If the USA can unilaterally attack Syria, why can't the USA unilaterally change the UN ?
If Assad gassed his people, he is a war criminal. The correct thing to do with war criminals is to try them at the Hague.
Instead of trying Assad at The Hague, Obama is instead going to kill some more Syrians. What the hell sense does that make?
And why aren't we trying Assad at The Hague?
Because the UN is as screwed up as the US Congress. If we can go it alone and attack another country, I mean if we are such a badass superpower that we can do that, then why don't we instead just use our superpowers to fix the problems in the UN.
The Security Council structure is completely dysfunctional, and an anachronism that should have be eliminated 30 years ago.
One simple change would make a huge difference. Right now, if you aren't on the Security Council, then you are nothing. You simply don't count. Why not change the bylaws such that any two members of the Security Council can call a vote of the general assembly? If the general assembly can come up with a 75% majority, then that will override the Security Council.
That simple change would force the Security Council to start thinking in the interests of the rest of the world instead of their own narrow interests.
Again I ask, if we are such badasses, why don't we stand up and declare that, either the UN changes these rules or else we're going to blow the mutha up. And who knows, we might just mean that literally. Look out the window. See that drone circling the building? Now about that rules change ...