Actually, I probably do from time to time.
I have always hated the veto votes in the un security council and it's likely Russia or China would use it again this time to ensure nobody can do anything.
Actually, I think criticizing the vetoes is supporting a stronger UN. There are practical issues about what to do if the vetoes are removed, and the UN passes a measure a major power disagrees with and the major power refuses to go along with it - the UN is not really going to say 'ok, let's start a war with the major power to force them to do what the majority wants'.
Not sure how to solve that - one issue is how the UN needs to ask for everything for each mission that's approved.
Should the UN have funding and a large force established in advance it can use?
That is politically unlikely - countries seem to much prefer spending on their own defense forces to contributing to the UN's, the US more than most.
So, it's not so much the UN that's broken on this, as the countries' politics for peace.
It doesn't seem like we can get around the problem issues - even if nationalism leads to oppression and war, countries prefer it - and a strong UN still can have 'corrupt' votes, because it's nations voting their interests that are not necessarily 'justice'. Instead it's not clear how to mainly have it be useful, on security issues, for more than smaller bad countries with a broad consensus having measures taken - a Libya, Iraq, Syria. And even there, there are veto issues as it stands.
And the US isn't perfect on this - while Russia and China protect wrongdoing countries, the US has done the same - and is almost guaranteed not to vote against Israel.
So, it's useful for those weaker countries that don't have a veto power country allied.
Save234