What is the UN take on attacking Syria?

[OmahaBlueDog]

For US action? Against?

If Russia is against our acting, why haven't they asked for an emergency Security Council meeting? For that matter, why hasn't China?

[geek tragedy]

1. The UN is good for issuing reports and wringing hands and making speeches.

It has no meaningful role to play in international crises.

Assad is a client of the Russians. They want him kept around at all costs.

[OmahaBlueDog]

4. Right, which is why I figured they'd call for a Security Council meeting

I figured they'd work to preemptively work to condemn an attack.

[geek tragedy]

6. The US would just veto nt

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. OK, so if the UN is pointless, let's just disband it

Save time. Save money. Open up some prime NYC real estate.

[geek tragedy]

14. It serves the pretense of international decision-making.

Throws small states a bone to make them feel like their voice matters.

[Posteritatis]

10. The UN's core, indeed possibly sole, role is to prevent great-power warfare

All the rest, including just about everything people associate with the UN these days, is window dressing. The entire purpose of the organization is "make the Third World War not happen," in part through codifying the current state of the world since 1945. People can be as cynical as they want about the rest, but the safety valve factor it's provided the major powers has probably been more than worth the price.

That said, "no meaningful role" is overstating things just a bit, given that they authorized the Libyan intervention (and avoided a veto in the process, which still surprises me), to say nothing of the handful of ongoing United Nations combat operations around the world lately.

[OmahaBlueDog]

11. Couldn't Russia or China use it as a springboard to propose a peaceful settlement

Perhaps Russia could send troops to Syria....

[Posteritatis]

13. I am ... exceedingly unsure how deploying Russian troops to Syria would bring peace. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

15. Assad is Putin's dog. He goes to the kennel when master pulls the leash, nt

[geek tragedy]

16. The UN doesn't do anything that Putin, the Chinese and Obama couldn't

do on a Facebook chat.

[JI7]

2. the UN is made up of multiple nations

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. They generally hold votes and reach some sort of consensus

I gather they haven't reached one in this instance.

[JI7]

5. we already know what the vote will be so only point to have one

would be for symbolic reasons.

[Posteritatis]

9. The only consensus the Security Council typically has is "unanimous" or "someone said no." (nt)

[Posteritatis]

8. Russia and China don't need to; they'll just veto any the other three P-5 members bring up. (nt)

[reformist2]

17. Interesting question. But the burden would be on the US to initiate a resolution, not Russia or Chin

After all, it's the US (or the neocons, more accurately) itching to do something. Russia and China want to do nothing.