This House Would Create A UN Standing Army

Notice: I recently found out my mother is once again in the hospital. She has been diagnosed with bowel cancer a second time, and thus I have been at the hospital a majority of the time. So needless to say, my argument may be admittedly weak here, but I shall see through to the end to finish this debate, and wish my opponent best of luck. I just wanted to bring notice of my personal distress here if my arguments look abnormally weak here. With that being said, thank you to my opponent for her rebuttals. Nationalism Is Irrelevant Through Strength in Numbers:My opponent commits a reductio ad absurdum here, claiming that fighting over the army would ensure as a result of it's formation. Just because two sides do not agree does not excuse them in the light of international law to completely engage in inaction. This legislation forces them to uphold international law in a non-self interested political way, with the troops of the collective UN. My opponent completely dropped my argument about 4 countries giving 100 troops total. The idea simply works even if one does not agree. We universially agree that swift action must be taken in the face of a humanitarian/military action or face defeat, and the fact of the matter is as we see in both Rwanda (in which the lacking of swift action causes genocides, and countless deaths) along with the theoretical workings of the Art of War. Indeed as pointed out before both the UN already has an army, it's just a matter of enforcing the legislations with a UN standing army and the need is clearly shown. Again with my example, it shows that a manditory equal amount of troops would be donated, and even if it were not, it wouldn't matter due to strength in numbers. I say again, my opponent completely dropped this argument. The Goals of the UN Would be Further Upheld With an Army: I have no idea what my opponent is talking about. This is a strawman argument. First, I was talking about the Genocide of Rwanda, not a war which is what he was clearly trying to rebuttal. Secondly, it seems as though he agrees with me the outcomes would have been different if allowed to invade the weapons cashe's Romeo was given from an unnamed source to prevent the genocide. The UN however ordered him to halt, to not invade, and ergo the genocide began. I agree with my opponent here, the UN ought to have a standing army, it would have certainly prevented genocide in Rwanda. Which is what the UN's purpose was (to promote peace and security in the world). (. http://www.un.org...) This legislation clearly would have contributed to a peace process in the case of Rwanda, my opponent never refuted this and simply claims the outcome would have been different. An Army is No Doubt Costly, But Makes Up for it Economically:First of all, I agree with my opponent a little extra cash is needed to uphold this legislation. However, he completely dropped my point about how the effects once implimented (less need for humanitarian aid for example) would be needed saving the UN money elsewhere. Furthermore, even if the country cannot afford it, most countries that are poorly developed are due to them being chronically cimmitting acts against humanity, and thus wouldn't have to pay anything because they would ideally be the targets the UN army would attack anyways. He even ignores my source noted in debatapedia about this. Peace Processes Coupled With Enforcement Mechanisms Would Deter Parties From Committing Acts of Genocide:I never advocated turning a violent situation into a war zone, I advocated that a UN standing army would defend those being persecuted, and force the parties to negotiate a peace process to prevent genocides. We already enforce this anyways via the genocide conventions from the UN, this would simply uphold it's origional intent which my opponent once again completely drops. (. http://www.hrweb.org...)UN Army Cannot Play Favouritism:The UN army as a whole unti would be unable to play favourites due to the amount of contries contributing to it. Furthermore, even if host countries played it off on the UN, this has nothing to do with the argument of a UN standing army. This is simply a rogue state being unable to take personal responsibility, which Saddam did, along with Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. .. Indedd this is the standard victim blaming nonsense employed in Rwanda which would be ceased via a UN standing army. The only favor it would play is punishing those who are enemies to humanity. Finally, International Law Already Works on a Voluntary Basis, Recommendations are not Enough:Again, in Dallaires book, the UN was aweful. The UN actually hands off cases to other tribunals or the ICC because it cannot enforce it's legislations unless another country chooses to do so. Simply put, these policies of "other punishments" are not quick enough (Rwanda again, they didn't do anything and caused a genocide) nor is that even a guarentee they get punished (US in Guatamala, Iran-Contra Affair, Grenada Campagins, Etc. .. ) This legislation corrects all of that, by the threat of coercion as a last resort to incentivize peace and deter humanitarian crisis. I thank my opponent for his arguments, and wish him the best of luck in future debates. Furthermore, I have given examples, international conventions, and arguments supporting a UN standing army while successfully rebutting my oppoents arguments. I think I have met my BOP, and negated my opponents.