The UN should have a Standing Military Force

U.N as a non-nationFirstly I'd like to state that while the U.N may have at least have an inter-governmental structure (as quoted directly by Wikipedia) it is still not a nation. For something to be categorized as a nation it must be of one country with one specific system, while the U.N is made up of a number of different countries--all of which that have individual policies of their own in dealing with international affairs. A "nation" is defined by the following terms: na·tion n. 1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out. 2. The government of a sovereign state.So again, to be considered a nation; you must have a single government that is exclusive to one country. In other terms; a sovereign state. (1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...The U.N is not a single state that is restricted to one country or one territory. Rather, the UN is an organization, which again is not defined in the same way as a nation. The UN definition that Pro uses in round two states: "The United Nations is an international organization". The fact that the UN was founded by (51) countries does still not make it a "country" itself. Pro goes on to state that: "As you can see it's some type of democracy or oligarchy, just very unclear if the General Assembly really has a government name yet."I'd specifically like to highlight here that democracy and oligarchy are entirely different systems of governance--additionally Pro states that it's "unclear" if the General Assembly has a government name yet. On the contrary to showing that the UN has an easily recognizable and clearly defined form of governance, Pro has failed to determine whether the system is either "democratic" or "oligarchic", and has displayed that it does not yet have a formative name. "Democracy" is generally defined within the following terms:1. Governmentbythepeople,exercisedeitherdirectlyorthroughelected representatives.2. Apoliticalorsocialunitthathassuchagovernment.While "Oligarchy" is a system that is described as: 1. a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons orfamilies. b. Those making up such a government. 2. A state governed by a few persons.(2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...If the UN can "some type" of either, then evidently its exact form of governance has not be definitively established by Pro. Pro further states that a UN standing army would be "well-prepared" and "ready-to-go", while this may be the case, the current forces that the UN deploys to places it deems necessary are also (in essence) prepared and equipped to go where deployed. Here's what the UN saying concerning their peace keeping personnel: "Our military and police personnel are first and foremost members of their own national services and are then seconded to work with the UN."So these are indeed people that are trained and that are "first and foremost" members of their own national services; largely suggesting again that many have considerable experience within their field. (3.) http://www.un.org... As for the democratic values of the UN, as a organization that was directly founded on such values, they are absolutely still paramount to the UN in maintaining its integrity and fulfilling its stated duties. As alluded to in round two of my argument, the prevention of conflict through democratic measures should claim more importance than the involvement with conflict through military efforts. As can be seen in numerous historical and present cases of conflict, enhancing military action does not exactly solve anything. In fact (as can be particularly viewed in present examples) it can quite easily exacerbate them. This also again relates to the neutrality of the UN and why, as a self-titled impartial organization, it should not partake in war efforts. Conflict of interestPro claims that I concede in stating that (many) nations would have very little to gain in sending soldiers to assist in international conflicts, however, Pro then states that while this is happening, it is happening "on a very small scale", thus not rejecting my point--which was to highlight that if actual armies belonging to individual countries were sent off to international conflicts; again, these countries would have very benefit. The difference with the current structure is that smaller units are deployed, and that it is on a much more manageable level, a level of which, that the UN can still offer some assistance in certain areas while still retaining its neutral integrity. Another aspect to my initial argument was the fact not all countries would be willing to send out troops to certain conflicts, or any, for that matter. As well as resistance to direct involvement, some countries would likely not be content with other countries initiating or increasing their involvement in international conflicts. Russia would naturally be a prime example, a nation of which that is usually not in support of western countries furthering military involvement internationally. As well as assessing the humanitarian need, the political effects and outcomes are also to be examined in if the UN ever was to establish its own standing army. Concerning financial cost, Pro also includes the estimate of "billions of dollars" in discussing the cost of a standing army. As I summarized in my opening argument--including the cost of training, military equipment, and other additional and necessary resources, the cost would be considerably expensive, something *some* countries would likely not be able to afford. Pro appears to neglect the fact that not all 109 countries that are part of the UN have "billions" (even $2 billion) to contribute to military efforts in international conflicts that bare no relevance and have virtually no impact on their own country. Expanding financial contribution to countries neutral to the UN is not exactly that realistic an option, once more, what would such countries have to gain? The questions also still remain on as to how effective a standing army would be, how much difference they would be able to make, and what the eventual outcome of their "involvement" would be. It's also likely that standing troops would have to stay in deployed areas for prolonged periods of time--adding again to the cost of resources. Pro fairly presents the case that troops would be sent out and then things would be immediately solved, which would of course not be the case. One would have to begin with the internal politics of such areas and countries (examples Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Fiji, Sudan, Congo, Libya, Somalia, etc.) to even introduce a possibility of end to conflict. Likewise hiring translators would be necessary in order for international soldiers to communicate with each other and more importantly: with the people of the country/area they're deployed to.