China may use its veto power to protect places like the Sudan. But why? Is China like the Legion of Doom down in some huge subterranean bunker with giant television screens and computer banks plotting to do things simply to serve Evil? Or are they using their veto for selfish but rational reasons, like the need to secure oil contracts?

Don't the other security council members do the same thing?

Maybe the security council members should agree to give up their one vote veto.

The rules could be changed so that a security council resolution would pass when it received a simple majority of security council votes. Or if that is too democratic to be acceptable then how about leaving the veto but requiring two permanent members to vote no before the resolution fails.

Or, how about recognizing that the UN is a membership organization, and so long as the thuggish and totalitarian regimes are full-fledged voting members, it can't be expected to do anything worthwhile?

Your suggestions are definitely in the 'lipstick on a pig' category.

That's a good idea.

But who would decide the criteria for what a "thuggish and totalitarian regime" is? There would be some obvious candidates but a lot of countries in the gray area. And there might be different opinions of "thuggish and totalitarian" based on what part of the world you're looking at.

Bad countries could reform themselves and gain membership but others might possibly lose their membership. How would that work?

If everyone knew a country was basically okay but was having a bad time, albeit temporarily, would that country have to sit in a penalty box for a while? How would that work?

Absolutely! Get rid of the Security Council veto. That certain "blessed" countries have permanent advantages encourages others not to play along.

How about getting ridding of the UN? They're about as effective as a Democrat controlled Congress.

If we can't get rid of them, can we at least evict them? May I recommend anywhere in Baghdad except the Green Zone?

"How about getting rid of the UN?"

You obviously don't think much of the UN. But do you believe in the UN's mission? (Trying to work things out diplomatically before resorting to war; international cooperation on certain international issues like refugees.)

If you don't believe in the mission then what system do you think ought to control? (I know that power trumps the somewhat illusory international legal regime, but the UN and international law do soften it a bit so that it's not a complete dog eat dog world.)

If you do believe in the mission then what would you put in the UN's place? Or how would you revamp the UN?

OIFVet is clueless. The U.N. has served the United States very well and when the U.N. goes against the U.S.'s wishes we simply ignore/veto resolutions it passes or don't pay the membership dues.

It is comic how conservatives are so clueless about the U.N. and what a useful tool it has been for a long time. Maybe it is because they live in a world more of their own making than even the Looney Tunes Democrats do.

Check please.

I love how Libs work: If you disagree with them, you're clueless.

As someone pointed out above, they are there to prevent wars, right? How many have we had since 1942? We, of course, being the collective world. Where was the UN when Pol Pot was up to his golden deeds? How many Soviets were killed by their own government under the auspices of the omnipotent peace-keeping abilities of the UN? Kurds?

They are your typical liberal organization- "Well, guys, I know people are getting ethnically cleansed but let's pass a resolution or two and that'll show 'em."

"Hey Let's condemn Israel for Human Rights violations and we'll just express "deep concern" about the real monsters."

Let's not get into "Oil for Food."

See I'm not a liberal nor a conservative.

But for both of your kind of side choosers. Things are mostly black and white.

UN is about a venue in which to exercise diplomacy. To that end it has served the U.S. fairly well. Any disservice has been fairly muted.

Get a clue or a good education.

The UN has as much power as member states choose to give it. There are many problems with the UN, not least of which is corruption. However, it provides a much needed forum for diplomacy.

As for the Security Council...it's a pipe dream to think the P5 will voluntarily give up their veto. They have no reason to want to do so.