I know I go About It But...
 

What a waste of money the UN is.....

One simple act would sort it out - Get rid of the permanent member veto - When 2 members disagree with everything the other members propose on principle what is the point?..

:mad::mad::mad:

Do some research, go back and find out what would have happened WITHOUT the presence of the veto powers. Sure, the UN isn't great but it is what it is and has done far more good than bad. INCLUDING the absence of a truly catastrophic worldwide conflict for 60+ years.

There is always (see Iraq) opportunity for countries that really care to ignore veto's and act without sanction.

So think. Why would a veto at the UN have more impact on current situations than previous ones. It isn't anything to do with the UN, its structure or its processes.

When 2 members veto everything relating to a particular subject on principle it can't work - It's rendered impotent...

You want NATO to attack Syria?

WTF are you talking about?..

We need to know what is happening before anyone can decide what should happen - They can't even go in and confirm that the latest info about chemical attacks is true.....