Striving Against Opposition

"We can't use force to impose our system of government on other people" - Why not?

I was watching Question Period earlier and one of the nattering naybobs of negativity that make up the democratic party was parroting the tired old statement "that we can't go into other countries and impose our form of government upon them."

This statement is troublesome for all sorts of reasons. Firstly, how do you "impose" a style of government upon people where they get a voice in making their own decisions? Listening to the left you have to draw one of two conclusions that a) most people love living under their despotic/theocratic overlords b) would be incapable of making their own decisions so need their despotic/theocratic overlords. Essentially peoples beyond Europe and a few other industrialized countries are either willing thralls, or incapable of independent thought. Does this not strike anyone as racist?

The left has taken the notion that "all things are equal" and extended it to "all forms of government are equally good". Objectively this statement isn't true. Churchill labelled democracy the "least, worst form of government" and has yet to be corrected.

I don't believe for a moment that if offered the choice of being allowed to democratically exercise their will, people in various other countries of the world wouldn't happily do so rather than remain under the jackboots of their ruling regimes. They simply have not been allowed the chance because of the coercive power of said regimes.

As for "we can't go into other countries", I think the democratic strategist missed a memo and hadn't noticed that in Afghanistan and Iraq the US has already gone into these countries. Not to mention that they had set up democratic governments or were in the process of doing so. After all never let the facts get in the way of rhetoric eh?

The worst part was watching Mike Duffy sit their nodding his head like this was some sort of profound pronouncement, rather than non-sensical drivel little better than the "no oil for blood" tripe leftists are so fond of.

There are really only two arguments which can be legitimately made against the war on terror and in Iraq. Firstly, that there is a better means of fighting terror - launch into explaination at that point, don't just claim to have a "plan". Secondly, the war in Iraq is too expensive and we can't afford to pay for what is a noble goal. These two objections have substance too them and are open for discussion. The pacifistic mores leftists expound upon is simply non-sense.

posted by Chris @ 1/23/2005 01:13:00 p.m.