Obama’s Sudan Challenge


Pages: 1 2

In little more than a hundred days President Barack Obama will face possibly the greatest foreign policy challenge of his presidency when southern Sudan votes January 9 on whether to establish an independent country. If the black African, predominantly Christian and animist South decides in the upcoming referendum to separate from the Arab and Muslim North, as is expected, it will become the world’s newest state.

Many people, especially southern Sudanese and also some Obama administration officials, are pessimistic that the referendum and its aftermath will unfold peacefully. A vote to separate, they believe, will simply see the Arab North resume the war with the South that ended in 2005 with the George Bush-brokered Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which called for the referendum. U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton alluded to this when she told the Council of Foreign Relations recently the North-South situation was “a ticking time-bomb of enormous consequence.

“But the real problem,” Clinton said, “is what happens when the inevitable happens and the referendum is passed and the South declares independence?”

War is the answer, if the Khartoum government’s past, and present, actions are anything to go by. Since independence from Great Britain in 1956, the South has already fought two wars against the North to protect its people from Arab oppression and atrocities.

Southern Sudan, an area of 227,000 square miles and about 11 million people, was once one of the main sources of slaves for the Islamic world. When the first civil war broke out shortly after independence from Great Britain in 1956, this barbaric practice, fuelled by the Arab world’s new oil wealth, soon reappeared. This first North-South conflict ended with a peace treaty in 1972, but not until 500,000 people, mostly southern Sudanese, had died.

The second Sudanese civil war, which ended with the 2005 CPA, began in 1983 when the Khartoum government discarded the 1972 peace accord and made Sharia the law of the land and Arabic the country’s only official language. The southern Sudanese heroically fought this attempt to force them to become Arab and Muslim, leading the North to declare jihad against its southern citizens in 1989.

In this second round of civil strife, the Sudanese Arab gave full vent to his hatred for the Sudanese black African, embarking on a policy of genocide that presaged Darfur. Two million people died in the renewed conflict –again, mostly southern Sudanese — and another four million were displaced while large parts of southern Sudan were devastated.

Under the CPA, 200,000 black southern Sudanese, captured during slave raids, were allowed to return home. One of them, Francis Bok, now an American citizen, told his story in Front Page Magazine of working ten years from age seven as a child slave for a cruel master.

The Government of South Sudan (GOSS) under Salva Kiir, a Catholic, is already preparing for “when the inevitable happens” by having a new national anthem composed and, more importantly, forging closer links with neighboring black African states, Uganda and Kenya. The latter has allowed weapons destined for the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (GOSS’s military force) to cross its territory and has sent officials to Juba, southern Sudan’s capital, to help with the transition. It is also building a new seaport to accommodate the expected increase in commercial activity from the new state.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_Mac

    I knew that the murder of John Garang so soon after the CPA had been successfully negotiated was the tell-tale sign the agreement was unlikely to succeed. The Sudanese government's preoccupation with Darfur was the only reason they settled.

    Let's remember that prior to the CPA, 1.5 to 2 million southern Sudanese were killed and/or deliberately starved to death in 25 years of Jihad waged from Khartoum. The legacy of genocide is fresh, folks.

    Meanwhile, for all the hatred of America in the Muslim world, the USA has consistently sided with Muslims in practically every post-WW2 conflict around the world (save for the Arab-Israeli conflict). We sided with Muslim Pakistan over Hindu India; Muslim Indonesia over Christian East Timor; Muslim Kosovo over Christian Serbia; Muslim Nigeria over Christian Biafra, etc.

    For God's sake, this time out, let's help the good Christians of Southern Sudan in their long, torturous fight for freedom. It is both ethically and strategically the right thing to do.

    • marysduby

      I agree but do you really think obama would support Christians???

      • Chezwick_Mac

        Probably not. Just one more of a mountain of reasons to vote him the hell out of office.

    • potkas7

      Please shed no tears for John Garang. I knew him – he put a price on my head in 1988 when my colleagues and I flew relief supplies into Southern Sudan to break the SPLA siege of Juba, the provincial capitol of Equatoria.

      It was Sen. Gordon Humphrey, the then junior Senator from New Hampshire, who arranged a short cease-fire to allow the free passage of aid into Sudan. Garang got so much favorable publicity from the gesture, that he let the deal continue. (The GOSS, on the other hand, blew up one of our airplanes with a landmine at the government garrison town of Wau, seriously injuring the crew in 1991). The short cease-fire morphed into what came to be known as Operation Lifeline Sudan, under the auspices of the UN and based in the Kenyan frontier town of Lokichoggio. Much of the funding for this came from the United States via the Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense (yes, DoD does humanitarian work.)

      I last saw Garang at Loki in, I think, 2005 as he was transiting the UN base for the Machakos peace conference and I was heading home at the end of my final tour of duty. He triumphed at the conference and died in a helicopter crash not long after the end of hostilities having become Vice President of Sudan.

      Southern Sudan is a marvelous place, with rich soil and the Nile River supplying water it could be the breadbasket of East Africa. If it only had peace. But the discovery of oil in Sudan and Uganda probably means the turbulence will continue. Yes, by all means, root for the independence of the southern Sudanese people, but realize freedom is something they'll have to grasp for themselves – we can just give it to them as a free gift.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        Garang was far from perfect. Many would accuse him of war crimes. But it he was who united the SPLA into an effective fighting force and compelled the Jihadis in Khartoum to come to terms. His helicopter crash was – in my opinion (and of course, I could be wrong) – Khartoum's revenge…and an attempt to splinter the SPLA via succession crises.

        As for your final sentence, could America have won its independence without the help of the French? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Could Vietnam have defeated the French and then the Americans without the help of Russia and China? Certainly not.

        Foreign assistance has played a role in almost every independence struggle throughout history. We need not send anyone to fight and die for the Southern Sudanese, but we can damn well establish a supply-line for arms and other forms of help.

        • potkas7

          But there is a supply line. There is a paved highway that runs from Nairobi to Lokichoggio. It was designed and built by the Israelis and paid for by the U.S. It exists precisely to channel supplies into Southern Sudan. Find Lokichoggio on Google Maps – how do you think the food and jet fuel got up to that isolated village? Enough food and fuel to supply a dozen C-130's air-dropping supplies at one point, plus fuel for all the little airplanes that ferried aid workers to and from Sudan. Loki once boasted more air operations each year than Nairobi, Mombasa and Eldoret combined!.

          Arms in Africa are pretty much ten-for-a-penny. The problem is not a lack of weapons, and more weapons are not the solution. The United States can be the deciding factor in the peaceful partition of Sudan (Something that should have happened when the Brits pulled out in the sixties but was not with the agreement of both the Arabs and Southern Blacks.) Despite what the Press says, the U.S. has great credibility in Africa and can and should play the role of honest broker in drawing the boundaries. This job requires leadership, not Marines.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            All well and good….if Bashir and the Islamists in Khartoum are willing to truly let go. But if they start annexing border regions, then the US should immediately recognize and establish diplomatic relations with southern Sudan, begin an intensive aid and training program to modernize their armed forces so that they can defend themselves from northern aggression and – until they are able to effectively do so – provide air cover for their forces in any fighting with the north.

            Your personal experiences in Sudan must have surely enlightened you to the true nature of the Bashir regime. It has perpetrated genocide twice over the last 30 years, once in the south and then in Darfur. The use of rape has been systematic in its strategy. I hardly consider the regime a trustworthy interlocutor in negotiations. Diplomacy might work, but only if Bashir is given a fait accompli.

          • potkas7

            At the time Omar al-Bashir overthrew Saddiq al-Mahdi I was flying out of Khartoum to the government-held towns like Malakal, Juba and Wau as well as to the rebel strongholds in Torit, Bor, and Akon. Believe me, I am under no illusions about Bashir or the Goverment of Sudan (GOS – which I mis-typed GOSS in an earlier posting.)

            Everything bad you say – rape, torture, famine as a weapon – is true. My sympathies all lie with the people of the south and I very much hope and pray for their independence. But there have been two civil wars so far – the last one taking two million lives – and there's not much to show for it. I don't see where a Round 3 would have a better outcome, especially since the Chinese have been upgrading Khartoum's war making capabilities. The people of the south, like the Dinka, the Nuer and the Fur are formidable fighters, but they're not soldiers, they're pastoralist nomads and subsistence farmers. You haven't seen anything until you see a Dinka patrol walking down a dirt track buck-naked with their Kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders.

            The United States can use its considerable influence to midwife the partition of the country if it so chooses. But before you awaken the sleeping sword of war I caution you consider the question of how you would support an army in the field. The Arab north has Port Sudan and the railways for logistical support and all of Arabia and China backing them up. What support can you offer the tribes of the south?

          • Chezwick_Mac

            "What support can you offer the tribes of the south?"

            Air cover from bases in Djibouti and Kenya…not much help in a guerrilla campaign, but decisive against a conventional army.

          • potkas7

            Ever been to Djbouti? I have. The maximum useful load on an aircraft when the outside temp hits 125+ degrees is pretty low. Heck, you can barley keep the engines running in that heat! I've seen it so hot in Djbouti that the fire brigade has to shoot water into the intakes of an old Antonov just to get the engines to start!

            Are you willing to stay the course in Sudan for ten years? Brushfire wars tend to last through generations. What is the compelling national interest? What's the goal – aside from wanting to 'Do Good?' I worked in Somalia from 1992 – 1995. We began there with a clear humanitarian purpose and ended in a muddle as 'Mission Creep" set in.

            Put away your musket. The best thing we can do is link arms with the Brits – Sudan was part of British East Africa after all – and make it clear to the Islamic government in Khartoum that Europe and America will require them to abide by the results of the election. We will have the support of Kenya and Uganda, neither of which wants an Islamic government on its border – Kenya already has enough trouble with the Muslims in its coastal towns like Lamu and Mombasa. Ethiopia too could play a role since they share a border with Sudan. To cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war is the last choice, not the first.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            "Are you willing to stay the course in Sudan for ten years? What is the compelling national interest? What's the goal – aside from wanting to 'Do Good?"

            RESPONSE: The "compelling national interest" is strategic; unlike in Somalia, where we were nation-building with no compelling national interest, establishing southern Sudan as an independent, pro-Western regime with non-Islamic roots has region-wide implications. With its oil wealth, southern Sudan could become a bulwark against Jihadist ambitions in East Africa.

            "The best thing we can do is link arms with the Brits…and make it clear to the Islamic government in Khartoum that Europe and America will require them to abide by the results of the election."

            RESPONSE: And if they don't?

            "To cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war is the last choice, not the first."

            RESPONSE: Agreed. And considering the nature of the regime we are dealing with, we best prepare for the possibility of last resort.

          • potkas7

            Sudan is of "Strategic Interest to the Untied States?" Sorry mate, but your good intentions are running away with you.

            The reason it's called Sudan is because of the Sud, a large swamp dividing the north and south of the country. It's like the Florida Everglades. So we're not talking about massed ranks of armor defending the Fulda Gap from tank assault here.

            The south of the country is pastoral with villages made of thatched-roof, mud-walled huts. Juba would pass for an Urban Center and maybe Wau, but the rest of the country is very under-developed. Yes there's some oil but more important than that there's water. The White Nile begins in Lake Victoria in Uganda and flows north through Southern Sudan, joining the Blue Nile from Ethiopia at a point just behind the Sheraton Hotel in Khartoum. There it becomes "The Nile" we all know from history books. The Arab north and Egypt do not want the people of Southern Sudan to have control of their water supply. That's the causus belli.

            The South is mostly Christian and Animist it's true but roots of Islam in Sudan go back to before the discovery of the New World. There are also large Muslim populations along Kenya's coast, Somalia, Djibouti, and smaller populations in Uganda and Ethiopia. Islam is a fact of life in the region and there's no getting away from it.

            The conflict between the Arab north and the Black African south is not new. Gen. Charles "Chinese" Gordon, the British General immortalized in the, ultimately futile, defense of Khartoum during the Mahdi Rebellion, made his bones as Governor of Equatoria Province deploying his Red Coats to partition the country so as to prevent Arab slavers from coming south. (The Mahdi was the 19th Century's Osama bin Laden)

            The problem with us Americans – and I count myself here – is that we look at a bad situation and think "We could fix that…it would be easy…all you have to do is…" But Africa has been breaking hearts for centuries. The U.S, can play a constructive role , and can be a force for good, but it's a job for the diplomats not the soldiers.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            I was broadly familiar with all these facts you rattled off, but immediately noticed a mistake…

            "There are also large Muslim populations along Kenya's coast, Somalia, Djibouti, and smaller populations in Uganda and Ethiopia."

            Actually, Ethiopia is close to 50% Muslim, and its future as a multi-confessional, secular state is – like Nigeria – surely in doubt. Your're obviously a decent fellow with good intentions, but – your personal experiences in the region notwithstanding, you don't necessarily have a lock on the appropriate vision for its future.

            As for southern Sudan, its existence IS in the strategic interests of the USA if it evolves into a pro-Western, non-Islamic polity. It is part and parcel of a broader civilizational struggle of which Africa is a major battleground.

            And as for your insistence that our role in the region should be confined to diplomacy, I reiterate, what if – in the end – the Sudanese Arabs reject our diplomatic efforts? Should we allow another genocide to be perpetrated onto the South? Should we dither and dally as we did in Darfur while 400,000 were killed and hundreds of thousands of others were raped?

          • potkas7

            When you say things like Sudan is a strategic interest but Somalia, with its dominant position on the Indian Ocean and the approaches to the Red Sea, plus its port facilities at Mogadishu and Kismayu is not, I suggest you take a moment to reflect upon the fact that control of the sea lanes is by definition a strategic interest.

            And when you suggest running offensive air operations from a place like Djibouti is a good idea, it tells me you're thinking with your heart and not your head.

            Think about it for a moment. Are you really suggesting we deploy troops in a swamp in the middle of nowhere while Islamic rebels in a failed State like Somalia controls the ocean at our rear?

            Sitting at home, looking a computer screen, and thinking about faraway places you've never been, it's easily to imagine that you have all of the answers of how to structure a society, organize an economy, develop a legal system and draw boundaries on a paperl map. When I got to Africa in the 1980s I thought I was looking at the beginning of a hundred years of peace and prosperity. I was wrong, and so are you. 23 years later not one darned thing has changed. And it looks like we're on the verge of repeating the cycle.

            What gets America into trouble around the world is not our worst but rather our best impulses. I applaud you for your obviously heart-felt desire to help. Just don't be too disappointed if your dreams turn to ashes. As I said before: Africa has been breaking hearts for centuries.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            "When you say things like Sudan is a strategic interest but Somalia, with its dominant position on the Indian Ocean and the approaches to the Red Sea, plus its port facilities at Mogadishu and Kismayu is not, I suggest you take a moment to reflect upon the fact that control of the sea lanes is by definition a strategic interest."

            RESPONSE: On the contrary, Southern Sudan's importance is 1) in its oil and 2) as a non-Muslim polity resisting Islamic aggression. You may not see Jihad in strategic terms, but I certainly do. The local is global.

            "And when you suggest running offensive air operations from a place like Djibouti is a good idea, it tells me you're thinking with your heart and not your head."

            RESPONSE: You seem to be telling me that all our (and France's) facilities in Djibouti are worthless because of temperature. I don't buy it for a second.

            "Think about it for a moment. Are you really suggesting we deploy troops in a swamp in the middle of nowhere while Islamic rebels in a failed State like Somalia controls the ocean at our rear?"

            RESPONSE: You don't listen very well. I never said anything about deploying troops. I said we should use air power to prevent the massing of conventional Arab forces against the SPLA, who are otherwise capable of defending themselves. As for Somali pirates, certainly they are a nuisence to commercial shipping, but are you for a minute suggesting they might somehow threaten our navy?

            "Sitting at home, looking a computer screen, and thinking about faraway places you've never been, it's easily to imagine that you have all of the answers of how to structure a society, organize an economy, develop a legal system and draw boundaries on a paperl map"

            RESPONSE: Rather presumptuous and condescending. You're suggesting I have no real-world experience to guide me in my geo-political formulations.

            "What gets America into trouble around the world is not our worst but rather our best impulses."

            RESPONSE: I agree. We ought to act judiciously…and always in our national interests. Beating back Muslim attempts to Islamize the African Continent qualifies.

          • potkas7

            You're right, I have no way of knowing if you have any real-world experience, but I think I can say without fear of being proved wrong that you've never been in East Africa.

            Look, let's just leave it at this. You have your opinion, I have my experience. Time will tell who's right.

          • sebyandrew

            My thanks to you and CMAC for the discussion.

          • topeka

            potkas7 – when is the book coming out??

            You have me convinced – you have seen of what you write – and many others need to see it too. Such a talent with the experience – we need that. It will never be a hollyweird movie, unless you fictionalize it with yourself as the villian, but I think wingnuts like myself would appreciate the effort.

            As for war: No doubt you are right. But not going to war is not the same as not doing anything. Simply by not backstabbing our allies, or being fickle, fair-weather friends, always looking for a chance to shower our enemies with aid and comforts and cash – well, heh, much would be accomplished. Merely withholding "aid" to merciless nutjobs (and withstanding the ensuing name-calling on CNN) would help-something the current regime cannot handle.

          • African Queen

            Ethiopia is about 63% Christian, and only about 34% Muslim, not "close to 50%".

          • NORBERT

            Nationmasters.com and wikipedia side with Chezwick

          • potkas7

            The CIA World Factbook says:

            "Orthodox 43.5%, Muslim 33.9%, Protestant 18.6%, traditional 2.6%, Catholic 0.7%, other 0.7% (2007 Census)
            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl

          • Nick Shaw

            Anything above 5% Muslim is enough when one side holds to turning the other cheek while the other will resort to removing the head along with the proffered cheek. Just sayin'. This for African Queen. Otherwise, great discussion guys!

    • ajnn

      “no one can impose peace and progress on another nation.” – it may be true, but, if so, then what does that mean for our own foreign policy ? our own actions ?

      • Nick Shaw

        "May be true" ajnn? Japan and Germany spring to mind, not to mention half of Korea though that may be a stretch. I'm sure there are a couple more. Sorry, couldn't find the quote above that you note so I respond to you.

  • Rifleman

    Massacres almost never occur unless one side is unarmed or disarmed. All the animists and whatever Christians (who were the main targets of Khartoum in the 80s and 90s) survive in Sudan need are leadership, organization, weapons, and training. With that they can beat any army Khartoum and the rest of dar al islam (which has and will join the fighting) sends forth.

    Leadership will be the hardest to fill.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    All agreements between Muhammadans and kafir infidels are temporary Hudnas, intended to eventually be broken per Muhammad’s treaty of Hudaibiyah. Hence, it was always inevitable that the Islamic north in a matter of time would ultimately break the CPA, as all jihads of conquest are permanent. Hence, the only way to neutralize the jihad permanently is to use the oil wealth of the south to make the Christian south stronger than the Islamic North.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    When a writer praises the USA for siding with Muhammadans against Christian Serbs for the creation of the Muhammadan state of Kosovo in the heart of Europe, we know we are dealing with a useful idiot writer.

  • Nick Shaw

    Where ya' been ObamaYo ? Remember what The One said about the Sudan/ Darfur in Germany? Yeah, that's gonna' happen! There is no way on God's green earth (in the real sense, not the environmentalist) that American presense will be felt in the Sudan once the killing starts, other than some sternly worded notes. I know none of us, the sane ones anyway, want to get into a full out, balls to the wall fighting war against Islam, 'cause that's what it would be if the peoples of South Sudan are to be assisted. But, as I noted earlier on another story, it's about time we just get it over with. I suggest the campaign be called "Desert Glass". I hope it catches on. Mind you, given the state of African politics, you never know the mettle of those you back, right? At some point in the future America will evolve into the bad guy 'cause this or that dictator or despot was supported with US largess. Maybe Randy Newman said it best. I'll let you look up the tune.

  • Wesley69

    The North will not let the South secede with all the oil. If some deal could be brokered to divide this region to give the North a portion of this resource, maybe civil war can be avoided. Don’t hold your breath, though. China is definitely interested in the oil, and we all know their record on human rights. With Obama???? He did not support the Iranians in their protests against the rigged election of Ahmadinejad.
    .He did not support the forces of democracy in Honduras when they removed their would-be dictator. He wants out of Iraq and is looking for the way out in Afghanistan. The people of Southern Sudan will most likely receive no help from this President, probably no condemnation of the North either. God protect the people of Southern Sudan. The world will probably not know of the many martyrdoms to come once the jihad begins, brought to you by the religion of peace.

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

    • scum

      Didn't know it was Obama's job to illegal interfere in Iran. Didn't know it was Obama's job to support the illegal removal of the president of Honduras. The occupation of Iraq was a product of intentionally misleading intelligence, and even Bush said we weren't there to 'occupy'. Why do you want to occupy a foreign country?
      Obama rightly claimed the Bush had basically ignored Afghanistan. If you bothered to read the news, you would see that Obama has dramatically increased the number of forces in Afghanistan, not 'looking for a way out.' Please take off your rose-colored glasses…

      • Nick Shaw

        "illegal removal of the president of Honduras"? You do live up to your name, Pond.

      • Wesley69

        Rose- colored glasses?? I will take each of your points one at a time.
        1 – The world will benefit from regime change in Iran. If they get the nuke, they will start WWIII to bring the return of the Twelfth Imam. Obama said nothing and the Mullahs ruthlessly put down the protests.
        2- Obama supported the reinstatement of the Hondurian President, not his removal.
        3. – The same intelligence was possessed by many countries including Russia. When Hussein refused to allow inspectors in and a last minute offer to leave, we invaded. Personally, I would have bombed Iraq until Hussein had nothing left and I would not have spent any money rebuilding or sending in US soldiers.

        • Wesley69

          4- .Ask China about its occupation of Tibet.
          5- We did ignore Afghanistan because the Tailban had been overthrown. We turned out attention to Iraq. The Taliban learned new tactics around 2005, called the suicide bomber. The Taliban also hid in Iran and Pakistan.
          6. – One think I do is read the news, so don't tell me anything. You do not know me. Let me inform you about something you missed. He did add troops, yes. He has also said he will begin withdrawal next year. He has said, he is looking for an exit strateghy. Doesn't sound like he is looking to win. Read Bob Woodward's book, Obama's Wars. I believe, my misinformed friend, you will be in for a shock. You need to open up your eyes!!!!!!

  • Rifleman

    Sure, I'm for as many Israels as we can get. Many Americans always have supported Israel.

    "Would US support for Israle BEFORE 1970 have made a difference today ?" Less dead Americans and Israelis, for certain, but nothing will make a decisive difference as far as the 'palis' are concerned until they get their butts kicked so bad they don't want any more to do with Israel. Unfortunately that may well require killing between half and 70%of them.

  • potkas7

    Huh? Better check your history book again. The United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel upon its formation in 1948. And Truman took that bold step in the face of much opposition from our allies.

    • Nick Shaw

      Recognition doesn't always result in support potkas7

      • Rifleman

        They were still using Shermans and Centurians in '67. We gave them what support they got, but it was rather pathetic compared to what the Pact gave Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq.

        • Nick Shaw

          But they did a heck of a job with those Centurians! I knew a fellow well in Canada that updated them for the Israelis. Great tank for it's day and this guy made them a bit better.

          • Rifleman

            The IDF sure did (like they did with their Air Force, long before they got F-15s and F-16s), and they sure were good dependable tanks. That was quite an engineering job to retro such big guns on those tanks, I imagine firing the main gun on them was bittersweet.

            The Golan battle is one of my top battles in military history, and there's still much about it I don't know. The US Army was using the IDF experience in US Armored and combined arms instruction in the late 80s. Their '56 and '67 wars were used as examples of how superior training and doctrine can overcome superior numbers and equipment.

  • blacknificient

    This is so sad. Slaversnot Europeans are supported by our first AfricanAmerican President? When Muhammad came to East Africa,hemadefunof thm.Never beforehad he seen so many ugly, black, raisin headed, pug nosed people created by Allah to be slaves to Arabs. Bukhari said so.
    Most Black Muslims are Muslims out of no choice as naiveness. Muslims tell Arabs that Black Africans are less than a donkey's penis and slaves to use or killed or do to them whatever. Are Blacks as stupid as Muhammad and scholars said?

  • Ret. Marine

    Ialamist believe the conquered lands belong to them forever, well this may come to a shock to them but they have not conquered any lands, they simple rule it with the threat of death and destruction, even of their own, i.e. Sunni-Shiite divide. No one wants to see any Christian Nation conquered by pedophiles, homosexuals, warring barbaric neanderthal muslims, not even the Christian South. Hussien obamas Bin Ly'n will do nothing to aleve the pain and suffering of the Sundanese people, he will not turn on his own sunnie tribe. Christian my ass, this punk is muslim and anyone trying to tell one another anything other than this is willfully ignorant, period.

  • Rifleman

    Oh yea it would. I'd rather have an army of jihadis in front of me than an army of UNFIL behind me.