-->
@blamonkey
The only questions that need to be asked are this.
Is ethnocentrism okay?
Can all people generally not be trusted to make decisions for themselves?
Should the US invade Africa with the long term goal of making the continent many US states?
Posts
Total:
139
-->
@blamonkey
I think that politicians would prioritize policies that benefit the people on the US mainland.
They would do both improve the African economy and to improve the US economy. Under my proposed rule, Africans would get a territory subsidy to keep them in the US and I'm putting this number at around $500 annually. This can be paid for by the natural resources mined in Africa.
Also, Boko Haram, radicalization on account of our intervention, and international scrutiny are also complicating factors.
The US military can put an end to this.
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.
When the US annexed PR, their GDP per capita has shown to be high compared to other regions in Latin America. When we invade, but don't control the territory as what happened in Cuba and Iran, then might be when things get messed up in the country.
Regardless, an expansion of the land that we control also means that we inherit all of the problems in Africa as well.
These problems can get fixed with their territory subsidy.
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.
Italy's government is about as effective as America's government, so Italy wouldn't be able to fix us that much, if at all. The problems delivered from an Italian invasion of the USA (ignoring that that is impossible) could result in nuclear war since the USA is armed with nukes. Invading Africa would not result in nuclear war and in the short term, Africans would fight to resist the USA. But the USA would win in a war for this since our military is stronger then all of Africa combined.
Moreover, the destruction on account of inevitable war to overthrow the nations in question would worsen medical infrastructure, schools, and homes. " In the short term, there is some truth to this. In the long term, the US would pay for the rebuilding of Africa with the materials and natural resources that are mined from the continent.
"People would turn toward the promise of money and fraternity from terrorist groups out of necessity, worsening the violence in the region." At most, the only amount of violence that would occur in the region would be a united Africa vs the USA. At best, the Africans are being fine with being part of America once their GDP per capita skyrockets.
Terrorist groups have used the destruction of war to boost support in the past.
This only applies when the invading power didn't stick around and make the region part of the invading power's country. What the USA did to Iran, we also did to Hawaii, PR, and much of the territory the USA has annexed from Manifest Destiny. These areas are just fine and 1st world. We replaced what was there with a more American version of that place.
AQAP used this very method to hold their position within Mukalla, a prominent port town in Yemen.
What is AQAP?
-->
@Alec
AQAP, known as Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, is a terrorist group that has amassed vast power and land-holdings after the US-backed Saudi military operation intervened. As the troops and airstrikes moved North, toward the Houthis, AQAP grew stronger. They took control of the port town Mukalla, and offered medical supplies, food, lower taxes etc. By doing this, they ended up recruiting a lot of people and garnering support for their cause. There were even videos on YouTube of them delivering basic goods to the inhabitants of Mukalla, demonstrating their care for the people. Our objectives had nothing to do with humanitarian assistance though, so our presence was mostly destructive. The populist agenda pushed by AQAP led to more recruitment, which is obviously a threat to regional security.Our intervention causes more of these issues when our gunfire destroys schools and homes. AQAP capitalizes on these conditions to push their agenda, and so do other nations.
Out of curiosity, where would the $500 billion go to primarily? With the multitudes of needed investments in medical infrastructure, agriculture, schools, energy etc. it seems impossible to put an accurate price-tag on the operation. Diseases such as malaria becoming epidemics is something that we do not see so much in the US, but in Africa, mosquito borne illnesses kill a lot of people. How would the US fight this? Obviously, mandatory vaccinations would work. However, our ability to deliver quick medical aid to the region is complicated by the lack of roads and infrastructure. Political institutions are also corrupt and would have to be replaced to deliver this aid to the right people in the first place. This operation, even if it is successful, would mean practically all our active troops being reallocated to overthrow 53 countries. Bases, such as the ones in Guam and South Korea would be vacated, ceding a strategic post that our military needs.
As far as keeping our presence within nations to stabilize them, it should be noted that the US annexed the western region of the US years ago, and basically slaughtered plenty of Native Americans to get that land so that people from the US could settle there, (or, in the case of the Dawes Act, so railroads could be built there.) I do not think that you would want to do the same to the inhabitants of African nations, so I find this analogy faulty. Also, we made Puerto Rico a territory,but it is far from the utopia that you would think it is. The Borgen Project estimates that over 40% of those that live in Puerto Rico live below the poverty line, and median incomes are only about $19,000 annually (1).
My thought experiment with the Italian troops was to demonstrate how it would feel to people who think that their country is being invaded. Even if the troops were Norwegian, British, or French, I guarantee you that people would be upset that the US is being taken over by a foreign power.
-->
@Alec
You bring up the GDP, and while it is a good indicator of economic health, it definitely does not tell the whole story. For one thing, the measure of all that is produced would naturally be small because African nations, in comparison to the US, has a smaller population to produce. If my country only has 4,000 people, compared to the millions that live in the US, then there would be a disparity. Also, the GDP does not take into consideration homelessness or internal violence. The initial anger at the US overthrowing their nation, as well as the internal displacement of people because of war, will cause much suffering. Groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabab would obviously fight against the US as well. Sects of Al Qaeda also exist within the region. Once again, there are more than 2 terrorist groups in Africa. This violence limits economic investment domestically and abroad as businesses realize the dangers of setting up shop in an active war zone. While the war between African nations and the US rages on for years, economic devastation will worsen already horrid conditions within many African nations.
You want to spend $500 billion every year, or half a trillion dollars, to fix the issues in Africa. Even if it only took one decade to fix up Africa completely, (which, given bureaucratic deficiencies, the existence of terrorist groups, and the severe lack of infrastructure is seriously unlikely,) we would still pay $5 trillion dollars. This is not even counting the cost of keeping thousands of troops to keep the peace,prevent terrorist groups from taking over land, and overthrow Africa. Without any guarantee that greedy politicians even want a better life for Africans, why should this money be invested? If we are trying to pay for the entire cost using the precious metal industry in Africa, then we still end up losing more money than we gain. Maketwatch reports that roughly 75% of South Africa's goldmines and 66% of their platinum mines are not earning much profit despite their immense reserves of both metals (4). Moreover, how do we know that $500 billion for entirety of one continent is enough? The US spends roughly $12,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child within the country, or expressed differently,over $3.8 trillion every single year (5). Suddenly, $500 for every person in Africa doesn't sound like a lot. This is especially true when we consider that 1.2 billion people live in Africa according to the Guardian (6).
The military might of the US is great but looking at only three African nations (out of 53,) should immediately illustrate the flaw with the idea that we can take over Africa. Global Fire Power lists the military powers of the world, and found that three countries,Algeria, Egypt, and South Africa, have more than 2 million military personnel collectively (2). These are only 3 countries though, and we need to overthrow 50 more. Estimates of our active duty troops are around the ballpark of 1.3 million (3). I understand that manpower is not everything, but the odds are against us. Allies are not going to support us taking over an entire continent,especially since they receive no tangible benefit from doing so and would probably face international scrutiny in the form of sanctions. China is trying to establish their presence within Africa through their aid and would not sit idly while the US erodes their sphere of influence.
Even if I have zero moral qualms with taking over numerous countries that we trade with and aid while destroying plenty of lives on both the American and African side, the practical concerns are massive.
Sources
-->
@blamonkey
and offered medical supplies, food, lower taxes etc. By doing this, they ended up recruiting a lot of people and garnering support for their cause.
If the US does this as well, then we can get the support of the Africans to rule over them.
Our objectives had nothing to do with humanitarian assistance though, so our presence was mostly destructive.
If we invade Africa and provide some humanitarian aid once we invaded (not enough to bankrupt the US, but way more aid then what is currently delivered to the continent) then the Africans would be fine with it.
Our intervention causes more of these issues when our gunfire destroys schools and homes.
During the invasion, I'm planning on US soldiers marching through African streets and basically invading the capitol building of each of the countries. Gunfire would not be fired unless in genuine self defense. From there, once the capitols are under US sovereignty, treaties are signed under point of gun for the African nations to surrender sovereignty to the US. Once the US owns Africa and the leaders are overthrown, then the US starts imposing it's rule and Africa starts receiving territory subsidies annually.
Out of curiosity, where would the $500 billion go to primarily?
Good question blamonkey. The $500 billion annually would go to various projects.
First, it would go towards vaccinating virtually every last African. This comes before roads because I would prefer the Africans being vaccinated first before they travel so they don't spread the disease. This is done until the disease is virtually eradicated from the territory.
Then, it would lead to better roads(to start off, simple 2 lane roads should work). http://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/#comment-8135 states that roads cost around $2.5 million per mile. Therefore, 300,000 kilometers of roads can be built on the territory added on to what's already there, enough to go from Cairo to Cape Town 50x. To put it into perspective, the US has about 6 million kilometers of roads. This may sound insignificant but keep in mind, Africa already has roads so the 300K km of roads is in addition to the current roads on the continent. Still, I imagine this is where 10 years of territory subsidies are going towards so the region can become at least somewhat connected.
After the 10 years, I think the money should be invested on solar panel projects in the Sahara in order to get electricity to the territory. Africa couldn't afford this. But the territory subsidy can help pay for it. Installing 1 solar panel costs $800. $500 billion can pay for about 800 million panels (there will probably be a discount since the US gov would buy so many panels) and this could help give the Africans that don't have it cheap electricity. Who would be installing these panels? Africans. This helps reduce the unemployment rate. $500 billion was a sample number. If necessary, this number can increase in a tax plan I have.
Obviously, mandatory vaccinations would work.
As long as the vaccines don't contain unborn baby parts, I am fine with this.
This operation, even if it is successful, would mean practically all our active troops being reallocated to overthrow 53 countries.
Not all of the troops. Just some of them would be necessary to invade and control Africa until the Africans benefit enough to where they are fine with being a US territory. Most Africans hate their government(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8215083.stm) so they probably could be open to a US democratic alternative with less corruption.
basically slaughtered plenty of Native Americans to get that land so that people from the US could settle there
The natives I imagine died mainly from disease which was an accident on the west. It's not like the west knew they had deadly diseases. The natives compared to the west also had a very low population so westernizing the area was easy. I imagine some natives got slaughtered. Many nations have committed some genocide at some point and I don't endorse the genocide that the US did in the past. However, the time of genocide is over for the US. I don't support killing off the Africans on the basis of their race.
Also, we made Puerto Rico a territory,but it is far from the utopia that you would think it is. The Borgen Project estimates that over 40% of those that live in Puerto Rico live below the poverty line, and median incomes are only about $19,000 annually (1).
Their median income is still higher then the average GDP per capita in Latin America. The GDP per capita of PR is around $27000 (https://tradingeconomics.com/puerto-rico/gdp-per-capita). This is about double the GDP per capita of the rest of Latin America.
-->
@blamonkey
You bring up the GDP, and while it is a good indicator of economic health, it definitely does not tell the whole story.I think I brought up GDP per capita.Also, the GDP does not take into consideration homelessness or internal violence.It takes into account homelessness, since they tend to be poor. It does not take into violence, that I'll concede. Violence would plummet under American rule in the long term. It happened like that when the British invaded India. There was relative peace and the British helped end the sati practice, which burned widows just for being widows.The initial anger at the US overthrowing their nation, as well as the internal displacement of people because of war, will cause much suffering.In the short term, this would be true, but in the long term, I imagine they would accept US rule as their lives get better.Even if it only took one decade to fix up Africa completely, (which, given bureaucratic deficiencies, the existence of terrorist groups, and the severe lack of infrastructure is seriously unlikely,) we would still pay $5 trillion dollars.Eliminating the terrorist groups in Africa would be easy since the US military spends about 12x more then the African governments do in their military. If we spend 12x more then the governments, eliminating some relatively vigilantic terrorist groups would be easy to do.This is not even counting the cost of keeping thousands of troops to keep the peace,prevent terrorist groups from taking over land, and overthrow Africa.This can be paid for with an increase in military spending, which can help defend economic freedom worldwide.Also, I like how you cite many of your claims. Wanting to put that out there.If we are trying to pay for the entire cost using the precious metal industry in Africa, then we still end up losing more money than we gain. Maketwatch reports that roughly 75% of South Africa's goldmines and 66% of their platinum mines are not earning much profit despite their immense reserves of both metals (4).This is because mining is hard on the continent, I imagine it might be because of government regulation and corruption.Moreover, how do we know that $500 billion for entirety of one continent is enough? The US spends roughly $12,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child within the country, or expressed differently,over $3.8 trillion every single year (5). Suddenly, $500 for every person in Africa doesn't sound like a lot. This is especially true when we consider that 1.2 billion people live in Africa according to the Guardian (6).We can spend more on Africa if necessary. $500 billion was a starter number and would go from the US to Africa in order to develop the region. Considering that Africans would pay tax under American rule, they would get this money back as well. I'm willing to increase this number to $1200 billion annually for now. This is $1200 per African in services. This would cure or significantly reduce many of the contagious diseases like Malaria and West Nile Virus and the money should be used first for roads and second for solar energy.
The military might of the US is great but looking at only three African nations (out of 53,) should immediately illustrate the flaw with the idea that we can take over Africa.Soldiers aren't everything, but I would consider technology a superior indicator of how strong a military is since it barely matters how many soldiers you have if your up against one solider with a bomb and a plane. If one solider has a plane with a bomb and firepower, he can wipe out an entire base all by himself and his technology. Africa has inferior technology and I think it would be safe to say that their allies (like China) have inferior technology as well to the US. The US would win in a war for Africa.Allies are not going to support us taking over an entire continent,especially since they receive no tangible benefit from doing so and would probably face international scrutiny in the form of sanctions.This is a good argument. I don't want sanctions. However, I think that if the US gets the UN's permission to invade, then we can invade without sanctions. Believe it or not, an invasion fits in with some things that the UN wants to do with the world. I'll address that later. There is one point that I want to address first.China is trying to establish their presence within Africa through their aid and would not sit idly while the US erodes their sphere of influence.I don't think China can do much about it in the long term. If China had the ability, they would eliminate South Korea and make it communist. But they don't do that because they are afraid of the US military. They tried that once and failed. They can't win in a battle close to their home. If they can't win a military battle in East Asia, how could they win on another side of the world? China wouldn't win in a conventional war against the US.Now to deal with the UN argument:The UN's goals and how a US invasion of Africa would meet these goals:MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. An invasion would help keep the African nations at relative peace with another, similar to how the British kept peace when they controlled India.PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. As an example, in Africa, many people get killed for being homosexual and real non consensual sexism is prevalent there. People are also prohibited by their families to go to school, thereby keeping them in poverty even more. An invasion would cause human rights to flourish. It would get more people educated. It would deliver human rights to the homosexuals and females, something that the left and increasingly the right wants.DELIVER HUMANITARIAN AID: I would want $527 billion delivered in humanitarian aid to all US colonies on the basis of population annually. This would go towards developing Africa instead of providing things like food, which the locals have been doing well enough for the time being.PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Once Enough good roads are built in Africa and other developments, like alternative energy for the Africans, this would create jobs from which people can afford to buy better food. They don't have to grow it on their own, but they are nonetheless, developing. This also provides incentive for American companies to go out and get cheap land to start their businesses. It would be great for the American stock market.UPHOLD INTERNATIONAL LAW. Here, they basically want to limit aggression between states. In the short term, this will not be the case. However, as I had mentioned above, in the long term, not only would there be more peace in Africa as history has confirmed with the U.K. and India, but there will also be in the long term, more peace between Africa and the US if the Africans are treated well enough under US rule. No slavery is necessary for the invasion. This way, Africans feel more American and as a result, they would want to stay in the nation that offers them citizenship. In other words, they ideally consent to being a colony because they don't want to lose their newly acquired American citizenship.
Sorry for the huge amount of text. I'm not a spammer. I feel through on this topic.
7 days later
-->
@blamonkey
I meant thorough, meaning detailed. Sorry about the spelling error.
70th post right here.
52 days later
Anyone else want to comment?
-->
@Alec
- Unrealizable & foolish idea on so many levels. If the US wants to survive the future, it needs to make friends not enemies. The world is changing, drastically.
1: More land
- You mean territory. Not feasible in today's world, with the UN council.
2: A chance to make a better reputation.
- You mean at being notoriously aggressive & hegemonic. Is your solution for the US having a bad reputation worldwide to invade even more countries...?
3: More natural resources, which Africa has a lot of.
- The US already gets those by exploiting the continent. Much of American investment poured into Africa is for mineral extraction.
4: 1 billion people to assimilate to make Americans.
- Supposedly, 1 billion African would turn 300 million Americans, not the opposite. People generally don't make friends with enemies who invade their land...
5: Curbing Chinese influence in the region, which has been developing a lot recently.
- On the contrary. If the US invades Africa, the African countries would rely on China even more.
A few American soldiers would die obviously. However, I would rather see 10,000 soldiers die then to allow millions of African children to die from Africa's high infant morality rate, something that would get fixed under American rule.
- If the US cares about the high infant morality in Africa then it should invest in the continent to raise life conditions there, instead of exploiting it. In case you didn't know, it was a US government policy for decades to ration African aids to curb population growth in Africa, through natural high mortality & forced government incentives.
-->
@Yassine
- If the US cares about the high infant morality in Africa then it should invest in the continent to raise life conditions there, instead of exploiting it. In case you didn't know, it was a US government policy for decades to ration African aids to curb population growth in Africa, through natural high mortality & forced government incentives.
USA also killed a billion Africans by banning DDT.
-->
@Yassine
Thanks for being curious about this topic. I think an invasion would benefit the African continent and benefit the country as well, in terms of both human rights and economically.
If the US wants to survive the future, it needs to make friends not enemies.
If we invade Africa, and pay them territory subsidies, then I would think that Africa would be a friend, not an enemy. As history has shown, as long as the locals aren't oppressed, they are fine with being a colony. This is why French Guiana and Puerto Rico are mostly fine with being territories. If the Africans aren't oppressed, but instead have trade opportunities, then they won't want to break away.
Not feasible in today's world, with the UN council.
The UN would be okay with it if the locals are. If the locals aren't oppressed, once invaded and paid territory subsidies, they would be okay with it.
Is your solution for the US having a bad reputation worldwide to invade even more countries...?
If we invade and help the countries(not for free, my idea is to provide a $500 billion annual territory subsidy to Africa and in exchange get $800 billion worth of natural resources, which Africa has a lot of), then America would have a better reputation worldwide as those who invade and develop. The US could then turn around and sell those natural resources for $800 billion to Europe, Asia, and other interested parties. Africa gets $500 Billion annually more in addition to their current economy, the US gets $300 billion. The rest of the world gets cheap resources to improve their economies.
The US already gets those by exploiting the continent. Much of American investment poured into Africa is for mineral extraction.
Not sure if this is true.
Supposedly, 1 billion African would turn 300 million Americans, not the opposite.
This wouldn't be true since the US is in charge. Just as when the British were in charge of India, the Indians got more assimilated to the British then the other way around, despite their superior numbers, if America invades Africa, the Africans would get assimilated to American rule from a ideological standpoint. The exception to this is states/territory/colony rights, where on some issues they can make their own laws.
On the contrary. If the US invades Africa, the African countries would rely on China even more.
If the US invades Africa, they would rely on Africa more. China would be a little hypocritical since they invaded Tibet. Granted Tibet is now okay with it since their standard of living has gone up, but they used to want independence. Once China improved Tibetan life, Tibet doesn't want independence.
If the US cares about the high infant morality in Africa then it should invest in the continent to raise life conditions there, instead of exploiting it.
If your referring to foreign aid, that barely works. The UN has been at it for 100 years, it has barely worked. The US should invest in things to make African life better. I would prefer it if we got something in return. My proposal is:
-The US gives Africa $500 Billion annually.
-Africa gives the US $800 Billion worth of natural resources and agrees to become a colony of the US.
In case you didn't know, it was a US government policy for decades to ration African aids to curb population growth in Africa, through natural high mortality & forced government incentives.
Can you cite this?
Some pros to the invasion:
Pros to invading Africa:
- More minerals being mined with American Technology. This benefits the USA
- The UN should be okay with it. They wish to eliminate poverty, and an African invasion would help do that.
- More human rights on the continent, such as legalizing homosexuality. More human rights in America too, since we need their help too.
- Can make Africa part of a 1st world country and could even make Africa 1st world itself. Similar to #2.
- Can make Africa less prone to HIV/AIDS.
- It can allow the USA to give Africa a better reputation of the west.
- Can allow Africans to immigrate to the US and vice versa, therefore increasing globalization.
- Less refugees to Europe.
- An Actual good use for an increase in military spending.
- Better education opportunities.
- More land.
- Lots of jobs implementing solar panels in the desert and in the SW USA.
-->
@Greyparrot
USA also killed a billion Africans by banning DDT.
If anything, banning DDT saved lives.
-->
@Alec
Not even close. Try again.
Although DDT soon became synonymous with poison, the pesticide was an effective weapon in the fight against an infection that has killed—and continues to kill—more people than any other: malaria. By 1960, due largely to DDT, malaria had been eliminated from eleven countries, including the United States. As malaria rates went down, life expectancies went up; as did crop production, land values, and relative wealth. Probably no country benefited from DDT more than Nepal, where spraying began in 1960. At the time, more than two million Nepalese, mostly children, suffered from malaria. By 1968, the number was reduced to 2,500; and life expectancy increased from 28 to 42 years.
After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:
• In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.
Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.
Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed. Indeed, the only type of cancer that had increased in the United States during the DDT era was lung cancer, which was caused by cigarette smoking. DDT was arguably one of the safer insect repellents ever invented—far safer than many of the pesticides that have taken its place.
Carson’s supporters argued that, had she lived longer, she would never have promoted a ban on DDT for the control of malaria. Indeed, in Silent Spring, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical pesticides never be used.” But it was her contention that DDT caused leukemia, liver disease, birth defects, premature births, and a whole range of chronic illnesses. An influential author can’t, on the one hand, claim that DDT causes leukemia (which, in 1962, was a death sentence) and then, on the other hand, expect that anything less than that a total ban of the chemical would result.
In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.
After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:
• In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.
Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.
Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed. Indeed, the only type of cancer that had increased in the United States during the DDT era was lung cancer, which was caused by cigarette smoking. DDT was arguably one of the safer insect repellents ever invented—far safer than many of the pesticides that have taken its place.
Carson’s supporters argued that, had she lived longer, she would never have promoted a ban on DDT for the control of malaria. Indeed, in Silent Spring, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical pesticides never be used.” But it was her contention that DDT caused leukemia, liver disease, birth defects, premature births, and a whole range of chronic illnesses. An influential author can’t, on the one hand, claim that DDT causes leukemia (which, in 1962, was a death sentence) and then, on the other hand, expect that anything less than that a total ban of the chemical would result.
In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.
White Man's Burden all over again...
-->
@Greyparrot
I think DDT is off topic to the focus at hand; if the US invading Africa is a good idea.
-->
@Alec
How is it off topic? If the government is so inept as to listen to junk scientists and make bad policy that kills billions of Africans, how can you trust the government to take care of Africa now?
-->
@Greyparrot
If the government is so inept as to listen to junk scientists and make bad policy that kills billions of Africans
If DDT is good, then it can be legal. I don't know too much on DDT, so I might change my mind. There aren't billions of Africans to kill. The US gov can provide the Africans with money via trade. We give them $500 billion in cash annually. They give us $800 billion in Natural resources annually. The US sells that to other places for $800 Billion. Africa gets $500 Billion annually. The US gets $300 Billion annually. Both parties profit.
-->
@Alec
The Africans would eventually revolt and confiscate the resource plants, and become Socialist dictatorship. That's always the way historically.
-->
@Greyparrot
The Africans would eventually revolt and confiscate the resource plants
They won't revolt if they aren't oppressed. Most colonies have had oppressed natives. The few exceptions tend to not want independence. Some examples are French Guiana and Puerto Rico. If America make them capitalist with incentives, then their economy will prosper.
-->
@Alec
If we invade Africa, and pay them territory subsidies, then I would think that Africa would be a friend, not an enemy.
- Is it purchasing land or invading territories that you seek? These are two very different approaches.
As history has shown, as long as the locals aren't oppressed, they are fine with being a colony.
- First, when has history shown this? I fail to recall... So you want to negotiate with the locals to acquire their lands (basically a settlement)?
This is why French Guiana and Puerto Rico are mostly fine with being territories. If the Africans aren't oppressed, but instead have trade opportunities, then they won't want to break away.
- The US has shown very little non-oppression tendencies so far... The US (& Europe) has always been about Win-Lose deals with Africa (& others).
The UN would be okay with it if the locals are. If the locals aren't oppressed, once invaded and paid territory subsidies, they would be okay with it.
- The only realistically possible way this could happen is if these countries carry out referendums subsequent to which the supermajority must approve of the US sovereignty over their territories through negotiated settlements... & hopefully countries around the world recognize such results through the UN council... none of which I see happening. This is an extremely lengthy & complex & volatile process with very little chance of succeeding, it's practically impossible.
If we invade and help the countries(not for free, my idea is to provide a $500 billion annual territory subsidy to Africa and in exchange get $800 billion worth of natural resources, which Africa has a lot of), then America would have a better reputation worldwide as those who invade and develop. The US could then turn around and sell those natural resources for $800 billion to Europe, Asia, and other interested parties. Africa gets $500 Billion annually more in addition to their current economy, the US gets $300 billion. The rest of the world gets cheap resources to improve their economies
- Why not just invest that $500B into all sorts of infrastructure & trade & industries to modernize the continent to gain a market worth much more than $800B... just like what China is planning. But as you said, invasion is the only thing the US is good at. Case in point, you are American, your first solution was to invade... The truth is, the US (or Europe) do not want a strong Africa (or China or anybody), never have. In fact, economic prosperity of the other is a 'strategic threat' to 'national security' as per the Pentagon official policy in the US. If that wasn't the case, the US can easily invest into the infrastructure of Africa & reap the benefits for decades to come.
Not sure if this is true.
- Of course it is, two thirds of US FDI stock (foreign direct investment) to Africa is in mining:
This wouldn't be true since the US is in charge. Just as when the British were in charge of India, the Indians got more assimilated to the British then the other way around, despite their superior numbers,
- India was a colony, the Indians were never part of the kingdom. If they were, it would've been a totally different story of course...
if America invades Africa, the Africans would get assimilated to American rule from a ideological standpoint. The exception to this is states/territory/colony rights, where on some issues they can make their own laws.
- So, you want to invade African countries to make them into colonies but not American citizens?
If the US invades Africa, they would rely on Africa more. China would be a little hypocritical since they invaded Tibet. Granted Tibet is now okay with it since their standard of living has gone up, but they used to want independence. Once China improved Tibetan life, Tibet doesn't want independence.
- What does Tibet have to do with anything..? It is very obvious that if the US tries to invade an African country, the latter would take recourse with China to push out the US.
If your referring to foreign aid, that barely works. The UN has been at it for 100 years, it has barely worked. The US should invest in things to make African life better. I would prefer it if we got something in return. My proposal is:
-The US gives Africa $500 Billion annually.-Africa gives the US $800 Billion worth of natural resources and agrees to become a colony of the US.
- That's all great & dandy but it has never been the desire or policy of the US to invest in Africa in the first place, instead they get excess currency in aid, which as you said is no help...
Can you cite this?
Some pros to the invasion:
1. This does not help the African countries though... Also, this could be achieved from FDI, invasion is much more costly.
2. The UN stands for United Nations, which comprise all world nations -including African nations-, which would doubtfully agree to this...
3. Legalizing homosexuality is not human rights, not because you did that yesterday the whole world must. Humans are about much more than just what's between their legs.
4. FDI can do that, without need for invasion.
5. Investing in infrastructure & health can achieve that.
6. I assure you, invasion & good reputation don't concur, especially in the case of the US.
7. Now that's something, but why though?
8. With every invasion, you will surely have even more of them.
9. The $20Tr that the US has spent on wars could've instead been used to rebuild Africa 5 times over.
10. Investment in education?
11. The US has the 2nd largest land area after russian, that's plenty enough land.
12. SERIOUSLY! HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF INVESTMENT???
-->
@Yassine
“Is it purchasing land or invading territories that you seek? These are two very different approaches.”
“The US has shown very little non-oppression tendencies so far”
We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.
“The only realistically possible way this could happen is if these countries carry out referendums subsequent to which the supermajority must approve of the US sovereignty over their territories through negotiated settlements”
If the US promises to help the region and to make it 1st world from a fiscal perspective and has a legit plan to achieve this, then they probably will sign on. If they don’t(low chance), they’ll get invaded and helped out anyway. I don’t see the Africans rejecting US citizenship (under some situations).
“Why not just invest that $500B into all sorts of infrastructure & trade & industries to modernize the continent to gain a market worth much more than $800B”
That is the basic plan. The US would invest $500 billion into the continent. They just want something in return for this. China is offering low interest loans and is basically giving money away with nothing in return. They only invested $60 billion in the continent. Under my plan, the US would invest more in jobs such as cutting down trees in the center of the country to make room for farmland. If you live up north, their money may go towards installing solar panels to give the Africans cheap to free electricity. If they live down South, a combination of alternative energy and minerals could be where the investment goes.
“But as you said, invasion is the only thing the US is good at.”
When have I said that? The US is good at protecting certain regions from authoritarian regimes.
“Case in point, you are American, your first solution was to invade... The truth is, the US (or Europe) do not want a strong Africa (or China or anybody), never have.”
If Africa was part of the US, the US would want Africa to be strong.
“If that wasn't the case, the US can easily invest into the infrastructure of Africa & reap the benefits for decades to come.”
The US doesn’t invest in Africa because Africa is not part of the US. I mean there are food drives, but those barely help. A $500 billion annual investment in exchange for more natural resources would benefit both parties.
“Of course it is, two thirds of US FDI stock (foreign direct investment) to Africa is in mining”:
“India was a colony, the Indians were never part of the kingdom.”
Most of Africa would start out as colonies. Exceptions would be countries that provide enough rights to their locals. The requirements for this are unknown, but places like South Africa would be territories instead of colonies, which give them more rights within congress such as more representation and better trade deals.
“So, you want to invade African countries to make them into colonies but not American citizens?”
I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status. If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.
“It is very obvious that if the US tries to invade an African country, the latter would take recourse with China to push out the US.”
I think the US would win against Africa even with China allying Africa. China can barely win in the Korean peninsula, let alone a different part of the world.
“instead they get excess currency in aid, which as you said is no help”
Under the current status quo, the foreign aid barely helps because there is not a lot of foreign aid going there. However, with $500 billion a year, this would help the continent develop.
-->
@Alec
Hey man, watch some documentaries on Africa. Those Warlords love living that way. They are smiling and laughing as the American interviewers walk them down the street with gunfire in the background. One guy said, "we love this, it's our world." So, everyone telling you that we would have to do a mass genocide is right. We would have to kill a lot of people, that by the way, won't be easy to kill since their whole lives are living a war... that is the only choice. If you are okay with America going in hot, with missiles, warplanes, ground troops, marines, and mowing people down... Then that's what you're okay with. These nations run by these Warlords won't make it easy though... you'll have to kill innocent people to get to them. You'll have to kill kids bc guess what, they fight too. Then, once you pass all that, you'll have to go up against rapaciously war hungry gorilla warriors.
I don't know how it would play out other than a mass genocide. You are coming at this question like they don't like their lives over there... sure, you're right towards some, but you're also very wrong. They love it. It's their own world, kings among the slums type shit. Why would they give that up? The only way is to take it away from them and erase them... genocide.
-->
@Outplayz
Hey man, watch some documentaries on Africa.
Can you provide some links?
Africa spends $50 billion on it's collective military, the US spends close to $700 billion. We can beat them. I imagine some innocents and soldiers would die but the amount of lives that get saved by American influence would surpass the number of lives lost due to the initial invasion. Here are a few ways lives would be saved:
1: The infant mortality rate would plummet.
2: AIDS influence gets reduced.
3: Gays who would have gotten killed would be saved. There are around 100 million LGBT there, whether in the closet or out. Those that come out get killed and painfully.
They love it.
I am pretty sure they don't live living off of $2 a day for their lives.
-->
@Alec
Can you provide some links?
This is one that i remember watching and can find (it was easy bc who can forgot 'cannibal warlords').
I am pretty sure they don't live living off of $2 a day for their lives.
You're not getting it. Of course some or i'll even say most people don't like it. Who likes to be tied up and turned into a slave? You'll notice that in the documentary too... but don't turn your logical mind off... bc what you'll see is it's the older guys that have matured that aren't eating each other anymore. But that same guy preaching in the end of the video use to eat people's hearts.
You have a country of warlords, young, easily malleable, drugged up, and blood hungry. Do they overall love it? Maybe not, like you see... when some get older they regret it, but do they all? No. They are kings of the slums. They are powerful man over the weak. You think they'll just hand you that? Good luck taking power from a lion when it looks at you as the deer.
-->
@Outplayz
Who likes to be tied up and turned into a slave?
There would be no legal slavery in an American owned Africa.
Africa is pretty messed up from all that cannibalism, that's why they need the US to liberate the oppressed Africans that are oppressed by other Africans. The US benefits economically.
They also have a lot of AIDS. This can be fixed with extremely rigid sex rules and by prohibiting anyone with AIDS/HIV from engaging in sex. If even some people obey the law, the spread of AIDS would be lower then if no one obeyed this due to the law not existing.
Some kid said that they had no help. Under American rule, this would change as they would get territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources that would benefit the US.
bc what you'll see is it's the older guys that have matured that aren't eating each other anymore. But that same guy preaching in the end of the video use to eat people's hearts.
If they continue to murder and eat each other under US rule, they would be severely punished, either with the DP or life in prison with daily torture.
Good luck taking power from a lion when it looks at you as the deer.
The US is not the deer and Africa does not see the US as the deer. We're the tank. Africa is the deer by comparison.
-->
@Alec
By comparison yes, but mentality no... they are lions. They will fight until their last breathe... and live stream eating American hearts.Africa is the deer by comparison.
Now, you are right we can change it. I mean, crap... we should liberate the whole world. They would all be better if they were more like us.. right? But guess what... that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will die. That is the only thing you are either overlooking or don't see seriously enough... people, Americans, will die. We are a powerhouse and less of us will likely die... but death is death. And further, for this exchange in death, or you sure things will change? Do you really think force will change a culture? Are you okay with having Americans be full time police to make sure they don't go back to eating hearts? Do we kill all of those that eat hearts? How many are there? How many children will we have to kill to get to them? Will we kill the child fighters? See what is repeated throughout this... killing. If you are okay with that, i agree if they were more like America more people would be happy.