Replies

I have to side with hchutch on this one bb. We are at war and have said people who support terrorists are terrorists. Chavez has made his position clear, he sides with anti-Americans. We have no duty to applaud his "peaceful" revolution that now openly governs by decree. I don't know what you expect to gain by your position. If Chavez is taking dicatorial control of his country, it will not be possible for Venezuelans to vote him out.

I think this attitude that we should simply remove regimes who do not fit in our geopolitical agenda, is dangerous, especially if we remove democratically elected regimes. We would be effectively saying that the rule of law doesn't apply, that only the whims of the current administration in Washington matters. How can there possibly be stability in a country faced with this dilemma? Now, removing Saddam might be something else entirely, because Iraq has no set of rules to determine who is the legitimate authority. Saddam's legitimacy is force. So, our use of force in that instance would be morally neutral - our replacement regime would be as legitimate as Saddam. But Venezuela is not Iraq. Chavez did leave a constitutional "out" for the country, and he did not suspend elections. We simply are not justified in removing him.
If there is evidence that he is specifically aiding and abetting terrorists which are directly threatening us, then there would be a self-defense justification. But no such evidence has been presented aside from the fact that Chavez is friendly with Castro. I suppose we should remove Vicente Fox too.