That's it in a nutshell! :0) However, regardless of UN participation or even leadership, I personally feel torn on this one. For the future of the UN and long-term international relations, I think the UN should play the CENTRAL role in rebuilding Iraq (once the area is stabilized and safe). For personal reasons, I feel that after years of unenforced resolutions - not just on Iraq but also Israel- the UN is no longer a viable entity and is nothing more than a figurehead with no strength or structure and should not be rewarded for doing nothing. Also, since the U.S. provides 25% of the funding for the U.N. shouldn't the U.S. get at least 25% back??? Just kidding...then there is the fact that there would be no rebuilding requirement if the coalition forces did nothing - just like the U.N. There is also the LEGAL international law that states that it is the responsibility of the coalition forces to ensure the security, stability, and rebuilding of the infrastructure of Iraq since the coalition is responsible for removing the existing one. Some would say we owe it to Iraq after leaving them to their own resorts in 1991...I could go on and on...


>BEFORE...
>Blair: Post the war, it is vital that the UN plays a central role.
>Bush: Post the war? Haven't thought about that yet.
>
>DURING...
>Blair: Post the war, it is vital that the UN plays a central role.
>Chirac: You made this mess, you can fix it. Nothing from the UN, rosbief poodle!
>Bush: I'll get my people on it.
>
>AFTER...
>TB+GWB: Ok, here's our plans. Incidentally they include reconstruction contracts.
>
>Chirac: it is vital that the UN plays a central role