You have it backward, as I stated, they are a tool.. We put UN resolutions and treaties up to Constitutional review, thus, why we take action even though the UN expressed disagreement. You said "what if Russia or China voted no".. that is a 'what if', so we really don't know 'what if' but by the fact that we used prior resolutions as part of the justification, I would bet it would not matter if they voted no on one because they voted yes on others... also, because UN resolutions where only part of the justification, offenses against laws of nations, but we also had non-UN arguments as well.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
.. it is too bad that Paul doesn't consider that a real declaration of war, even though it has a 'war powers' statute that was approved by Congress. He is the Fred Phelps of the Constitution...
They are the tool...wow..
So our Commander in Chief, the leader of our military sends a agent to the UN for permission...and that is your view?
Reality is bitch, ignore it at your peril Sir, we went to the UN because we had to, not to make them our agents.
They had the power to vote “yea” or “nay”, our CINC should never put US Sovereignty to be subverted.
You dream Sir.