It should be, they all have conflicting interests, and will veto to benefit their own agenda.

Seems like someone doesn't believing in ruling by consensus.

we all know when push comes to shove the western members will always vote together, us,england, france. Therefore there must be consensus. If there isn't consensus it means, different nations view that situation differently, not just from one vantage point. You would expect that, as a result of different cultures. Etc. Etc. Etc.

i know kimjongl hates israel. Before you forget. Was it not the US that was going to veto any palestinian bid to be recognized as a state, or un member?

england and france working together.

yes. England and France are western nations and more often than not will vote together. Its always going to be 3 against 2. Therefore consensus is needed from multiple different perspectives.

if we are to examine russia's opposition to the resolution you will see it is REASONABLE. the resolution is biased, it takes sides in the conflict and the nations supporting the resolution have already made up their minds about a solution to the dispute, which is anti- Assad.

and i've on more than one occassion highlighted how the violence perpetrated by the opposition is COMPLETELY ignored. While any violence from Assad is highlighted and amplified.

Think you need to learn more about the relationship between england and france before you claim that

Quote: Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, justified the veto by saying the proposed resolution sent an unbalanced signal to the Syrian parties. The resolution puts pressure on the Syrian regime to immediately withdraw its forces from cities and towns but nothing of the sort applies to the opposition.