was comparing the invasion and occupation of one soverign nation by another. The principle is quite basic and has little if anything to do with one's political party affiliation.
The basic tenet of democracy is self-determination. Only the "people" of a particular nation-state have the "right" to remove its government when they do not "like" its policies. There are two methods by which this may be accomplished: 1) Through the ballot, 2) By revolution/ civil war. Both are an internal processes and do not include invasion and occupation by a foreign nation.
One cannot logically subvert democracy as a means by which to install demoracy. That's an oxymoron.
The United States is currently imposing its will upon the people of Iraq by military force and against their collective will.
I understand your logic, however you are being too philosophical and not practical.
By your logic, we had no business occupying Japan and Germany, either. And if you haven't been paying attention, the Iraqis have tried numerous times in the past 30 years to stage a revolution in Iraq, and have been mercilessly squashed each time. The previous Iraqi government was a regime that had invaded two of its neighbors, financed terrorism (not speaking of al Qaeda, but Hussein financed the Palestinian terror organization for many years), and was a general threat to everyone in the region.
There were three options to consider. We could continue the sanctions, which were obviously not working and only punishing the average Iraqi.
We could remove the sanctions and let Hussein go about his business, which anyone with a head on their shoulders would know that in 10 years we'd be right back to where we started when Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwait.
Or, we could finish the original Gulf War, considering that it never really ended. USAF and USN aircraft were constantly engaging in combat operations over Iraq on a daily basis. And Hussein had not lived up to the terms of the cease-fire. Gulf War I was never really over.
The first option isn't sustainable in the long run, and we'd eventually be forced to consider options 2 and 3.
Option 2 wasn't a smart idea, which leaves us with Option 3. Clinton probably wanted to exercise Option 3, but didn't because it would quite likely mean dealing with the very same political firestorm we have today with the current Administration.
Some folks indicate that we should have helped the Shi'ites fight the revolution that budded shortly after the Gulf War fighting ended. But to do so would require involving at least some military units, and no bare-bones resistance could stand to crush the heavily armored Republican Guard divisions. So, at some point, had we pursued this option we would likely have been drawn into combat.
There have been plenty of situations where a "sovereign" nation was invaded for the good of the world. Germany is one. Had we gone by your logic, we would have been required to stop the invasion at the Rhine. Japan is the same story. After kicking Japan out of the Pacific Islands and Eastern Asia, going by your logic we had no right to invade Okinawa, nor did we have any right to invade the mainland. Mission accomplished, we had rolled back the Japanese Empire to its own borders, so therefore we had no right to pursue farther.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, the US and NATO had no right to occupy what was once part of the Yugoslav nation. Australia had no right to enter and occupy East Timor. And the list goes on.