whaaa?!?

colonialist bassturds!!1!!!2!!!!

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday the United Nations was not a party to the conflict in Ivory Coast despite having opened fire on one of incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo’s military bases.

…Ban said he had instructed the UN peacekeeping mission in Ivory Coast “to take the necessary measures to prevent the use of heavy weapons against the civilian population,” with the support of French forces.

But, again, the opposition has no “official” military, being that they are not an “official” government, despite the disagreement over who really won the 2010 election. So are they the “citizens” being “protected?” Or is the regular “man on the street” the protected citizen? No clear definition of the protected status of “protected citizen” is forthcoming from the UN — who is “not a party” to its own “peacekeeping” mission, anyway.

So there’s that.

France on Tuesday defended its military intervention in Ivory Coast, saying France’s ‘sole objective’ was to help the United Nations mission neutralize the heavy weapons used by forces loyal to incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo against civilians.

Helicopters belonging to the French peacekeeping mission Unicorn and UN peacekeeping mission UNOCI carried out airstrikes Monday night in Abidjan against two army bases, the presidential palace and the presidential residence.

oooooh. Still figuring out how the skittles were deployed….

In a joint operation the United Nations mission UNOCI and former colonial power France’s force Licorne (Unicorn) targeted Gbagbo strongholds.

“We launched the operation to protect people by putting heavy weapons, used by special forces of Laurent Gbagbo against people and against the UN peacekeepers, out of harm’s way,” said UNOCI spokesman Hamadoun Toure.

“putting heavy weapons… out of harms way” … by using heavy weapons.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The joint military action followed an “urgent” request for help by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in a letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, officials said.

“It is urgent to launch necessary military operations to put out of action the heavy arms which have been used against the civilian population and the peacekeepers,” Ban wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by AFP.

But you’re “not a party.” Gotcha.

7 Comments!

  1. Laurence
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 7:38 am |

    In Rwanda, the machete was a weapon of mass destruction. The UN-backed, unofficial army is doing just fine without heavy weapons:

    Tens of Thousands of Refugees Trapped at Christian Compound After Mass Slaughter in Duékoué

    Hundreds of Christians were reportedly slaughtered last week outside the Salesian Saint Teresa of the Child Jesus mission in Duekou, Ivory Coast by predominantly Muslim troops loyal to president-elect Alassane Ouattara. Forces loyal to the UN-backed Ouattara made gains against the army loyal to sitting president Gbagbo, seizing swaths of western territory outside of their traditional northern stronghold last week. Rebels allied with Ouattara were also accused of carrying out revenge killings in a predominantly Ebrie village, an ethnic group that voted in large numbers for Gbagbo.

  2. Posted April 5, 2011 at 7:54 am |

    Don’t think it can’t happen here.

  3. bocopro
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 9:47 am |

    Ban Ki Moon
    is a
    Foo King Tool

  4. DougM
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 10:35 am |

    It’s not “colonialism,” it’s world-governance’s new doctrine “duty to protect.”
    (What? No, nobody voted for it. Progressivism doesn’t consider “consent of the governed” relevant.)
    This is what “international law” means to Progs. It’s not “law” as commonly enacted by the people, and it’s not just “treaties” as formally agreed-to by states, it’s the imposition of wisdom by governance, aka the whim of the enlightened for the betterment of the great unwashed. You know, that old Euroconcept, the enlightened despot.
    (What? Well, yeah, okay … “colonialism.”)

  5. Claire, Unreasonable, Ideologically Stubborn Ruralite
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:02 am |

    “colonialism” / “duty to protect.”
    tomayto / tomahto

  6. iD
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:05 am |

    How do they choose which side to fire upon? Is is about democracy? I haven’t seen any democracy among the Libyan rebels. Is it about who’s committing the most atrocities? That one can change from day to day. Is a “popular revolt” always to be supported? Agitators, often from outside the country, can instigate uprisings. It can be difficult to tell apart an organized force and a mob. Alliances shift; today’s “good guys” can be tomorrow’s “bad guys”.

    The UN is wading into some very murky waters here. Who is watching the watchmen?

  7. Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:28 pm |

    I almost hate to say this, but I’ve got their “Heavy Weapon” right chere.

    Hey, somebody had to say it.