President Barack Obama has criticized the coup in Honduras and called it illegal, refusing to acknowledge the constitutionally appointed interim President to replace Zelaya. Obama's primary goal is to sustain democratic process the way America sees it. This action discounts the intent of the Honduras congress to carry out the obligations of their constitution.

This is no problem when viewed as a regional security move to keep leftist movements in South America quiet and from igniting cross-border turmoil. However, in a broad perspective and given commitments in Middle East this is a dangerous path if one would consider the fact that this would deflate hopes amongst the Iranians yearning for regime change in their country. Washington is not in support of regime change, internally or externally! It wants changes to occur through the democratic process and not by revoutionary outbursts.

Ahmadinejjad scores another one. . .

The iranian government was undemocratically installed through fraudulent elections, a revolution involving the iranian population standing up for their rights would be welcomed by the free world. Democracy is government of the people by the people and for the people. So the people have every right to take what's stolen from them.
Unlike in honduras where a democratically elected government by the people was overthrown wrongfully.

Tudór:

Unlike in honduras where a democratically elected government by the people was overthrown wrongfully.

I'm not sure your assertion is correct. If anything at all, the overthrown president was attempting an unconstitutionality. So while he was overthrown unconstitutionally, he too would have been guilty of hanging on to power the same way. The courts and congress had ruled his actions unconstituional but he persisted.

It appears the only way sanity can be brought back was the coup detat. It's funny how the guy is crying constitution now. The same constitution he so flagrantly disregarded. While I am not in favour of a coup, I can't see myself supporting any of the parties.

Does anyone find the outburst by the clown called Chavez funny at all? This is the guy who cries that America interferes to no end in other countries' affairs. Hypocrisy seems to be the common thread that binds all Leftists together in solidarity!

@Negro,

I find it hard to relate this to what is happening in Iran.  I doubt a sovereign nation will ever support a coup d'etat in another!

Tayo,

Directly it does not! That's my reason for qualifying it the way I did here. . .

This is no problem when viewed as a regional security move to keep leftist movements in South America quiet and from igniting cross-border turmoil. However, in a broad perspective and given commitments in Middle East this is a dangerous path if one would consider the fact that this would deflate hopes amongst the Iranians yearning for regime change in their country.

These days, One must view political events in a broad manner and be mindful that Washington does not have a different democratic policy for different regions. It is one policy and is consistent, although the deployment and execution of the orders on the ground may assume different process.

Tayo-D:

I'm not sure your assertion is correct. If anything at all, the overthrown president was attempting an unconstitutionality. So while he was overthrown unconstitutionally, he too would have been guilty of hanging on to power the same way. The courts and congress had ruled his actions unconstituional but he persisted.

It appears the only way sanity can be brought back was the coup detat. It's funny how the guy is crying constitution now. The same constitution he so flagrantly disregarded. While I am not in favour of a coup, I can't see myself supporting any of the parties.

Does anyone find the outburst by the clown called Chavez funny at all? This is the guy who cries that America interferes to no end in other countries' affairs. Hypocrisy seems to be the common thread that binds all Leftists together in solidarity!

i was reading your posts and nodding in agreement. just when i was about to say is this tayo that i'm agreeing with like this . . . GBAMMMM . . . .you did it . . why did you have to add the last statement to spoil every thing u said. hypocrisy has no skin color, it has no gender, religion , sexual or political orientation.

the most recent example of hypocrisy in high places have been gov sanford (republican) who spoke against clinton and gingrich and bob livingstone when they had marriage issues. only to start his own

also we had senator ensign (republican) who voted against priapic bill clinton, only to be sleeping with the wife of another man . . . . . hypocrisy . . . tayo hypocrisy . . . . has . . . no  . . . political party