The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 868 times Debate No: 6128
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




Recently, terrorists took several hostages in various Mumbai hotels. The Indian police force ended the crisis with force. The resultant conflict left at least 188 dead and 293 injured (1). The Indian commandos took ten hours to reach the terrorists, were never supplied with adequate maps of the hotel, never attempted to take the terrorist alive, and did not posses any non-lethal weapons (2). The attack has been considered a major failure and lead to the resignations of the Indian Minister of Home Affairs, National Security Advisor, Maharashtra Chief Minister, and Deputy CM of Maharastra (3).
It is evident that the Indian counterterrorism forces could have done a better job. Furthermore, there are numerous highly trained and experienced counterterrorism forces around the globe (delta force, SAS, GSG9, et cetera). If The United Nations were to create a global version of such forces, then this force could be employed in cases such as the Mumbai attacks. This force could be brought together quickly, do its job, and then disperse. Each contributing nation would only have to send a few members of their counterterrorism force. The costs would be minimal, but the benefits, especially the lives saved, would be dramatic.


The U.N. has a Security Council which is headed by the 5 most powerful countries in the world. It is has an army and it's powerful. I am saying that they can use nuclear bombs, hi-tech gun and such.
The Mumbai Bombing has alot of alleged theories considering that terrorist attacks always has a cause, either ramsom or personal and political whines. Some experts says, the terrorist group is bombing and terrorizing countries which is an ally of the US, in fact India is one. Now, the UN Security Council is built to serve the people and to maintain peace in the international community and they already sent troops in India. However, it wasn't effective. If that is so, how would making a global Swat teams better? If in the first place, it wasn't effective?
Debate Round No. 1


An army and a counter-terrorist force are two completely differing things. Webster's dictionary defines and army as: "a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land". War is defined as: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" Counter-terrorism is defined as: "measures intended to combat or reduce terrorist activities." By definition an army's job is to make war, and thus cannot be counter-terrorism. Regular infantry are not the men needed to resolve hostage crisis's, trained experts are. The U.N's army simply does not have that training and expertize. Counter-terrorism is delicate work, and as a result counter-terrorist forces are highly specialized. Delta Force, the SAS, and GSG9 have the specialization, the U.N's army does not. The proposed counter-terrorist force would add a group with that specialization to the U.N's arsenal.


I believe there is no difference between the training met by the UN army. An average soldier is taught survival techniques, combat and technical capabilities. I also believe that a soldier is placed in a different sector like the Marines, the Navy, the Army or the Swat because of their own prerogative. If they want to be a S.W.A.T. they chose to be one. However, in every sector you get more than the basics, like when your in the navy you learn how to save lives in the water or how to survive the open ocean. It is like the U.N. peace army. They are the one of the most advance armies and they are trained to save lives on water or land. Also, they are trained to handle situations like hostage taking and bomb defusing. If you ask about their military techniques and strategies, they are also advance. Think about five MOST POWERFUL COUNTRIES making an army that handles alot of situation.

However, they didn't carry the terrorist attacks in India. Because, first they lack forces then and second the local police didn't cooperate well. Maybe, hiring more soldiers would be better rather than making another specialized group, which by the way the UN army is specialized for. If we would make a another specialized group, the UN can't afford it. Why? Because they have alot of problems concerning the international community like poverty and such. Second, it is worthless to make another specialized group in a group who specialized it already.

My opponent forgot to name what is this specialized thing of his. That's why, I'll make an assumption that this specialized thing is dress making or hygiene.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for being willing to debate this issue with me. This has certainly been a good debate. That said, the United Nation's Security Council posses as peacekeeping force (1). The stated mission of that peace keeping force is "to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. UN peacekeepers—soldiers and military officers, police and civilian personnel from many countries—monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist conflicting parties to implement the peace agreement they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including promoting human security, confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development" (2). The U.N's peacekeeping force tries to keep the peace after a conflict. Counter-terrorism, by definition, takes place before or during a conflict. The soldiers sent to the U.N are trained and provided by member countries (3). They undergo no new training. In most cases, the soldiers provided have only gone through basic infantry training. As I said above, counter-terrorism is delicate work that regular infantry cannot perform successfully. Counter-terrorism forces are so highly selective and go through such rigorous counter-terrorism training is because of just how delicate their work is. Counter-terrorism is like cancer surgery. The surgeon must be precise in his work because he must only remove tumor. To do that he needs a scalpel, not a hack saw. Counter-terrorism forces are a scalpel and the U.N's peacekeeping force is a hack saw. In fact, the U.N recently saw their need for a distinct counter-terrorism branch. On the 28th of September 2001, the U.N created a counter-terrorism committee (4). This committee can "Criminalize the financing of terrorism, Freeze without delay any funds related to persons involved in acts of terrorism, Deny all forms of financial support for terrorist groups, Suppress the provision of safe haven, sustenance or support for terrorists, Share information with other governments on any groups practicing or planning terrorist acts, Cooperate with other governments in the investigation, detection, arrest, extradition and prosecution of those involved in such acts; and Criminalize active and passive assistance for terrorism in domestic law and bring violators to justice" but it cannot use force. It cannot use force because it does not have force. Creating a U.N counter-terrorism force would empower the counter-terrorism committee to put actual force behind its actions. Lastly, I would like to mention that I have used 7 websites and a dictionary to back up my argument; my opponent has used exactly 0. The weight of evidence is on my side. The weight of human lives is on my side. I urge you to vote pro.


It looks that I won this debate. First, my opponent has supported my case and gave us a back ground about the UN and not the UN Security Council. He told us that the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) is in their mission to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. If that is so, it only means that the army or the forces of the UN Security Council is effective enough and maybe hiring more forces would be better. Well, the deadlock of this debate is which side best upheld peace and the fight on terror. This only standing issue was won by the Opposition because we told you that it's already effective enough for the UNSC forces to fight terrorist however they only lack more soldiers and arms. Secondly, I gave you a concrete incentive and proposal about the fight on terror.

Well, I plead that the voters would vote within the issue of peace.....
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vitalsign789 7 years ago
Wow yesterday I was winning....
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Before/After: Con
SWAT styled teams are not equivalent to Special Forces teams. Special Forces teams are much more highly trained and effective, and the UN has Special Forces teams. See "Operation Falcon Sweep", and others.

Conduct: Tie

S&G: Pro
Con does not have command of the English language, and that is obvious in his lack of grammatical skills.

Convincing Arguments: Tie
This seemed like a conversation between uninformed individuals rather than a debate. Neither side was convincing at all.

Sources: Pro
Only Pro presented sources.

3 points Pro, no points Con.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
The best argument against this is that the U.N. would get more power. The U.N. is not a country. The U.N is opposable. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to accept this debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
This is an interesting idea, worth thinking about seriously. After all, Al-qaeda operate across the globe and threaten us all, wherever we live, so why shouldn't the response to a terrorist attack also be international?
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
Delta Force, SAS, and GSG9 aren't really equivalent to SWAT..
Posted by Harlan 7 years ago
Ummm...Don't they?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rgibson 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06