[NormsRevenge]

no surprise, the ongoing UN mission to bring peace and prosperity to the Dark Continent no matter how many people they have to kill on either side to do it continues.. Hard to choose sometimes between repressive gubamint or rebels with machetes and ak47s... or worse yet, UN monitored territory which we may someday become

Folks that remember history , say 50 to 60 years ago may remember the bang up jobs they did in the Congo.. shades of 'Benghazi'esque behavior much like Rwanda and how the UN and Clinton regime held their tongues and turned its head when genocide was the order of the day there..

If the UN lives to be 100 , God only knows how many won't make it to 50 , the new 30

[ColdOne]

United Nations has attack helicopters?

[2ndDivisionVet]

U.N. attack helicopters hit rebels in eastern Congo Colorado

Future headline

[ColdOne]

Wait just a minute...the U.N. has attack helicopters but yet they want to take our guns away? just sayin’!

[GeronL]

Which side is which?

Why is the UN taking sides anyways?

[onedoug]

Which is the islamist side?

[Rebelbase]

U.N. attack helicopters hit rebels in eastern Chicago

Caught that title in my peripheral vision on a screen glance.

[coolbreeze]

In the early ‘60’s, the UN took the wrong side in the Congo, and they are still reaping the rewards of that ill-gotten harvest. They should have backed Tshombe in the Katanga Revolt, and we would have seen a wealthy, pro-western power in the heart of Africa instead of the tribal carnage we have now.