>>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.