Obama’s ‘Stable’ New World: A Middle East In Flames


Barack Obama addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly in New YorkPresident Barack Obama delivered his annual address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2013, the opening day of the UN’s general debate session with many heads of state and other government leaders present for the occasion. He tried to articulate a middle ground for the United States between continued engagement in long, expensive nation-building exercises, which he rejected, and disengagement from the world, which he also rejected. He said that “the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries.” However, he said that it would be a mistake for the U.S. to disengage from the world.

“I believe America must remain engaged for our own security,” the president declared. “I believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional – in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.”

Presumably, the reference to American exceptionalism, a notion which Obama himself has pooh-poohed in the past, was meant as a rebuke to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent New York Times op-ed column in which Putin had offered his critique of this idea.

At the same time, President Obama recognized that the United States cannot always go it alone. He supported collective action to address mass atrocities, including “multilateral use of military force” in certain circumstances:

We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, and we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda or Srebrenica? If that’s the world that people want to live in, then they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

The Obama speech focused in substance on the troubled Middle East region, with particular attention to Syria, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In broad terms, President Obama said that the United States would be prepared to “use all elements of our power, including military force,” to secure certain core interests in the Middle East and North Africa:

We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people…

And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.

Obama warned the assembled world leaders that if there is no strong Security Council resolution to verify that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime is keeping its commitments with regard to the collection and destruction of all of its chemical weapons, with “consequences” for non-compliance, “then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws.” That sounds a lot like what former President George W. Bush said about the UN ten years ago regarding the Security Council’s failure to act forcefully with respect to the Middle East dictator of that day who had used chemical weapons against his own people – Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

In a direct slap at Russia, which has continued to raise questions about the source of the August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack in Syria, Obama declared that “It is an insult to human reason – and to the legitimacy of this institution – to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” He then proceeded to claim that it was his “credible military threat” which sparked diplomatic progress to resolve the chemical weapons crisis peacefully.

If Obama thinks that the threat of “unbelievably small” strikes – to quote Secretary of State John Kerry – had any real effect other than to make Obama look foolish, he is living in a world of make-believe.

In any event, it remains to be seen whether discussions underway among the permanent members of the Security Council will lead to consensus on a binding resolution. Russia is resisting any mention of the use of force in the event of Syrian non-compliance. The United States, the United Kingdom and France want a resolution with real teeth, which means incorporation of the Security Council’s enforcement powers set forth in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. French President François Hollande later told reporters, following his own speech to the General Assembly, that an eventual resolution may focus on sanctions as the Security Council’s enforcement mechanism.

Further proof of Obama’s make-believe state of mind was his assertion that “the world is more stable than it was five years ago.” In truth, we have gone from bad to much worse.

The Middle East is literally in flames, with more than 120,000 dead in Syria alone and millions of displaced Syrians overrunning the capacities of neighboring countries to receive them.

Christians are being slaughtered or driven from their homes all over the Middle East.

While Egypt remains in turmoil, Obama misrepresented his administration’s policy there as one of neutrality. In fact, the Obama administration had tilted heavily in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama threw former President Muhammad Hosni Mubarak under the bus. Mubarak was a repressive dictator to be sure, but the Egyptians are even worse off since Mubarak’s overthrow, while the continuing unrest in Egypt has triggered instability in the surrounding region.

Obama boasted about putting an end to the war in Iraq. However, tragic killings have greatly intensified since Obama pulled out all American troops. Even he acknowledged that “killings and car bombs continue to be a horrific part of life.” To be more precise, this year alone, according to the United Nations, almost 5,000 people have been killed and another 12,000 injured in Iraq. That is much less stable a situation than when Obama took office, not to mention the fact that Iran has consistently used Iraqi air space to conduct weapons transfers to the Assad regime.

Obama tried to put a positive spin on the outcome in Libya, although acknowledging “the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.” He said that the situation would have been much worse in Libya had Muammar Gaddafi been allowed to remain in power. The price of forcing regime change of a dictator who posed no strategic threat to the United States, however, was to unleash jihadists and the flow of weapons to Syria and neighboring countries in Africa, which is far more destabilizing than conditions in the region were five years ago.

Indeed, jihadist violence is on the march in many parts of Africa. Yet the terrorist group operating in Africa which Obama chose to focus on was the Lord’s Resistance Army. This terrorist group is described by some as a cultist militia driven in part by an extreme fundamentalist Christian ideology. To be sure, the Lord’s Resistance Army has committed many atrocities, including rapes, killings, recruiting children as fighters and forcing girls to be sex slaves. But it is a declining threat in comparison to the rapid rise of the Islamic jihadists. Ironically, while Obama decided to send military advisors to help the Central African Republic combat the Lord’s Resistance Army, he neglected to mention in his General Assembly speech that the Central African Republic government was overthrown by an Islamic rebel coalition known as Séléka, who have committed unspeakable atrocities of their own.

President Obama devoted a substantial portion of his General Assembly speech to Iran. He welcomed signs of flexibility by the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani.

“We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course,” Obama said. “Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government.”

However, Rouhani’s power is reflected from the real source of all major decision-making in Iran – Ayatollah Khamenei. And while Khamenei appears willing for the time being to give Rouhani some latitude in negotiations with the West, he can and likely will stop any meaningful dialogue at a moment’s notice if he so chooses.

In an effort to play nice with Iran in his speech, Obama gave tacit acknowledgment to the Iranians’ complaints of “a history of U.S. interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” He equated this complaint with Americans’ complaint of “an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy, and directly – or through proxies – taken Americans hostage, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.”

Obama’s moral relativism is bad enough. But he should also check his history regarding all of the circumstances surrounding the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. Yes, the CIA helped bring about the coup d’etat that overthrew Mossadegh. But what the mullahs running Iran today want us to forget is that the founder of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, and his mentor Ayatollah Sayyed Kashani, the chief representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iran at that time, took part in the CIA-organized demonstrations against Mossadegh.  As described by Robert Dreyfuss in his book “The Devil’s Game,” “The military coup that ousted Mossadegh was coupled with demonstrations financed by the CIA, using crowds loyal to Kashani and organized by the clergy…”

In other words, the Iranian people have as much to complain about regarding the role of their own clergy in the overthrow as about the role of the CIA. But Obama is giving the post-1979 Iranian leaders’ self-serving narrative, used to whip up anti-American sentiment, more than its due.

Obama also pledged that the United States is “not seeking regime change” in Iran. Obama proved this in 2009 when he turned his back on Iranian dissidents protesting the fraudulent re-election of Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama has called for regime change against one of our allies in Egypt, and against Gaddafi and Assad who posed no direct threat to the United States. But when it comes to the repressive, terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has killed Americans and is moving towards development of a nuclear bomb, Obama is not willing to exert any pressure for regime change.

With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, President Obama avoided mention of any sensitive issues such as his previous suggestion of Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders with some land swaps. He also reaffirmed that “the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state,” while also restating “the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state.” He gave no indication where the current negotiations stood, except to say that “Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.”

President Obama concluded his speech on a note of hope for the future.  He invoked the spirit of the Declaration of Independence when he said “We are ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you – firm in the belief that all men and women are in fact created equal, each individual possessed with a dignity that cannot be denied.” However, in typical Obama fashion, he omitted the part that all “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Biff Henderson

    The only thing President Present’s speech solidified is he is a fantastical liar.

    • iluvisrael

      It also shows how delusional little barry is.

    • defcon 4

      His lies are the most highly polished turds I’ve ever seen come out of any POTUS to date.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I never even knew before him that turds could be polished. The things we learn the hard way…

      • Biff Henderson

        More like blasts of diarrhea fouling the water he proffers as life nurturing.

  • truebearing

    Only a complete fool, or pathological liar, would include the words “more stable” in describing the world today. It is especially absurd coming from the forked-tongue of the person most responsible for pushing the world inexorably closer to WWIII.

    Through his actions, but more importantly inaction, Obama has unerringly fomented chaos and death wherever he has meddled. Listening to his sociopathic effluent of lies and delusion is revulsion at its finest.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Obama: “Real breakthroughs on these two issues – Iran’s nuclear program, and
    Israeli-Palestinian peace – would have a profound and positive impact on the
    entire Middle East and North Africa.”

    Now that is an absurd comparison. A nuclear war started by the Twelvers in order to bring about the return of the Mahdi in which most of the world would be impacted – compared to the Arab –Israeli conflict which ranks 49th in terms of number of fatalities.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/4990/arab-israeli-fatalities-rank-49th

    Obama: “Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depend on the realization of a Palestinian
    state.”

    You are wrong Mr. President. The future of Israel, and the world, depends on what PM Netanyahu, not you, does about the Iranian nuclear threat.

    http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/why-are-bernard-lewiss-views-on-mad.html

    In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will
    be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead– hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement…

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Obama: “Real breakthroughs on these two issues – Iran’s nuclear program, and
    Israeli-Palestinian peace – would have a profound and positive impact on the
    entire Middle East and North Africa.”

    Now that is an absurd comparison. A nuclear war started by the Twelvers in order to bring about the return of the Mahdi in which most of the world would be impacted – compared to the Arab –Israeli conflict which ranks 49th in terms of number of fatalities.

    Obama: “Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depend on the realization of a Palestinian
    state.”

    You are wrong Mr. President. The future of Israel, and the world, depends on what PM Netanyahu, not you, does about the Iranian nuclear threat.

    Bernard Lewis:
    In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will
    be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead– hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement…

  • Hass

    What a lire, it’s his push for a Sunni Muslime world that created the current mess.

    From what I’ve seen so far, he has done nothing for his own country nor the civil world, on the contrary, everything his done is for the benefit of the MB.

    • Juaniita

      well said

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Obama: “Real breakthroughs on these two issues – Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli-Palestinian peace – would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.”

    Now that is an absurd comparison. A nuclear war started by the Twelvers in order to bring about the return of the Mahdi in which most of the world would be impacted – compared to the Arab –Israeli conflict which ranks 49th in terms of number of fatalities.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/4990/arab-israeli-fatalities-rank-49th

    • The March Hare

      It wasn’t a comparison. He just said breakthroughs on these issues would have a positive impact on the region. Either or both would be a help, however, the facts are that his policies aren’t going to have any effect on these situations. In fact, the policies of the democrats aided by the RINOS and the Europeans are what helped this mess become what it is today.

  • arishsahani

    1400 years 1.5 billions convert to islam 57 islamic nations have shown no improvement for human rights and helped any way for world peace. We are all fools to think islam means peace Islam should be declared by each nation as enemy of their nation and human race. Most converts are busy destroying own nations after converting to islam and saudi having fun watching all destruction . $ 1 book and force of few trained mullas by saudi does all the destructions using local converts as saudis new foot soldiers.

  • Dyer’s Eve

    Erm… ahhhh… well… can anyone tell me what good the UN has ever done? President ‘Mabus’ Obama can ponce and fart at the UN all he likes. The truth being he is just as useless as they are!

    What good has the UN ever done? It is nothing more than a twilight home for ageing Third World dictators. Obama, you’re in stellar company!

    The Middle East will burn. It will burn until every last person there is dead. I hate to say it, but peace in the Middle East will only be achieved when it is totally devoid of human life. Sorry, kiddies, that’s the stone cold truth.

    • Juaniita

      The UN should have never been in America. The sight should have been a island…than once all the 3rd world dictators where on the island BLOW IT UP!!! Yes it’s that easy

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “The UN should have never been in America. The sight should have been a island…than once all the 3rd world dictators where on the island BLOW IT UP!!! Yes it’s that easy”

        It was supposed to be a venue for us to give voice to delusional enemies where we could reason with them. The left had other plans that continue to this day.

        Yes we should eject the whole operation. Is Gitmo big enough?

    • defcon 4

      The UN did approve the formation of the state of Israel. But maybe that’s the last good thing they ever did.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “The UN did approve the formation of the state of Israel. But maybe that’s the last good thing they ever did.”

        Well, but the way it went down did not bode well for the future of the UN as a partner of Western loyalists. It should have been a mere formality but instead we got a parade of maniacs almost killing the deal.

  • Lanna

    Many should understand, the New World Order starts overseas and works its way into America, the violence is already here in America along with the Jihadis who want to create world wide violence and collapse.

    • Juaniita

      Lock and load!!!

      • Lanna

        Patriots: Tyranny is about to rear its ugly head!

        • Gee

          About to? Where have you been?

          • Lanna

            I’m talking more than we have seen in America, ever!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How about “intensify?”

  • Omar

    I also find it funny how the American president and the Islamist mullahs in Iran obsess over one little coup that happened over 60 years ago and used that coup’s effects as the reason to why the Islamists hate us so much. As much as that reason is an unhealthy grudge against an entire country for what happened in the past, there are a number of things that I will set the record for regarding Iran and the 1953 coup:
    1. Mossadegh was not elected prime minister of Iran. He was appointed to that position by the Iranian parliament, and the Shah, who was already in power as head of state, approved and ratified the choice. This is similar to how U.S. Senators were picked prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment (which authorized direct elections for Senators).
    2. Mossadegh was not a liberal democrat. He was a Communist totalitarian who was allied with Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao in China (those two totalitarian leaders hold the record for the largest mass murders in human history). The coup happened not when Mossadegh centralized government control over some oil companies, but when he got into a power struggle with the Shah and the parliament who put him in power in the first place. Mossadegh dissolved parliament, abolished civil liberties and jailed and/or killed political dissidents. Time magazine had an article from 1952 that featured a quote from the Communist Mossadegh, saying “Call me dictator”.
    3. The CIA did not plan the anti-Mossadegh coup. It was the British intelligence organization, M16, as well as the Shah and other opponents of Mossadegh (including, as this article states, the Islamist mullahs like the Ayatollah’s mentor). In fact, the CIA and the Eisenhower administration did not want to get involved with the campaign initially, until the M16, the Shah and the Iranian opposition proved to the U.S. government that Mossadegh was out of control and seeking to turn Iran into a Communist country allied with the USSR and China. At that point, the CIA agreed to participate in ousting Mossadegh from power.
    4. The anti-Mossadegh coup was not a pretext for the 1979 uprising against the Shah. Though the Shah was autocratic, the Islamist mullahs hated the Shah because he was secular, pro-Western and he respected women’s rights, including the right to not wear a veil if the women choose not to. As soon as the Shah was deposed, the Ayatollah immediately persecuted everyone who didn’t agree with the mullahs and jailed and/or killed them. The prison population in Iran skyrocketed under the Ayatollah’s rule. While the total number of political prisoners under the Shah was 3,000 (many of those prisoners, by the way, were KGB agents and/or worked for other Soviet and Communist Chinese agencies), the Ayatollah’s regime jailed political prisoners at 100 times the number of the Shah’s prisoners. That fact is undeniable.
    5. The Islamists in Iran and elsewhere do not hate America, Britain and the West for the anti-Mossadegh coup. The Islamists hate us for being “infidel nations” as well as for tolerating democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which is non-existent in today’s Islamic Iran. People who continue to insist that the 1953 coup is the reason to why the mullahs hate us so much are either delusional, do not know much about Middle East politics, or are simply anti-Western, pro-Communist totalitarian Islamist sympathizers. That’s the reality.
    If the anti-Mossadegh coup can be used as a reason for Islamist hatred against the West, then it can also be argued that the KGB-backed coup in Syria (in both 1963 and 1966) is a key reason to why the Syrian opposition (both secular and Islamist) hate Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Sudan so much. In fact, the USSR did more to harm the Middle East than any other country. Remember that the Soviet Union is the chief reason to why there is a fictional “Palestinian” nationality and why the fictional “nationality” has received such undeserved sympathy from the international community, especially from the UN. That is why Israelis hate Russian Communists so much. That’s the reality.

    • Gee

      Muslims started attacking, enslaving and murdering Americans on October 11, 1784, they have never stopped

    • Aizino Smith

      Mossadegh might have been well meaning but he was a tyrant.

      Elections were called. When enough results came in from the urban areas to form a parliament, he stopped the vote count. votes from the rural areas were not counted.

      Mossadegh may have stolen an election. That is chicanery. Mossadegh was PM of jack!

      He was not PM of Iran. He was an usurper.

      A large part of the turmoil was over royalties paid by the British. the British had the law, the facts, on their side.

      The thing is that the Americans were paying higher royalties to the Saudis than the British were paying to the Iranians. The Iranians wanted a new agreement.

      The nationalization of British assets was illegal. What the Iranians should have done is kept to their strike and wear the British government and oil company down. It would be slower and hurt more, but it could have been done.

      The British & Mossadegh were stupid. They arranged for a revolution to over throw the pro-German King in WW2. That coup helped change the entire course of the war. it delayed the kick of of Barbarossa by 10 weeks or so. It cut short the amount of good campaigning weather the Germans had. It was crucial.

      Now follow this. Iran was crucial in monitoring Soviet activities.It had early airborne warning Radar. They could detect Missile launches. the had listening stations. Plus Iran was the cornerstone in the containment strategy.

      Now would it not be easier for Mossadegh to got to the the Shah and say the strike will work but the economy mIht be ruined before it succeeds. So might it be better for you to talk to the Americans and have them lean on the British to give the Iranians the same deal as the Saudis had with the Americans.

      America would have leaned on the British. the British economy would have survived. It would have been harder, but they could have made it. they might have had to shut down the socialist experiment sooner. Iran would have been better off too.

      Mossadegh was stupid. not only was he stupid he stole an election. that is a coup.

      • Aizino Smith

        Obama owes America an apology.

        His analysis of 1953 sucks!

        • nomoretraitors

          Don’t you know liberals never admit they were wrong?

          • Aizino Smith

            Yes.

            Even after the Venona Papers came out and the Soviet archives opened up, they still don’t believe their stuff stinks like everyone else’s

            The left never forgave Nixon for going after the Soviet Spy Alger Hiss. Nor did they admit their defense of Hiss was wrong.

    • Fritz

      That was whom I always thought was behind the coup in Iran, the British, the U.S had very little if any national interest in Iran other then whether or not they became a Soviet ally. The British, on the other hand, were one of the largest groups of foreign investors in that country, much like they were in Pre Peronist Argentina. But of course many Americans, Fearless Leader included, are ignorant of the fact that prior to WW2 Britain and it’s empire was the economic and military superpower of the West, not the U.S.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Obama is a liar, a fraud and a criminal and you keep reporting about his activity as if he were a legitimate President. There is a case pending in the Alabama Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roy Moore presiding. That’s right, Chief Justice Roy Moore, you do remember him. The man will not be intimidated by the corrupt Eric Holder DOJ and that Supreme Court will be rendering a decision about Obama’s eligibility or should I say, ineligibility. The case may hinge on Obama’s fraudulent registration with the Selective Service in 2008. He refuse to register in 1980 thus declaring himself an Indonesian Citizen. Dual Citizens are not eligible to be POTUS, thus the fraudulent registration with the Selective Service. The Selective Service has not been forthright with the requests to see Obama’s original registration. I have been called many names by folks right here at Frongpage and shame on those who have slandered anyone who is associated with the true patriots labeled “birthers” as if that was a vile person. I cannot wait for anyone associated with the “birthers” to have their day as this pathetic little White/Arab is declared a criminal of the worse sort. He should be breaking rocks in Leavenworth.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Europeans in the mid to late 1930s thought that Hitler’s Third Reich had ushered in a stable new world order too. POTUS’s preposterous allegations demonstrate the importance of leaders, and those who stay home during elections should keep that in mind. See http://clarespark.com/2013/08/31/the-devil-in-history-a-j-p-taylor-vs-r-palme-dutt/. “The Devil in history: AJP Taylor/Niall Ferguson vs. R. Palme Dutt. Elections have consequences, and Obama made himself known in his two books before the election of 2008.

    • Fritz

      No links please, if you want Frontpage readers to read your blogs submit them to Frontpage Magazine for publication. It’s just bad form to spam a forum on someone else’s website in an attempt to increase traffic to your own.

  • celador2

    There has never been a POTUS more unfit than Obama, never. he goes out of his way to harm the people, and his foreign policy flames wars. Arab Spring is a gift to every terrorist on the block.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “There has never been a POTUS more unfit than Obama”

      Obviously never.

      • William James Ward

        If we survive him I sincerely hope America will ascribe
        to the idea of “Obviously never again”……….William

  • Gee

    In another 5 years the world might be more stable after a few more million Muslims kill each other – but this is the least stable the world has been since 1945

    • defcon 4

      When stateless, muslime terrorist groups get a hold of WMD’s that’s when the fun is really going to start.

  • defcon 4

    The Lord’s Resistance Army resists the islam0nazi predilection to commit genocide on the najjis kuffar and is called a terrorist group. The muslimes meanwhile have slaughtered some 2 million people in N. Africa (and enslaved G-d knows how many more), yet the world whines about the Lord’s Resistance Army.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    President Obama’s abysmal leadership – yet nobody cares
    http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/president-obamas-abysmal-leadership-yet.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/carmen.johnson.5891 Carmen Johnson

    nice one