Should the US invade Africa with the long term goal of making the continent many US states?

As a NAVY veteran...thank you Dreadprirate.

11% of people not know English is not a majority.  This minority should be assimilated for 2 reasons:

1: To prevent them from being on welfare.

2: To prevent separatist movements in the future.

Open borders are a bad idea for the sovereignty of the US.  All immigrants should be assimilated and most legal ones are, but this is a tangent.  Dying from obesity is different from dying from malnutrition/disease partly due to the pain difference.  Dying from obesity is nowhere nearly as painful as dying from starvation or disease.

My Dad was in the Navy U.S.S. Wasp

The soldiers protect the US and it's interests by invading Africa because the US gets to expand it's interests into the continent.

you can't really protect something that isn't yours, making Africa an interest isn't the same thing as a duty to protect U.S. interests, since it's not actually an interest, hope you can see the difference.

put another way, is African a U.S. interest?  answer is No

does the U.S. military have a duty to risk their lives for what you described?  answer is No, because it's not a U.S. interest.

@TheDredPriateRoberts

Why can't Africa become a US interest?  Africa commits many human rights abuses.  The US should do something about it and the US should liberate Africa like it did with Iraq.  Once we put military in Iraq, Alquida didn't exist there as badly as it before US interference.  When we pulled out our military, ISIS came and committed terrorism against the people there.  Africa is similar to the US.  If we conditionally annex the region, then 1 billion Africans would be liberated and economic freedom would be expanded.

@Greyparrot

Isn't dying from obesity different then dying from starvation/disease?  One you just don't eat as much food and you excersize more.  The other can only be treated with an increase in food and a higher GDP per capita.  Also, some people try to fight obesity in the US.  

Many parts of Africa could be considered sh1t holes.  We need a better reason to invade other than human rights abuses, whether real or made up.  The rest of world wouldn't stand by while the U.S. claimed and took over Africa.  That would probably start WW3.  Now consider than many countries in Africa and their people would be killed by an armed conflict, including the children you'd like to protect.  Casualties of war is a real thing.

Much like Iraq and other places a saying comes to mind that rings most true.  Freedom has to be fought for, it just can't be given, it must be earned, something to that effect anyway.

There are several area that I would say are barely inhabitable, so there's really little to no interest for the U.S.

The U.N. is supposed to deal with humanitarian issues, isn't that why the U.S. gives them so much money and all the other countries don't give their agreed to share?

lots of countries human rights abuses, should we invade China?  N.K?  Russia? Mexico?  S. American countries? How about the U.S. takes over the whole world?

In the past the U.S. has tried and helped to install people to power whom they thought would be better for that country and the world, mostly they were wrong.

We should not invade China, Russia or NK because they are too powerful.  In the case of China or Russia, it's obvious.  In the case of NK, it's because of their alliances with China and to a lesser extent Russia.  In the case of Latin America, it is because if we invade them all at once, then the number of unassiliminated immigrants would skyrocket, making it harder to defend American sovereignty.

We installed bad people to run the country.  However, the African territories that would be run would be ran under the President of the United States and the African territories would gradually turn into states once they became American enough so they can elect the POTUS just like the current 50 states.

if anything it would make sense to "annex" Mexico for their oil and other resources.  The government is corrupt and the drug cartels run the country.  So that would be the first and best place to start, after that just continue south.

Africa has way more resources then Mexico and the governments there are worse then Mexico.  The "place and take" strategy can be used on Mexico in order to get more land from the country.  Annexing all of Latin America with mutually open borders will cause so many immigrants to come here that the US will have to become a bilingual country, which is dangerous for it's unity and sovereignty as history has confirmed.  If Latin America is to be invaded and made part of the US, then Americans should be allowed to immigrate there with open borders but not the other way around unless they get assimilated like any other immigrant.

This is one of those ideas that seems good on paper (“Yeah, let’s save Africa!”) but the more you think about it, the more you realize that this is a bad idea.

First off, America comes first. Unless African nations are systematically killing Americans we have no reason to sacrifice American soldiers.

Second, it is their choice to be part of America. Not ours. Even though it would be better for them to be part of America, it is still their choice.

Third, it would be stupid to invade an entire continent when there are a few good nations that do care for their people (ex: South Africa). Individual nations are to blame, not an entire continent.

1st contention: America benefits from invading Africa by getting more natural resources and more territory.  The mining of these resources can pay fro Africa's funding from the US and these natural resources can benefit America.  Although Africa does not mine a lot now due to government regulation, under American rule, we would sell the mines to private enterprise and this would create jobs and the mining would skyrocket, helping the local and national economy.  

2nd contention: It often isn't the rights of Africans, but instead it is often the decisions of their leaders.  https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20160820_MAM944.png states that most of Africa is not free to a western extent.  Their leaders aren't willing to give up sovereignty for a better life since they often have a relatively good life, but I imagine a plethora of Africans would vote in favor of US annexation if it meant a higher GDP per capita on their part.  I think it would be a good idea for the US to invade Africa, control it for 10 years or so, and then see what the locals think of the US annexing their land and making their lives better while at the same time benefiting the US economy.  Tibet's economy got better due to Chinese influence, and now, not even the Dalai Lama wants to secede(https://tibet.net/2016/06/not-seeking-independence-for-tibet-from-china-when-dalai-lama-met-barack-obama/).  When your lives are made better under the influence of another country, then more often then not, you don't want succession.  It's why a majority of PR people haven't voted pro independence for example, even though if they had a higher GDP per capita, they would want independence for reasons that would be a tangent to the topic at hand.  The only reason why Africa wanted Independence in the first place was because the locals were being oppressed.  If they are not oppressed, most of the locals won't want independence.

3rd contention: "Third, it would be stupid to invade an entire continent when there are a few good nations that do care for their people (ex: South Africa). Individual nations are to blame, not an entire continent."  What about the other nations where human rights abuses are prevalent?  Should we invade these nations and make them American?  As for South Africa, this will sound startling, but every single african country(including South Africa(SA)) has a low GDP per capita compared to the US and an American annexation would help boost the GDP per capita of every country on the continent(https://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Africa-Per-Capita-GDP-map-1024x925.png).  The site states that SA has a GDP per capita high for Africa, but still low when compared to a country like the US, where the GDP per capita is around $60000, or about 10x as high as wealthy for Africa SA.

CHINA is all over Africa invading farms and businesses for economic control...they have the resources 

to bargain with...China offers new infrastructure and improvements in exchange for land and business

opportunities...

While America is strapped and stalled by its own CONSTIPATED CONGRESS and HOUSE CLOWNS 

China-India-Russia are moving in on Africa and South America...to gain new relations and allies in ECONOMIC

GAMES...

The old obsolete WAR with DEATH and DESTRUCTION by army and explosives is pretty much over

...the THREAT is a GAME card ...used to play other GAMERS seeking THRONES as a deterrent

play...no need to blow up everything it's to messy to clean up...just move in and level old infrastructure

to design and build new with big DEBT attached ...get it....

America is being stone walled as other Countries play the globe for position....Chinese laughing all the way

as TRUMP is drowning in DEMOCRAT DONKEY DOO....they love this gridlock..more time to gain a 

foothold in Countries that want to catch up and not with America planting bases and screwing up their

Governments...

Globally America is going down the toilet...these other Countries have been there done the up and down 

for hundreds to thousands of years...AMERICA is a new Country...and at the rate it's going..will fall

way behind many others who are striking new deals without AMERICAS approval....

Since China is gaining influence in Africa, the US should do the same.

American POLITICS is in the TOILET..the only agenda the Clowns of Congress have is to focus on TRUMP

and stall everything he wants to address...then in 2020 drag out more time to get nothing accomplished

and blame him for the breakdown....they need the  time to develop their careers  and ultimately transition into

the private sector. politics is a leveridge position...these Democrats and Republicans could care less about

AMERICA...

TRUMP is a scapegoat to stall till he falls or is replaced ...the Globally other Countries are forming relations

without AMERICA .there is more to EARTH than AMERICA....no one watches CNN-MSNBC-FOX +++

American MEDIA CON ARTISTS...they have their own programming...Americans are so horrifically deluded

.....thinking the world gives a crap about them !   

They think more about coming here to exploit opportunities...like America does to them !    

Recently the US has invaded two countries and conquered none, invading 54 will put an end to US hegemony.

@Wisdom of Ages

How is your comment on topic?

@disgusted

What exactly is "US hegemony"?

You're on the internet.

What country are you from?

This is not good, not at all.

Everything the US touch turn to rubbish. Did anybody say Central America?

@oromagi

I don't know what the Borg is but I don't know if the Borg would do the things that the US does.  The Borg might want to kill all of humanity (I am not a big Star Trek fan, so I wouldn't know).  The US military would aim to kill as few soldiers as necessary to secure the continent.  From there, more Africans get saved in the long term because health standards would go up.  I don't think the Borg would improve the lives of Africans in the long term.

@IlDiavolo

"Everything the US touch turn to rubbish. Did anybody say Central America?"  I imagine Central America was messed up before American influence.  After all, many places in South America are messed up and they didn't have too much US influence.  PR on the other hand, is a place in Latin America that actually got invaded and is still owned by the US.  PR has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America.

Well, it depends on how the conqueror defines improvement, doesn't it?  The Borg would eliminate all discontent and loneliness in a single afternoon.  Education?  The Borg could download the collective knowledge of a thousand civilizations in a matter of seconds.

Look, if you're serious about such a proposal the first question you've got to answer is whether you intend to give Africans citizenship.  Africa has four times the US population.  If you give them the franchise- then Africans control the govt., the capitol moves to Cairo or Lagos and Africans will likely assert their lawful priority over US resources.  If you don't give them the vote, then you have effectively re-instituted African slavery on a three-thousand fold scale and reversed the American narrative since 1860.  Somehow, you don't forsee the scale of the war that might be waged to prevent such an outcome.  Like those fictional characters in Stark Trek, I would fight the enslavement of a continent,  I would die for that just cause. The world might end in such a war.  Somehow, you think the UN would be fine with one power absorbing 54 votes ( a full quarter of UN) by force, essentially coup d'etat if the UN were a state.  I think your plan is likely the fast road to global thermonuclear war.

It's a horrible idea to think about for sure.  

Still, it appears you are forgetting Hawaii, Alaska, South  South Korea, and Japan.  Over 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the United States.

  

@oromagi
Thank you for continuing with this idea and happy new year.
I read a little about the Borg.  One flaw that the Borgs have is they don't allow their drones to have individual thought unless they are separated from the queen for too long.  In American ruled Africa, the Africans could preach for whatever they want. They can even preach for independence if they wanted too, albeit within 10 years of American control, I doubt most of them would want to preach for independence because the US would have made their lives much better.  Freedom of speech is the 1st amendment after all.
"Look, if you're serious about such a proposal the first question you've got to answer is whether you intend to give Africans citizenship."  This is a legitimate concern and here is how I see the 2 options:
Option 1: You give the Africans open border citizenship.
You stated that if you give Africans citizenship, then they control the entire government.  I don't think this would be true since Africa would be a US territory and territories get less representation in the US government then states do.  I want territories to get representation on the basis of their population, but that's a tangent. If territories get 1/10 the representatives in house of representatives as they would if they were states and nothing in congress that a US state does in the exact same situations (which already applies for territories like PR), then the African territories (since they will be divided up into territories) would get 382 representatives total.  The US would get 435 representatives(https://walberg.house.gov/about/how-congress-works).  The Africans under US rule would be less represented then the states.  They can apply for statehood, but they would only be allowed to do this under certain conditions, such as how assimilated the locals become under American rule.  The requirements for this would be along the lines of:
-Eliminating religious law, as what is prevalent in much of Africa.  South Africa would have a relatively easy time becoming multiple states.  Other places, like Nigeria, maybe not so much since they are too theocratic (https://allafrica.com/stories/201711140825.html).
-Attaining a high GDP per capita.  Since the African politicians would want representation, this encourages the African governments to increase the GDP per capita of the locals probably by a method that worked well for the west.  Since they would be under American rule, they might decide to rely on the ideology of /American Capitalism and to increase the GDP per capita enough to meet this requirement. I would consider that $25,000 per person would be enough to become a state.
The capital of the US would still be Washington D.C.  When Britain conquered India, the capital of the empire still remained London.  Since history rhymes, I predict that the capital of the US and it’s African territory would remain Washington D.C if the US were to invade.
Option 2: You don't give the Africans open border citizenship.
Here, you basically state that it would essentially bring back slavery.  However, there are current territories of the US where the inhabitants are not slaves.  Just because you live in a US territory does not mean that you will be a slave. For example, Puerto Ricans are not slaves.  Many Africans would get jobs in order to reduce the unemployment rate and to bring up the African and American economy, but these jobs would pay well and the locals can quit anytime they want(assuming their contract allows it).

I really do not trust the people in power to actually concern themselves with the lives of people within Africa. Even if we decided to forcefully take over every single government in the continent, (which there are 54 of, good luck with that,) I think that politicians would prioritize policies that benefit the people on the US mainland. Also, Boko Haram, radicalization on account of our intervention, and international scrutiny are also complicating factors. I do not see our allies supporting us as much, potentially leading to trade embargoes and other sanctions. We are historically bad at implementing new governments. Consider our activity in Cuba and Puerto Rico, where we initiated regime change simply for the economic benefit of the US. Also, consider the military coup that we sponsored in Iran. We put in charge a leader who, while giving the US lucrative deals as far as oil, still abused their own people. 

I do not know if you want to make these nations autonomous of the US, or if they are going to become states no different in status from Arizona, Florida, or Texas. Regardless, an expansion of the land that we control also means that we inherit all of the problems in Africa as well. Africa carries 1/5th of the global disease burden, and yet only has 2% of the world's doctors (1). Not only would we be tasked with handling medical care to a region racked by disease, but countless other issues are prevalent as well. I have already mentioned Boko Haram, which operates near Nigeria. However, groups such as al-Shabab in Eastern Africa also hold land and influence as well. Both of these groups have caused the deaths of thousands. Not only would we have to deal with terror groups, (of which there are more than 2, I assure you,) but we would also need to prevent radicalization. Imagine numerous Italian troops parachuting down onto US soil and demanding that they liberate us from what they see to be a corrupt, ineffective government. How would you or I feel? We would likely view these new troops as imperialist threats, and would support the idea of the military opposing them. People within Africa who see American troops invading their land would likely think the same thing. Moreover, the destruction on account of inevitable war to overthrow the nations in question would worsen medical infrastructure, schools, and homes. People would turn toward the promise of money and fraternity from terrorist groups out of necessity, worsening the violence in the region. Terrorist groups have used the destruction of war to boost support in the past. AQAP used this very method to hold their position within Mukalla, a prominent port town in Yemen.

I do sympathize with those who suffer from cruel treatment, but US intervention is not always the answer. 

1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/3-ways-to-improve-healthcare-in-africa/