Keith Devens .com

Calm down guys... you hate the debates because Kerry might win. That's the truth.

I think you fell in love with the image of an America that can do EVERYTHING, and an America that don't have to listen to what the rest of the world has to say.

And you might laugh of John Kerry's "global test", but the fact is, John Kerry's got it righ. Bush has got it wrong.

Bush is currently leading America down the road that spells "everybody hates America". Kerry tries to tell you this, and he tried to spell it out during the debates. But you guys seem to be sound asleep in a dream where America is invincible, where America don't have to listen to anyone around them, and where America always wins in the end.

Well... guys... Wake up and smell the coffee. The whole world is against you right now, and it's BECAUSE of the kind of attitude that's displayed by for instance the owner of this blog and the author of the cited article.

I don't get it. How'd you just manage to say a whole bunch of things but completely evade the point in what he wrote? It's always impressive to me when people do that, because I'm not good at that myself.

Well, then I suggest that maybe YOU missed the point in what he wrote.

I can't comment on whether the UN is a big blue wobbly mass, and I cannot comment on whether you'd have to "tell them things" if you "invited Russia to join you".

But I can comment on the general form of arrogance that's communicated in this article, and also in some of your own political writings.

What I think I see is that you guys have a distorted image of America, and that you think America can act on their own in the world, because of their current strength.

And what I'm trying to say is that I think it's stupid of you to rely on your strength, and to choose to throw all good diplomatic relations with other countries over board.

As for Kerry, I think he wants to repair the relationships that the US once had with the rest of the world, and I think he's onto something good for America when he tries to do this.

Bush on the other hand has got his mind set on America running a solo race in the war on terror. And I think his ideas on this are very wrong.

If America chooses to do what Bush suggests, I personally think it's a bad move both for America and for the rest of the world.

And these things I think are more important to comment on than whether the UN is a big blue wobbly mass.

But I can comment on the general form of arrogance that's communicated in this article

That's why he called it a "screed".

You keep referring to "the rest of the world" and you say we're going "solo". What Lileks is challenging people like you on (and this is why I said you evaded what he said) is to say who you're really referring to. Given that we have so many nations with us in Iraq and Afghanistan and that we've started organizations like the Caspian Guard and the Proliferation Security Initiative (which Bush mentioned in the debate), we're clearly not doing this "solo", as you claim.

What "the rest of the world" always seems to come down to is something like France, Germany, Russia, and China. And with Lileks, I say "So?". If they supported us in Iraq, would that give legitimacy to the war, and if so, why?

Also, it's not about us "relying on our strength" and "acting on our own" (which we're not anyway), but the point that Lileks mentions is that most of the rest of the world hardly has any military power whatsoever. It's not about how strong we are, but how weak the rest of the world is in comparison. Even if France and Germany did help us, what difference would that make? Anyway, now I'm just repeating Lileks' points.

Oops, the claim about how weak the rest of the world is wasn't Lileks' point. I was thinking of this, which goes hand in hand with what he says. Whereas Lileks was challenging the assumption that the blessing of France or Germany somehow lends legitimacy, the other side of the coin is whether their involvement would lend any strength.