>>First of all, an idea about government cannot be a government, and thus democracy is not an empire. It is a meme and it propogates where its strategy to do so has been successfull.
To say that somebody/something exhibits "imperious" or "imperial" behavior does not mean you think they are an Emperor.
You have agreed that there is a group of nations labelling themselves democratic. You have agreed that there is a party within this group that behaves as a ruler to expand the democratic empire. Assuming that we do not need to squabble over the definition of "empire", QED.
>>Is it your argument that the US led invasion of Iraq is perfectly similar to the Roman invasion of Gaul?
No- that wasn't what you asked.
>>And would you concede that there are compelling differences between invasion for the purpose of taking terrority and invasion for the purpose of forming a democracy to replace an oppressive and potentially dangerous tyrannt?
Of course- the first group is at least frank (excuse the pun) about its reasons for invasion.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
