what post-coup interview? You admitted that your quote from him was actually before the coup occurred.

Are you trying to claim he didn't talk to the press after the coup?

Again, I don't understand why you expect Zelaya to know that they stopped at the US base to refuel during his kidnapping. I'm guessing he didn't find out for the first time until weeks after it happened. Once the news broke, he talked about it with the media. I really don't understand why you expected him to talk about it right after it (as if he even knew about it).

Talk to the media 2 years about it, to Democracy Now!?

The US did defend the new regime and did it's best to legitimize it. They recognized the undemocratic elections after the coup, which weren't recognized by most of Latin America and the international community. They then supported the newly elected right-wing, Pepe Lobo (who, of course, called the US it's #1 ally), even while there were so many human rights violations under him. They continue, to this day, their support of the right-wing regime of Honduras, and don't denounce any of the mounting human rights violations as death squads have seen a resurgence in the country. This isn't surprising though, as we've seen death squads rise up in Latin countries after US backed coups (the best examples being in Guatemala and Chile), and this isn't the first time we've seen US backed death squads in Honduras with John Negroponte in the '80s.

If so, the US would have at least blocked the OAS from applying the democratic charter against Honduras, don't you think?

Please name the countries you're talking about, that had reforms like Honduras and didn't experience attempted coups.

Conversely, I'd point you to Ecuador (2010) and Bolivia (2008) that had leftist labor reforms like Honduras, and experienced coup attempts.

Even if you do come up with some countries to name here, I'd argue that they're next in line to contribute to the long history of the US overthrowing leftist Latin regimes.

Argentina, for instance.

I also don't know of any coup attempts in Bolivia, besides Morales' conspirational anti-American rhetoric that is.

You clearly didn't read that article if you believe all of it's other points had nothing to do with the coup. The entire article was about the coup. Just admit that you're trying to smear it. It's blatantly obvious.

The other points of the article deal with coups elsewhere, not in Honduras. It doesn't add any new evidence on that matter.

Again, you clearly didn't read that article. The point of it WAS NOT to show that the cable proves US involvement. The point of it WAS to show the contradiction between what the US ambassador to Honduras said in the cable (a decently balanced review of the coup), and what the US state department was saying later. It was basically about how Washington went from condemning the coup initially, and in a months time was already talking shit to Zelaya (calling his attempted re-entry to the country reckless) and not legally recognizing his ousting as a military coup (despite what the cable established a month before hand).

Yes, foot-dragging indeed. Hardly proving that the US was involved in coup plotting there.

Hey man, you were the one that started all of this, by rejecting US involvement based on Obama's public support of Zelaya.

I am questioning the assumptions of our local leftists regarding the coups here, who don't live in South America and don't speak Spanish.

At least in this part of the world, most of us can realize the US has interferred less in our internal affairs than during the Cold War. In fact, the US seems to be simply relying on a network of alliances with several countries in the region (Colombia, Perú, Chile, Mexico, Brazil up to an extent, etc) rather than intervening through overt or covert means. Probably because they don't fear Soviet support for anti-American elements in the region anymore, they are basically on their own.

There never really is definitive proof for these kinds of things (and when there is, it usually doesn't surface until years later). If you're looking for a clear cut document showing exactly what happened, you're not going to find it. There's just bits and pieces that get added up together, along with taking into account motives, etc.

Yet that's exactly what I am looking for, else it's just speculation.

[Solastalgia]

You forgot to include the other part of the sentence. I highly doubt the risks of a failed toppling of Zelaya were worth the supposed benefits of the operation.

What a weak response to me giving you five motives for US support of regime change. You know, the thing you said mattered. I didn't reply to the "risk of failing" part because that has never stopped the US from countless covert manipulation of politics throughout the world since WWII. They've of course failed in their attempts too, but continue to covertly manipulate politics across the world (that's just what they do). Failure is clearly not an option for them. They go ahead with it no matter what, or if they fail.

Let's say that they failed in Honduras in '09. What would be the fallout? Most likely Zelaya would have been rattled and gone back to being a tepid liberal acting subservient to the US (like he was at the beginning), instead of listening to the social movements in Honduras and passing progressive reforms that actually help the people (which was what got him ousted). Just like they told Chavez after their 2002 failed coup, they would probably say to Zelaya afterwards, 'we hope you learned your lesson, so now get your country back on "track" ' . So, in reality, a failure could have still turned into a success. If you think the US is worried about failures to the point of not even attempting, then you've got another thing coming.

Did she speak to the press saying this? If Zelaya couldn't, then she could.

So, did she?

She did. I believe her interview broke with the Associated Press. Zelaya started talking about it with the media after that story broke. But, of course, he really couldn't give much more insight, as he was kidnapped and had no idea what was happening.

I don't think I claimed otherwise. I said Zelaya had claimed Obama supported him.

Let me give a refresher for you.

On that quote from the article you cited, you originally said: "Because he did in the same day of the coup. He didn't contradict Obama's claims or say the plane he was being transported in refueled at an American military base."

to which I responded, "You're referring to the article you cited earlier, correct? http://elpais.com/diario/2009/06/28/por ... 50215.html

While it says that the article was published 28 June 2009, it also says right after the quote from Zelaya, that he convened an informal referendum (which happened before the coup took place). So I'm not convinced that quote came right after Zelaya was kidnapped. As far as I'm aware, the only interview Zelaya gave that day was with Telesur, after he landed in Costa Rica, in which he denounced the coup, but made no mention of the quote from that article. "

to which you replied, "Indeed, he was saying that Obama was against any coups against him before the coup itself occurred."

to which I replied, "So now you admit that the quote is pre-coup (as I suspected)."

If you don't believe the order of those responses, then you can double-check for yourself. You basically tip-toed around telling the truth, and now you're trying to save face by saying you never claimed otherwise.

He could have told the press in the same week if he didn't know about it right after the coup, rather than 2 years later to a bullshit blog like Democracy Now!

First off, Democracy Now! is NOT a blog (which shows how little you know about them), let a lone bull shit. What a ridiculous and immature smear. What are you 16? Or maybe just from the right-wing. Because the only people that criticize DN so vehemently, are those on the right-wing (as well as factions from the liberal establishment) who are constantly taken to task on the progressive DN. Since you're not from the states, let me tell you that DN is one of the only independently syndicated broadcast news shows we get here (not a blog, you jerk - DN debuted before blogs even became a thing). It pioneered as the largest public media outlet in the US, and has won many awards since it's start in '96. It's the only news program in our country that actively gives a voice to grass roots organizers and social movements around the world. So you can take all your immature insults somewhere else, because the grown ups here don't care.

Now, as far as Zelaya's interviews. Why are you so wrapped up in when he gave an interview on this issue. What morsel of an argument are you trying to cling to, to prove you're right on some aspect here? He didn't speak about the plane incident for the first time on Democracy Now! two years after the fact... He also probably couldn't have talked about it in the same week as the kidnapping, as I'm guessing he didn't find out until weeks later, if not months (when the story first broke by AP).

Are you trying to claim he didn't talk to the press after the coup?

Of course I'm not claiming that he didn't talk to the press after the coup (what a silly semi-strawman). Didn't you read earlier when I said that the only immediate interview after kidnapping that I remember, was with Telesur. He's given many interviews since the coup, calling it US sponsored.

The reason why I asked you "what post-coup interview?", was in sarcastic reference to your quote from El Pais, that you latter admitted was from before the coup.

Talk to the media 2 years about it, to Democracy Now!?

Is that a joke? You really believe that Zelaya talked about the plane refueling news (that broke a couple months after his kidnapping) for the first time on Democracy Now, two years later? I never even linked to that interview anyways, so that's your own hang up man. If you look back through this thread, the only two democracy now pieces I've linked to, is the interview with the School of the Americas watch-dog group founder, Roy Bourgeois, and also an interview with the author Nikolas Kozoff, who has a doctorate in Latin American history from Oxford University.

You're now officially arguing with yourself here. Congratulations on that!

If so, the US would have at least blocked the OAS from applying the democratic charter against Honduras, don't you think?

The US did block the OAS.

On September 28, State Department officials representing the United States blocked the OAS from adopting a resolution on Honduras that would have refused to recognize Honduran elections carried out under the dictatorship.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/16

Argentina, for instance.

Enh, wrong. What about the anti-government protests aimed at ousting leftist President Cristina Fernandez in 2012? You don't consider that an attempted coup, which by the way was brought to you by Goldman Sachs.

I also don't know of any coup attempts in Bolivia, besides Morales' conspirational anti-American rhetoric that is.

Enh, wrong. 2008. I recommend reading this article by Roger Burbach, who is the director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA). He explains thoroughly why that was a civic coup, as it was called by many other Latin American countries, and others in the international community. Not just Evo Morales, himself.

The other points of the article deal with coups elsewhere, not in Honduras. It doesn't add any new evidence on that matter.

How many more times must you misrepresent this article? I do urge everyone else to actually read it, when they get the chance. The ONE point (not others) about coups elsewhere wasn't really even made by the author of the article himself, but was rather a citation to an outside report done by the CEPR. The report did add new evidence to this issue in my view.

You can keep setting up straw men, or dismissing points without actually addressing them. Or you can actually try to dispute what was said in that report. Here's a link to it: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 009-08.pdf

Yes, foot-dragging indeed. Hardly proving that the US was involved in coup plotting there.

How is that foot-dragging? Foot-dragging is when someone fails to take prompt action on something. What I said (that you call foot-dragging) is that the US initially (as shown by the legal cable) took prompt action in legally defining it as a military coup (not foot dragging), yet the state department contradicted this cable (which they obviously where aware of) in public, and instead bashed Zelaya and wouldn't legally recognize it as a military coup (in rejection of the cable, and rest of the world's view).

I am questioning the assumptions of our local leftists regarding the coups here, who don't live in South America and don't speak Spanish.

Oh yes, we've heard this line before from the right-wing propagandist, Social_Critic. Are you buddies with him on here? The whole appeal to authority fallacy, about living in South America and speaking spanish doesn't work with anyone here.

At least in this part of the world, most of us can realize the US has interferred less in our internal affairs than during the Cold War.

Since when do you speak for most of Latin America? Also, I would appreciate it if you would provide some articles to back up your (not necessarily most Latinos) idea that US policy towards Latin America has changed since the Cold War. Even during the Cold War, the US was using the Soviets as an excuse to get their way in countries like Guatemala that didn't even have any soviet influence but were merely turning too much to the left for the US. Even before the Cold War, the US has been treating Latin America as it's backyard, brutally oppressing millions of people.

The New Left uprising in Latin America over the past decade (a long with greater Chinese influence on the continent) has refocused the US on keeping it's back yard clean, so to speak.

In fact, the US seems to be simply relying on a network of alliances with several countries in the region (Colombia, Perú, Chile, Mexico, Brazil up to an extent, etc) rather than intervening through overt or covert means.

You're right that the US relies on it's allies in the region, but you're wrong that it doesn't continue trying to covertly intervene in the politics of it's perceived enemies in the region. No country is in a vat (e.g. Chiquita wasn't just mad at Zelaya for hiking up the minimum wage in Honduras a lone, but because that could set a precedent for other latin countries to follow suit), and Latin America has seen a leftist uprising over the past decade. Washington has aimed to contain that by any means necessary.

Probably because they don't fear Soviet support for anti-American elements in the region anymore, they are basically on their own.

For someone who lives in a country (Chile) that might be the gravest example of US meddling in Latin America (1973), your understanding of Latin politics is incredibly naive, and benevolent towards us neighbors in the north! Yes, the Soviets are gone (thanks captain obvious). But America is most certainly not a lone in Latin America. We've seen a stark increase in Chinese activity on the continent (especially in leftist leaning regimes).

Yet that's exactly what I am looking for, else it's just speculation.

Listen, want0n, if a definitive proof document that tells you exactly what happened, is exactly what you're looking for (as you say), then we're wasting our time here. These kinds of issues are never that simple, there's many pieces of the puzzle thrown around that need to be put together. It's like a court case. There's not always a smoking gun, but there's enough evidence and motive put together to provide the jury (us) with the means of judging who done what.

[wat0n]

What a weak response to me giving you five motives for US support of regime change. You know, the thing you said mattered. I didn't reply to the "risk of failing" part because that has never stopped the US from countless covert manipulation of politics throughout the world since WWII. They've of course failed in their attempts too, but continue to covertly manipulate politics across the world (that's just what they do). Failure is clearly not an option for them. They go ahead with it no matter what, or if they fail.

Yet back then, from 1945 to 1990, the main motive was to stop the Soviets. That simply isn't present now.

Let's say that they failed in Honduras in '09. What would be the fallout? Most likely Zelaya would have been rattled and gone back to being a tepid liberal acting subservient to the US (like he was at the beginning), instead of listening to the social movements in Honduras and passing progressive reforms that actually help the people (which was what got him ousted). Just like they told Chavez after their 2002 failed coup, they would probably say to Zelaya afterwards, 'we hope you learned your lesson, so now get your country back on "track" ' . So, in reality, a failure could have still turned into a success. If you think the US is worried about failures to the point of not even attempting, then you've got another thing coming.

And yet Chávez didn't follow or care about that "lesson" at all, why do you think Zelaya would? Even more so after asserting his control over the country's military, including the purging of coupist elements as he (or anyone in his position) would certainly do after surviving a coup attempt (just like Chávez did as well - that's why you won't see any military coups against Maduro, unless the economic situation worsens so much that it just becomes necessary to get rid of the government to get the country moving, but Venezuela is far from reaching that stage and I think it simply won't).

She did. I believe her interview broke with the Associated Press. Zelaya started talking about it with the media after that story broke. But, of course, he really couldn't give much more insight, as he was kidnapped and had no idea what was happening.

Maybe. One of the issues, though, is that it seems that the Pomarela Air Base is actually under Honduran control, so we can't know for sure if the Americans knew about it or not.

Let me give a refresher for you.

On that quote from the article you cited, you originally said: "Because he did in the same day of the coup. He didn't contradict Obama's claims or say the plane he was being transported in refueled at an American military base."

to which I responded, "You're referring to the article you cited earlier, correct? http://elpais.com/diario/2009/06/28/por ... 50215.html

While it says that the article was published 28 June 2009, it also says right after the quote from Zelaya, that he convened an informal referendum (which happened before the coup took place). So I'm not convinced that quote came right after Zelaya was kidnapped. As far as I'm aware, the only interview Zelaya gave that day was with Telesur, after he landed in Costa Rica, in which he denounced the coup, but made no mention of the quote from that article. "

to which you replied, "Indeed, he was saying that Obama was against any coups against him before the coup itself occurred."

to which I replied, "So now you admit that the quote is pre-coup (as I suspected)."

If you don't believe the order of those responses, then you can double-check for yourself. You basically tip-toed around telling the truth, and now you're trying to save face by saying you never claimed otherwise.

Okay, I stand corrected.

It doesn't change the fact, however, that he didn't think the US was plotting to topple him. Why, if it is so obvious the US had an interest in doing just that, did Zelaya believe he had Obama in his side?

First off, Democracy Now! is NOT a blog (which shows how little you know about them), let a lone bull shit. What a ridiculous and immature smear. What are you 16? Or maybe just from the right-wing. Because the only people that criticize DN so vehemently, are those on the right-wing (as well as factions from the liberal establishment) who are constantly taken to task on the progressive DN. Since you're not from the states, let me tell you that DN is one of the only independently syndicated broadcast news shows we get here (not a blog, you jerk - DN debuted before blogs even became a thing). It pioneered as the largest public media outlet in the US, and has won many awards since it's start in '96. It's the only news program in our country that actively gives a voice to grass roots organizers and social movements around the world. So you can take all your immature insults somewhere else, because the grown ups here don't care.

It is no better than a blog. Don't like the truth? It's not my problem.

NIs that a joke? You really believe that Zelaya talked about the plane refueling news (that broke a couple months after his kidnapping) for the first time on Democracy Now, two years later? I never even linked to that interview anyways, so that's your own hang up man. If you look back through this thread, the only two democracy now pieces I've linked to, is the interview with the School of the Americas watch-dog group founder, Roy Bourgeois, and also an interview with the author Nikolas Kozoff, who has a doctorate in Latin American history from Oxford University.

You're now officially arguing with yourself here. Congratulations on that!

Would you source the interview?

Is he aware that the Americans knew he was on the said plane, or his claim simply rests on the fact that American soldiers were present in an Honduran base?

The US did block the OAS.

I was talking about this.

Enh, wrong. What about the anti-government protests aimed at ousting leftist President Cristina Fernandez in 2012? You don't consider that an attempted coup, which by the way was brought to you by Goldman Sachs.

I see, so every protest is a coup attempt now? Clarín is controlled by Ernestina Herrar de Noble (the founder's widow) and Héctor Magnetto as they own most of the newspaper's shares.

Enh, wrong. 2008. I recommend reading this article by Roger Burbach, who is the director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA). He explains thoroughly why that was a civic coup, as it was called by many other Latin American countries, and others in the international community. Not just Evo Morales, himself.

So far the only thing I can read there is how he complains that the US is not sending aid to an ideologically hostile government (seriously? They hate American policy but demand American money?) and how he labels protests as a coup attempt.

Now tell me something, were these protests a coup attempt as well? Or when the people you like protest, they are not coupists?

How many more times must you misrepresent this article? I do urge everyone else to actually read it, when they get the chance. The ONE point (not others) about coups elsewhere wasn't really even made by the author of the article himself, but was rather a citation to an outside report done by the CEPR. The report did add new evidence to this issue in my view.

You can keep setting up straw men, or dismissing points without actually addressing them. Or you can actually try to dispute what was said in that report. Here's a link to it: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 009-08.pdf

I will keep on pointing out what does the article says and how wrong your interpretation of it is for as long as I want, as they are motivated by your clear anti-democratic and anti-american agenda.

How is that foot-dragging? Foot-dragging is when someone fails to take prompt action on something. What I said (that you call foot-dragging) is that the US initially (as shown by the legal cable) took prompt action in legally defining it as a military coup (not foot dragging), yet the state department contradicted this cable (which they obviously where aware of) in public, and instead bashed Zelaya and wouldn't legally recognize it as a military coup (in rejection of the cable, and rest of the world's view).

Exactly, i.e. foot-dragging. Obama was supposedly working to reach a negotiated compromise after the coup to let Zelaya return, as I suspect you know.

Oh yes, we've heard this line before from the right-wing propagandist, Social_Critic. Are you buddies with him on here? The whole appeal to authority fallacy, about living in South America and speaking spanish doesn't work with anyone here.

S_C may be a propagandist indeed (and a bad one at that for that matter, I don't know why he was carded but I was tired of seeing his gore pics on the Venezuela threads and his constant spam), but pointing out the apparent lack of knowledge about the region of left-wing propagandists is not a fallacy as far as I'm concerned.

Since when do you speak for most of Latin America? Also, I would appreciate it if you would provide some articles to back up your (not necessarily most Latinos) idea that US policy towards Latin America has changed since the Cold War. Even during the Cold War, the US was using the Soviets as an excuse to get their way in countries like Guatemala that didn't even have any soviet influence but were merely turning too much to the left for the US. Even before the Cold War, the US has been treating Latin America as it's backyard, brutally oppressing millions of people.

The US was worried about the so-called domino theory, as such, they would move against any government that could ally with the USSR.

As for American meddling here, I don't think they are into that because the US could, in fact, topple Venezuela's government if it wanted to and without actually engaging in some shady coup plotting: It's as simple as launching an oil boycott, the US is one of the few countries that has refineries capable of dealing with Venezuelan oil (which is heavier and more expensive to refine than oil from other places, and actually sells cheaper on international markets), as such, a boycott would severely damage Venezuela. That would be the first step to topple Maduro, don't you think?

The New Left uprising in Latin America over the past decade (a long with greater Chinese influence on the continent) has refocused the US on keeping it's back yard clean, so to speak.

I'd say that it has changed its focus to elsewhere (the Middle East and the Asian Pivot) and has chosen to rely on its alliances instead. Simply put, it has way too much stuff on its hands to deal with Latin America right now, even more so since it doesn't face any serious competition for influence here.

You're right that the US relies on it's allies in the region, but you're wrong that it doesn't continue trying to covertly intervene in the politics of it's perceived enemies in the region. No country is in a vat (e.g. Chiquita wasn't just mad at Zelaya for hiking up the minimum wage in Honduras a lone, but because that could set a precedent for other latin countries to follow suit), and Latin America has seen a leftist uprising over the past decade. Washington has aimed to contain that by any means necessary.

A game everyone plays, including the perceived enemies of the US in the region. I assume you are aware of Venezuela's influence in other countries here.

For someone who lives in a country (Chile) that might be the gravest example of US meddling in Latin America (1973), your understanding of Latin politics is incredibly naive, and benevolent towards us neighbors in the north! Yes, the Soviets are gone (thanks captain obvious). But America is most certainly not a lone in Latin America. We've seen a stark increase in Chinese activity on the continent (especially in leftist leaning regimes).

No, it is not naive, it's simply that I disagree with your assessment of the facts. Even in 1973, America was definitely not the main factor that led to the coup (inflation was, however, and that was squarely the Chilean government's responsibility as they printed money to finance the public budget deficits) - and in fact, the US rebuffed a coup offer made to it by the military in 1964, when it seemed Allende could win the elections.

China is not even close to having the influence the Soviets had around here, particularly the ideological one.

Listen, want0n, if a definitive proof document that tells you exactly what happened, is exactly what you're looking for (as you say), then we're wasting our time here. These kinds of issues are never that simple, there's many pieces of the puzzle thrown around that need to be put together. It's like a court case. There's not always a smoking gun, but there's enough evidence and motive put together to provide the jury (us) with the means of judging who done what.

And the US isn't the only reason some people may protest aagainst left-wing governments or the only ones who can carry out coups (attempted and successful) around here. Let's stop this nonsense

[Demosthenes]

S_C may be a propagandist indeed

Actually I'd say its such a certainty that he doesn't even bother really trying to hide it:

From his profile- Occupation:Consultant, Oil and Gas

The US was worried about the so-called domino theory, as such, they would move against any government that could ally with the USSR.

Yes, yes that is what they tell everyone, but most good leftists are materialists for a reason. History doesn't happen because of ideals, it happens because of a solid material interest on the part of the ruling class. As such the so-called domino theory may make for good airplay and reading material, but it is simply an explanation for western material interests and nothing more.

As for American meddling here, I don't think they are into that because the US could, in fact, topple Venezuela's government if it wanted to and without actually engaging in some shady coup plotting: It's as simple as launching an oil boycott, the US is one of the few countries that has refineries capable of dealing with Venezuelan oil (which is heavier and more expensive to refine than oil from other places, and actually sells cheaper on international markets), as such, a boycott would severely damage Venezuela. That would be the first step to topple Maduro, don't you think?

The oil game always works two ways, so no I don't think so. Plus the US has a need to do things covertly since the 60s. Though they pretend otherwise, US actions say the nation took major note of the massive social unrest. They don't want to take the chance that open anti-democratic support for tyrants and right wing dictators will end with problems back home from the American public.

As for the oil game, the US needs oil imports (for now) especially so big oil can seek its greatest new revenue source in exported gasoline. So no, they won't ever do that unless all refinery capacity is completely used and they really don't need it. But they would cut off the middle east long before Venezuela. Materialist history baby.

I'd say that it has changed its focus to elsewhere (the Middle East and the Asian Pivot) and has chosen to rely on its alliances instead. Simply put, it has way too much stuff on its hands to deal with Latin America right now, even more so since it doesn't face any serious competition for influence here

I'm not sure how anyone from your neck of the woods could possibly have such a naive point of view. The US has never stopped meddling in the colonies and never will until forced to stop or until it is beaten so badly elsewhere that it can't. If not the US government, than US multinationals and their cronies.

I do have to comment on the issue that anyone posting on the internet from Latin America has to have some kind of...standing in their country. The poor or worse in Latin America (who make up the bulk of the population on the continent, as you well know) do not post on the internet. You know this. My observation is that Latin American posters on the internet have much more in common with middle class and higher Americans than they do with their own poor and working class countrymen. I am not surprised in other words, that you don't think much of the far leftist view on things. It is no surprise at all.

[wat0n]

Actually I'd say its such a certainty that he doesn't even bother really trying to hide it:

From his profile- Occupation:Consultant, Oil and Gas

That's very interesting, actually, because the stuff he said regarding oil markets in general is consistent with analyses made by others on the matter. I think he was honest on that at least, though obviously I don't believe his stories that involve travelling across time and space.

Yes, yes that is what they tell everyone, but most good leftists are materialists for a reason. History doesn't happen because of ideals, it happens because of a solid material interest on the part of the ruling class. As such the so-called domino theory may make for good airplay and reading material, but it is simply an explanation for western material interests and nothing more.

I'm not talking about ideals, I'm talking about geostrategic interests.

Having a Soviet military base in a Soviet-aligned state in South America would have been a nightmare for the Americans.

The oil game always works two ways, so no I don't think so. Plus the US has a need to do things covertly since the 60s. Though they pretend otherwise, US actions say the nation took major note of the massive social unrest. They don't want to take the chance that open anti-democratic support for tyrants and right wing dictators will end with problems back home from the American public.

Americans have always been open about sanctions. In fact, the US enacted sanctions against other left-wing governments that would eventually be deposed by a coup (e.g. Allende).

Honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with that. I see no reason for the US or any other country to hand out money or help in any way whatsoever a government that is working against its foreign policy interests - it would be like complaining about the Soviets not sending economic aid to both Koreas. It's completely nonsensical, if you are going to pursue an anti-American policy it's OK but you should be a man and not expect money from them

As for the oil game, the US needs oil imports (for now) especially so big oil can seek its greatest new revenue source in exported gasoline. So no, they won't ever do that unless all refinery capacity is completely used and they really don't need it. But they would cut off the middle east long before Venezuela. Materialist history baby.

The US imports 755,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela per day, these account for 9.78% of the 7,719,000 barrels the US imports every day and for 4.08% of the 18,490,000 barrels of oil it consumes per day. These 755,000 barrels Venezuela sells the US daily represent 30.33% of the 2,489,000 barrels of oil it produces every day and 44.1% of the 1,712,000 barrels of oil Venezuela exports daily. Gulf states represent a substantially higher percentage of the US' oil consumption, and IIRC they could eventually replace Venezuela if it came to be that the US decided to work seriously on getting rid of Maduro.

It doesn't really go both ways, Venezuela is way more dependent on the US than the US is on Venezuela. That's also why the US can afford the luxury of boycotting Iranian oil imports as well.

But, Venezuela is not Iran and the US doesn't seem to be really willing to get rid of Maduro - I would say that's because its allies in the region can deal with him, so there is no need to face any significant losses in getting involved.

I'm not sure how anyone from your neck of the woods could possibly have such a naive point of view. The US has never stopped meddling in the colonies and never will until forced to stop or until it is beaten so badly elsewhere that it can't. If not the US government, than US multinationals and their cronies.

Oh it is meddling up to an extent (just like China or Russia are for that matter), just not in the way you think. They don't need to plot coups against hostile governments simply because they don't face any serious competition from other powers around here.

I do have to comment on the issue that anyone posting on the internet from Latin America has to have some kind of...standing in their country. The poor or worse in Latin America (who make up the bulk of the population on the continent, as you well know) do not post on the internet. You know this. My observation is that Latin American posters on the internet have much more in common with middle class and higher Americans than they do with their own poor and working class countrymen. I am not surprised in other words, that you don't think much of the far leftist view on things. It is no surprise at all.

Not quite. The poor actually do get access to the internet (more than you'd imagine) - their priorities are different than what you'd think. But granted, they don't read or post in English-language sites.

[Solastalgia]

Yet back then, from 1945 to 1990, the main motive was to stop the Soviets. That simply isn't present now.

So what? How does that negate my motives that I brought up? Besides, half the time the US was attacking leftist regimes that weren't even tied to the USSR. During the Cold War, any Latin country that started to turn a little leftward, was automatically seen as a Soviet vassal that needed to be stopped. The best example would be the US CIA and Chiquita (known then as United Fruit Company, but on a side note remember that Chiquita had a motive to oust Zelaya in '09) orchestrated coup on Guatemala in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guate ... '%C3%A9tat

In the geopolitical context of the US–USSR Cold War (1945–1991), the secret intelligence agencies of the US misinterpreted liberal politics, agrarian reform, and resource nationalization as consequences of the communist infiltration of a Latin American government, instigated by order of the USSR. The intelligence analyses aggravated the geopolitical fears of CIA Director Allen Welsh Dulles: that Guatemala would become “a Soviet beach head in the Western Hemisphere”, and thus challenge US hegemony over “America’s Backyard” — the countries and peoples of Central and South America.[15] In the context of US national politics, then enthralled by the over-aggressive anti–Communism of the Red Scare McCarthy era (1947–57), the US Government, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the American people, all feared the Soviet Union’s ideologic, military, and economic presences in the Western Hemisphere.

And yet Chávez didn't follow or care about that "lesson" at all, why do you think Zelaya would?

Because Zelaya originally was a tepid liberal that tip-toed around US hegemony in Honduras when he first came into his presidency (until he started listening to the social movements). He probably would have turned out like President Morales in the 1963 Honduran coup, when US diplomat Adolf Berle visited Morales on behalf of the CIA, and convinced him to support the new military dictatorship that was propped up there.

Although Zelaya allied himself with Chavez, there's a big difference between the two in terms of their political will.

Maybe. One of the issues, though, is that it seems that the Pomarela Air Base is actually under Honduran control, so we can't know for sure if the Americans knew about it or not.

First off, it's Palmerola, not Pomarela. Second off, while it's technically under Honduran control, the US has always been the real head honcho (especially logistically) there since the '80s when they were training and arming Contras there, under Negroponte, and piling up human rights abuses. The US knows everything that goes on at that base, it's basically their own, despite the technicality.

There's no way, that the base where Joint Task Force Bravo (1 of 3 task forces of USSOUTHCOM) is stationed (and basically runs shit) knew nothing about what happened.

It doesn't change the fact, however, that he didn't think the US was plotting to topple him. Why, if it is so obvious the US had an interest in doing just that, did Zelaya believe he had Obama in his side?

Never said it changed that fact. As I said before, Zelaya believed he had support from the US but later realized it was all just empty rhetoric, when the state department started talking shit to him and not legally recognizing his ousting as a military coup (in rejection of the rest of the worlds view).

It is no better than a blog. Don't like the truth? It's not my problem.

How is a daily news hour no better than a blog? How is your baseless opinion automatically the truth? It is your problem, if you have such an inflated ego to think that. You might want to get that checked, buddy.

Would you source the interview?

Here you go. Not sure why you're asking for this since you were the one that first brought it up.

Is he aware that the Americans knew he was on the said plane, or his claim simply rests on the fact that American soldiers were present in an Honduran base?

How many more times must I explain to you that he more than likely had no idea what happened during his kidnapping until weeks afterwards. Yes, there are always 500 american soldiers at Palmerola, but the real deal is that Joint Task Force Bravo is stationed there. They know everything that happens there.

I was talking about this.

Yeah, the US was playing a double game. While they all voted for the suspension of Honduras, the US was the only country that kept it's ambassador in the country, and then blocked the provisions in said suspension that would have barred member states from continuing bilateral relations with the new interim dictatorship (that was brutally cracking down on the people there, almost starting a civil war). The US knew it had to agree with the suspension of Honduras from the OAS initially, because otherwise it would look fishy as fuck. It was a double game, they played a long, but still controlled their cards. Might I remind you that a year later, after the new illegitimate government was in place in Honduras, the US was the first one to call for Honduras' re-entry into the OAS.

I see, so every protest is a coup attempt now?

No, I never said that. A protest is a coup attempt when their goals are to oust a democratically elected president.

Now tell me something, were these protests a coup attempt as well? Or when the people you like protest, they are not coupists?

No, that protest wasn't an attempted coup, because their goal wasn't to overthrow the government. Their goal was to end the privatization of water that was hiking up the cost of it.

Clarín is controlled by Ernestina Herrar de Noble (the founder's widow) and Héctor Magnetto as they own most of the newspaper's shares.

Not sure what your point is, but whatever, it's not like that's the first time this has happened here. Half the time I don't understand what you're talking about, as you don't thoroughly explain yourself.

So far the only thing I can read there is how he complains that the US is not sending aid to an ideologically hostile government (seriously? They hate American policy but demand American money?) and how he labels protests as a coup attempt.

What a surprise! You smearing another article, again. Please quote where he complains about the US not sending aid to Bolivia. The only use of the word 'aid' in that article (use word find) is when talking about USAID funding the right-wing opposition, and then the US getting caught sending aid to the Bolivian intelligence officials (likely a bribe to spy on Morales).

Also, he didn't just simply label the protests a coup attempt without any explanation. He thoroughly lays out exactly why it should be labeled as such. I recommend everyone read that article for themselves instead of listening to wat0n's ridiculous smears.

I will keep on pointing out what does the article says and how wrong your interpretation of it is for as long as I want, as they are motivated by your clear anti-democratic and anti-american agenda.

A little word scrambled there, eh? Pretty ironic that you're now accusing me of misinterpreting the article, when I've already showed you twice how it was you that was doing that.

I take offense to you saying that my agenda is anti-american. Being against my government's disastrous foreign policy that takes money out of the pockets of poor people here, is NOT anti-american, it's patriotic. I love my country and hate to see it being run by such imbecilic and incompetent people that ridiculously view Latin America as their back yard, instead of sovereign nations.

I also take offense to you saying that my agenda is anti-democratic. Please explain how my agenda is anti-democratic. I'm the one supporting a democratically elected president of Honduras here. I'm the one against anti-democratic US meddling in Honduras, that has a long history. You, on the other hand, dismiss US meddling in Honduras, and support the right-wing in Latin America which has historically been extremely anti-democratic.

Exactly, i.e. foot-dragging.

Exactly, for instance foot-dragging? What are you even saying there?

That wasn't foot-dragging as I explained earlier. It was simply the state department contradicting their own intelligence. Why would they do that, if not to legitimize the ousting of Zelaya? Inside sources (US ambassador to Honduras) already established that it was legally a military coup, yet they wouldn't recognize it as such in public briefings. If they really supported Zelaya in this situation, then they would've followed suit with the intelligence provided to them and recognized this legally as a military coup (like the rest of Latin America and other parts of the world).

I'm not going to keep repeating myself on these things if you're just going to give me one word answers and call your opinion the truth. You're not convincing anyone of anything here.

Obama was supposedly working to reach a negotiated compromise after the coup to let Zelaya return, as I suspect you know.

The state department supported the undemocratic elections regardless of whether Zelaya was rightfully returned, defying most of Latin America's stance on those elections (they said it was a necessary democratic pre-requisite to return Zelaya for them to recognize the new elections).

Anyways, enough already with this Obama supporting Zelaya. It was all hot air in my opinion. If Obama really supported Zelaya as he said at the beginning, then he would have met with him when Zelaya went to Washington after the coup to try and campaign for their approval (which is another reason why I believe a failed coup against Zelaya would have been a success, as he probably would have acquiesced to the US).

S_C may be a propagandist indeed (and a bad one at that for that matter, I don't know why he was carded but I was tired of seeing his gore pics on the Venezuela threads and his constant spam), but pointing out the apparent lack of knowledge about the region of left-wing propagandists is not a fallacy as far as I'm concerned.

Where's the lack of knowledge? Please point me to it. Conversely, I've called you out a couple times in this thread for you claiming to follow the Honduran coup as it unfolded, but not knowing basic facts about it. If anyone is displaying a lack of knowledge about the region, it's the right-wing folk that toe the line of the US establishment and right-wing reactionaries in their respective countries. The left in Latin America makes a big point about understanding the long colonial history of the continent, where as the right seems to want to forget about that and pretend that they are the populists against "communists" (who are really just socialist reformists in capitalist countries) who they double-speak call fascist dictators (despite their own history of fascists dictators all over Latin America throughout history).

The US was worried about the so-called domino theory, as such, they would move against any government that could ally with the USSR.

I believe Demos took you to task on this already, so I won't waste my time here.

As for American meddling here, I don't think they are into that because the US could, in fact, topple Venezuela's government if it wanted to and without actually engaging in some shady coup plotting: It's as simple as launching an oil boycott, the US is one of the few countries that has refineries capable of dealing with Venezuelan oil (which is heavier and more expensive to refine than oil from other places, and actually sells cheaper on international markets), as such, a boycott would severely damage Venezuela. That would be the first step to topple Maduro, don't you think?

US oil imports from Venezuela have hit record lows already, anyways. Venezuela isn't worried about loosing the US as a customer. In fact, it was the other way around. A couple times Chavez threatened to cut off oil exports to the US if they continued supporting Colombia's aggression against Venezuela. Trust me, Venezuela is fine without exporting oil to the US. China wants more oil that America could even ask for.

No, the first step to topple Maduro is economic warfare, like they did in your home of Chile. That's exactly what they've been doing in Venezuela over the past two years, as the new economic crisis was created by the financial elite there that are aligned with the opposition. Destabilize the country is the first step to coup.

I'd say that it has changed its focus to elsewhere (the Middle East and the Asian Pivot) and has chosen to rely on its alliances instead. Simply put, it has way too much stuff on its hands to deal with Latin America right now, even more so since it doesn't face any serious competition for influence here.

First off, you're wrong that it doesn't face any serious competition for influence in Latin America. That would be China.

Second off, the US never changed it's focus off of it's backyard. That always was, and always will be a large focus of US foreign policy.

Just because they've made a big strides else where doesn't mean they've forgotten about their backyard. The Asian pivot mostly has to do with the navy, anyways. Also, the asian pivot was partly about moving away from the middle east. So I'm not sure why you're saying that their focus is now on the middle east and the asian pivot.

A game everyone plays, including the perceived enemies of the US in the region. I assume you are aware of Venezuela's influence in other countries here.

Of course, Venezuela started the Bolivarian Revolution and other countries followed suit to free themselves from the shackles of the neocolonial US. It was quite successful. The New Left uprising in Latin America will forever be remembered in the history books.

No, it is not naive, it's simply that I disagree with your assessment of the facts. Even in 1973, America was definitely not the main factor that led to the coup (inflation was, however, and that was squarely the Chilean government's responsibility as they printed money to finance the public budget deficits) - and in fact, the US rebuffed a coup offer made to it by the military in 1964, when it seemed Allende could win the elections.

It's amazing how little you know about your own history. You say that inflation and the economy is what caused the coup, and that was Allendes fault? So you supported Pinochet?

Do you not remember that Nixon waged economic warfare on Allende? The tapes between Nixon and Kissinger already outed that. America definitely was the main factor that led to the coup in Chile in 1973. That was a CIA orchestrated coup, through and through. The only people that deny that are those that supported Pinochet.

China is not even close to having the influence the Soviets had around here, particularly the ideological one.

I wouldn't say it was a Soviet ideological influence, but more specifically a Marxist influence. So while on the ideological front I would say that's debatable, but in terms of economic influence (and in turn political influence) China (now) definitely trumps what the Soviet influence once was (really not much outside of Cuba).

And the US isn't the only reason some people may protest aagainst left-wing governments or the only ones who can carry out coups (attempted and successful) around here. Let's stop this nonsense

Of course not. I never said such a thing. I have my own issues with the leftists in Latin America. I support protests against them by indigenous people that they support publicly and rhetorically, but oppress privately.

When it comes to reactionary right-wing movement and their gringo sponsors throughout Latin America (like the one in Venezuela) - I am vehemently am against it.

Speaking of Venezuela, let's try to get this thread back on topic. We've done enough derailing, don't you think? Any other thoughts on what was said in the OP?

[wat0n]

So what? How does that negate my motives that I brought up? Besides, half the time the US was attacking leftist regimes that weren't even tied to the USSR. During the Cold War, any Latin country that started to turn a little leftward, was automatically seen as a Soviet vassal that needed to be stopped. The best example would be the US CIA and Chiquita (known then as United Fruit Company, but on a side note remember that Chiquita had a motive to oust Zelaya in '09) orchestrated coup on Guatemala in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guate ... '%C3%A9tat

It does, because you are removing a major factor in the equation. As you said, the US moved against countries that turned even slightly to the left precisely because the Americans were paranoid about the Soviets - the foreign policy version of McCarthyism.

The US didn't care about countries that pursued statist policies but were clearly aligned with the US, such as Spain in the '50s or South Korea and Israel in the '70s.

Because Zelaya originally was a tepid liberal that tip-toed around US hegemony in Honduras when he first came into his presidency (until he started listening to the social movements). He probably would have turned out like President Morales in the 1963 Honduran coup, when US diplomat Adolf Berle visited Morales on behalf of the CIA, and convinced him to support the new military dictatorship that was propped up there.

Although Zelaya allied himself with Chavez, there's a big difference between the two in terms of their political will.

Chávez originally campaigned on a moderate left-wing platform in 1998. I would say Zelaya actually showed a lot of spine when he tried to go back to Honduras some weeks after the coup, he could have simply gone and asked Obama to get him back into power in exchange for behaving well if he had wanted to.

First off, it's Palmerola, not Pomarela. Second off, while it's technically under Honduran control, the US has always been the real head honcho (especially logistically) there since the '80s when they were training and arming Contras there, under Negroponte, and piling up human rights abuses. The US knows everything that goes on at that base, it's basically there own, despite the technicality.

There's no way, that the base where Joint Task Force Bravo (1 of 3 task forces of USSOUTHCOM) is stationed (and basically runs shit) knew nothing about what happened.

Do you have any sources on this degree of control of the base by the Americans?

Never said it changed that fact. As I said before, Zelaya believed he had support from the US but later realized it was all just empty rhetoric, when the state department started talking shit to him and not legally recognizing his ousting as a military coup (in rejection of the rest of the worlds view).

My point is, I don't think he was that dumb to have believed that if the case you're making is as obvious as you think it is.

Here you go. Not sure why you're asking for this since you were the one that first brought it up.

I'm talking about the first one in which he or his former deputy FM made the claims regarding the refueling at an American base. Post it in Spanish if you want.

Yeah, the US was playing a double game. While they all voted for the suspension of Honduras, the US was the only country that kept it's ambassador in the country, and then blocked the provisions in said suspension that would have barred member states from continuing bilateral relations with the new interim dictatorship (that was brutally cracking down on the people there, almost starting a civil war). The US knew it had to agree with the suspension of Honduras from the OAS initially, because otherwise it would look fishy as fuck. It was a double game, they played a long, but still controlled their cards. Might I remind you that a year later, after the new illegitimate government was in place in Honduras, the US was the first one to call for Honduras' re-entry into the OAS.

How would anyone attempt to reach a peaceful solution without keeping any lines of communication open in Honduras?

No, that protest wasn't an attempted coup, because their goal wasn't to overthrow the government. Their goal was to end the privatization of water that was hiking up the cost of it.

Why do you assume that the protests in Argentina (for example) are about ousting Cristina de Kirchner? The population broadly supported them when the economy was growing.

Not sure what your point is, but whatever, it's not like that's the first time this has happened here. Half the time I don't understand what you're talking about, as you don't thoroughly explain yourself.

My point is that Goldman Sachs is not a relevant player there. The controllers of Clarín are, however, particularly the woman - she's also the editor of the Clarín newspaper.

What a surprise! You smearing another article, again. Please quote where he complains about the US not sending aid to Bolivia. The only use of the word 'aid' in that article (use word find) is when talking about USAID funding the right-wing opposition, and then the US getting caught sending aid to the Bolivian intelligence officials (likely a bribe to spy on Morales).

He mentions the suspension of some trade benefits.

Also, he didn't just simply label the protests a coup attempt without any explanation. He thoroughly lays out exactly why it should be labeled as such. I recommend everyone read that article for themselves instead of listening to wat0n's ridiculous smears.

He's claiming the autonomists were trying to get the military to topple Morales. That's like saying that Argentinian protestors are trying to get the military to topple Cristina or that the protestors in Cochabamba were aiming to get the military to depose the government.

I also take offense to you saying that my agenda is anti-democratic. Please explain how my agenda is anti-democratic. I'm the one supporting a democratically elected president of Honduras here. I'm the one against anti-democratic US meddling in Honduras, that has a long history. You, on the other hand, dismiss US meddling in Honduras, and support the right-wing in Latin America which has historically been extremely anti-democratic.

Labeling protesters as coupists is definitely anti-democratic.

You can always say protesters are trying to topple the government, it won't make it true however.

And no, I don't support "the right" - certainly not the coupist right. Yet I don't support coupist leftists either.

Exactly, for instance foot-dragging? What are you even saying there?

That wasn't foot-dragging as I explained earlier. It was simply the state department contradicting their own intelligence. Why would they do that, if not to legitimize the ousting of Zelaya? Inside sources (US ambassador to Honduras) already established that it was legally a military coup, yet they wouldn't recognize it as such in public briefings. If they really supported Zelaya in this situation, then they would've followed suit with the intelligence provided to them and recognized this legally as a military coup (like the rest of Latin America and other parts of the world).

I'm not going to keep repeating myself on these things if you're just going to give me one word answers and call your opinion the truth. You're not convincing anyone of anything here.

Even a superficial attempt to legitimize the coup would involve, at least, providing legal justifications for it according to Honduras' Constitution. Some Republicans did that, actually, but the American government did not.

The state department supported the undemocratic elections regardless of whether Zelaya was rightfully returned, defying most of Latin America's stance on those elections (they said it was a necessary democratic pre-requisite to return Zelaya for them to recognize the new elections).

Anyways, enough already with this Obama supporting Zelaya. It was all hot air in my opinion. If Obama really supported Zelaya as he said at the beginning, then he would have met with him when Zelaya went to Washington after the coup to try and campaign for their approval (which is another reason why I believe a failed coup against Zelaya would have been a success, as he probably would have acquiesced to the US).

Did Zelaya fly to Washington before or after he tried to return to Honduras?

Where's the lack of knowledge? Please point me to it. Conversely, I've called you out a couple times in this thread for you claiming to follow the Honduran coup as it unfolded, but not knowing basic facts about it.

Like you knew about Zelaya's interviews claiming he had Obama's support prior to the coup?

If anyone is displaying a lack of knowledge about the region, it's the right-wing folk that toe the line of the US establishment and right-wing reactionaries in their respective countries. The left in Latin America makes a big point about understanding the long colonial history of the continent, where as the right seems to want to forget about that and pretend that they are the populists against "communists" (who are really just socialist reformists in capitalist countries) who they double-speak call fascist dictators (despite their own history of fascists dictators all over Latin America throughout history).

The far-left in Latin America simply blames the US for all their failures, which is why they act as if the current problems with inflation in Venezuela, for instance, were not the product of the mismanagement of the government's economic policy.

:lol: US oil imports from Venezuela have hit record lows already, anyways. Venezuela isn't worried about loosing the US as a customer. In fact, it was the other way around. A couple times Chavez threatened to cut off oil exports to the US if they continued supporting Colombia's aggression against Venezuela. Trust me, Venezuela is fine without exporting oil to the US. China wants more oil that America could even ask for.

America represents 44% of Venezuela's oil exports.

No, the first step to topple Maduro is economic warfare, like they did in your home of Chile. That's exactly what they've been doing in Venezuela over the past two years, as the new economic crisis was created by the financial elite there that are aligned with the opposition. Destabilize the country is the first step to coup.

No, in fact inflation in Venezuela currently stands at levels similar to those during the '90s, before Chávez got to power. And in both cases it is driven by an excessive growth in money supply, just like it happens everywhere in which there is permanently high inflation and future inflation expectations.

First off, you're wrong that it doesn't face any serious competition for influence in Latin America. That would be China.

China is not nearly as formidable as the Soviets were.

Second off, the US never changed it's focus off of it's backyard. That always was, and always will be a large focus of US foreign policy.

Just because they've made a big strides else where doesn't mean they've forgotten about their backyard. The Asian pivot mostly has to do with the navy, anyways. Also, the asian pivot was partly about moving away from the middle east. So I'm not sure why you're saying that their focus is now on the middle east and the asian pivot.

The US is trying to move away from the Middle East, but the Arab Revolutions have forced it to keep its focus there.

They can deal with their backyard by propping up their allies so they'll contain Venezuela et. al.

Of course, Venezuela started the Bolivarian Revolution and other countries followed suit to free themselves from the shackles of the neocolonial US. It was quite successful. The New Left uprising in Latin America will forever be remembered in the history books.

Indeed, we'll remember how countries that did not follow it but simply remained in the center-left side of the political spectrum grew the most, with controlled inflation.

It's amazing how little you know about your own history. You say that inflation and the economy is what caused the coup, and that was Allendes fault? So you supported Pinochet?

Do you not remember that Nixon waged economic warfare on Allende? The tapes between Nixon and Kissinger already outed that. America definitely was the main factor that led to the coup in Chile in 1973. That was a CIA orchestrated coup, through and through. The only people that deny that are those that supported Pinochet.

You don't know about the Vuskovic Plan, do you? Particularly that it gave zero importance to monetary policy and followed a completely accomodative stance.

Saying the Allende administration was responsible for inflation is not the same as supporting the coup. Other countries have gone through the same and solved the problem democratically, even in Latin America - especially after the '70s.

I wouldn't say it was a Soviet ideological influence, but more specifically a Marxist influence. So while on the ideological front I would say that's debatable, but in terms of economic influence (and in turn political influence) China (now) definitely trumps what the Soviet influence once was (really not much outside of Cuba).

Exactly, and Marxism as the ideology the Soviets rested on. I'll grant you though that some leftists, Allende included, were too ideological even to fully take advantage of the USSR though (Allende supported a Chilean road to socialism, and democracy. The Soviets, just like orthodox Marxists, Maoists and the like, thought the idea was hopeless and didn't invest much in supporting him).

Marxism weakened, politically and ideologically, precisely because the USSR failed - they simply had no big, successful guy to point out to as a goal to reach. Just like in the rest of the world as I suppose you know.

Of course not. I never said such a thing. I have my own issues with the leftists in Latin America. I support protests against them by indigenous people that they support publicly and rhetorically, but oppress privately. I also am against their continued collusion with China, as that means there

When it comes to reactionary right-wing movement and their gringo sponsors throughout Latin America (like the one in Venezuela) - I am vehemently am against it.

Speaking of Venezuela, let's try to get this thread back on topic. We've done enough derailing, don't you think? Any other thoughts on what was said in the OP?

Venezuela is currently polarized, I don't find it surprising you can find plenty of people siding with Maduro. There are also price controls used to stop inflation, along with the scarcity and black markets that go along with them. In these, it's similar to Chile a few months before the coup as the country was polarized and there was scarcity as well.

Yet, there are some differences. In particular, Venezuela's inflation is not too different from that of the '90s while Chile reached a 3-digit inflation. Scarcity is not as bad either, Venezuela can still sell oil to the rest of the world and thus get money with it (world copper prices fell in 1972 so relying on copper was not an option for Allende) and the military seems to side with the government as a result of the post-2002 coup attempt purges. They'll be toast if global oil prices fall or Obama moved to boycott Venezuelan oil (don't worry, the latter will not happen), however.

[Solastalgia]

It does, because you are removing a major factor in the equation. As you said, the US moved against countries that turned even slightly to the left precisely because the Americans were paranoid about the Soviets - the foreign policy version of McCarthyism.

The Soviets may have been a major factor of US foreign policy in Latin America during the Cold War. But US opposition and manipulation of leftist politics in Latin America transcends the Cold War. They have covertly and overtly waged war against leftism in Latin America both before and after the Cold War. That's what I was getting at before. You trying to frame this as only happening when the Soviets were a threat is just not historically true. It was always more about protecting their interests in the region, which were backed by the right-wing. So any leftist reform was a threat to them, not necessarily a Soviet influence.

Chávez originally campaigned on a moderate left-wing platform in 1998.

No he didn't... Chavez originally campaigned on a strong leftist socialist platform, known as the Fifth Republic Movement. Even the Venezuelan communist and socialist parties allied with him in an official political union for supporting his election.

He definitely didn't run on a moderate left-wing platform. That's for sure...

I would say Zelaya actually showed a lot of spine when he tried to go back to Honduras some weeks after the coup, he could have simply gone and asked Obama to get him back into power in exchange for behaving well if he had wanted to.

Obama had no control over that. Even when Zelaya visited Washington later on, Obama didn't meet with him. Obama's original comments were all hot air and part of a propaganda campaign.

Do you have any sources on this degree of control of the base by the Americans?

http://www.workers.org/2011/world/penta ... uras_0324/

While technically considered a Honduran military base, the U.S. controls base security and all airfield functions at Soto Cano, such as air traffic control, weather forecasting and logistics.

So please don't tell me anymore about how you believe the Americans might not have known about Zelaya's kidnapper's plane refueling there.

I'm talking about the first one in which he or his former deputy FM made the claims regarding the refueling at an American base. Post it in Spanish if you want.

The original AP link http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/ ... 5-22-26-36 is down, but here's another article about it. http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/103619.html

How would anyone attempt to reach a peaceful solution without keeping any lines of communication open in Honduras?

So you're saying that the rest of Latin America cutting off bilateral relations with the interim dictatorship was against a peaceful solution. Of course communication was still open. But cutting off bilateral relations with the illegitimate dictatorship was vital, and all countries did so, aside from the US.

Why do you assume that the protests in Argentina (for example) are about ousting Cristina de Kirchner? The population broadly supported them when the economy was growing.

I don't assume. That was what they wanted, the 2012 opposition protests were anti-Kirchner through and through. If they had the chance to, they would have ousted her.

My point is that Goldman Sachs is not a relevant player there. The controllers of Clarín are, however, particularly the woman - she's also the editor of the Clarín newspaper.

Did you not read the article I linked to earlier about Goldman Sachs, Clarin, and Argentina. You say Goldman Sachs isn't a relevant player there, but the controllers of Clarin are. Goldman Sachs controls Clarin, buddy (it's the largest, and only major shareholder of Clarin). The editor of Clarin is the irrelevant player. How on earth do you think that she matters, she's easily replaceable.

He mentions the suspension of some trade benefits.

Yeah, that was a small point surrounded by many more important points. Not sure what your point of contention is with that though. Basically the US cut off Andean Trade Preference Act, which cost Bolivia 30,000 jobs and more than 70 million bucks priced out of the US market. The reason they cut off the ATPA was because Bolivia didn't cooperate in cutting it's coca production. Bolivia had virtually the same amount of Coca production from 2005-2008, while Colombia saw a 27% increase and they weren't cut off from the ATPA. So what's with the double standard here, besides taking a shot at Boliva because of their leftist reforms under Morales.

He's claiming the autonomists were trying to get the military to topple Morales. That's like saying that Argentinian protestors are trying to get the military to topple Cristina or that the protestors in Cochabamba were aiming to get the military to depose the government.

You love twisting articles around for your own liking don't you. This is what, the fifth time in this discussion? The author wasn't "claiming" that autonomists were trying to get the military to topple Morales. That's exactly what they were trying to do.

The major of Santa Cruz, Percy Fernandez, had already called on the military to overthrow Morales’ "useless government" just before the August referendum.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/11/18/ ... n-bolivia/

Labeling protesters as coupists is definitely anti-democratic.

If a protest movement wants the democratically elected president out, then yes they can be rightly labelled as coupists. No it's not anti-democratic to call a spade a spade. What's anti-democratic, are the coupists, who want the president out, without proper democratic elections.

You can always say protesters are trying to topple the government, it won't make it true however.

As I said before, not all protests are attempted coups. I already explained that to you. When you brought up the water wars in Bolivia (as your example of an attempted coup that you thought I wouldn't label as one because I support them) I reminded you that their stated goals were not to overthrow the government but for water rights reforms. To end the privatization of water that was hiking up the price of it. That's not an attempted coup, and those protesters shouldn't be labelled as such.

And no, I don't support "the right" - certainly not the coupist right. Yet I don't support coupist leftists either.

You say you don't support the right, yet your comments could lead people to think otherwise.

Even a superficial attempt to legitimize the coup would involve, at least, providing legal justifications for it according to Honduras' Constitution. Some Republicans did that, actually, but the American government did not.

Knowing the United States long history in overthrowing governments across Latin America, and now living in the digital era, do you really think that they'd be so stupid as to put together a legal justification for the coup. That would be way too over the top in terms of public support. They were trying to keep it low key via the state department. They have to do things a bit more discreet now a days.

Did Zelaya fly to Washington before or after he tried to return to Honduras?

Long after. Even after Washington was calling his return reckless and Zelaya was getting increasingly discouraged by Washington's stance, he still had hope. This is why I believe he would have sold out to make his way back into power and go back to being a tepid liberal subservient to Washington.

Like you knew about Zelaya's interviews claiming he had Obama's support prior to the coup?

Not sure what you're talking about there. Wasn't I the one that proved to you that quote was pre-coup. You were the one trying to pass it off as the day of, and you said yourself that you stood corrected. So how was that showing a lack of knowledge on my part?

The far-left in Latin America simply blames the US for all their failures, which is why they act as if the current problems with inflation in Venezuela, for instance, were not the product of the mismanagement of the government's economic policy.

The current problems of inflation in Venezuela were caused by government response to economic warfare waged by the opposition alligned private sector. They're the root of the problem. Blaming the government is just scratching the surface and not looking at the root causes.

America represents 44% of Venezuela's oil exports.

So what? American oil imports from Venezuela have hit a 28 year record low. America has been moving away from Venezuela oil since the late '90s, and especially after the shale boom. In response, Venezuela hasn't as much diversified it's sales, but instead concentrated it on China. China will increasingly take the position of America in the future to come. China already has been giving Venezuela massive loans for their oil.

“We are sending more oil to China because it was dangerous for us to depend on the political decisions of the U.S.” Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez

Venezuela Oil Sales to U.S. at 1985-Low Shows China Cost

Venezuelan oil sales to the U.S. are approaching 28-year lows as the country turns to China amid a shale boom that’s flooding U.S. refineries.

State-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA, which oversees the world’s largest oil reserves, is sending hundreds of thousands of barrels a day to China to pay back government loans. At the same time, refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast are sourcing more domestic supply as a surge in drilling shale rock sends output to the highest in a quarter-century.

No, in fact inflation in Venezuela currently stands at levels similar to those during the '90s, before Chávez got to power. And in both cases it is driven by an excessive growth in money supply, just like it happens everywhere in which there is permanently high inflation and future inflation expectations.

We don't disagree that inflation is high there. That wasn't my point that you responded to with the comments on inflation. My point was about what caused that inflation. Everything I've studied about the current economic crisis in Venezuela points towards the opposition alligned private sector waging economic warfare against the country to prime it for regime change. The reason inflation is so high is because of the goods hoarding and black market sales to avoid government price controls. It's not the government of Venezuela that's causing the inflation, but rather the financial elite. Sure you can say that the government's response is what increases inflation, but what caused that government response. You have to identify the root of the problem here...

China is not nearly as formidable as the Soviets were.

Sure in the sense that there isn't an inflated red-scare currently happening with China, the way there was during the Cold War with the Soviets. But China's influence in Latin America right now economically, definitely trumps what the Soviets had. Soviet influence in Latin America at the time was mainly confined to Cuba. China is everywhere, and rapidly expanding.

The US is trying to move away from the Middle East, but the Arab Revolutions have forced it to keep its focus there.

I don't think the US is really trying to move away from the Middle East as they say. At least publicly and overtly they may be (but hardly, see: Afghanistan), but covertly they will continue to interfere in sovereign states throughout the middle east, at least through their Saudi friends.

They can deal with their backyard by propping up their allies so they'll contain Venezuela et. al.

Contain Venezuela? Venezuela isn't trying to expand itself anywhere really. It's got way too many problems domestically. US foreign policy for Latin America is not about containing Venezuela. It's about containing China, just like it's policy towards Africa. The US will continue to try and subvert Chinese expansion throughout both continents. That's for damn sure. At the same time the US has waned off oil imports from both continents. Imports from Venezuela are at a 28 year record low, and they've just pulled 90% of their African oil imports. They believe they'll be fine domestically with fracking and importing tar sands from Canada. It's now about containing China and subverting their economic expansion throughout Latin America and Africa.

Indeed, we'll remember how countries that did not follow it but simply remained in the center-left side of the political spectrum grew the most, with controlled inflation.

A lot of those center-left countries are considered part of the Latin New Left revolution over the last decade. They definitely followed the Bolivarian Revolution when it came to their opposition to neoliberalism, and social welfare programs, etc. You really cannot disconnect them all from each other. They definitely all were following that same leftist current. I think the problem is that many disconnect Chavez from the bunch because they think he turned Venezuela communist, which is not the case. Sure, he wasn't center-left, but he definitely wasn't able to turn Venezuela communist. He was really just a socialist reformist in a historically hard capitalist country, that like others throughout Latin America, were under harsh right-wing neoliberal capitalist dictatorships. Nobody can just go from that to communism right away, there's a lot of reform over long periods of time just to get a percentage of the economy in control.

You don't know about the Vuskovic Plan, do you? Particularly that it gave zero importance to monetary policy and followed a completely accomodative stance.

I do know about the Vuskovic Plan. It wasn't as bad as you're making it out to be. At the beginning the Vuskovic Plan performed well, there were substantial increases in industrial growth and GDP, while a significant decrease in unemployment and inflation. Allende also raised workers wages a few times during this initial period of prosperity. Then in 1972 the shit hit the fan as the price of copper nose dived as Nixon and Kissinger started to wage their economic warfare against Allende. So to blame the economic downfall in '72 on the Vuskovic Plan is misleading. It was really all about the copper, which Chile was extremely vulnerable to on the international market which the americans could manipulate and wage economic warfare.

Saying the Allende administration was responsible for inflation is not the same as supporting the coup. Other countries have gone through the same and solved the problem democratically, even in Latin America - especially after the '70s.

Of course, it's just that the way you worded it (blaming it on all on Allende) made it seem like you believe he brought the coup on himself (and therefore tacitly support it). This is the farthest from the truth. That was clearly orchestrated from the north. I'm not sure why you aren't admitting to this historical reality. It's been written about extensively.

Exactly, and Marxism as the ideology the Soviets rested on. I'll grant you though that some leftists, Allende included, were too ideological even to fully take advantage of the USSR though (Allende supported a Chilean road to socialism, and democracy. The Soviets, just like orthodox Marxists, Maoists and the like, thought the idea was hopeless and didn't invest much in supporting him)

As you admit yourself, there were Latin leaders that embraced Marxism without embracing the Soviets. So I don't think it's fair to say that these countries had as much of a Soviet ideological influence as a Marxist influence. Marxism has influenced many politicians around the world, but to say that they were influenced by Soviet ideology is not accurate.

Marxism weakened, politically and ideologically, precisely because the USSR failed - they simply had no big, successful guy to point out to as a goal to reach. Just like in the rest of the world as I suppose you know.

Marxism may have weakened as a political current after the failure of the USSR, but it certainly isn't weak ideologically. In fact, we've seen a resurgence in Marxism in the past years since the global economic crisis. Especially in countries being raddled by austerity and what not. Yes, Marxism is a live and well. I'm not a Marxist, myself, but I believe it clearly is going strong still. I recommend reading: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/j ... of-marxism

Also, I don't think it matters that Marxism doesn't have a shining example of a country that did it right. What shining example of a country could we say the same for capitalism? Surely not the United States, as where has capitalism lead us to today (and the rest of the world)? No, I think what matters is that many countries have implemented quasi-Marxist policies (whether they want to admit they are or not) that have bettered the livelihood of their people.

Venezuela is currently polarized, I don't find it surprising you can find plenty of people siding with Maduro.

The problem is that the Chavistas are mostly working class and the poor. The rest of the country get's fed a healthy diet of Venezuelan mainstream media which is heavily anti-Chavista and anti-Maduro. That's one of the big issues in Venezuela as I see it. That the privately held media that accounts for a majority of the countries media, as well as the the most popular programming is extremely anti-Chavista bias. So I believe that's why we've seen such a strong support for the opposition there over the years from the middle-upper classes.

There are also price controls used to stop inflation, along with the scarcity and black markets that go along with them.

Exactly, this is part of the economic warfare. The opposition aligned financial powers in Venezuela have been trying to bypass the government's price controls for years now, and have hoarded goods causing artificial scarcity, and started selling more to the black market which causes inflation on the real market.

In these, it's similar to Chile a few months before the coup as the country was polarized and there was scarcity as well.

Yes, and similar to Chile in that economic warfare was waged against Allende as a means of ousting him. I still don't understand why you believe that Allende was responsible for Chile's economic problems at the time. It's a matter of public record that Nixon and Kissinger waged economic warfare against Allende. The tapes have leaked, the documents came out. There's no denying that the 1973 coup was preceded by a strategy of making "the economy scream" as Nixon said.

Scarcity is not as bad either

A lot of it is artificial scarcity. Basic goods hoarding from opposition aligned businesses. The government has done many raids and seized tons and tons of hoarded goods. It's quite obvious that there is economic warfare being wage by the right-wing private sector, to bolster their cause of ousting Maduro by blaming their doings all on him.

and the military seems to side with the government as a result of the post-2002 coup attempt purges.

There are still factors of Venezuela's security forces that aren't trusted. The post-2002 coup purges may have helped, but there will always be people bought off and what not. Maduro has already fired many from the National Guard and other security force factions. Mainly for abuses of power and them beating civilians, but also I believe for conspiracy with the opposition. So I don't think we can say that the Venezuelan military is entirely aligned with the government. We must remember that the financial elite aligned with the opposition will always have enough money to lobby for some control of the military. I'd bet there's a few factions that are anti-Maduro in there, that just haven't made themselves known yet.

They'll be toast if global oil prices fall or Obama moved to boycott Venezuelan oil (don't worry, the latter will not happen), however.

Listen, the US has been moving away from Venezuelan oil since Chavez came to power. Their record low imports today is part of the problem with Venezuela's economic crisis. So it already is in a way, a factor here.

[Smertios]

Come on, Bulaba, I expected more from you. Nowhere in the linked article it is said that the Vanezuelan people, as a whole (or even the majority) are showing solidarity for Maduro. This claim is just as baseless as Social Critic's many threads claiming that the majority of the Venezuelan people are protesting against the government.

If last year's elections showed us anything at all, it was that the country is deeply divided after the death of Chavez. There is no one in either the government or the opposition that is as popular or as charismatic as Chavez was. Maduro won with 50.6% of the votes, against the 49.1% that Capriles got. A difference of less than 2%.

It's pretty obvious that there are both supporters of the government and supporters of the opposition in the country. And no, there is simply no way that the 49.1% of the voters that chose Capriles last year are part of the rich bourgeois elite (if half thepopulation of Venezuela was rich, that would be one of the least unequal countries on Earth!). So a claim like this: "The big paradox of this situation is that the rich are protesting and the poor are working" is simply incorrect. And more importantly, this thread's title is quite misleading. I'd recommend changing it to something like "Government supporters show solidarity for President Maduro in Venezuela".

As for the Honduran coup, I will just say that whether it was really a coup or not is up to debate. The military weren't acting on their own. The Supreme Court ordered them to take action after Zelaya decided to disrespect the constitution and ignore their ruling on the referendum on term limits. The line of succession was respected. Either way, I did (and still do) condemn the whole thing. Zelaya was wrong to ignore the supreme court, the supreme court was wrong to order him to be deposed and the military was wrong to carry out their orders. Overall, it was just another example of how weak Latin American institutions are, in general...