United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations

The essence of Fourtroubles position is the disempowerment of the good and the transfer of power to the evil. =Why self defense is insufficient=FT never really disputed much of my analysis. He agrees that force stops violence and that the UN's refusal to use force caused the Rwandan genocide. He says that self defense includes defense of the mandate, which is true but here's the issue with that analysis: Since FT's position has sway at the UN and mine doesn't, the mandates will always be crafted in such a way that minimizes the ability of the Peacekeepers to implement lethal force.Let's look at the mandate the Peacekeepers had for the mission to Rwanda before the genocide began in earnest[1]. The mandate assumed that the war was over and was all about the transition to peace and implementing a new government. Once the genocide broke out, the mandate effectively became invalid. I'm not an attorney. It's possible that the use of lethal force in the defense of the mandate may have still been technically justified under the self defense principle but the use of force is incredibly unclear ("force" does not even appear in such a context in the document), and considering that the UN totally withdrew the troops it sent in to enforce the mandate I doubt it. As the New Internationalist writes[2]: "The UN troops did not use force to get past the roadblocks. They did not take on the killers because their mandate did not permit it. Their mandate was to keep the peace but there was no longer any peace to keep." By now you're probably sick of hearing about the Rwandan genocide, but it's just such a salient example of why FT's position is not tenable. Here's the big takeaway: Because the Peacekeepers are not allowed to be sent on offensive missions, the UN chose to withdraw an army that could have saved thousands and possibly put down the genocide rather than change the mandate to "Kill the bastards." This is going to happen again if we go with FT's plan. FT never responded to the Congo example: When we ignored his advice and sent in men authorized to kill, the problem was resolved very quickly. The impact of this can't be overstated: We have two experiments competing here. Which methodology do we choose? FT's, which leads to nothing but death and damnation, or mine, the real world effects of which he never even bothered to dispute? Vote Pro.FT keeps us from using every piece we have on the chessboard. =Why coalitions fail=FT makes no response to the fact that coalitions take too long to build. The Rwandans put down their genocide themselves in less time than it took to build a coalition to go into Iraq. They would've put it down a lot sooner had they had an army of Peacekeepers at their side, but impartiality and pacifism were more valuable to the UN than human lives. FT doesn't really dispute that coalitions often undermine each other but rather argues that a piece of paper granted by the UN fundamentally changes the incentive structures of nations. He does however note that the UN hasn't authorized a coalition since it withdrew from Syria. Is there any place where the UN doesn't turn and run at the slightest threat of force? Considering that the UN is incredibly reluctant to authorize coalitions, we really should be willing to use every asset to its full capacity if we want to stop evil.FT notes that soldiers are provided by member states, which is true, but he argues that the same conflicts of national interest apply. This really isn't true. For one, the conflicts of national interests that often occur are rather petty. The US did not fund the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan because it wanted them to win, it funded them because it wanted the world to see the USSR to lose. A coalition where no nation gets the glory is completely irrelevant in the propaganda/proxy wars that make up conflicts between nations in the current world. Indeed, if the US donated forces to help stop a genocide it would be in the national interests of China and Russia to donate even more. Moreover, the UN still has substantial political pressure among member states and substantial coordination power that other nations simply do not have. It's far easier for the UN to convince nations to act that it is for the United States or anyone else.We had a ready made army standing there, begging for authorization to stop the genocide in Rwanda. FT thinks its better to withdraw them, spend several months cobbling together a coalition, and hope that the survivors understand that it was important for the Peacekeepers to not engage in offensive force because that would've been mean.=FT's disadvantages= Despite his attempts to rehabilitate them, these objections are still incredibly frivolous and uncompelling. Remember that these are all specific to certain situations, and thus not really relevant. The resolution is not "Peacekeepers engaging in offensive operations are on balance preferable to coalitions", it's asking us if there are any scenarios where offensive operations are appropriate. And it's been made clear throughout this debate that there are many. FT argues about the totally irrelevant "rules" of war. It's incredibly easy to circumvent this disadvantage: don't use the Peacekeepers offensively in wars where this is a threat. It defies all reason that China or the US would've bombed the Peacekeepers if they had stopped the Rwandan genocide. The people I've advocated fighting against are not national armies but rather insurgents, terrorists, and militants who do not observe the rules of war. That the Belgian Peacekeepers were non-combatants did not stop the scum from murdering them. It did, however, stop them from fighting back. FT continues to argue about impartiality. I really don't care if the UN favors the side in a civil war that doesn't murder women and children with machetes. The credibility of any army stems from its force of arms. The Peacekeepers won't fight no matter what, which is why they have no credibility which is why insurgents can just murder them. The credibility of the UN was destroyed for years when they fumbled Rwanda so badly--when one side is a legitimate government and the other side consists of genocidal militants to be impartial is to be a coward. The other two disadvantages are even more frivolous: considering the FT believes that the UN Security Council is impotent it shouldn't matter if nations are less likely to support enforcement operations under my plan. They won't authorize any. It doesn't matter, though. The plan is not even for offensive force to be used that often. The plan is to keep the option on the table. That these objections are so frivolous tells you all you need to know about the Con position: it's totally untenable, relying upon legalese and obscuration in the vague hopes that some judge will fall for it and deny the obvious point that armed men shouldn't stand by and let a literal genocide happen. Don't fall for it.To vote Pro you just need to acknowledge that a skilled chess player doesn't ignore a piece in the position to strike just because it's a less conventional move. FT would not allow armed men to step in and stop civilians from machete murder. That's really all you need to know about the Con position. Vote Pro. I have 650 characters left to reserve. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...