Sending armed UN peacekeepers is that wise?

“The UN has become a corrupt, useless,”

I think you are confusing the UN with the Bush adminstration.

Wolfgun, how is your followup different from your original question. My answer is the same. They should send them to help keep the peace and reduce violence.

Care to give any examples of where UN peacekeepers surrendered and handed over weapons to rebels? Peacekeeping missions are called for following a peace agreement, to help enforce the peace and reduce violence. They are not there to wage war.

So then the follow up that question whats the point of sending them anyway?

The UN peace keepers are there to ensure there is no one threatening the peace that has been agreed upon. Sure they have weapons, so that they can disable the threats to the peace, by force if necessary. Surely any weapon, any time can fall into Guerrilla hands, however that is the risk we must take to support the coalition. Yes they are permitted to fight. more so defend themselves, and disable threats to the peace agreement. If you never been to the UN, in NY city, I strongly urge you to. They are remodeling, so I do not know how soon they will open back up. But it is an experience, watching nations work together. All trying to follow the Golden rule. which you will see there (painting). All contributing one way or another, including providing peace keepers, to uphold their agreements.