[ch4s3]

The only US involvement in ousting Zelaya was the State Department asking neighboring countries not to intervene. The Supreme Court of Honduras issued the arrest warrant for him on their own. It was an entirely internal affair until after they tossed him onto a plane. And on top of that, the guy was trying to illegally change the constitution.

[roenxi]

It stretches credulity that the US wasn't involved in some way. The state department had an opinion on what outcome they wanted [0] and it'd be out of character if they didn't put their thumb on the scale as much as was necessary to get the outcome they wanted.

We don't really need public acknowledgement to assume that the US is involved in American politics. If there is a coup in their back garden, they'll have someone there doing some pruning.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9t...

[ch4s3]

Yes, I've read the wikipedia article too. I was also studying Latin America in college at the time and can read Spanish so I was pretty closely following the issue.

Having an opinion on the outcome you want doesn't mean you're actively putting a thumb on the scale or driving events. The State Department has a position on almost ever major political event happening in the world. It can't possibly be intervening in all of them.

> If there is a coup in their back garden, they'll have someone there doing some pruning.

Except the US specifically stayed out of this and encouraged Honduras's neighbors not to get involved either. If the US had chosen to support Zelaya, then the people backing the Supreme Court would have called that a US intervention.

Is your standard that having an opinion on a foreign political outcome is tantamount to intervention? If not what is your standard and how does it apply here?