The UN is necessary and needs to stay.

Alrighty, opening arguments.Contention 1: Concert of Europe solves.Through taking the Libertarian stance one can easily use the example of the Concert of Europe as a key example on how the world can opperate without a United Nations. One of the key issues many people take is that of the UN's legilature and that of their imposing on national sovergnty. If we look at history we can see many key alliances hava actually helped beter the world. The first is the Concert of Europe. This occured after the French uprising was crushed. It contained 5 nations, Russia, Britian, France, Prussia/Germany, and Austro-Hungry. [1] The Concert was split into two camps at all times and it would always be 3-2. This was enough to prevent a major war for well over 100 years. They even put down many revolutions that would have threatend the well being of the world. The greatest thing that it prevented was that of a World War over Africa. Prussia and France called out the Congress of Berlin, or also called the Berlin Conference, help set up claims of colonies all over the world that prevent the wars between nations over African colonies almost like what occured between Britian and France's Sudan. [2] Though it wouldn't be until another 50 years later that the Concert ends with the begininning of World War 1. The second major coaltion is that of the Cold War. Aftter World War 2, the world was split into two camps, Capitalism and Communism. The west formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Communist East formed the Warsaw Pact. Despite this being an overly tension setting, it actually helped the world. Let's take the Cuban Missile Crisis for an example. The US was outraged to find Soveit missiles in Cuba, and JFK and Khruschev argued and finially agreed to withdrawl the missiles. Now you may ask why this was good. It was what the Soviet's gained out of the deal was that of the removal of US nuclear weapons from Turkey and that the US wouldn't invade Cuba. [3] A lot of people made it better off because of this. Not to mention that no direct war occured between the two sides occured much like the there was no direct confronation between US and USSR.Contention 2: UN Peacekeeping....fails! "...observing cease-fires and the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex model of many elements – military, police and civilian – working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable peace." [4]Here we can see direct text from the UN on peacekeeping. We can see nowhere in there does it give permission to engage. In order for them to do that they need to get certain permission from the Security concil, which I'll get into in my next contention, which they have to do on a situation to situation basis. Times when they actually get permission it's a little too late. Many times the UN just fails to do anything. The UN sent peace-keepers during the Rwanda Genocide, but yet all they did was sit and watch. [5] In the Bosnia crisis they only declared safe areas instead of intervention which would've saved lives had the UN actually helped fight. The crux is that many times that they actually make things worse. In Congo, the UN peacekeepers had actually made things worse than anyone could imagine. The thing was that the Peacekeepers were going around raping and pilidging the countryside, because they were escentially board. [6] When we cannot even help this is what happens.Contention 3: Broken LegislatureOn the security concil is that of USA, France, Russia, China, and Britian. This is a joke when it comes to representation as nothing will get done as the veto is poscessed. If China has a problem with something the other 4 members support then the issue is that of the resolution will not pass. The same can be said for peacekeeping. One of these nations can object to engagment and it doesn't happen. Then you'll wind up like what we had in Congo. Another thing that is broken in their own legislation. Their voting is one per nation not by population. That's like the HR Alaska having the same Representation as California. It's a terrible representation. To further this they impede on the sovergnty of other nations where 2/3's of the world nations can tell the other 1/3 to act. We all know that cultures and the ethics are different throughout the world and we shouldn't tell others how to behave as we wouldn't want someone doing the same to us like Iran attempting to preform Shira Law on the US. It wouldn't be acceptable.Sources1. ( http://www.britannica.com...) 2. ( http://courses.wcupa.edu...) 3. (http://www.loc.gov...) 4. ( http://pbpu.unlb.org...) 5. ( https://www.foreignaffairs.com...) [Use web archive]6. ( http://www.aljazeera.com...)