From listening to the BBC and reading various online newspapers, it seems that for a lot of people if the UN adopts a resolution it will change their mind about war. I can't understand this at all. Just because the US manages to twist the arms of 7 countries and gets 9 votes doesn't change the facts. In fact, when you really think about it, the UN Security Council itself is a big joke. It is a completely undemocratic and unrepresentative body.
1. You have the 5 permanent members who can veto anything even if every other country in the UN is for it. Why these 5 are permanent members is a remnant of the balance of power at the end of WWII and does not reflect reality today.
2. The UN security council has 10 rotating members, not a representative sample of the countries of the UN (over 190). It is complete chance who is on the security council when a crucial vote comes up. The fact that at any given time 9 of the 15 countries agree to something is meaningless especially when any of the 5 permananet members can veto anything that they don't like.

The UN itself is no better. When Libya can be elected the head of the Human Rights commission and Iraq be slated in a few months to head the disarmament committee it is time to say that the UN is a complete failure and start over.

I for one, hope that the US fails in getting the resolution passed and goes to war in any case, hopefully this will be the straw that breaks the UN camel's back.

might makes right. This is exactly why those people who believe that a war sanctioned by the UN is legitimate are being ridiculous.

Here are numbers (see [link|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm|Nuclear Arsenals] ) of nuclear weapons in the various arsenals around the world:

USA - 10656
Russia - around 10000
China - 400
France - 350
Israel - around 200
Britain - 185
India - 60+
Pakistan - 24-48

After all the Soviet Union was a permanent member, and China is a permanent member, neither one was/is a place where you or I would want to live. Besides, Colombia, Sudan and Syria have no nuclear weapons. Also funny that you mention Syria, as Syria is currently a member of the council.

Let's look at the some of the current council members and see just who is deciding these weighty issues:

Syria - a state sponsor of terrorism developing WMD
Angola - a failed state
Pakistan - a military dictatorship

Does anyone think that the decision of these countries can lend moral weight to anything?