Solid point, Bobert. The idea of "peace-keepers" carrying guns seems inconsistent in the extreme. "Fighting for peace is like fornicating for chastity!" But—

Realistically, the peace-keepers need to be stronger than the would-be combatants. The situation would be analogous to parents (or other grown-ups) stepping in and stopping a couple of children from beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats. If this means that the adults have to use their greater physical strength to separate the kids, stop the fight, and, if necessary, lock them into their respective rooms until they simmer down (knowing that if they start fighting again, the grown-ups will just haul them right back to their rooms), then that's more than adequate justification for the use of physical force.

The peace-keeping forces act in loco parentis, keeping the immature from harming each other or themselves.

The problem with the U. N. is that it is the immature have too much influence in the organization.

To change the analogy a bit, the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

The United Nations was a great idea—and still is. And it has worked well in a number of instances. But it may be that to make it work well consistently, it needs to be totally independent. In short, actually be a form of World Government.

One thing right off might be to seriously consider rescinding the veto power rule for members of the Security Council, so that one recalcitrant nation can't render the U. N. impotent in a given situation. Another would be to require members to supply the U. N. with a standing military force, under the command of the U.N., not the supplying nations, so that it would not be toothless in situations where it might need to go in and loom over potential combatants, or go into places like Darfur and bring such genocides to a screeching halt. Basically, it needs to have the power of a World Police Force, to do what police forces are supposed to do:   maintain the peace.

But darned few nations would be willing to give up even a smidgen of their sovereignty, even if it promised to put an end to all future wars. Why? Because there are certain governments extant (you don't have to look very far to find them) that see war as an essential tool of their economies. And, of course, the "black helicopter" paranoiacs would go even crazier. With the Brats in charge, the squabbling will probably continue endlessly.

The idea of the U. N. was excellent, but with a few exceptions, and for reasons I've just mentioned, the execution of the idea has fallen far short of what it could and should be.

For those sincerely interested in world peace, but who bad-mouth the United Nations, you might want to learn something about it before sounding off.   Read this.

By the way, does anybody remember the movie, "The Day the Earth Stood Still?" Maybe we need a race of powerful, indestructible, and impartial robots, like Gort, who gives us one warning through Klaatu:   "We have determined that you constitute a potential danger to the rest of the galaxy. Unless you cease your hostile behavior and learn to live in peace, we will destroy your planet. This is your only warning."

Don Firth