Honduran Women on Hillary

[TBF]

Do Feminists Support Coups? Honduran Women on Hillary Clinton
2-28-16

teleSUR talked to feminists in Honduras, where the U.S. State Department backed a military coup in 2009, about Hillary Clinton’s so-called feminism:

U.S. Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has built her campaign around her self-proclaimed dedication to fighting for women’s rights, as well as her superior experience in the realm of foreign policy.

Many feminists have disputed that, and the women on the receiving end of her foreign policy, in particular Latin America, are even less likely to see the former Secretary of State as a champion of their rights.

For Honduran feminist artist Melissa Cardoza, Clinton’s policy in Central America has shown her true colors as an instrument of empire representing patriarchal, not feminist, ideology.

“As is well known, she supported the coup d’etat in my country, which has sunk a very worthy and bleeding land further into abject poverty, violence, and militarism,” Cardoza said of Clinton’s legacy in Honduras. “She is part of those who consider only some lives to be legitimate, obviously not rebel women and women of color that live here and who do not, at least not all, fit in with imperial interests.”

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
"http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Do-Feminists-Support-Coups-Honduran-Women-on-Hillary-Clinton-20160225-0050.html". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english

[yourpaljoey]

1. Monstrous

[kath]

3. She truly is monstrous and repulsive.

[HassleCat]

2. Nostalgia for cold war foreign policy.

Many Americans long for a return to cold war foreign policy, since it's now pretty safe with no Soviet Union. We no longer have the domino theory, mutually assured destruction, etc. but we still have the ability to wage client wars. We can fund, train and equip insurrections to destabilize or topple governments we don't like. Those would be governments that refuse to play ball with American corporations. In cases such as Granada, we can invade directly, as long as the target nation is relatively weak and helpless. For bonus points, we can invade countries for no reason at all, other than to project our power around the world, with Iraq being the obvious example.

For people who want a very aggressive foreign policy, the obvious choice is Trump, who has promised to kill plenty of people, with some torture thrown in just for fun. But Clinton offers a less objectionable alternative, holding out the promise of a more "robust" foreign policy without the random recklessness of a President Trump. President Hillary Clinton would surely do much more saber rattling than President Obama, and there is the distinct likelihood of ramping up other activity. We would do more drone strikes, probably across a larger geographic area. We would probably bomb a few nuclear weapons facilities in Iran. Clinton has already promised to sell F-35 fighter planes to Israel. The pressure to "do something" in Syria is unrelenting and Clinton will be exactly the kind of President who will "do something" to avoid looking weak. What about Cuba? Would Clinton dare to unravel what Obama has done regarding Cuba? I don't know, but it's a perfect target, basically helpless and close enough to make an invasion very easy. All this and more is headed our way, so those women in Honduras, as well as people all over the world, better suck it up and be ready to run.