This House Would Impose Democracy!

Let me start out with this:" In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."--The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 29. [http://www.un.org...]We see here, everyone should have equal rights--in a democratic society. Once more, I must stress that democracy is the only government that stresses on people's equalities and rights. Now, why should imposed democracy be put regardless of what the people want? Well, people deserve equal rights, whether they want it or not. Should we deny people the rights to life and liberty even if they don't want it? Of course not; they deserve it (unless in circumstances where the law is broken, but that's not the case here). Imposed democracies are better than no democracies. Some governments may have politicians so corrupt and powerful, or have people who have no idea how to rule a democratic society, that even if they need the equal rights, they cannot obtain these rights. That is why a foreign force must help the people there to establish democracy. With good experience, the foreign force would be excellent, and much better than the original people in establishing democracy.My opponent gives an example of a corrupt society of imposed democracy. First, let me start off by saying that the US imposed democracy on Iraq for clearly different purposes. http://www.worlddialogue.org.... states, "Iraq has always been about much more than democracy. This is especially true for an administration that came into office downplaying the value of democracy promotion, nation-building, and other elements of “soft power”. Rather, Iraq was about projecting hard power—to rid the United States and the world of a perceived threat. Iraq’s previous use of chemical weapons, its capacity to produce nuclear and biological weapons, and the fear that these could be provided to international terrorist organisations, particularly al-Qaeda, were the main drivers of the US-led military intervention in Iraq. If it were not for the ambiguity surrounding Saddam Hussein’s possession of these weapons, Iraq would not have been singled out for invasion among the world’s forty-five or so remaining autocracies. Democracy only took centre stage as a rationale for the Iraq invasion once Saddam was toppled and no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. With evidence lacking of WMD, WMD facilities, or a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, democracy emerged as the best justification to sustain support for the costly engagement." We see here, this weakly established democracy was used for an entirely different strategy than most other imposed democracies try to do. The US really wanted to get rid of the War on Terror, and the only way possible was to have this government that could gain "support for the costly engagement", as the source says. There are many--too many impedements within Iraq to make a strong democracy within that particular country. As http://www.forbes.com.... can justify, the main reasons that Iraq can't have a strong democracy is that it does not have a "sense of nationhood", and it has a "history of oppression", due to its neighboring countries it "is likely to remain a sectarian war zone", Islam has too much power over the country, and finally women by definition were unequal in the first place. Unless my opponent points out these shared problems with other countries, then Iraq is merely an outlier and in all other cases, democracy can be strong and easily imposed. HOWEVER this is not to say that democracy is completely ineffective on these "outlier countries", http://www.foreignaffairs.com.... clearly shows hope, especially in Iraq's adoption of the Parliament and democratic-voting style elections. My opponent points out the unfairness of mobocracy, but are other governments more fair? Would you rather have a single monarch decide to execute Socrates because he just doesn't like philosophy, or kill the Jewish minority because he is Christian? Obviously, the more people involved, the less chances something terrible is going to happen. Again, a more peaceful society? Yeah, democracy is the winner over all other governments here. People SHOULD have the right to choose a dictatorship, but what if they can't? What if they don't have experience? I stress this once again, with the help of other countries, people in that original country would have much easier jobs setting up democracy. Back to you mighty, still-unbeaten, 18Karl.