It isn't trolling. It's an observation of the obvious. You two appear willing to delude yourselves as to the true nature of the "Peacekeepers".
They do not fight. Nor do they keep the peace. The evidence is overwhelming. Rwanda and Srebrenica stand in mute testimony of the UN's ability to fight while "Peacekeeping".
Do they shoot back if shot at? I suppose they do and then they........leave.
As I said, explain Rwanda and Srebrenica to me if you're suggesting that UN Peacekeepers will fight to keep the peace. We all know they won't... can't. Not even when they have the proof it's coming, like Dallaire had.
If you are suggesting that they fight to defend themselves while they oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see, then that is just silly and POINTLESS.
Obviously if they get into a shooting fight while observing a ceasefire then there is no ceasefire. This is undeniable, I'd think.
Any forces that attack the UN "Peacekeepers" know up front that they control the engagement. They can shoot as long as they want and there may/may not be a UN reaction. However, once the attackers ceasefire, the UN will not pursue them, will not eliminate them as a threat to the "peace".
Obviously, in that situation there's no ceasefire. Tactically, it's a boneheaded situation in which to put your soldiers. Since their job is not to win a war or fight a battle or make peace, then they might as well just leave.. or not come at all.
Nope, you boys can't have it both ways.
If they are not there to win a war or fight a battle or make peace then civilian observers will do just as well.
When shot at, they can leave, just like the UN "Peacekeepers" do.
After all, if they're getting shot at, there's no peace anyway. And since they don't keep the peace, the whole thing is pointless.
The UN sends armed soldiers to give an impression of the ability to use force. However, the world figured it out long ago. It's all sizzle and no steak and can be safely ignored.
