What gives us the right to immpose our Government

[Praxus]

I was having an argument with someone and I was trying to explain how we had a right to institute a Government based on the US one in Iraq. Then they dismiss me as an extremist that is no better then the Militant Islamists because "that is what they want to do".

Any suggestions on how I should counter this argument.

[RadCap]

Since whim is apparently the standard these individuals use, there is not going to be much you can say to them which they will accept as valid.

However, if you are determined to try, you can point out to them that they question the 'right' of one group (the US) to 'impose' its will on another group (Iraqis). Yet the Iraqis who 'want' dictatorship specifically 'impose' their will on those Iraqis who want to be free. So there is no difference. Both are supposedly impositions. Why do they insist one is wrong and not the other?

Additionally, you can point out that we do not want to 'impose' anything on them. We wish to REMOVE those iraqis who DO impose their will on others from being able to continue doing so. Thus IF their objection is the imposition of will upon others is wrong, then they should be cheering the American effort.

That they are not demonstrates that they REJECT the very principle they supposedly assert. This makes them not only hypocrites, but the very type of American's they are complaining about: americans who SUPPORT the imposition of will upon their fellow man.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

RadCap is right on the money: Liberty is not an imposition.

[Praxus]

Thanks, for the help:)

Now the only thing they can do is contradict themselves or reverse their entire position. Or they completely ignore reality which is more likely;)

[AutoJC]

I was having an argument with someone and I was trying to explain how we had a right to institute a Government based on the US one in Iraq. Then they dismiss me as an extremist that is no better then the Militant Islamists because "that is what they want to do".

Any suggestions on how I should counter this argument.

This article throws a hint as to why we should impose a different form of government on Iraq.

[y_feldblum]

Liberty is not an imposition

In full: imposing on others a government which guarantees freedom and defines laws objectively and, most importantly, does not violate anyone's rights - does not violate their rights.

Question: is it the right of the people to have a say in determining the parameters of law? Eg, is it the right of the people to determine specifically how many years a patent exists for? Is a constitutional dictatorship to be permitted?

[Praxus]

I thought a patten should exsist as long as the patten holder wants?

[RadCap]

This is another topic. If you want to pursue it, start a dedicated thread.

[regularis]

Actually i'm shocked about the replies you post.

Where is the sense to "nuke" an city in the middle east as response for the attacks in NY and London. I can't understand how you think that acting even much more cruel them. Like this you'd kill thousands of innocent people that have nothing to do with terrorism. Their only fault is that they've an other religion. This is a xenophobe reaction.

To combat terrorist actions, the most important is, that we stick to human rights and the genevan convention. If we don't have a legal basis, we'll never sort out the vicious circle of violence.

We better should start think about, what could be the reason behind terrorism. this doesn't mean that I support terrorist acts, but if we think we are more intelligent in the west, at least we should act like this.

(Edited to capitalize the first word in each sentence. - softwareNerd)

Edited July 19, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Where is the sense to "nuke" an city in the middle east ...

I do not see any post in this thread that suggested nuking anyone. However, some posts in other threads have suggested it.

I do not think that we should nuke cities in the middle east. On a simple tactical basis it will gain nothing.

Still, I would not dismiss it as a "xenophobic" reaction to people who have a different religion. It is more of an exasperated reaction: i.e., if the good guys in the middle east are so incapable of rooting out the evil among their midst, we should just nuke them all!

The Islamic fanatics are evil people who seek to enslave the countries in the middle east and take them back to the dark ages. They want the whole of the middle east to resemble Iran. If Bin Laden and a few million extremist idiots all sincerely agreed to set up a theocratic state and cut off each other's body parts for having impure thoughts, that would be one thing. That is not what they want. They want to kill others who do not want to follow them. They have the racists view that people who share the same narrowly-defined ethnicity as they do must be forced to follow the strict form of religion they do!

Also, to speak of a "circle of violence" is deceptive. By using the analogy of a circle, rather than a straight line from point A to point B, implies that neither side is really the cause of the fight.

As for using legal means: that begs the question of what should be legal in the first place.

The topic of this particular thread is "What gives us the right to impose our Government..."

So, let me ask: do you think a right-upholding nation has a right to impose a rights-upholding government on a country that currently does not have one?

Edited July 19, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Captain Nate]

Question: is it the right of the people to have a say in determining the parameters of law? Eg, is it the right of the people to determine specifically how many years a patent exists for? Is a constitutional dictatorship to be permitted?

Eventually, some form of republican representation must be established. Elections are the way in which civilized people in a free society carry out their work. But elections are not a primary of a free society, there may be a brief time, while establishing a free society, when things are not run by elections because no stable government exists to protect the individual rights of the citizens. If no sound, moral government has been established, then any election will just be mob rule and would be just as immoral as a dictatorship.

But after a limited, Constitutional government is established I think the people have a right to elect their representatives.

[DavidOdden]

I do not think that we should nuke cities in the middle east. On a simple tactical basis it will gain nothing.

No, of course, randomly nuking cities in the Middle East accomplishes nothing. The point of nuking a city would be to prove that certain actions have horrific consequences, and deterrents don't work if they are out of context. The Geneva Convention only applies between civilized nations, and does not bind civilized nations being attacked by savage terrorists. Spies can be shot on sight: what uniform or other badge of identification do terrorists wear? As far as London is concerned, this was not an action masterminded by the mullah-dictators of Iran, so nuking Tehran would not be a rational response. (Anyhow, nuking Tehran would not be the best choice anyhow -- I would suggest Mashhad as the target of any first strike). What we need is a clearly articulated and credible zero-tolerance policy for governments aiding and abetting terrorists anywhere, and when that policy is violated, we should apply one of those 10 million degree hot flares that we have stockpiled for some reason.

[Captain Nate]

By the way, I WISH we were imposing our government on the Iraqis. It's not perfect, but it's better than the near unrestricted Parliamentary system they may end up implementing.

[softwareNerd]

By the way, I WISH we were imposing our government on the Iraqis.

The model that was followed after Japan was defeated: here's your new constitution, guys.