i need some ideas, examples of arguments against the source below on the building of empires being wright or wrong.

empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century,

Have you considered whether the people of Italy wanted duty, sacrifice and severe measure against the opposition?

Scroll down to the end to see what happened to Italy's dictator when the Italian people were freed from fascism.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://robertod.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/2007-01-12_murdock_mussolini.jpg&imgrefurl=http://robertod.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/despot-of-the-week-7-benito-mussolini/&usg=__RrUv_Cx72G8bFrlf5EKosmh1NuQ=&h=273&w=384&sz=68&hl=en&start=23&itbs=1&tbnid=7ke5_itlJgVb2M:&tbnh=87&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMussolini%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26ie%3DUTF-8

Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence of the American reactions.

There are several reasons why one might say that a huge reaction to the 9\11 attacks was justified. The first is simply the large number of lives that were lost.

To evaluate the argument presented in the source about the building of empires being right or wrong, you can consider the following counterarguments:

1. Ethical concerns: Building empires often involves the conquest, subjugation, and exploitation of other nations and peoples. This raises ethical questions about the rights and well-being of those who are oppressed or colonized. The argument fails to address the potential violation of individual rights and dignity.

2. Economic costs: While empires might bring economic benefits to the ruling power, they often come at considerable economic costs. Supporting an empire requires a substantial allocation of resources, which may divert funds from the development and welfare of the ruling nation itself. The argument overlooks the economic implications of empire-building.

3. Cultural assimilation: Building empires often entails the forced assimilation or erasure of local cultures, languages, and traditions. This can lead to the loss of cultural diversity and the suppression of cultural identities. The argument disregards the negative consequences of cultural homogenization.

4. Resistance and opposition: The argument dismissively characterizes opposition to empire-building as an obstacle to be eliminated. However, resistance to imperial rule can arise from legitimate grievances and a desire for self-determination. Ignoring this aspect fails to consider alternative perspectives on empire-building.

5. Long-term sustainability: Empires historically face challenges in maintaining control and stability over vast territories and diverse populations. The argument assumes that empire-building is a spontaneous and inevitable movement, but it overlooks the potential for internal strife, uprisings, or eventual collapse. The sustainability of empires is an important consideration.

When analyzing arguments, it is crucial to critically examine the presented ideas and explore alternative viewpoints. By considering these counterarguments, you can engage in a more comprehensive evaluation of the argument's validity.