or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Time to invade Africa
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Time to invade Africa - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

There is a disputed border between Alaska and Canada, but the two countries aren't killing each other over it.

Let Sarah Palin sort it out. That should go smoothly.

Quote:
If Pakistan was larger, the issue would resolve itself, or at least not be a big issue anymore.

Pakistan has quite a lot of clusterfucks for a small country. Haven for thousands of terrorists, black market for every conceivable weapon imagined and nuclear capability under a shoestring government and a populace with a short fuse. Top it off with a current (and next) U.S. government trying to blow up things with drones and shit. One dead terrorist for every 30-100 civilians dead.

Yeah, nothing to worry about there...
post #42 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Pakistan has quite a lot of clusterfucks for a small country. Haven for thousands of terrorists, black market for every conceivable weapon imagined and nuclear capability under a shoestring government and a populace with a short fuse. Top it off with a current (and next) U.S. government trying to blow up things with drones and shit. One dead terrorist for every 30-100 civilians dead.

Yeah, nothing to worry about there...

I never said that there was nothing to worry about there - you are making my point for me. Pakistan is too small, it should not be allowed to exist. If it were bigger, it would necessarily become better organized.

Larger countries have fewer terrorists, since they have larger police forces and military forces. Law and Order is easier to establish in a large country because you have more resources. Large countries are more valuable trading partners for other countries, so their populations become richer. And the US does not try to invade other superpowers. All Pakistan's problems would be solved if it ceased to exist.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I never said that there was nothing to worry about there - you are making my point for me. Pakistan is too small, it should not be allowed to exist. If it were bigger, it would necessarily become better organized.

Larger countries have fewer terrorists, since they have larger police forces and military forces. Law and Order is easier to establish in a large country because you have more resources. Large countries are more valuable trading partners for other countries, so their populations become richer. And the US does not try to invade other superpowers. All Pakistan's problems would be solved if it ceased to exist.

I somewhat understand your reasoning. But size doesn't always mean anything. Take Israel for example, about the size of New Jersey.

What does Israel and Germany have in common?

Now an argument can be made about the reasons and differences of these two walls. The East Germans built the wall to prevent their own citizens to escape from workers' paradise. The Israelis built it against another people (the Palestinians) to prevent guerrillas and suicide bombers crossing.

But the East Germans built the wall 12 ft inside their own territory. The Israelis are building theirs on foreign territory.

Some people say that all of the Middle East's problems would be solved if Israel ceased to exist.

So, IMO size doesn't matter, see historical Japan.

Good luck with erasing Pakistan too.
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

There is a disputed border between Alaska and Canada, but the two countries aren't killing each other over it. If Pakistan was larger, the issue would resolve itself, or at least not be a big issue anymore.

The Tibet part was a joke, though. Every other car in Boulder, CO where I live has a "Free Tibet" sticker on it.

You gotta love those gay hating Coloradans and their Free Tibet slogans.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #45 of 66
Thread Starter 
Pakistan is almost non-existent already. It wouldn't take much of a spark to trigger a civil war and the dissolution of the country.

Israel is artificially wealthy, due to foreign aid and rich Jews that send money and have 2nd homes there. Israel is a special case for the same reason that the Vatican is - massive inflow of money. If Israel was larger, though, the problem with Palestinians would be less - more like the Basque region of France/Spain than what it is now.

Japan was still a high population center when it invaded Korea (50 million in 1910), but it was isolated. Part of what makes large countries safe is free trade and export based economies, I don't think an isolated large country could exist like that today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You gotta love those gay hating Coloradans and their Free Tibet slogans.

Gay hating Coloradans probably mostly in Colorado Springs, and the free Tibet signs are in Boulder. Two different worlds, really. Did we pass an anti-gay marriage law or something? I only moved here in the summer.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Pakistan is almost non-existent already. It wouldn't take much of a spark to trigger a civil war and the dissolution of the country.

Where and what would happen to the nuclear missiles that Pakistan have? Are you forgetting them out of convenience? You also seem to forget the billions of dollars in aid we gave them for eight years also.

I'm getting the feeling that Israel has been a proponent of some of the terrorist attacks within Pakistan and as I can see right now on CNN, in India too. I'm talking about the Israeli government and Mossad. I think that they have all been in concert with our CIA for the last 30 years. It seems that this method of covertly instigating certain religious, idealistic factions or governments isn't working to well for us. Too bad one doesn't pursue other methods of obtaining or sharing of the Earth's resources.

Or to move on and start innovating and developing alternative energy solutions. Then share/sell them back, we used to do that, we have a hard time keeping up though with all these wars and all.

Maybe this is the 9-11 attack for India by a (it is being alleged) Muslim faction of terrorists. Terrorists maybe from Pakistan? [No, seems that there are Muslims in India?] India retaliates or becomes our new allied soldier in the War Against Terror™? Honestly some really crazy shit going on there in India right now...so it's kind of scary. Would be less scarier without nuclear missiles lying around though.

So maybe you're theorizing this whole "Project Erase Pakistan" thing as it's really happening...

I guess we'll have to put Africa aside now won't we.
post #47 of 66
Counter examples:

Yugoslavia: held together by a strong man and then splintered to pieces. Arguable "better" as a larger country but the larger entity was unstable.

USSR: again, held together by power but spintered into smaller chunks.

China: today, held together by power but has interesting unrest that isn't always reported. Han China is stable as a cohesive entity along with traditional areas to the south (dunno where Han China really ends). Off to the west? Much less so. Even core china is theoretically iffy. It wasn't that long ago that China was run by warloards of specific regions but I doubt it would ever end up that way again. Not when they are on the verge of being the next superpower.

A country has to have a reason to stay together besides the knife. A "unified" africa has no reason to exist except through oppression.

The differences between North and South after the civil war is nothing in comparison to some of the differences in Africa. Or Europe for that matter. The probability that individual european countries giving up sovereignty for a unified European state approaches zero.
post #48 of 66
We could invade Africa, but to stay, we would have to kill everyone.
post #49 of 66
Actually, I'm interested in the logistics of the invasion.

OK. We found it difficult to take and hold Iraq, right, which is 438,317 km². The Democratic Republic of Congo alone is 2,344,858 km², of dense rainforest and mountains, so I guess if we want to hold and secure the centre of the African continent we'd have to conscript every single young man and woman under the age of 30 in Europe, the Americas and from our Asian allies (the Chinese are doing quite well out of the status quo in Africa right now, so they'd probably not be that interested.)

I suppose one invasion force (all the men and women under the age of 30 in France, Spain and Portugal?) could land in Angola or Nigeria (you can fit about three Iraqs into Angola, maybe two Iraqs into Nigeria, but they both have oil, and we'd need that, right? Secure the refineries!) another force (all the Canadian men?) could land in Moçambique or Kenya, another force (American men and women?) in South Africa and... another (the mermen?) in Eritrea and they could meet up in the middle?

But... what about the Horn of Africa? And who's going to draw the short straw and go and get Chad and Niger?

Oh my. Thank God I'm not a general.
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Re: your other point.

Africa is fucked up because a) Europe has been carving it up and tinkering and meddling for 150 years and b) the cold war ended.

I think "merging Africa" into a superpower would work about as well as telling California, Texas, and Virginia that they're all now one big state and they just need to suck it if they don't like it.

Ooh! Or maybe as well as telling three separate states at the collapse of the Ottoman empire "Hey guys! You're all Iraqis now!"

My question is this: If they hijacked this oil tanker, why didn't we just blow the fucker up, kill them all and deny them their prize?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My question is this: If they hijacked this oil tanker, why didn't we just blow the fucker up, kill them all and deny them their prize?

Think of the poor oil soaked pengins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Actually, I'm interested in the logistics of the invasion.

You don't have to hold it, and you don't have to do much invading. You just have to turn South Africa into an empire builder, and then destabilize the countries on its border enough so that they can gradually take them over. It could happen over 20 years.

They will be destabilized anyway - because we won't be letting them have any energy supplies, and will have constant air strikes against any small country that tries to build a reactor. South Africa (or Kenya, or whatever state we allow to have nuclear power) will be so much richer that they will want to join up. The problem won't be conquering the rest of Africa, it will be in forcing the now richer South Africans to allow the neo-wetbacks on the other side of the border in.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #52 of 66
I'm sorry but right now we shouldn't be attacking Terra Del Fuego!

We're in trouble in case you haven't noticed and useless wars are part of what got us in to this situation.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 66
OK. So, we invade South Africa, which exports energy and is a stable democracy with the strongest economy in Africa (nine rand to the dollar). We oust Mothlane and replace him with an unelected puppet President. We then put down the inevitable resistance (this is a nation with a long tradition of organised, armed resistance, whose leaders in the liberation struggle are now in positions of power in the government) with lethal force. We fight in the townships, the deserts of the Northern Cape and the Karoo and in the Drakensburg and Maluti mountains (at 1,221,037 km square, South Africa is three times the size of Iraq and 800,000 km square larger than France).

We then cut off the energy to Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, consigning millions to terrible hardship.

Then we wait until Namibia (a stable, Christian nation which is mostly desert and cows) buys uranium from the Central African Republic and starts a nuclear programme (funded with money it doesn't have). And then we bomb it.

Meanwhile, we try and convince all these neighbouring nations that although they have spent decades struggling against colonialism, and the memory of these struggles are still very fresh and painful, that they forget their hard-won independence and join in the new South African empire.

Once we've won a continent-wide guerilla resistance, we convince our new African superpower not to be resentful that we've bombed, starved and shot thousands and retreat, leaving it rich, armed and nuclear.

I can see problems with this plan. Some of them are ethical.
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

OK. So, we invade South Africa, which exports energy and is a stable democracy with the strongest economy in Africa (nine rand to the dollar). We oust Mothlane and replace him with an unelected puppet President. We then put down the inevitable resistance (this is a nation with a long tradition of organised, armed resistance, whose leaders in the liberation struggle are now in positions of power in the government) with lethal force. We fight in the townships, the deserts of the Northern Cape and the Karoo and in the Drakensburg and Maluti mountains (at 1,221,037 km square, South Africa is three times the size of Iraq and 800,000 km square larger than France).

We then cut off the energy to Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, consigning millions to terrible hardship.

Then we wait until Namibia (a stable, Christian nation which is mostly desert and cows) buys uranium from the Central African Republic and starts a nuclear programme (funded with money it doesn't have). And then we bomb it.

Meanwhile, we try and convince all these neighbouring nations that although they have spent decades struggling against colonialism, and the memory of these struggles are still very fresh and painful, that they forget their hard-won independence and join in the new South African empire.

Once we've won a continent-wide guerilla resistance, we convince our new African superpower not to be resentful that we've bombed, starved and shot thousands and retreat, leaving it rich, armed and nuclear.

I can see problems with this plan. Some of them are ethical.

War should be a LAST resort only. And as a Last resort option, There should be no rules. Everyone in the path of an invading army should be killed.
post #55 of 66
Merry Christmas e1618978.



AIDs. Just wait. That'll take most of Africa's population soon. Then move in.
post #56 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

OK. So, we invade South Africa

No, we give them aid in building nuclear reactors. Meanwhile we stop the rest of Africa from getting nuclear power, and we convince the SA government (which does not get replaced) to spread the fruits of their good civilization north. Eventually "South Africa" = "all of sub-saharan Africa".

There are really a set of issues here:

1. Do you believe that any kind of power generation other than breeder reactors will take hold fast enough - if so why?

2. If no to #1 - do you think that small countries are safe stewards of plutonium, if so why?

3. If no to #1 and #2 - what do you do to eliminate the small countries?

Don't get so caught up in the "how" of it - if I am right, and we won't survive as a technological culture if we don't do it, the how does not matter - either we succeed or we die. In the end all I care about is the solution that costs the American taxpayer the least, and results in the strongest single African state.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

No, we give them aid in building nuclear reactors. Meanwhile we stop the rest of Africa from getting nuclear power, and we convince the SA government (which does not get replaced) to spread the fruits of their good civilization north. Eventually "South Africa" = "all of sub-saharan Africa".

There are really a set of issues here:

1. Do you believe that any kind of power generation other than breeder reactors will take hold fast enough - if so why?

2. If no to #1 - do you think that small countries are safe stewards of plutonium, if so why?

3. If no to #1 and #2 - what do you do to eliminate the small countries?

None of that, the rest of us have determined this is an insane idea.

..."eliminate"?
post #58 of 66
e1618978, just wanted to let you know we have been "invading" Africa since last year.

e1618978, may I present to you AFRICOM: The expansion of US military interests on African soil.

So rest assured that our government will carry out the same plan we have been using for over thirty years in the Middle East to protect American interests in Africa, whether they like it or not.
post #59 of 66
yeah let's invade Africa bcoz they have pirates
post #60 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sared View Post

yeah let's invade Africa bcoz they have pirates

We need the pirates, it is our only hope vs global warming.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #61 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

e1618978, just wanted to let you know we have been "invading" Africa since last year.

Now all we need is for them to gang up and kick us out, and we are set. We are like the abrasion that forms a callus.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #62 of 66
post #63 of 66
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/.../af_au_gadhafi

Gadhafi told about 20 of his fellow heads of state that that he would work to unite the continent into "the United States of Africa."

Awesome, maybe we won't have to invade after all...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #64 of 66
The likelihood of someone uniting Africa's gang of despots, dictators and tyrants into anything meaningful is just about zero. The only chance of a United Africa is if it completes its transformation as a Chinese colony.
post #65 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The likelihood of someone uniting Africa's gang of despots, dictators and tyrants into anything meaningful is just about zero. The only chance of a United Africa is if it completes its transformation as a Chinese colony.

We used to worry that Japan was taking over the world, then they got rich and raised a couple generations of people that were fairly useless (like we are) due to prosperity. China will not take over the world.

If China did grab hold of Africa in any meaningful way, that would be the end of America as the superpower. Unless we bankrupt them by selling them trillions of dollars of long term debt, and then debasing the currency until that debt is worthless. heh heh heh
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #66 of 66
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Time to invade Africa