It's true that neither you nor I believe such a thing. However, there are plenty of people who do believe in might makes right, and plenty of people who've become quite wealthy as a result of it.
The bottom line questions are whether we can really say it's wrong, and if so, on what basis?
This is not an idle question -- if we're to effectively counter people like the Clintons, we've got to have a plausible response to their claims. Might makes right is horrible to contemplate -- and it's horrible precisely because it's so logically consistent.
Objectivism does not provide a logical alternative, both because it is so easy to show that it's self-contradictory, and also because it's contrary to many of the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries, and which people know to be true even if they cannot articulate them.
The task is to formulate a system whereby those traditional values are once again respectable. It's a tough problem if you want to compete with people who feel no obligation to play according to your rules, and whose alternatives seem a lot more fun than what we're offering.
You've demonstrated neither. You've not pointed out the contradictions, nor have you pointed out where it's contrary to traditional morality whatever that is.
I argue that those you claim believe in "might makes right" in fact do not. If they did, they would have no problem with the statement, "Person A should be able to push Person B around." All of their answers would contain some form of the condition, "True as long as I'm Person A."
Saddam Hussein was a "might makes right" kind of guy. But only so long as it was his might making the right. As soon as America's superior might threatened, he became a, "It's not right for America to use its might" kind of guy.
Because I truly believe that "right makes might" and that nobody really believes "might makes right" I can refute none of you refure none of your arguments. They are based on assumptions to which I do not subscribe.