Yes, those weapons, but we have more weapons then just those. The base is a lot bigger for the amount of nuclear weapons that are supposed to be there. But the US needs us(not as much as we need them obviously) and we need the US(because we're such a small country), a lot of guns in the US are made in Belgium. Some of them are even banned because they shoot through bullet proof armour.

To me, it's a coup if the person running the coup has not authority to take action (like some General going rouge).

I am not sure how the Supreme Court and and the Justice Department following constitutional procedure can be considered to not have that authority.

I think there is an element that the "He was holding a referendum, which means that it was democratic" side of things are missing ...

In most democratic governments a law must be passed by the legislative branch and approved by the judicial and/or executive branch of the government before any legally binding referendum can be held. On top of this, in many countries there are laws on the books which state how the country's constitution can be modified, and in many cases it is not something that can be done through a referendum. I'm not informed enough about the situation in Honduras but (from the sound of it) Zelaya did not have the legal right to hold a referendum to modify the constitution and he decided to hold one anyways.

Without even considering whether or not Zelaya was trying to get foreign powers to influence an election (he couldn't win otherwise) to favour him, the fact that Zelaya was trying to hold an illegal referendum was probably justification enough to have him removed as the president of the country.

A lot of people are confusing laws with democracy. There are undemocratic laws, and Hondurus is a great example of this.

In Hondurus is illegal to hold a referendum on term limits, and there is no way around this, be it the justice system, legislative system, or electoral system. That is undemocratic. The United States has a much better system in that a certain majority of votes can change pre-existing laws.

Also, the Hondurus military is in charge of elections, and I consider that to be undemocratic.

In Canada there can be no legally binding referendum on anything without a law being passed to make the results binding, and elections are controlled by an unelected representitive of the Queen ... Does that make Canada's system undemocratic?

I'm not positive on this, but it is highly likely that Honduras (like every representitive democracy) has a method to change their constitution in the legislative branch (which would have allowed for a vote on term limits for the presiden) probably with the need to gain approval of the executive and judicial branches of government. The reason it is done this way is to provide a check and balance on the power in any branch of government and to prevent the democracy to be converted into a dictatorship. The fact that the president was not allowed to get around the protections built into the system is actually a very good sign of the health of the democracy.

It was a coup

It certainly makes it less democratic.

You can't just say it and that make it true. Why was it a coup?

Because a democratically-elected President was removed and expelled by force, in violation of the Constitution that the coup participants claim they are protecting.

He was president, not king. You still have to follow rules. When two of the three branches of government think you did something worthy of removal, and follow all the policies put into place to perform there obligation, it's not a coup.