Democracy is a convenient method for arriving at a consensus in a large number of people--for those decisions that are properly open to consensus.

It does not override basic individual rights, which is why democracy is restrained in a properly-run nation. In our case, (theoretically, at least) by a constitution. For example, in the United States you should not be able to vote to restore slavery, even if you could get 90 percent of the citizens to go for it. (In fact, I suppose you could shove a Constitutional amendment through to that effect, which is probably one of many loopholes in the Constitution.)

It can be argued by reasonable people whether invading Iraq is right or wrong. If it is wrong, getting the U.N. Security Council to approve the invasion does not make it right. If it is right, then it doesn't matter whether we get the Security Council's agreement on it or not.

There is some comfort if you are doing something questionable if a lot of people are doing it with you. Mob mentality. But that doesn't make it right. And if something is right, the opposition of the mob shouldn't sway you either.

As I said, we can argue over whether or not it's right to invade Iraq. But the fact that we do it with or without a "coalition," while of some concern on the level of base politics, really isn't relevant morally.