aliali

The corruption is not just by Hussein, and, while not a reason to disband the U.N., is a proper subject of debate in a forum relating to why some may have a general negative reaction to the U.N.

Your position seems to be that the U.N. does lots and lots of good things reasonably well that don't necessarily get big headlines. That's fine, but are you saying the corruption, which now appears to have lead to the funding of terrorists, isn't worthy of honest debate or should not be considered when evaluating the U.N.?

You have put a lot of thought and typing into your defense of the U.N. (which I think everyone here appreciates), but are we just like lawyers here--hired to pick a side--or can we talk about all of the issues and try to put them into context?

For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion. I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it.

Imagine if the Bush administration were responsible for similar corruption in the U.S., had tried to block any investigation, and tried to defend itself by saying that it spends a lot of money on kids programs and aids research and poverty programs. I think this thread would read a little differently.