Impossing democracy on another country, Is it justifiable? Options

[*I Shot JFK*]

I have to particiapte in a debate with the motion 'This house believes it is justifiable to impose democracy on a country', and I would LOVE to get some other opinions and insights on the matter, so I turn to trusty Createblog.

The motion DOESN'T specifically refer to Iraq, so please don't let's turn this into a debate just about that whole debacle, although of course it's relevant.

Personally, I think the whole notion is something of a contradiction in terms

[flaymzofice]

Well what is the precise justification for such an imposition? That the word 'impose' should even find its way into the motion implies a subconcious concession of the fact that it would be against the will of the subjected country. Surely to go against the will of any individual not in breach of any laws or fundamental rights of another, is the exact opposite of democracy?

Further, on what grounds does any state believe they are in the position to dictate the running of another country? To draw an example, if George Bush and Tony Blair honestly believe imposition of democracy was justified, they would never have lied about there being actual weapons of mass destruction at Saddam Hussein's fingertips, ready for launching.

As I said in another debate topic, if the citizens of one country are born into a way of life devoid of the concept we know as democracy, what gives us the right to police their culture and force upon them an ideal we aspire to? I'm not going in religion here, but if all men are created/born equal, then the authorities existing in our own countries were put there by the general population on a vote, however weighted. If these people do not vote on such a matter, they have not consented to being governed by their own, which ridicules the idea of an outside force coming in to do so.