Here's an interesting editorial from Britain's left-of-center The Guardian:
"Right now, this war is wrong because it weakens the very democracy for which we are summoned to fight. If democracy's good health were the arbiter, Mr Blair would not be currently blocking out the roaring surge of opposition in Britain and around the globe. There would be a free, prior parliamentary vote on any proposal to send troops into combat. Right now, the country is deeply divided on this question, the armed forces under-prepared and equipped, the aims blurred and unconvincing, the likely consequences as incalculable as they are potentially dire, and the exit strategy remains unrevealed."
"War cannot and should not always be avoided. Here is no argument for a blanket pacifism; this newspaper supported the Kosovo intervention and the 1991 Gulf conflict. But war must be a means of last resort, when all else fails. That moment has not yet come. It may never do so. War, as in Mr Bush's careless hands, must not be an option of choice, dubiously decreed, pre-emptively and partially prosecuted, and electorally exploited. Have we learned nothing from the past? Did history somehow stop on September 11? Are we, the British people, so vicariously panicked by the Bush administration's global fright that we forget the lessons of reconciliation, humility, tolerance and common sense belatedly grasped at the close of our own imperial era? This is not to be "anti-American". It is to be pro-American in that country's best, egalitarian tradition."
What does everyone -- and particularly a.net's British members -- think about this? Is the Guardian right?