Actually, I don't believe that's accurate, Phil. There was disagreement in the Bush administration about whether to go to the U.N. Colin Powell wanted to go to the U.N. Cheney & Rumsfeld thought it was a mistake. Bush decided to let Colin Powell run with his idea. So Bush did not have to "acknowledge the UN." And if he had his current Secretary of State at the time, he wouldn't have. As to anyone's seat on the Security Council being a "farce," the whole Security Council is a farce when one compares it to what it was originally intended: the wise war-weary powerful nations, stopping by means of their superior power, smaller ignorant nations who still want to engage in aggressive war. When Russia boycotted the decision to support South Korea in 1950, the UN acted as it was supposed to. Now it is a different sort of body; which may nevertheless have some value, but I'm not sure just what it is. The U.N. cannot really resolve conflict between nations because it has no "power" to do so. That is it has no military force. No nation can really project a military force to stop smaller nations from engaging in wars - except the U.S. - unless a nation is on one of the Security council's nation's borders - or unless the nation is a former colony. Lawrence Helm From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Enns Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:21 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: LAUGH OR CRY? Mike Geary wrote: "Is it just me or do others find it laughable that Bush should condemn Russia for its invasion of Ossetia?" There is an important difference between the dance Bush engaged in before invading Iraq and the immediate response from Russia. It is legitimate to question whether the Bush dance was a mere window-dressing for a decision made much earlier, just as it is legitimate to ask whether Russia suckered Georgia into this misadventure. But the fact that Bush had to acknowledge the UN before acting is an important difference. No matter how empty, it was a nod to the UN's role as an international body governing relations between nations. To this point, it appears Russia has ignored the UN, making its seat on the Security Council a farce. It seems to me that this might be a defining moment for the UN. Either the UN will assert itself as a rule-based international body for resolving conflict between nations or it will show itself to be a body whose sole purpose lies in being a venue for grand speeches and empty gestures. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia