The League of Nations II, er, the UN gets fat and rich on the misery of others... again

We all know that the United Nations is the principal enforcement body of international law. And it's certainly aided in this cause by the fact that 2/3 of it's voting members are outlaw nations that wouldn't recognize the rule of law if it fell from the sky with flashing lights and an explanatory note. Most Republicans, er, cold-hearted warmongers - would cite this as the principal reason for the U.N.'s history of highly questionable policies that hamstring the U.S. and allow the likes of Saddam to run wild and free.

But when they aren't aiding and abetting terrorists, the United Nations should at least be good at the humanitarian stuff, right? Oh, I forgot these useless bureaucrats are so inept that they could screw up a wet dream. This just in from an enraged Diplomat in the tsunami zone. Effectively, the crew from the U.N. are more concerned with procuring first class accommodations than saving any lives. Good thing those same U.N.-hating, heartless, warmongering Americans (with a hat-tip to some of our bribed and coerced allies) are actually on the ground doing the humanitarian work!

Why progressives still think of the U.N. as a solution to, well, anything - is a mystery that may never be solved. So my question for the day: Is it better we continue to fund the disaster the U.N. and at least have the power that is derived from paying the bills or should we finally cut it off and have an overt (as opposed to the current covert) adversarial relationship?