mel, I am on your side. The UN is a 'new' organisation. The point is that the side that we support may not be the best side in he long run.
It is arguable that Hitler rescued Germany from its post WW1 armistice, that Franco avoided being on the losing side in WW2, that Tito prevented Stalin's boot. None of these achieved what they did through democracy but they did bring stability.
Giap was supported by the US as was Castro. The UK, OTOH supported Batista, or at least preferred him as a least bad option.
Of the other, the west treated with them again as least bad options.
Are we right to interfere? May be. The point is though that while the International Community stands up for human rights the 'International' community does not take action. Action is left to just one country with a little support from a very few others.
Having taken action is the outcome (or has the outcome) been better than before?