This sums it up.

A president is just a man or woman holding a job. If you break the rules, you get fired. It's not that complicated. He tried to go around the rules put into place for his own benefit, and the government did what they were put into place to do.

Obama has rules he needs to follow as well. He can't just change the rules without approval, or he will face the same problems.

Is that why in the recent Obama visit to Moscow Russia agreed to everything the US proposed? Russia always steps down to avoid conflict. Except that one time in 61.

They support him because even if the referendum was "ilegal"(which is very stupid since there should be methods to reform a countries constitution), the method they used wasnt the correct one.

You can check this thread: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=78789&page=3
Mrbubles made it, and was responded but it seems he didnt reply, now, I feel like there is some kind of paranoia with Chavez in some people, he has a big mouth, not much more.

Oh, the actual US goverment isnt pro dictatorship, but this is the first LA dictatorship they dont agree with, great way to expand liberty and democracy around the world.

From what I heard it didn't happen like that.

He tried too get a referendum going to eliminate limits on the NUMBER of times a President can run for RE-ELECTION.  The people would've had to vote both for the referendum, then vote him in again for him to keep going.

But he wasn't a popular president with the legislature, Supreme Court or military, so they said screw due process and got rid of him.

THe US goverment fears losing control in the region and will always try to keep the countrys around it loyal to the united states.  If its for its own business intestests, to stop socialism spreeding and the countrys around it poor and debted to the US.

History as proven it to us time and time again the united states will support evil dictators for its own intest.

I think this is the major disagreement.

In this case, due process is going to the Supreme Court and letting them decide what is legal. He did that, and they said what he was trying to do was against the law. He then just did it anyway.

Due Process would dictate that he went through the system of government until it was considered legal.

I was under the impression the Supreme Court declared one referendum illegal and he ended up modifying it to be almost exactly the same but legal?  In any case, his goal was too give the people the right to choose whether he could run for president again.  Even if they had chosen yes, he had approval rates of something like 38%, and wouldn't have been voted in again.

One person failing to observe due process in it's entirety (if that is, in fact, what he did) doesn't mean a military coup should occur.  At the end of the day the President wanted to give the people the right too choose, but the military and new (coup-making) government tossed out a President the people voted for.

Not sure I would call it a coup. The Supreme Court ruled on it, and then the justice department issued a warrant for his arrest. The only group that is capable of executing that order, is the military.

I mean, let's say he was found to be stealing from the people, or doing something else that mandated is immediate removal that you agree with. How else would you go about it? 

I don't think there is any other way. I think all we are arguing about is if this action warranted it. Not how it was done.

They bundled him out of the country...

Again I am not pretending to know exactly what went on. But my understanding is that the military was brought in because legally there were gaps in what was done, which in my mind makes it a coup.