The Instigator
bprovostNHS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
aperryNHS
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the United States take military action without the approval from the United Nations?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 39039
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

bprovostNHS

Pro

America should have the ability to take military action with or without the consent of the United Nations because time means everything when it comes to preventing aggressive acts against America. The United Nations has been effective in their actions to reduce violence in the world; however the UN does not act quickly enough. Should a threat to national or international security become present, the United Nations must go through the proper steps in order to secure safety by force ("Fact Sheet: A Comprehensive Strategy and New Tools to Prevent..." 1). Fortunately the world has not yet faced this crisis, but waiting for the United Nations to become officially involved on a heated topic could mean an increase in danger for the United States. Should the United States ever feel threatened by an enemy, it would be much faster for Congress to decide to invade foreign countries on its own, rather than wait for the United Nations' approval, support, or opposition. Time is a valuable thing, and it could potentially mean a strike against Americans, therefore it is key to act swiftly and logically when a threat manifests itself.

The United States should have the ability to take military action with or without the consent of the United Nations due to the fact that many innocent lives may be at stake should the UN not approve of action upon an issue. Thousands of Tutsis were killed during the Rwanda genocide of 1994, primarily due to the fact that the United Nations did not take part in the defense of the Tutsis during this horrific attack against humanity. "Bill Clinton often says his greatest regret as president is that he didn't do more to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. There were signs that trouble was brewing long before the killing started, but when it did begin, Mr. Clinton and the international community did not act decisively" (Dave and Pendergast 1). The United States did not respond for a multitude of reasons, but one of the main reasons was the fact that the United Nations did not approve military action against the violent genocides that were occurring in Rwanda. Rwanda presents a perfect example of what happens when the United States, the beacon of freedom and morality, does not respond to the call of justice. Had the United States gone against the United Nations, the amount of human lives that would have been spared would have been astronomical. Furthermore , in order to prevent violence and genocide around the world, the United States should make their own decisions to take military action with or without the approval of the United Nations.

"Fact Sheet: A Comprehensive Strategy and New Tools to Prevent..." Humanrights.gov. 23 Apr 2012: SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 16 Oct 2013.
Eggers, Dave, and John Prendergast. "In Sudan, War Is Around the Corner." New York Times. 13 Jul 2010: A.25. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Oct 2013.
aperryNHS

Con

The United States should not get involved in conclict without approval of the United Nations. Military interverntion is an incredibly violent and drastic measure that should be taken only if completely necessary in order to protect a nation that is threatened (History and Debate of Military Intervention). Often times, the powerful nations, like the United States, don't think about the ways a conflict could end piecefully through compromise and because of the usual jump into violence, the United Nations should be able to regulate which conlficts the United States get involved with. Along with the idea that the United States does not always think about possible peaceful options to end a fued, getting involved in disputes that are not "important" overall, or a serious threat to the contry itself, hurts the country more than helps. Billions of dollars are piled into a war effort, as well as thousands of lives. Thousands of soldiers will loose their lives negativly affecting the country that went in (History and Debate of Military Intervention). For this reason, the United States should not be able to get involved in conflict without the approval of the United Nations.

History and Debate of Military Intervention. Debate.org. 2013. Web. 18 October 2013.
Debate Round No. 1
bprovostNHS

Pro

bprovostNHS forfeited this round.
aperryNHS

Con

aperryNHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bprovostNHS

Pro

bprovostNHS forfeited this round.
aperryNHS

Con

aperryNHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bprovostNHS

Pro

bprovostNHS forfeited this round.
aperryNHS

Con

aperryNHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
bprovostNHS

Pro

bprovostNHS forfeited this round.
aperryNHS

Con

aperryNHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.