re: Whoa there
I'm glad you're willing to consider some form of international organization in principle, but when I look at the conditions you'd put on it, I think that in practice you don't really want it.
Not worshiping at the feet of collectivism and socialism
But yet, you condemn most European nations and a lot of the rest of the world as "socialist and collectivist". Wouldn't be much of an "international" organization without Europe, would it?
Not taking sides against the Western nations in almost every conflict
Quite an exaggeration there. The UN took our side against Iraq, they just wouldn't go along with the solution Bush tried to dictate. Go back over the last half-century, and I think you'll find that in the majority of major issues, the UN was aligned with the US. Korea, the early stages of Vietnam, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia...we've actually worked with the UN more often than we've been at odds.
If what you're really saying is that this organization must side with the West, then it's not really an international organization. It's just a power bloc.
Not trying to build yourself into an all-powerful world government
You want an international organization that's both effective and toothless? This is at the core of the problem conservatives have with international organizations--they want them to have authority over everyone but us. It's logically inconsistent to expect an international organization to work without expecting its members to concede some sovereignty.
Totalitarian dictatorships need not apply, never mind letting them run the joint
Hmmm...I have mixed feelings about that. The broader the membership in an international organization, the more effective it will be. Making the club too exclusive weakens it--isn't the point to get everyone to accept its authority?
Kick out the thugs using the U.N. as their own personal fiefdom
Yep. Corruption's a risk with any organization, and any organization can need housecleaning from time to time.
NATO actually is a promising model. It's been interesting over the last decade to see it succeed when it was let off its leash and put to work in the Balkans.
As for resources, that RAND study observed that at the end of WWII the US accounted for more than half of the world's GDP, while today it's more like 22%, which makes more international sharing of costs not only more justified, but more feasible. Conversely, it'd be nice if Republicans in Congress would stop playing games with our UN dues. There are two sides to the question of financial support, and it'd be nice if we'd honor the obligations we make.