The UN should have a Standing Military Force

Thanks to you too Emily. The UN isn't a Nation?First of all, let me point out the the UN does indeed have a government structure, just a strange rare one that isn't used in any particular country due to how representative the UN is. As Wikipedia describes the structure:"The assembly is led by a president, elected from among the member states on a rotating regional basis, and 21 vice-presidents.... When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required. Examples of important questions include recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and budgetary matters. All other questions are decided by a majority vote." As you can see it's some type of democracy or obligarchy, just very unclear if the General Assembly really has a government name yet. Even so, it's not formless, and all the different countries have different representatives. It would still be equal, and the majority rule vote would still be required to deploy the standing army like normally, only this time the army is actually well-prepared and ready-to-go. Even if this army does damage the democratic values somehow, the UN has damaged its reputation severely alreay in the cases seen above. People don't see the UN as a trustworthy peace-keeping source. Note that my opponent has accepted all my examples and dropped all my cases. If this goes on, the UN will be useless. We need a standing military to keep it efficient and fulfill its purpose.Conflict of InterestMy opponent already concedes that "Many nations would have very little to gain from sending out individual soldiers to assist in international conflicts." Remember, this is already happening, although on a very small scale, and even then it's by force, which is why the soldiers are so terrible. If we sent out posters for volunteers, and let the soldiers come to us, giving them salary and pride for service, then it would be fine. Millions of lives has been lost in the UN's inefficiency. The cost of billions of dollars is worth saving those millions of lives. And it actually wouldn't cost as much as you think. Just about 12,000 to 15,000 soldiers would be enough, and the Security Council can take countrol of the army, with ability to veto a certain action, and it would only cost $2 billion dollars to begin, then $900 million annually from the nations. This would be actually not too much, considering the amount of nations within the UN to contribute to the UN. [source: https://www.lifesitenews.com...] I mean, look at the list of all the members in the UN [source: http://www.un.org...], having them share that $2 billion startign amount and $900 million wouldn't put too much of a burden. It really wouldn't be as expensive as my opponent puts it. And even if not all nations were involved, we can even stretch to other nations neutral to the UN. I mean, we give money, they choose to come or not! It's a win-win situation.As for different languages, we can just hire lots of translators within the bugdet. Not that we would need them anyways, we just have to show them what to do, and they'll probably understand. Even if my plan doesn't work, these arguments are non-unique. These problems are addled within our current UN too, no? Who commands the volunteers currently? What happens if multiple members send their people to the UN to work with? All I need is something better than the status quo. And what could be better than saving millions of lives?