Fair enough. I don't claim to know how well it works in various situations, I'm just baffled by this moral disapproval so many seem to exhibit. As if assassinating an international bad actor is somehow no different than assassinating MLK. Maybe we should just use words like kill or decapitate, to avoid the negative connotation.
My remark about pragmatism comes from my suspicion that assassination is too often not a real solution, and just results in another dictator filling the vacuum.
Killing is relatively easy. Dealing with the aftermath is not.
Assassinations used sparingly and when well justified is a real solution. Assassinating folks just because our current government doesn't like them would lead to trouble. Assassinating leaders tends to unify the people more often than it causes long term disorder. And yes, you want to make sure you don't have someone worse to step into the vaccum opened by the person killed.
What I don't understand is why some folks seem so eager to clip Chavez. I neither like nor trust Chavez, but there are dozens of other politicians that are much worse. He doesn't seem to be committing mass genocide. As far as I know, he's not planning on making nuclear weapons and selling them to terrorists either. There are plenty of nations far more repressive that we're allies with? Sure, he talks a lot of smack, but I don't see anything real behind the bluster. So, why the desire to clip him and not someone much more deserving like the Dear Leader in NK?
