>>Ooops... have I mentioned the wrong guys here? Or are there resolutions and resolutions?
>>
>>Besides, how does the "if the UN won't back us, we'll go it alone" help the strength of the UN?
>
>Resolutions are meaningless without the will [teeth] to back them up. I see the UN as nothing other than a spineless, permissive parent that can never get beyond "You better do as I say or else..." IMO, the UN has no strength except for whatever actions the US is willing to take.

That's the perception which is created by media here, and partly by the US decades long policy of keeping UN as weak as practicable. Soviet Union, on its side, was also interested in the UN as far as it could be used for their own purposes - one of the reasons they kept such a number of satellite states was to have more votes. I'm not drawing an exact parallel here - just pointing that it's all politics, and that in each country there are local reasons for special relations with the UN.

Don't know the present situation, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember that for many years (in 70s? 80s?) US was not paying its dues to UN, or at least not in a timely fashion. And probably several other richer members did the same. So if UN is weak, I can only conclude that's the by the will of the members.