Actually, I think the broad point is best phrased as Napoleonic, since that was the first wave of invasion backed by the idea of spreading democratic enlightenment ideals. Without democracy, governments have no legitimate sovereignty over their peoples so other governments have as much right to displace them as they do to hold that illegitimate power. The issue is not the "oppressed masses" since they have no say either way.
So the issues mitigating against an Iraq war are not "national sovereignty", which I think is irrelevant, but the danger to the physical well-being of innocent Iraqis and the realpolitick calculations of the likely consequences of the war.
>You caricature my point, which is not National Sovereignty Above All,
> as you are misrepresenting it, but, to put it on a bumber sticker, Don't
> Trust Uncle Sam! US Out Of Everywhere! I would be suspicious of a
democratic
> socialist society that sought to impose freedom by force on despoitc
> countries far aay that posed it no threat.
> {and} So you'd trust the world's imperialist hyperpower, which dominates
the globe
> militarily, and butchers those who dissert, and which just announced, lest
> there be any doubt, that it would nefver tolerate any competitors?
Since Iraq has already invaded two neighboring countries and gassed its own population with chemical weapons, the "no threat" argument fails with Iraq. As for suspicions of Uncle Sam, any suspicion of untrammeled discretion by the most powerful military power in the world is well-warranted. And shared by the American people which consistently demand that the US get cooperation from other countries before going after Iraq.
No I don't trust the US power, but flipping the suspicion into a "anything it's for, I'm agin it" political doctrine is too simplistic to be convincing. It is merely Kissinger realpolitick flipped on its head and has the same moral value.
-- Nathan Newman