-->
@thett3
Finally, someone who agrees with me on this issue. I thought it was my idea. Turns out I was wrong.
Should the US invade Africa with the long term goal of making the continent many US states?
Posts
Total:
139
-->
@Outplayz
I mean, crap... we should liberate the whole world.
I don't think the US has the ability to do that and to keep the areas ... yet. I would rather take Africa, liberate, assimilate, and fiscally develop Africa with territory subsidies in exchange for more valuable natural resources, then once that is done, I would want to move on to other areas of the world to annex.
that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will die.
Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die (as a guess, it might be more, might be less). Once the invasion is complete:
-Millions of homosexuals that would have gotten killed for being gay would have their lives spared because an American ruled Africa would be nicer to homosexuals then some african countries.
-Infant mortality rate plummets, saving an estimated 1.1 million children annually.
-Life expectancy is expected to increase by about 10-15 years, saving about 1 million lives annually.
In other words, the number of lives saved would make up the number killed in less then 2 years.
Are you okay with having Americans be full time police to make sure they don't go back to eating hearts?
I think Africa needs militarized police until the African territories have enough human rights to become territories. Until then, they should be colonies. The only reason why some Africans are cannibals is because they often don't have other options for food. If these Africans are given jobs in sectors such as extracting Africa's natural resources, and if they get paid $15 an hour or so, depending on their job, then these Africans won't have to resort to cannibalism for food. Some sample jobs that they could have are:
-A miner in the southern portion of the continent. This gives the US minerals.
-A lumberjack in the Congo area. This gives the US wood that can be used to enhance American cities. It also makes way for farmland, so less Africans are starving and so food is more common.
-A sand miner in the Sahara. These people mine sand to be turned into glass that helps modernize Africa.
-->
@Alec
And do you think the rest of the world would be okay with that? Or, maybe would that cause a world war?Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die
"They eat hearts bc they don't have food"
No my man, they eat hearts to assert power, put fear, and take the persons soul within themselves. The one's eating hearts are actually the one's fine with food. The warlords control the slums, they are kings. They get everything they need by force: food, drugs, sex, etc. They sound like scary people huh?
You didn't answer one of the more important ones... do we kill the child warriors?
What effect will that have on Americans fighting this war?
Buying the land won’t work. I propose invading the place and then once invaded, making the continent better wit territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources at a 5:8 ratio.
- Just to be clear, are we talking about realistic scenarios or fantastic ones?
We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.
- By invading them instead & killing millions in the process...
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).
- This is done through investment, not invasion. Of course Africans are not reject being invaded!!!
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.
- Of course China is getting plenty in return, Africa is geared to become the fastest growing market for the decades to come, it's paramount for China to take stronghold there before anyone else. You don't know much about Africa it seems. Here is an interesting one, America can invest into greenifying the Sahara desert. We are living in a technology driven world, it's not really about minerals anymore.
When have I said that? The US is good at protecting certain regions from authoritarian regimes.
- You mean disobedient* regimes. The number one catalyst of authoritarian regimes in the world is the US itself.
If Africa was part of the US, the US would want Africa to be strong.
- Or they can just invest... why is that such a bad idea? You seem to be under the impression that Investment = Loss. We live in a globalized corporate world, the capital & finance of the world is run mostly by corporations, not states (with few exceptions).
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.
- Maybe it should start investing before it's too late.
I was suggesting other resources primarily. Mining helps but only generates some revenue. I was suggesting that the Congo can be mined for trees and the sahara can be mined for sand (which can get turned into glass) which can benefit the economy.
- Sand is mostly used for construction. Regardless, technology >>> mineral resources.
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.
- In this case, this is a giant failure, who would wanna be a colony...!
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.
- This is so impossible on so many levels. Once these countries prosper, they can easily take over 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.
- The US is never going to war with China, that's unattainable. Which is exactly why it can not invade allies of China either.
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.
- It would, in FDI.
-->
@Yassine
Just to be clear, are we talking about realistic scenarios or fantastic ones?
I think the trade would be both realistic and fantastic.
We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.- By invading them instead & killing millions in the process...
We saved way more South Koreans and Japanese from our presence then the alternative of us not being there because communism would have taken over these areas militarily, and China would have caused millions to die.
You mainly suggest an alternative to invasion: investment. The thing is though is that investment is not popular for americans to carry out. If the government encourages others to invest in Africa, only a few people would engage in it.
it's paramount for China to take stronghold there before anyone else.
The US should get there first.
The number one catalyst of authoritarian regimes in the world is the US itself.
The #1 liberator of regimes in the world is the US. We liberated South Korea and Japan from communism. The people there wanted capitalism. China tried to prevent this.
Sand is mostly used for construction.
Maybe where you live (I don't know where you live) but if the sand gets turned into glass, it can be used to make bigger, more valuable buildings in Africa, which would help out the locals.
technology >>> mineral resources.
I don't know if Africa has enough minerals to pay off the $800 billion worth they would have to pay to the US in exchange for $500 billion annually. If they don't, then they can exploit other resources. Africa has a lot of them and this would benefit the USA. Investment won't be popular enough to increase the economy by that much.
who would wanna be a colony
If the locals are getting paid $500 per person on average in the form of jobs and they aren't getting oppressed, why wouldn't they want to be a colony?
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.- This is so impossible on so many levels.
What makes it impossible? Areas have became states before. Most states in the US were all or part of a territory before becoming states.
Once these countries prosper, they can easily take over the US
They won't take over the US if the US already overtook them.
The US is never going to war with China, that's unattainable. Which is exactly why it can not invade allies of China either.
We would win in a war with China over Africa. Nukes won't be used due to Mutually assured destruction. Our military spending is multitudes that of China and Africa put together. China can barely keep North Korea communist, and that's a country bordering China.
Interesting how you dropped my point on human rights.
-->
@Outplayz
And do you think the rest of the world would be okay with that? Or, maybe would that cause a world war?
There won't be a nuclear war over Africa since Africa doesn't have nukes. If the UN gets on my(and thett3's) side for this(which I think is actually achievable) then I don't think there will be WWIII.
They sound like scary people huh?
If they are willing to use violence to get in the way of the invasion, then they should get treated like enemy troops and killed.
do we kill the child warriors?
Just like any other enemy solider. I want to kill the enemy warlords because it would be necessary to bring peace to Africa. If the soldiers fight out of fear, then they won't have a reason to fight anymore. If they fight out of loyalty, then killing them will be necessary. More lives get saved in the long term under US rule, and I think you dropped this point, so it would be a net positive for the continent on the basis of life.
What effect will that have on Americans fighting this war?
Since our military technology is superior to the Africans, I think almost no Americans wills suffer death or injury.
-->
@Alec
There won't be a nuclear war over Africa since Africa doesn't have nukes. If the UN gets on my(and thett3's) side for this(which I think is actually achievable) then I don't think there will be WWIII.
But do you think there is a potential for there to be? Other powerhouses really don't like when we throw a government over just bc we want to make them more like us. What message does that send to the rest of them? They'll be thinking, "what?, one day you are going to want to attack us bc we aren't like you? Naw, lets not let this happen without showing our force." Which is sorta what is happening in the middle east. A bunch of nefarious reasons i'm sure; but, i do think on reason is that someone like Russia wants to assert their power too. That they aren't weak.
If they are willing to use violence to get in the way of the invasion, then they should get treated like enemy troops and killed.
Sure, that is my whole point... they will be enemy troops and we will have to kill them. From your last posts, i've realized you are okay with some loss of life in order to obtain a better future. I can't fully disagree with you bc i want them to be better too... it's just all of the implications in getting us there i'm wary about.
More lives get saved in the long term under US rule, and I think you dropped this point, so it would be a net positive for the continent on the basis of life.
I don't think i've dropped this point, bc i'm pretty sure i've said i agree. If anything i did now. The long run isn't what i'm personally focusing on however. Bc i feel the implications of taking over a country and their states is very dangerous. You don't know who you are pissing off; you don't know if the extremists will just go underground, strengthen, then come back full force again; you don't know what effect it will have on our soldiers mental health that they had to kill children, especially if it fixed nothing; we will lose lives in the millions as you've said, we will have to have a long war and a long time our troops staying back to rebuild the country (taking them away from a life they can have in the country they love); you'll be going against ruthless warlords in a gorilla warfare setting, which will be really hard for our troops bc missile strike have to be careful not to kill civilians; Missile strikes will actually probably kill innocent lives if we have to bomb somewhere our troops need help; bc missile strikes will be hard in an urban warfare scenario, we need troops on the ground... but how many? How long should they stay? ... etc., i can go on. I just see too many detriments in starting this war for the "hope" (bc it ain't guaranteed) that we will fix their culture... which is another important point, we are switching culture.
Since our military technology is superior to the Africans, I think almost no Americans wills suffer death or injury.
Have you ever read the Art of War? It doesn't matter who is superior or not, it's all strategy. The American troops were far superior in the middle east. But, they kept getting blown up with bombs vested, or IED's on the ground they missed. That is how a less technologically advanced country fights. They fight dirty, and it doesn't matter how much technology you have when you miss a bomb that takes out your whole crew. There are many other ways, and examples, that an underdeveloped nation can be very effective in harming the more powerful nation. I mean, we have in America a blueprint of what the most effective way to defeat an alien invasion that would be way more advanced... and, we've figured out ways understanding the Art of War (not the book this time, i mean in general).
Side note:
I don't understand why you are not thinking of alternative ways we can help them. Get volunteer doctors, get volunteer educators, crap, get a campain going that we will give all the people being abused and iPhone or Android with full access to the internet. If you look at the IQ of most of Africa, you can see a trend. I think this correlation is proper, less iq... the more you are prone to violent behavior. We need to teach them, we need to wake them up... then trust me, they'll fight back themselves. Maybe at that point we can all give them a hand. This is bc nothing is created through force. That creates more chaos (although i concede you can change cultures by adding chaos and letting it rework itself back to baseline - different story, if you're curious ask and i'll explain how). The way you change a culture is by empowering and enlightening its people from the ground up. Any good marketing person knows building ideas, a movement, etc... will always tell you it happens from the ground up. It rarely happens by the end product being pushed, especially through violence since that can only lead to more violence.
12 days later
-->
@Outplayz
But do you think there is a potential for there to be?
Technically, there is a potential for everything. However, if the UN says okay to this and we invade, China and Russia would be hypocritical for nuking us for invading since they invaded too (China invaded Tibet, Russia invaded Crimea).
Which is sorta what is happening in the middle east.
I don't think the US invaded the middle east. Otherwise, Iraq would be part of the USA. The US invaded Puerto Rico. The US invaded Hawaii. We did not invade Iraq.
they will be enemy troops and we will have to kill them. From your last posts, i've realized you are okay with some loss of life in order to obtain a better future.
I believe something similar to this. If 1 million African soldiers have to die to save 2 million people per year from various diseases, infant mortality, tribal wars, killing people for being gay etc. I'm fine with that.
Bc i feel the implications of taking over a country and their states is very dangerous.
Russia did it to Crimea. I don't support it since it's Russia that did it. A little of national bias there. But I could cede Crimea to Russia in exchange for invading Africa. I would also be willing to have the US pay Ukraine adequately for the lost territory to repair relationships with Ukraine. Most Crimeans are fine with it after all.
You don't know who you are pissing off
I would piss of the leaders but I hope most of the public is okay with it. If they aren't, they would be once the US fixes Africa up with territory subsidies(TS). They would probably think that independence means an end to the TS so once conquered, they would want to be in the US.
you don't know what effect it will have on our soldiers mental health that they had to kill children
How would it be any different then killing an adult enemy?
we will have to have a long war and a long time our troops staying back to rebuild the country
I don't think the war would be that long and rebuilding the country in a first world fashion would be much quicker then if Africa was on their own to fix their own problems.
I just see too many detriments in starting this war for the "hope" (bc it ain't guaranteed) that we will fix their culture... which is another important point, we are switching culture.
Under American rule, the Africans ideally would be entirely assimilated into American and western culture to help prevent separatist movements and to promote long term peace. I don't mean to like have poor conduct here, but what is the value of keeping a culture? Culture divides people among cultural lines. If the world had one united culture, humanity would be more united. If they lose their culture, what would the ramifications of that be?
That is how a less technologically advanced country fights. They fight dirty, and it doesn't matter how much technology you have when you miss a bomb that takes out your whole crew.
If they fight dirty, and the UN approves of the invasion, the UN probably would give the US permission to fight dirty too. I would want to do minimal damage to make the continent American.
Get volunteer doctors, get volunteer educators, crap, get a campain going that we will give all the people being abused and iPhone or Android with full access to the internet.
That's been going for a while and it isin't effective because most people aren't interested in helping out Africa.
We need to teach them, we need to wake them up... then trust me, they'll fight back themselves.
I don't think many Americans are okay with teaching them stuff because getting to Africa is hard and the pay would probably be very small.
The way you change a culture is by empowering and enlightening its people from the ground up.
Or they just accuse us of being too "western" and ignore anything we say to them. Africa right now hates the west because the west treated the locals badly. If America treats the locals well, they won't want to break away. France colonized French Guiana, treats the locals well now, and now the locals are generally fine with being part of France.
especially through violence since that can only lead to more violence.
In the short term yes. However, I think long term. Violence and TS would make the region less likely to break away.
-->
@Alec
Technically, there is a potential for everything. However, if the UN says okay to this and we invade, China and Russia would be hypocritical for nuking us for invading since they invaded too (China invaded Tibet, Russia invaded Crimea).
This should answer most of the question that regard this. Bc it would be invading a continent, not just one of its countries. Unless, you are saying only Libya or something. But, as i'm aware... that isn't the only country in need of a change. This would be a big war dude... it's not small.
If 1 million African soldiers have to die
I'm just guessing and not looking up numbers... but i'm afraid we would have to kill a lot more than a million.
How would it be any different then killing an adult enemy?
This answer worries me a bit man. Do you not know much or lack in empathy? The reason being is bc they are children. Brainwashed, drugged up, abused (possibly even sexually), to fight and kill when they don't even know what that means... You are killing children, not adults that know what they are doing. Imagine being a sniper or heavy gunner and just watching children get blown to pieces... kids, man. I can see a racist not be affected by it... but most people with empathy will be devastated that they had to kill children... especially those with kids. Sure, not all will be affected but there will be those that are...
I don't think the war would be that long
Seriously dude? You are talking about invading a continent... when was the last time we had such a large scale war like that? The only way it will be fast is if we just nuke them. Ground war will not be fast dude.
Culture divides people among cultural lines.
That's not true. There will always be people that like some things and not other things. There always be cultures bc that is the human nature. I like many cultures not of my own, and many i don't like that much. It's the hate in humanity that divides us, it's governments that divide us, it's media that divides us... it's powerful people trying desperately to keep their power. Bc guess what that power gets them? They're dick sucked by everyone all day. That's what people don't get... these people aren't are friends. Humanity, or the majority not in power, need to realize their power to change the world... not allow these powerful people play chess with our lives. You have a good heart... they don't. They like how Africa is bc they profit and keep their power. That's why the only way to change is to wake humanity up to their power... not rely on the powerful. They DON'T have our best interests in heart. That is the deception they feed us.
If they fight dirty, and the UN approves of the invasion, the UN probably would give the US permission to fight dirty too.
So devalue ourselves? Cut heads off and torture and rape? You're starting to sound a bit sociopathic man lol. I'm not being mean, i like having this conversation, but that's what would have to happen... bc they are sociopaths and psychopaths. We would then have to be too.
most people aren't interested in helping out Africa.
On the news, i just saw an American being held hostage. A beautiful blonde white girl. Was stolen from a car. It pisses me off why she would even be there... she is likely being raped by 20 guys a day. It really pisses me off... i think we should leave them alone... they deserve their hell. Like i said, only the weak becoming powerful can change it... if they are complacent, i don't care... they deserve their hell in my eyes.
Africa right now hates the west because the west treated the locals badly.
Right bc going there and trying to help, which we do a lot, is treating them badly... i think stealing and raping Americans when they are there to help is treating us badly... we should hate Africa, but then there are still good hearts that go.
Here, i'll compromise. Let's arm all the "seemingly good" citizens and let them work it out. I don't want more Americans to die for a country that won't help itself. And, rather resort to eating hearts... The only way is through their own. They need to fight for it if they want it bad enough... and if they don't want it... the way i see it, they're okay with it.
-->
@Outplayz
Unless, you are saying only Libya or something. But, as i'm aware... that isn't the only country in need of a change. This would be a big war dude... it's not small.
If we invade the capitols with the US's big military, the US has 2 million troops. 40,000 troops per capitol can locate the capitol building of each country and invade that via sending planes there. From there, the leader is forced to surrender sovereignty to the United States at gunpoint. If he refuses, he gets shot. If he gives in, he is removed from office and the locals can elect their own representatives that would get send to D.C.. I would want every African territory to have between 3.5 million and 7 million people in it so every area gets 1 representative, unless they are a territory or a state, then they would get more representation. If a country has more then 7 million people, the area is broken up into many small territories. If the area is too small, it gets merged with other small areas. This would mean that every African colony gets representation within the US gov and all of Africa would initially have about 200 representatives. They get more if they become a territory or a state. Becoming a territory requires adherence to some human rights standards and being a state requires a high enough GDP per capita (I would say $25,000 per person or higher) as well as having enough people(at least 500,000).
I'm just guessing and not looking up numbers... but i'm afraid we would have to kill a lot more than a million.
If we had to kill 10 million people (high estimate) and once the continent is ours, the US saves 2 million per year, in 5 years, we save as many lives as what was taken in the invasion. Then, more lives get saved since 2 million lives saved per year would continue to be a consistent rate.
You are killing children, not adults that know what they are doing.
This is not an explicit rule. Some children would know what they are doing and some adults wouldn't know. I think most soldiers children and adult wouldn't know what they were fighting for except with some basic information because that's how people are in general.
I can see a racist not be affected by it
I don't think this has anything to do with race. I know a black person that agrees with me on this issue.
but most people with empathy will be devastated that they had to kill children
Many people support treating children the same way they treat adults under the law. This includes being an enemy solider.
I don't think the war would be that longSeriously dude? You are talking about invading a continent... when was the last time we had such a large scale war like that?
Europe for the most part invaded all of Africa and Europe was very divided when they did it. A united american force of superior strength probably can win in a comparable amount of time, even with Africa being 4x more powerful then when Europe did it.
Culture divides people among cultural lines.That's not true.
It happened with Austria Hungary. They tried to be multicultural and they broke up. The reason why the EU didn't yet unify in the same way the US did (in other words, a United States of Europe) is because of cultural division.
So devalue ourselves? Cut heads off and torture and rape?
I don't think that is what I meant by fighting dirty. Fighting dirty would mean things like not taking prisoners, by killing all soldiers who attack us, gurrilla warfare and basically fighting tough.
-->
@Outplayz
Sorry about the formatting below but I don't know how to fix it. It was copied and pasted.
On the news, i just saw an American being held hostage. A beautiful blonde white girl. Was stolen from a car. It pisses me off why she would even be there... she is likely being raped by 20 guys a day. It really pisses me off... i think we should leave them alone... they deserve their hell.Just because some messed up Africans decide to rape and kidnap an American doesn't mean that the whole continent should suffer for it. The people who did the rape if I could decide their punishment would be life imprisonment. Rape is evil from what the victims say. But just because a few Africans raped a US girl does not mean that we should punish all of Africa for it. If your left of center, you feel this way about Muslims. If your right of center, you think this way about the police.Here, i'll compromise. Let's arm all the "seemingly good" citizens and let them work it out.While a supporter of the 2nd amendment for the mentally competent, arming all the Africans that are good enough to have the guns would cost around $200 billion, would be futile if the government takes their guns, and would be hard to figure out who is worthy of having a gun. People should buy their own guns. When the US funded rebel groups previously which is basically what your proposing, since these people will form groups, they ended up like Guatemala, which now has a bunch of people fleeing the nation. It also would result in the homicide rate skyrocketing because they are generally poor and they would be willing to kill for food since they are desperate. If the US invades, the US can provide jobs in natural recourse extraction for people that would resort to crime or prostitution otherwise for their needs and desires. These people would like the US influence on the continent.I don't want more Americans to die for a country that won't help itself.The way I see it, an innocent human life is an innocent human life. I would rather kill 1 US solider then kill 2 innocent Africans because it is more innocent human life.They need to fight for it if they want it bad enoughI imagine most Africans want to escape poverty. They just don't know how to do it. America can show them the way. They resort to crime to temporally avoid starving on an individual level. Many of them can't afford to come to the West and if they can, they don't know how to come legally, so they just stay in Africa generally. Even if the US had open borders, plane tickets Africa is fiscally liberal and this has hurt their economy drastically. They are mainly fiscally left wing because the leaders took influence from the anti-imperialist soviets who were socialist and this has influenced how Africa generally thinks, at least that's what I think is true. Since their oppressors were capitalist, they wanted to be as little like the west as they could with exceptions (like language because it's hard to get rid of and religion because they care about the afterlife).
-->
@Alec
From there, the leader is forced to surrender sovereignty to the United States at gunpoint.
I just don't think the rest of the world would be okay with that at such a large scale you are purposing. It's already on the news and controversy when a country like ours invades just one place. I mean the middle east is almost a scam or inside job, bc the only way others are tolerating it is bc they are threatening us and attacked us. Africa hasn't done anything to us, or attacked us. When Russia said they are going after Ukraine was it? Can't remember, but you know... even then it was a controversy to the point we threatened them. In such a large scale your are saying, i don't think the rest of the world would be okay with that... plus, the rest of the world i'm sure is profiting off the warlords. I bet we are profiting off the warlords. So... i just can't see this going down unless we brand them terrorists and say they are going to attack us or something.
If we had to kill 10 million people (high estimate) and once the continent is ours
That's a lot of people dude.
This is not an explicit rule.
Just bc some adults are children and have no clue isn't a point here... they aren't children. That is a fact. If an adult as no clue... imagine how little a clue a kid has. Plus, they are highly malleable and easily influence. Sure... i can make a kid think he's playing call of duty in real life and god will bless him... sure, they'll know what they're doing and what they're fight for... but do they really? No. I can tell them the demons will attack us if you don't do it... and they'll believe it. Adults wouldn't. But you're not getting it... killing children will have an affect on our soldiers. Not all of them, i'm not even saying a lot... but i am saying a lot more than soldiers just fighting other adults.
If your left of center, you feel this way about Muslims. If your right of center, you think this way about the police.
I don't fall anywhere really. Actually, honestly... i fall wherever it helps the most people. So trust me, i'd love to cure suffering from the world. But, i honestly don't think this would work. There are too many things that can fail. Plus... i don't know if you really think this is going to happen or your just throwing a theory out there. I actually agree with you in regards to helping out people suffering i just don't think this way would work... "realistically" .. that's are divide bc hell yeah i think we can go in there and destroy shit and free the people... we're America. I just don't think it will ever happen. The world wouldn't allow it (i suspect), i don't even think America has this anywhere on their list of things to do. I don't think this world cares man. So realistically... at least presently and into some of the near future... i don't think this will happen or even be purposed to happen. I mean come on... a war to save people and give them freedom? Here i'll ask this bc i don't know and might change my mind in the timeline a little... is there any money we can make off this war? Any money that we aren't already getting by the way... If there is extra money to be made, maybe we'll start talking about it... if not, they don't exist. Yeah man... it's a fcked up world.
-->
@Alec
Should the US invade Africa with the long term goal of making the continent many US states?
I don't think the Donald is an invasion kind of President, to be honest. I Like his idea of America/americans first. I think he is more for cleaning up his own backyard before interfering in others people's business unless something directly interfered with Americans and or American business interests abroad.
-->
@Stephen
I don't think the Donald is an invasion kind of President, to be honest.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What's your point?
I am glad he is being advised/warned this way aren't you? I think Trump has much better things on his mind at the moment. like the next election . I don't think he will do anything drastic unless the regime down there starts opening up on unarmed civilians.
Oh, and the subject is USA / Africa, the last time I looked.
-->
@Stephen
Advised doesn't mean he is actually going to listen and not do what he is doing. My guess he will withdraw from wars in order to start his own wars. My guess would be that he will wage war against Venezuela. Maybe not during this presidential cycle but I am sure he would in his more than likely 2nd term in office.I am glad he is being advised/warned this way aren't you?
I don't think he will do anything drastic unless the regime down there starts opening up on unarmed civilians.
He had a government shutdown. He can be drastic and will if he doesn't get what he wants.
Oh, and the subject is USA / Africa, the last time I looked.
Just wanted to tell you that Trump will wage war against Venezuela like past presidents went to war with Afghanistan, Syria etc. It is just a matter of time.
Advised doesn't mean he is actually going to listen and not do what he is doing.
I don't know and neither do you.
My guess he will withdraw from wars in order to start his own wars.
And your reasons and or evidence for that claim is what?
My guess would be that he will wage war against Venezuela.
And your reasons and or evidence for that claim is what?
Maybe not during this presidential cycle but I am sure he would in his more than likely 2nd term in office.
So that would be the "presidential cycle" that you say he won't do it in. And the one he hasn't even won yet but more than likely to win. OK, I see.
Dunning–Kruger
-->
@Outplayz
I just don't think the rest of the world would be okay with that at such a large scale you are purposing.
Initially, most people don't accept new ideas. Most people used to be against homosexuality. Most people used to be against weed. The reason currently why most people would be against it is because they initially respond as being against the idea. Once the idea becomes more well known, many people would support the idea. I'm not alone. Thett3 and this black guy I know both support the idea. Also, it's kindof falling into peer pressure to be against an idea just because most other people are against it. If against an idea, you should be against it for reasons other then, "Because everyone else is".
If we had to kill 10 million people (high estimate) and once the continent is oursThat's a lot of people dude.
More people get saved in the long term. If the UN realizes this, they might be fine with it.
is there any money we can make off this war?
Once the US invades, we can get Africa to agree to trade deals that benefit the both of us. They get $500 Billion from the US and the US in exchange gets $800 Billion worth of natural resources. These natural resources are then sold to places like Europe and Asia for $800 Billion. Africa makes a profit. The US makes a profit. The invasion is profitable to both sides.
The idea is unpopular now, I hope people change their minds on this. There are so many economic and human rights benefits to the invasion.
Chapter 4: What the hell happened here?
-->
@Alec
So from what i'm getting you think this idea should be more popular. In total, you think more people will be happy and free in the long run if we can go in and basically clean things up. If that's the case, i guess that is a scenario which would be good so i'm not quite against it... but still, i don't think a war this big is just going to happen.
You brought up the money stuff, just wanted to make sure that's how you see it... which is kinda my next point. If we make money if they're doing better... i wonder what it is that's still keeping us from doing something like this.
I personally think it's bc it's too much to ask American's to die for... solution would be to get a lot more to care. And, i think it would piss off the other powers in this world. This i don't really have a solution for other than take those places over too. Or, just wait until they are all on the same page as America ... which i don't see happening anytime soon. I think that's the biggest hurdle to jump. Just bc the UN gets on board doesn't mean the rest will... even if it's just to spite us. Still, you figure out the two above, i think only then can we start talking about something like this.
-->
@Outplayz
So from what i'm getting you think this idea should be more popular.
I hope the idea becomes more popular in the near future.
I personally think it's bc it's too much to ask American's to die for... solution would be to get a lot more to care.
To me, an innocent human life is an innocent human life. I would rather have 100 Americans die then 1000 foreigners die if everything else is consistent. More Americans would benefit since the country profits off of natural resources.
And, i think it would piss off the other powers in this world.
China and Russia probably will get pissed. This can be handled in 2 ways:
1. We can let them annex other countries to balance things out. Russia can annex much of the former USSR to become Russian territory and China can take South East Asia. Both countries will have to assimilate the locals within their countries in order to prevent them from developing cultural nationalism which leads to independence often but this can be achieved.
2: We can piss off our enemies in the short term but they would get used to it after time. Once this time passes, they would gradually recognize Africa as sovereign American territory. Russia would see their own hypocrisy in invading Crimea and China would see theirs in invading Tibet.
-->
@Alec
African invasion would help do that
So we would solve poverty by starting a war and destroying cities in Africa, and the UN would allow it?
Ok then buckaroo
-->
@Vader
I don't think cities have to be destroyed. We just need to get Africa to surrender and then the continent would belong to the US.
-->
@Alec
Waging a war and forcing Africa to surrender to solve for poverty when they would expense
1) Natural recourse
2) Destroy livestock
3) Kill people
4) Force America down their throats
But yea, UN would agree with this like PETA agrees with eating cows
-->
@Vader
1: They would lose some natural resources. However, since Africa has a lot of them, it would barely make a dent in their overall stock of natural resources.
2: How would livestock die in significant numbers from the invasion?
3: Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die (as a guess, it might be more, might be less). Once the invasion is complete:
-Millions of homosexuals that would have gotten killed for being gay would have their lives spared because an American ruled Africa would be nicer to homosexuals then some african countries.
-Infant mortality rate plummets, saving an estimated 1.1 million children annually.
-Life expectancy is expected to increase by about 10-15 years, saving about 1 million lives annually.
In other words, the number of lives saved would make up the number killed in less then 2 years.
4: Africa lacks economic and social freedom in the world. They need a western country to liberate them, to spread human rights. What's wrong with forcing America down the throats of areas that the US owned? American influence worked well for Puerto Rico. They have the highest GDP per capita in Latin America.
The UN wishes to eliminate poverty and an invasion would help do that. They want equal treatment of women. An invasion would help promote that.
-->
@Alec
Yeah, but they probably don't share in your idea... remember, we would be sending sons and daughters to die. I don't think people care about Africa enough to do so... it's just our current reality.To me, an innocent human life is an innocent human life. I would rather have 100 Americans die then 1000 foreigners die if everything else is consistent. More Americans would benefit since the country profits off of natural resources.
China and Russia probably will get pissed.
They would be more than pissed. I'm sure they would do something about it. Bc we aren't talking about a country here... we're talking about a continent. I don't think they want America to have that much more power. Plus, we shouldn't want them to have more power either... we can't just be okay with Russia or China taking over countries and making it there own. So i don't know... i just don't think this would be as easy to play out as you're thinking.
-->
@Outplayz
remember, we would be sending sons and daughters to die
There also would be sons, daughters, babies, moms, dads, and the elderly that get saved by the invasion indirectly. Anyone who fights for this country and dies for it is consenting to the process. Soldiers have the mentality of willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the country. The vast majority of soldiers would be reluctantly okay with dying for the nation's interests.
Plus, we shouldn't want them to have more power either
It would be an overall win for the US. We have less people then China. If Africa were annexed, that could change. Eventually China will overtake the US economically if things are going as predicted. The US should take steps to prevent this from happening such as annexing new land.
we can't just be okay with Russia or China taking over countries and making it there own
Russia did this with Crimea and I think the UN will eventually recognize this as Russian territory. I'm fine with them doing this as long as they pay Ukraine a fair price for Crimea. The US can even offer to recognize the annexation of Crimea in exchange for Russia recognizing the US invasion of Africa. The US then restitutes Ukraine to stay on good terms.
-->
@Alec
Why aren't we taking advantage of our economic high ground and proposing a superior relationship to undermine the Chinese in Africa, and be a willing partner in the nations' explosive potential?
-->
@Snoopy
I think the US should take advantage of the economic potential that Africa has with it's natural resources.
-->
@Alec
What does your cost benefit analysis look like with considerations like incentivizing mutually beneficial relationships through investment in infrastructure, compared with an illegal military campaign?