In regards to the "successful" UN-led peacekeeping missions, my main point was that there is no doubt that the UN is a powerful organization. So you're telling me that the UN is not capable of other measure besides "peacekeeping missions" or as you put it "military intervention" in pressuring Iran to change their positions? Again, I'm not well versed in international politics as it relates to the UN, so that's why I would hope other options would at least be discussed so that we can be well informed.
To be clear, my interests lie with the Iranian people who seek basic human rights. I really think there are other options besides invasion/infiltration versus not doing anything at all besides showing our solidarity and doing cheers.
i'm not disputing that the un peacekeeping operations and forces are capable and successful. but you also have to understand how big a quagmire the UN really is. and as far as pressures are you talking about trade sanctions? cause trade sanctions haven't worked so well in the past, lookit cuba or saddam's old regime, or even north korea. north korea is broke as hell cause of the sanctions and they're a major problem.
now lastly the other reason they cant send in peace keepers is because there's 2 military forces in iran and neither one would agree to have peace keepers in iran. IF let's say the iranian guard wakes up and says hey fuck this i'm not going to let the ayatollah's army kill our people. THEN maybe you could send in some peacekeepers cause then they wouldn't be a force surrounded on all side by enemies. my point is just that i think you have to wait. as hard and as heartwrenching it is, we have to wait. when it explodes into a civil war then we can back a side covertly, or incovertly. either way we still have to wait.
