Just because he is an abrasive authoritarian with a political/economic ideology you think is bad, doesn't mean you have the right to take him out.
Assassinating a head of state is an act of war. It is meaningless to speak of a right to make war with another nation.
But what
moral right do you have to declare war on another nation, when it has not made, threatened or is intending to make war on yours?
Do you wait for the gangrene to spread before treating it?
If you want to use gangrene as an analogy, if I have gangrene, then I shouldn't wait for it to spread before treating it. But if I don't treat it, then you have no right to cut my limb off for me.
Why is the assassination of "a legitimate leader of a sovereign state" a bad thing if it serves our national interests?
So "we would benefit" is a sufficient reason to commit an act of war?
What if another nation decided it would serve their national interest to assassinate your president?
If Venezuela lived in a vacuum and did not affect us in any way, certainly, let them drink what they brewed. But, an anti-American commie dictator sitting on oil supplies...
But they're
their oil supplies. They have no obligation to sell them to you. If I owned an oil well, and if I developed an irrational hatred towards you, then I would be quite within my rights to not sell you oil, even if I was doing myself no good. (And if you were suggesting assassinating me if I didn't, then I'm not sure it would be such an "irrational" hatred).
[/quote]...and potentially financing our enemies is not acceptable.[/quote]
Anyone with wealth has the
potential to finance your (or anyone else's) enemies. That doesn't mean they are, and it doesn't justify killing them "just in case".
Why, sir, I am appauled! What kind of wretched decadent bouregois treacheries are you insinuating?! No, I would never condone the assassination of any of our Fearless Leaders. We all love the Leader! Long live the Communist Party of the North American Union! Soyuz Nerushimyi Svobodnyh Narodov, Da Zdrastvuet Velikaia Svobodnaia Amerika...
Not insinuating anything. Just saying that if the US puts someone in the role of POTUS, then (IMO), it is up to the US to remove them from the role, not another nation. I assumed you would agree, even if the president in question was someone you particularly despised.
Given the number of posts here and on THR, I got the impression that people here don't like the idea of foreigners meddling in the affairs of other countries. Or is it just non-Americans meddling in US affairs that is bad, and America has the right to meddle as much as it likes in other countries?
I also gathered there was a general belief in the belief that people shouldn't be compelled to do things for the benefit of others. Does that not apply in the case of other nations not wanting to sell their resources to the US?
Non-Initiation of Violence also seems to be quite a popular philosophy here as well, but does that not apply in regards to foreign governments who don't run their countries for the benefit of the US?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Chavez (and in light of his recent grab for power, my opinion is far lower than when I made an earlier "Are you sure he is as bad as you say?" post). But until he attacks (not merely doesn't act in the interests of) another country, I see no moral justification for any act of war against him.
Nor can I see launching an act of war against another nation on such grounds to be in anyone's long-term interests. If you re-establish the principle that "it's better for us" is grounds for war, then sooner or later it will come back to haunt you. Do you really want a return to the days of everyone attacking anyone because they can and feel like it?