One of Senator Kerry's key points in tonight's debate was coalition-building, and that, in a vacuum, is a very good thing. But put in the context of the world we live in, it starts to weaken.

What countries are the leaders in the world? Obviously, the United States is the single most powerful country in the world. Britain, especially given their relative size, is a major force in the world today. Those of us in the "northwest quadrasphere" sometimes forget about the influence of Australia in the Pacific. And these governments stand strongly beside us, not out of fear or truculence, but because they share our values and beliefs.

Then we get to the global leaders who don't quite agree with us. France has been adamantly opposed to virtually all of our actions in regards to Iraq. Why? Could it possibly have anything to do with all the money they've made through violating the sanctions agreements that they voted for in the United Nations? Similarly, both Russia and Germany, major figures in the world today, refused to back our efforts in Iraq, while they were making money off of sales of military matériel in violation of the diplomatic agreements they made with the world.

In regards to the only remaining significant world power, China, I have to admit ignorance to where they stand, both in terms of agreements and actions. Sorry.

So here we are: of the major players in the world today, we have the three nations who had no financial stake in Iraq willing to prosecute Saddam Hussein's bad behavior. Then we have three countries who were sneaking around behind the agreements they had made in order to make a buck, who want to give this slime just "one more chance" to make things right.

So these are the folks we need to add to our coalition?

Sorry, Senator, I have to respectfully disagree.

Update: Dean makes a similar observation in a broader post on the debate by including a cartoon from Cox & Forkum.