same old argument to spread democracy around the world through invading other countries.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=36947
Nobody used that argument, in fact I think any rational person can assume that you can't force a system of government on a people.
I read an interesting article (I forget the title - it was by Johann Hari) that basically argued that governments reflect the people not the other way around.
e.g. in Scandinavia, democracies emphasize socialism, high taxes and free government services. Russia is officially a democracy, but still run within a Soviet paradigm (i.e. not much as changed).
I personally have serious doubts whether you can "force" democracy upon uncivilized peoples - Capitalism is probably the only way to do this (via free-market reform) - and it often takes years (i.e. Vietnam).
But ye - I somewhat disagree with engaging wars on the premise of 'democratic crusades' - and to be all that honest, I think there are other, more compelling reasons NATO is in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, other the lofty-misguided idealism of 'spreading democracy'. This may have worked as a cold-war gimmick to curb Soviet influence, but today it's certainly outdated.
On a side note, I checked out the article, and the "campaign for liberty" and I disagree with all that Ron Paul crap. Don't think he'll ever make US president. Much preferred his cameo in Bruno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ&feature=related