<<The UN was not ineffective as we thought it was, it was actually corrupted and practicly in the hire of Saddam.>>
That is exactly the kind of unthinking negative bullshit that makes me sick. The UN and its predecessor the League of Nations were the first co-ordinated, serious effort in the entire recorded history of the human race to regulate the relations of states and abolish the scourge of war, which in the past century alone claimed well over 50 million lives. By no coincidence, two U.S. Presidents were instrumental in laying the foundation of these institutions.
You would think that every decent human being on this planet would support such an effort wholeheartedly. That no sane, realistic person would expect anything approaching perfection from the UN, that it is a start, and only a start, towards its founding goals. Instead we hear today - - from the right, from the Zionist Lobby and its supporters, from the forces of fascism, militarism and imperialism (naturally!) that the UN is "corrupt." From the citizens of America the Incorruptible, no less. From the land of Enron, and Jack Abramoff, from the Teapot Dome to the Savings & Loan debacle, from the Jesusland of Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart and Abscam and Watergate, we are getting the real lowdown on the United Nations - - "it's corrupt." Eeeew, the stench of corruption. How can any decent American deal with such people? Corrupt, is it? Fuck it, fuck the whole thing, fuck the corrupt United Nations and fuck its corrupt laws and its corrupt institutions and its corrupt treaties. One sovereign member state ought not war on another except in the clearest possible case of self-defence? Fuck that, that's corrupt. We'll do as we please. Why should the corrupt Charter of a corrupt organization bind the decent, law-abiding, snow-white and incorruptible American people? We make our own fuckin' rules here, pardner, because the laws are corrupt.
"practically in the hire of Saddam" - - plane, what are you thinking? Did Saddam then hire the UN to impose a boycott on himself that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children?
<<I wonder how the UN could ever become a trustworthy organisation >>
You start by trusting it.
<< it appears to be a bribe magnet.>>
Then insist that the bribe-takers be tried, and if convicted, punished. Do you really think that five thousand years of recorded history provide no clue at all to what happens internationally if there is no supra-national institution to regulate teh relations of states? You and your vicious comments are chipping away steadily at the foundations of this wonderful institution, trying to take the planet back to a time when there was no UN and no League of Nations. And why do you do this? Because the UN is "corrupt." Probably in all its history, has LESS bribery and LESS scandal than your own pathetic nation over the same time frame, but that's obviously irrelevant. Why work towards strengthening the institution and building on it, when it's so much easier to tear it down.
You people who are so eager to tear down structures which try to impose a civilizing law on the relations of states and revert to the law of the jungle in international affairs probably do so because you feel you are the strongest beast in the jungle. Even if you were right, it would be a miserable and pathetic course to choose, but I think in the end there are stronger.
I've believed in the UN since I was a kid in elementary school. We were taught it would bring an end to war, which so far it has not done. But that's OK. I know now that people like plane (and he's far from the worst of them) will snipe and carp and do whatever they can to bring the UN into disrepute, and ultimately to make it, as John Bolton said, "irrelevant." You do your worst, and I and others will continue to do what we can, where we can, to see the UN strengthened, to see its errors corrected and to counteract everthing that the planes and sirs of the world can throw at it.