The interim government of Honduras has taken Brazil to court for allowing ousted President Manuel Zelaya to remain in its embassy.
Mr Zelaya has been inside the embassy since he secretly returned from a three-month exile on 21 September.
At the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Honduran officials said Mr Zelaya had threatened the "peace and internal public order of Honduras".
Brazil said the interim government had no authority to lodge such proceedings.
The interim government wants the court to order Brazil to stop providing refuge for Mr Zelaya.
I knew something like this was going to happen, it just shows how the brazilian government is incompetent, and should have never interfered with honduran affairs.
Originally posted by rwingett Maybe the US should never have interfered with Honduran affairs. Wouldn't that have been a novel concept?
First of all, the US didn't do anything except for talk a little. Big deal.
Second, you're telling me we should NOT have supported Zalaya (for all the good it did him)? I thought all the left wingers here were in favor of interfering with a foreign matter this once when it was the leftist government being supported.
Originally posted by sh76 First of all, the US didn't do anything except for talk a little. Big deal.
Second, you're telling me we should NOT have supported Zalaya (for all the good it did him)? I thought all the left wingers here were in favor of interfering with a foreign matter this once when it was the leftist government being supported.
I'm not talking about the Zelaya incident. I'm talking about the entire history of US interventionism throughout Central America. Are there any countries left there that we haven't invaded, or whose governments we haven't overthrown?
Originally posted by rwingett I'm not talking about the Zelaya incident. I'm talking about the entire history of US interventionism throughout Central America. Are there any countries left there that we haven't invaded, or whose governments we haven't overthrown?
But the OP referred to the Zelaya incident. If your comment wasn't about that. then of what relevance is it to this discussion?
Originally posted by sh76 But the OP referred to the Zelaya incident. If your comment wasn't about that. then of what relevance is it to this discussion?
He was criticizing Brazil for interfering in Honduran affairs. My point was that it seems a trifling incident compared to the whole history of egregious US interference with Central American affairs.
Originally posted by rwingett He was criticizing Brazil for interfering in Honduran affairs. My point was that it seems a trifling incident compared to the whole history of egregious US interference with Central American affairs.
Okay...
So a Brazilian living in Britain criticizes Brazil for interfering with Honduran affairs. So, you, in effect, say, "Well, the US interferes with other countries too!"
And, when you said "Maybe the US should never have interfered with Honduran affairs. Wouldn't that have been a novel concept?" what you meant was that the US interferes with other countries, but that the statement was unrelated to Honduras.
Yeah; that makes sense.
Actually, it's simpler than that. You saw someone criticize something related to Latin America and your knee jerk reaction was to rip the US and so you did so; even though the US was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Is that more like it?
So a Brazilian living in Britain criticizes Brazil for interfering with Honduran affairs. So, you, in effect, say, "Well, the US interferes with other countries too!"
And, when you said "Maybe the US should never have interfered with Honduran affairs. Wouldn't that have been a novel concept?" what you meant was that the US interferes with other co ...[text shortened]... so; even though the US was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Is that more like it?
No, it was a knee jerk reaction to rip into US foreign policy. It is a crucial distinction.
Honduras takes Brazil to UN court
29 Oct '09 18:54
Back to Top