Is the U.N. important for the U.S.?

Depends on our goal. For hegemony no, for economic sanity and adaption to globalization yes.

The UN is likely to be vitally important for the post-Bush US. Hopefully they will be able to help clean up the mess we are creating.

I believe, Mamajuana, that Oz, the smallest bit of the coalition of the willing, may be willing no longer - at least our PM scotched the notion of sending more troops. Will Britain send more?

Bush's attitude on this one is interesting - it is sort of privatising gains and socialising losses - this now looks like a nasty, tough guerilla campaign, which no country would wish to have to handle and bear the odium of alone - so the UN becomes relevant again.

I think your error is to speak as though you expect logic, rather than expedience, to prevail!

Also consider the fundamentalist support base for this administration, who see "armgeddon" in everything. Many of them equate the UN with the supposed "world government" that is to be the "new Rome."Now I don't know if Bush himself holds these views (although considering his past and membership in Bill McCarney's "Promise Keepers" organizationI would not be surprised if he does), but defiance of the UN certainly improves his standing with this group.

Bush has found himself between the devil and the deep blue sea with the U.N. The administration is positively acting schizophrenic about their relations with the U.N. They make Eve in "Three Faces of Eve" seem normal.

Of course, one might wonder if Bush is at least two-faced, why on Earth would he be wearing that one.

LW - they have now made up his face and cut his hair so he looks different. It also looked like he'd lost the gray and become sort of blond. Maybe it was the picture. Maybe they became conscious of the "what, me worry" references.

The latest is that the WH is now "considering" the possibility of working with the UN.

Dlowan - I don't even see logic. As for expediency - should the WH work out an arrangement with the UN, I suspect the calculation would be for the coming election, rather than anything else. I'm old enough to know better, but I keep hoping that somewhere, sometime, somebody will show up who seems to care a little about this country, not just the bottom line.

Craven - I truly believe the Bush people have goals - but they all have to do with their own personal ends, and nothing at all to do with Iraq or the U.S. It's funny - the UN was considered fairly weak (and that goes back to the days when I was connected), but this Iraqi mess gave it more importance than it had had, and Kofi Anan comes out of it looking like more of a statesman than any of the Bush people. And I had forgotten, but Nelson Mandela refused to meet with Bush (said he had to be out of the country). Not that it's such a big deal, but it is representative of how Bush is regarded.

I think that the current administration's goals make the UN an impediment more than necessary and I think that speaks volumes about the current administration's policies.