Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Why does Obama ONLY SPEAK OUT when a FELLOW FAR LEFT LEADER is DEPOSED BUT is MUTE ABOUT a POPULAR REVOLT?

He said practically nothing about a "democratic uprising" but he is now very vocal about one of his Far Left buddies getting kicked to the curb by the Military for trying to install himself as a dictator...

Update:

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself.

Also, of course, Obama speaking out that the deposed leader of Honduras should be reinstated for trying to rewrite the Constitution.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Qwyrx
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I have to say, as a fervent leftist and Obama supporter, I do find Obama's stance on this issue disappointing. I don't have any problem with countries like Venezuala popularly electing leftist governments. I do, however, find it troublesome that when a president attempts to illegally install himself as dictator, and both the parliament and the court system have condemned the action as illegal, that he needs to be removed from power. If Honduras wants a socialist government, they should vote another socialist leader into power. If they don't, then fine for them. But the president shouldn't get to arbitrarily decide to stay in power even when the Constitution states that 1) he can't; and 2) he isn't allowed to have people vote on changing that part of the constitution.

  • 1 decade ago

    Apples and organges. Study the history of the U.S. in Latin America, which is far different from the middle east. Reagan supported military dictatorships while the country did not. (See the Boland Amendment.) Zelaya's referendum was not constitutional but he was still serving his term.

    Nice cut and paste, by the way. You look smarter.

    In Honduras it was a military coup of a legally elected president. In Iran, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows when an American president opines, bad things happen to Iranian citizens. Reagan caused the hanging deaths of 22 Baha'is in the 1980s; GW Bush caused the election of Ahmadinijead by supporting Rafsanjani, and dissenters were threatened on Saturday by Ahmadinijead by pretending to threaten Obama.

    Who do you think the monkey was threatening when he promised a "crushing"? He showed it on the streets of Tehran that night, yesterday and today. He will show it again tomorrow.

    Pay attention please.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oh ye of so little information on foreign policy nuances...

    Unless you think that Iran should have come over here to U.S. soil after the 2000 rigged election, where the President was chosen not by the votes (which Al Gore won) but by a Supreme "Court" leader (Chief Justice) who had been placed on the Court by the one chosen's daddy, and the deciding state's recount rules were governed by the one chosen's brother (Gov. Jeb Bush), and Katherine Harris (attorney general to this state and also the Bush campaign manager) ruled not to count the "hanging chads" from predominantly Democratic districts where voting machines had not been emptied as the machines had in the Republican districts---that Iran should have "butted into our political process (however corrupt), then your indignation is grossly misplaced. Have you studied the U.S. history with Iran at all???

    The Iranians distrust the U.S., and for good reason. Our CIA keeps interfering in their elections. In the 1950s, the CIA and Britain helped stage a coup, where a shah was installed as leader. Shortly thereafter, our CIA was involved in assassinating the very shah we put in! The Iranians know this. And their anger toward the U.S. as well as their suspicion is like a blister waiting to pop ever since Bush/Cheney illegally invaded a sovereign nation (their neighbor Iraq) only a few years AFTER our CIA tried to befriend Saddam and get him to attack Iran. Are you getting even a tiny clue about the precariously balanced complications involved in our relationship with Iran?? Our goal is to lead Iran to a place where they can begin to trust us and "unclench their fist", as our President said in a masterful speech designed to touch every single nation in some way relevant to the individualities of each nation. We are willing to have diplomatic ties with whichever leader their Supreme leader Ayatollah chooses, which does appear to be Ahmadinejad. Our new president is an absolute MASTER at foreign relations---strong, but fair; well-versed in other cultures, but very patriotic; deeply intelligent, but without arrogance or bluster...He KNOWS what he is doing. We do not want the Middle East to explode, because if that happens the entire 2.2 some-odd BILLION Muslims will join forces with others who have reasons to despise us (thanks to degradation and torture of detainees, an illegal war, and an arrogance that even got on MY nerves from the previous administration). Neutality prevents the more hard-line regime from attacking the demonstrators because of any sign of U.S. involvement or support---they are just waiting for an excuse to devalue this rebellion by being able to blame Britain or blame the U.S. The BEST way to protect these Iranians is to allow them to follow their own hearts and minds and BUTT OUT!. Republican Eric Kanter (VA) didn't, and he caused the violence that ensued on Sunday, because he arrogantly assumed he knew better than our sitting President and decided on his arrogant own to use the words "regime change" on national television, trying to upstage presidential foreign policy decisions DURING WAR TIME!!! As a Military veteran I can tell you, this is TREASON...Kanter COMMITTED TREASON, and it was the direct cause of the killing that followed against the demonstrators the following day. How do I know? Watch the Ayatollah's speech on Saturday, just a few hours after Kanter pulled his unpatriotic and treasonous usurption of presidential power: The Ayatollah told a huge audience at prayer time that he had a "good letter" from President Obama, but the "American statesman talks of regime change" and asked "Which of these am I to believe?"...the chants of "Death to America!" tells you who they chose...not our President, who repeated took the wisest position of neutrality, deliberately worded and masterful neutrality (making use of the word "justice"..."be just" because of the power the word has in their faith). They believed the loudmouth idiot! The traitor to this nation! The cause of the eruption of violence the very next day against the demonstrators. Can you figure out here why the neutrality stance is PROTECTING the validity of the demonstrations (so the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad cannot claim we insigated it)?? Do you have CIA advisors at YOUR disposal telling you this is the very BEST choice of a response. Do YOU have three former Secretaries of State (including Henry Kissinger) praising your position?? We don't have a fake cowboy "shoot-em-up" idiot at the helm any more. We cannot AFFORD to fight another war...how MORONIC of you to assume that confrontation and interference is the only option. Know nothing neocons...I am so very fed up with you all.

    Source(s): "Imperial Hubris: Why The West Is Losing the War On Terror" by Anonymous (a senior intelligence official specializing in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia).
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well that leader was voted in - though he may be questionable -he was still voted in .Then the Military takes over and that certainly assures a Military possibility of a dictatorship.

    Just what do You expect Obama to do - rant like Republicans do ?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Very Good question.. wish someone would ask him.. No, no on second thought I could not stand the three hour answer that his teleprompter would give me.

    i guess he just like dictators better!

  • 1 decade ago

    Freedom is not in his vocabulary. Unless, it is freedom for the government to tell you how to live your life.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Obama is a wimp.

    He can't seem to get it through his head that if a country hates you, no amount of pandering will change that!

    Source(s): Obama is not my fault!
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    He is a dictator in the making.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.