The Holtonian

As I think you said, it would have been a good thing if Hitler had been assassinated. Probably Saddam Hussein, too, back before he killed thousands of his own people. Killing political leaders has its drawbacks -- there might just be a worse megalomaniac waiting int he wings -- but sometimes it just seems right. I'm not necessarily advocating the Chavez thing, because I have probably heard less than you on the topic (which doesn't sound like much), but I still think that evil people need to be brought to justice. With dictators sometimes the only means to the end is violence.

Yeah justice sounds like a more christian approach than offing.

Hugo Chávez is way down the list of people that could be accurately described as "dictator." To my knowledge, the elections that have put him in office by overwhelming majorities have been monitored and ok'd by international observers. (Full disclosure: he first came to office via a coup, but has since been democratically elected twice.) Yes, he has too strong an arm toward dissenters, and he should work on that and apologize for past events. His worst offense in the eyes of the US is that he espouses socialism, and is friendly with Castro. But you don't see Pat Robertson suggesting that we "take out" Lula in Brasil, do you? (Brasil doesn't have Venezuela's OIL, though.)

As for revolutions, I agree that if the people of VZ want to put Chávez out, they should do that -- but the vast majority of citizens there seem to love him. Only the major media and a small wealthy class, whose stranglehold he has done much to weaken, hate him and want him gone. They made a coup attempt several years back, and he quelled it, maybe a mite forcefully for our tastes (but as you pointed out, this is South America).

Hugo Chavez and politics in the ridiculous machisimo world of Che wannabees...sighhhh...

A couple of points. On the topic of “should Christian leaders advocate strategic political assassinations,” I think the clear answer is no. But should targeted assassinations be part of the military strategy, I think the answer is yes. Scott gives some good examples of situations that would have been made much easier to deal with if we would have gone that route.

As to Joe’s points about Chavez being low on the list of people to worry about, and the idea that the people of Venezuela overwhelmingly support old Hugo, he’s incorrect on both counts.

A dictator doesn’t mean that everyone in your country is opposed to what you’re doing, only that the majority is oppressed by a controlling minority with the power and money (key in this discussion), and one individual as the leading voice and authority of all policy decisions…basically, no checks and balances. The referendum that common supporters of left-wing regimes, such as Cuba/Castro supports, often point to for confirmation of popular support in Venezuela was the referendum in 2004 that had the “international oversight” led by one of the biggest fans of communist/socialist authoritarians, our embarrassment of an ex-President, Jimmy Carter. Most outside observers complained about concealment of the vote counting methods and the lax requirements for people that were allowed to vote. The best example was Rodrigo Granda, the leader of the FARC (the communist terrorist group that is attempting to overthrow the elected Colombian government), whose organization is funded by the huge oil wealth in Chavez’s control. Granda was captured in Venezuela by Colombian bounty hunters while enjoying official state support and had government issued Venezuelan documentation and had even voted in the Carter approved referendum. I’d be willing to bet that he wasn’t the only Chavez supporter from neighboring countries that were given official documentation and allowed to vote, especially from left wing militants trying to live out the Chavez/Castro dream.

As to the comments about Lula, his foreign policy is leftist, but he hasn’t ever subverted the democratic rule of law and actually ran for president three times through the proper democratic means before being elected on the fourth. He has never advocated violence as a means of control and hasn’t been accused of attacking civil liberties of Brazilians. His economic policies haven’t gone hard left, mainly because he realizes that the hard line socialist economics, unless backed by authoritarian rule, only make the poor, poorer. These may be little things to those still under the delusions that all the motives of the US are based on oil, but it may also be a narrow understanding of the effects of rich, corrupt regimes in vulnerable areas, such as Central and South America and the Middle East.

The money that Chavez is throwing around in Central and South America is allowing Castro to survive after the loss of billions in aid from the fall of communist Russia, and helping propagate a new communist revolution in the area, including a resurgence of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Castro may be a hero to the academic left and Hollywood, but not to the oppressed attempting to flee the island by any means possible.

As much as I hate to say it, I think Pat Robertson understands the Chavez threat more than the average joe. That pains me to say since I generally don’t like the man (or at least how he represents Christianity), but from comments I’ve heard (and read here), it appears that most don’t understand the effect that Chavez may end up having on our southern neighbors.