>>>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.

At the end of sentence two you assume your conclusion.

Democracy is an idea. They want to spread the idea.

I think it is a good idea, worthy of replacing the bad ideas out there. I guess that makes me one of them.

You can put it in terms of the idea being an "empire", but does that really shed light on the conversation, or just setup a target that is much easier to attack?



>>>Is it your argument that the US led invasion of Iraq is perfectly similar to the Roman invasion of Gaul?
>
>No. You asked whether there were previous invasions that removed tyrants and saw democracy installed.

Hm. The Gaul democracy was still ruled by the Roman empire, wasn't it?


>>>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 there are- but I don't recall any invasions undertaken for the purpose of replacing an oppressive and potentially dangerous tyrant.

Operation Iraqi Freedom comes to mind. See, it is right there in the name of the invasion.