The UN should have a Standing Military Force

The purpose of adding definitional sources to the terms "oligarchy" and "democracy" was to highlight that the two are fundamentally different, and that Pro seemingly had not decided on which specific system that the UN does indeed represent--something that's extremely important in making clear. While it's agreed with Pro that the overall General Assembly system is democratic, it should be demonstrated that not all countries within the UN are in fact democratic themselves. Out of the 193 member states only 87 are "fully democratic" or "fully free", meaning that only this non-majority 45% are presented as being fully-fledged democracies. This alludes again not all countries would be willing or able to cooperate in engaging in conflict and sending out their soldiers; moreover, they or other nation states may heavily disagree with those that do. If all member states are not democratic, this means that all member states do not share the same interests. Likewise, if non-democratic or non fully-fledged democratic states were to participate in any action, this would of course again significantly undermine the integrity of the UN is representing a fully democratic system that promotes entirely democratic values. (1.) http://www.humanrightsvoices.org... Pro further states: "But after a while of thinking, I finally came to conclusion. Indeed, united nations may be united nations, but its government still works well enough for it to have its own standing military and still work well. In addition, over the course of this debate Emily has failed time after time to truly assert exactly WHY you have to be a nation or have a government to have a standing military. In the ancient times, where there were no nations or government, in the state of anarchy, technically everyone consisted a "military" (hunting and killing animals, gathering food, etc.) to team up and hunt as well as gather (hunter-gatherers). Again, my opponent talks of how UN is not a nation in round two but never gives any logic, philosophy, or evidence for why something needs to be ONE nation to have a military. Why, cannot multiple nations SHARE a military? My opponent did move onto how the UN supposedly ruins its own democratic values (special pleading fallacy, as this does not support her first point), but I already refuted this with the fact that majority vote was STILL needed to deploy the troops even if the UN had a standing army."It should appear obvious that technically, only countries with actual sovereignty's are eligible to have their own army, something that still continues to be upheld and followed through within modern times. Nations have their own armies primarily to protect their own individual interests as nations. Pro attempts the refute the argument in stating that in ancient times--because of no existing nations or governments--that such a policy was not necessary, however, I should remind Pro that were quite obviously not living in ancient times and that now: clearly established nations do exist and that: clearly defined sovereignty's and governments also exist. The system of governance has progressed considerably since the time Pro is referencing to; something that he does not make fully apparent in only using the term "ancient"--something that could easily apply to ancient Egypt, a place that had an organized system of governance. The oldest civilization in the world is widely considered as Sumner, Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) naturally a definable form of governance developed here as well. Note: 4000 BC. (2.) http://www.anciv.info...(3.) http://www.humanities360.com...I'd reiterate to Pro that in current times we do not live in a state of anarchy without any systems of governance. The UN not being a "nation" should speak for itself, both Con and I have outlined that the UN is an "organization" and that is my exact basis on why it should not have a standing military. As also specified in my arguments, the UN is an organization with the stated aims of promoting democratic values and preventing conflict throughout the world through democratic measures, once more why it should not be able to enter conflicts militarily. Pro claims that my argument on the neutrality and democratic values of the UN being undermined is refuted by the fact that a majority vote would still be needed, however, he has failed to recognize what was implied by "neutrality" and "democratic values" and really confront the issue. Naturally, if the UN was to have a standing army (regardless of majority vote) the military power still exists and the widely upheld democratic values of the UN, particularly concerning its policies of prevention of conflict (diplomatically), are still contradicted. Moreover the neutrality of the UN as an impartial organization, without political or national affiliation, is again heavily impaired. If the UN intervenes with conflicts with a fully standing military, it no longer remains fully impartial. There is also the fact, as stated previously within this round, that all countries belonging to the UN (a majority) have fully-fledged or even part democracies. "Secondly, my opponent sources the implication that UN soldiers MAY be experienced, but are they? They crush their own privilege. They failed to save a myraid of countries, and they act completely the opposite of what an honorable military is supposed to act. It is exactly a military the UN needed to solve the problems I posed within round two. The UN has some effect with its peace-keeping forces. It will have FULL effect only if it has a standing military."First off, it isn't an "implication", rather it explicitly states that current UN soldiers are experienced. Issues that may have taken place in areas where these soldiers have been deployed may not necessarily be attributed to exclusively to weakness on their part. The question of how much improvement a standing army there would actually be in replacement of a full standing army, as with the current UN forces, these soldiers would soldiers from different countries, with varying dialects, there's no confirming that the level of professionalism will be that vastly superior. In order to make such improvements to decisively ensure that the military will make a difference, the financial cost would increase and more resources (such as better training/military equipment, etc.) would have to be invested in; and for a sustained period of time. Pro outlines that under his standing military that volunteers would be "dedicated, AND trained" and: "They gain free will, we gain effectiveness", relating to my point that dedication and particularly effectiveness cost money. He also fails to respond to my statements concerning long-term effectiveness of UN military involvement and how it would not actually solve conflicts occurring within the areas that troops are deployed within. He also did not fully rebut my inclusion of certain nations being in potential disagreement of others entering or sending out troops to certain conflicts, I'll use the example of a country like Russia again:If the UN was to vote for enhanced military action in Syria, and nations such as the U.K and the U.S were wanted in participation (and more to the point: were prepared), as previous situations show Russia would of course not be in opposition; noting that it has been fairly allied with Syria. Other examples can be used for surrounding Middle Eastern countries, and Asian and African ones. In response to (not) addressing that translators may not be needed; if international troops from different countries were deployed in places abroad, where locals and other people may very likely not speak English, then obviously translators would be necessary. Conclusion *Character limit* Firstly, my arguments towards Pro are unique and also absolutely apply to the UN, particularly as that's the topic we're debating.