The UN should be disbanded

I do not apprericiate being called a jerk. I was dealing with a lot of unexpected time constraints. I had actually completly wrote my argument out prior, but I lost it.Now, the UN is more concerned with meddling in first world affairs, promoting diversity while only representing one ideology,recognizing enemies but doing nothing about them, and attempting to maximize it's influence over every other nations government even though it has no business in doing so.The ideology of the UN is reflected through its members. If many of the members are democratic and capitalist, then you are going to see reflections of capitalism, but your statement is false in more then one way. The UN does not discriminate against its members, and every nation gets its say. The UN does not attempt to maximize its influence over other nations.The UN does not keep a register of enemies. They are designed with the goal to make peace and prosperity. http://www.un.org...The UN was mostly intended to preserve peace in third world nations.This was quite obvious considering that all of the top nations in the UN are first world countries.Their are 5 security council menmbers who are permanent, but there are also 10 other countries with voting powers. Many of these nations are developing. However, in recent years, they has been more focused on first world problems then third world problems.This is not true. I do not see the UN sending troops to belgium. The UN is conducting many missions across the world, many of which are preventing war. The UN is keeping peace in the Congo, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, and many other countries.http://www.un.org...They have also developed tons of specific programs. Such as child soldier, terrorism, criminal activity, and decolonization initiatives. http://www.un.org...http://www.un.org...http://www.unodc.org...Furthermore, they have also developed a program that represents unrecognized countrys, under the condition that they take a pledge to push for recognition or independence in peaceful ways.http://www.unpo.org...We know for a fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons. We know for a fact that Iran is funding dozens of terrorist cells around the world. We know for a fact that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel and America (both UN members)with these nuclear weapons and terrorist cells.The UN has recognized all of these things, and has done...embargoes and economic sanctions.We do not no for a fact on any of these things. The UN can't just invade one of its members until more proof presents itself. Renember Iraq. The UN coalition which invaded never found any wmds. They are learning from their mistake with Iraq.Take for example, Liberia . A nation that was once in turmoil. You could not turn on the TV without hearing about a new uprising in Liberia. This was the case over a decade ago. political and economic stability have been reigning ever since the British took out the west side boys rebels. So why the hell is the UN still in Liberia? I have a personal Friend living in Liberia now who tells me that the UN has a say in nearly every single law that is passed in Liberian politics. The nation is stable now, and not because of the UN, but rather British support. So why the hell is the UN still there. The answer to me seems most likely that the UN is attempting to obtain power where ever it can. They are there because it is almost certain that more violence will occur if they leave. The UN is currently protecting a nation in turmoil, with a new constitution, from uprisings. Many Libyans hate the new constitution and it is pretty evident that violence will only escalate by removing troops. The UN is doing what it should, and is preventing the violence from happening in the first place. Also, the UN does not really have a say, but many nations are pressuring them.