Actually, the United Nations should function the way any national or town assembly does, I think. It is not very sensible to allow any one permanent member of the Security Council to veto a resolution it doesn't like, while denying that privilege to all the other smaller countries. Ideally, no one should have a veto. To allow big countries to veto and small countries not to is undemocratic, and was done in order to maintain the rule of the powerful few over the rest of the nations. To allow one player to veto a resolution is foolish. It's fine for someone to vote against a resolution or abstain, but why should they be allowed to veto it?

If they don't like it, they can always get mad and walk out...and that's been done from time to time.

If voting was instead done in the General Assembly, and if the resolution required the assent of 75% of all the member nations to pass, that would be a far more democratic system, worthy of respect in the World.

It would also utterly screw the original plan the USA and its main allies after WWII had in mind when they set up the U.N.

Accordingly, you will not see it happen.

The U.N., like the present USA is a system "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich". Not quite what they taught you in American school, is it? Too bad. Jefferson would not be pleased if he saw what has happened since 1776.

I agree with Carol. No nation should have veto power. If that were the case, the French would not have needed to threaten a veto, because the resolution would have failed in any case if brought to a vote. Knowing this, America would have withdrawn it, just as they have done anyway, veto or not veto. That resolution was a dead duck.

- LH