"The U. N. does not have a standing Army, so if they are going to enforce Resolutions adopted, who is to do it? A coalition of forces, right? If it is impossible to build a coalition, then the strongest nation militarily has to do it, right? "

I will leave the hypocrasy of which resolutions get enforced and which do not aside for the moment. The point I want to address is the statement that if a coalition can't be built, the strongest nation has to do it.

If there's not a consensus of opinion to build a coalition, there's *is* no U.N. action. That's the whole point of the U.N., although sometimes the US likes to think of the U.N. as a puppet for US interests. (And sometimes it is.)

But justifying any act because the U.N. chose not to, and you're bigger and stronger, is not upholding the U.N. or any of the resolutions, it's working against it.