Take off every zig.

It is ironic that Americans are so critical of the UN when the US is one of the primary reasons the UN is so ineffectual.
From http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ united_nations_problems.htm

" Since 1945, America had been the dominant force in the UN. America provided the UN with 25% of its annual budget and expected to have a big say in final UN decisions - an influence that matched the hundred of millions of dollars America has paid into the UN’s budget. Likewise, some major international problems were dealt with by America flexing her diplomatic muscles (such as in Suez and especially in the Middle East) rather than the UN solving them.

As more and more Asian and African nations gained their independence and joined the UN, power blocs within the General Assembly have developed. These have challenged the belief that the old order of western nations should dominate the UN simply by using their financial clout and their historic connections. Seven blocs have been identified:
the Developing Nations which consists of 125 states
the Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 99 states (mostly Asian and African who avoid joining military alliances)
the Islamic Conference which consists of 41 states
the African group of 50 states
the Latin American group of 33 states
the Western European group of 22 states
the Arab group of 21 states

Within the General Assembly, all nations regardless of wealth, military power etc., have one vote. The same is true in the specialist agencies - one nation one vote. However, much of the important UN work is done in the Security Council and the five nations of Russia, America, Britain, France and China still have the right to veto a decision of the Security Council. This system has been challenged by the newer members of the UN who want one nation one vote in the Security Council as well. The five permanent members of the Security Council have fought to keep the system as it is claiming that as the five permanent members invest far more money into the UN’s budget and, as a result, should have more sway than nations that pay far less into the UN’s budget.

In 1985, this theme was even taken up by America’s Congress which declared that:
"Voting rights (in the UN) should be proportionate to the contribution of each member state to the budget of the UN and its specialised agencies."

In 1985, America provided the UN with 25% of its budget; the USSR provided 10.5%; Angola 0.01% and Saudi Arabia 0.86%. America claimed that such an investment should have its rewards. If the ‘Big Five’ withdrew their financial support or reduced it to the level of other nations in the UN, then the UN itself would face near bankruptcy. There was little the UN could do if members failed to pay their contribution. After the Congo crisis from 1960 to 1964, Russia, France and Belgium refused to contribute to the $400 million it had cost the UN to bring peace to the Congo.

Throughout the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s, the UN ran up debts nearly totalling $1 billion. In 1986, America refused to pay 50% of its annual contribution in protest at the influence newly emerging nations had or were attempting to get. America pointed out that 85% of the UN’s budget was paid by just 20 nations yet many smaller nations were trying to reform the way the UN was run (especially its voting system) without making the same financial commitment to the UN."

The United States dumps money into it and wants the UN to cater to its desires instead of acting like a true multinational council. When it doesn't, the US does what it wants anyway, threatens the budgets and criticizes the institution. None of that helps UN legitimacy.

But the UN does serve at least one important goal of bringing nations to the table for diplomatic purposes and international review. The UN continues to be a source of objection to things like international genocide (Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur) even if the member nations will not take action (remember, most troops and money come from the US, so if we don't want it done, most likely nothing will happen).

The UN continues to be a source of objection to things like international genocide (Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur) even if the member nations will not take action (remember, most troops and money come from the US, so if we don't want it done, most likely nothing will happen).

We want things done about that though, and the UN is just such a goddamn pansy about issues like this and stuff like North Korea. The UN basically is useless.