Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
What, the UN goes in with no guns to stop two sides fighting? great plan!

For Israel to be stopped from unilateral, illegal action there needs to be a threat that will occur immediately, not a sharp letter passed to Israel's UN ambassador in a month's time. And Hesbollah too, but they are Terrorists after all, and I didn't think that needed stressing.

I did point out that the PDF already killed 4 UN peace keepers. How many have to die before you think that possibly something might be done? Yes, I know guns are nasty and possibly if peacekeepers offer both sides ear massages it might all go away, but if I were sent to the area I'd rather an aircraft carrier with Eurofighters onboard waiting off the coast.
I don't believe the UN should be going in. The conditions are not right.

Of course a soldier wants to know he has massive retaliatory backing, but this rarely, if ever happens for peacekeeping missions. If the mission is likely to end up in a firefight, you get the hell out. Otherwise it becomes peace-making, which is a whole different ballgame. Even US power can't enforce peace in Iraq, how much chance do you think anyone has in Israel's part of the Middle East?

It's precisely why countries are being very cautious about sending anyone. Everyone knows this will blow up again, and no-one wants to be there when it does.

Peacekeeping requires peace, and parties that want peace but need reassurance that the other guy wants it too. If they lose it momentarily, you have to take it on the chin and see if they will calm down. You are there to build calm, not ratchet up the body count.

Gung-ho attitudes are simplistic and lead to unforeseen consequences - ask Ehud Olmert.