Stop all foreign investment - this includes the large oil companies (Nigeria) and the tobacco and mining companies (Zim). Without foreign support and bankrolling, the corrupt regimes must fall. They did in South Africa (& Mozambique, where it was the Soviets propping up the regime).
Let the fever burn itself out. It means people suffer, but future generations are better off.
That’s not a sour taste. You’re just drooling.
This is a dangerous idea. Granted many corrupt regimes are hanging on due to graft from foreign investments. And if the foreign investments ceased, the regimes would probably collapse. But there’s no reason to think democracy and civil rights would arise from the ashes. In most cases economic hardships lead to worse governments not better. South Africa was the lucky exception only because its economy had such a strong base.
Er, another piece of the equation - along with any “should we” question, you have to as, “could we.” You’re talking about a helluva lot of places that are ALREADY war-torn and ruled by vicious warlords. Have we not learned our lessons from Iraq, Somolia, and Vietnam? I mean, you’re talking about the largest military operation in HISTORY. Short of invading China, this would be the biggest disaster ever.
The largest military operation in HISTORY? I don’t think so. (Remember WWII?) It is clear though, that even the USA could not mount such a campaign economically. We can’t afford Iraq, and there will come a day of reckoning by doing it on the “Full Faith and Credit of the USA Mastercard.”
The lesson from Somalia and Viet Nam, is not that we couldn’t, but that we didn’t want to. The American public has no appetite for war, and certainly no war rhat is protracted or expensive. The specter of Viet Nam hangs over us like a pall and it was a matter of days after Iraq started that references to Viet Nam started. It certainly doesn’t need to be a disaster, and if the American public had the desire and/or support it would be entirely doable.
I think a broad based coalition, like the first gulf war, would be suffecient. (I’m not advocating military action) If the world, or a suffecient amount of advanced countries wanted to, bringing the warlords to heal would be done. For all the hand wringing about Iraqi insurgents, if the American public was fully behind this war (at the risk of taking the OP off point) there would be an additional 100,000 troops there from the beginning and the amount of attacks would be much lower. We’re to believe we can’t bring El Sadr to heal in Iraq although we brought Hitler and men like him to their ends. (And look at modern day Japan, Italy & Germany)
The same can be said of people like Mugabe and the warlords in Somalia. The US, and the western world has no appetitie for an excursion like this as the risks far outweigh the rewards (for most involved).
The issue of intervention is NOT of ability, for the countries who would participate certainly have the resources and abilities. They simply don’t have the political will or desire.
Please. We’ve already surpassed WWII’s greatest battles. Conquering the entire continent of sub-Saharan Africa is an impossible (for all intents and purposes) task.
MrDibble said:
Can they do without it [I**]today?*** Or, is that the long term prognosis? Because the images of starving children is seered into the collective conciousness of many people in the west. And if it is a medium, or long term prospect, there would appear to be some short term misery. (Like there isn’t now, huh?)
I defer to your knowledge of the region, but I’m struggling to see how sanctions were that effective. SA had many things going for it that most of the other countries do not have, and really have never had, isn’t that correct? The world’s track record on sanctions is miserable. The Iraqis have suffered for a dozen years with no end in sight (until the invasion), Cuba has been under sanctions for over 30 years. Uganda, Libya, Somalia, Haiti, Phillipines, Sierra Leone, the list goes on and on.
Maybe Apartheid was the perfect sin to awaken the consciences of the west, particualrly the US with it’s past with slavery. But I can tell you that the suffering in Africa gets no where the level of media attention or consideration that aparthied got in it’s waning days. It just seems to me that many pressures were brought to bear against apartheid from many parts of the globe and included both countries, global companies as well as the internal workings of the good people of SA.
I don’t see in my cursory review that the same mixture of rage, concern and passion exists for the rest of the region, and it doesn’t seem that internally the people of southern Africa have the gumption to rise up in similar fashion. (Unless, of course it’s to install a differnent flavor dictator) Am I wrong? Is there a latent groundswell of support just waiting for a catalyst?
You’ve outlined some good individual things that can be done. (Although I highly doubt that farm subsidies will go away, as much as they should…) Is not there some concerted things that can be done more proactivelly to affect change. (One would think that the UN would be the logical agency for that, but the UN is showing just how toothless and ineffective it’s been for the last 50 years)
Zag and I disagreed in the other thread, agree in this one.
What kind of cheeseboi fantasy is this, anyway?
Go play a game of Risk, kids.
How have we surpassed WWII’s greatest battles? Where do you get that from? On what basis? Troop counts? Artillery? Aircraft? The amount of nations participating? Body counts? Logistics? Military planning? Difficulty? This is not a question in the aggregate. In what way have we, or anyother country, in an isolated war or battle surpassed “WWII’s greatest battles?”
I can’t for the life of me understand the logic in that statement. If you simply look at the differentials of the various combatants in both WWI & WWII; the differentials in economic might, military prowess and technology of all sorts and compare it to a conflict like this it isn’t even close. IN WWII the allies fought through each continent (including Africa) and fought on numerous fronts with opponents that were infinitely more capable as the opponents that would be faced here. The technology that the US has, and it’s allies is simply dazzling.
I am NOT advocating military intervention, but to suggest that a concerted effort, by numerous nations couldn’t subjucate that region is pure nonsense.
You would probably need to define “success” in order to get a coherent answer. Mali is certainly a stable government, but the country is still dirt poor. With few insurgents and a (presently) pacified Touareg, the country could conceivably prosper, if not for the problem obliquely referred to in question #3.
The primary source of heating and cooking fuel is still wood. After years of desertification, the Sahel is moving further south. The Sahara is encroaching on more and more formerly arable land and the Niger is drying up. This means few cash crops, which means limited exports.
Uganda is still firmly in the hands of rich Indian immigrants (and their descendents) who have extensive tea and coffee plantations. The government is stable, but there has been unrest in recent years, particularly in the north.
But for a small percent of forest, the country has been denuded to plant cash crops such as pineapple and matoki. The coffee beans produced are not properly processed, so the export value has been poor. On the plus side, Uganda has about the best AIDS awareness program in Africa and condoms are encouraged.
How’d I do?
We are having enough trouble occupying two third world nations as it is and you are suggesting the armed occupation of half a continent? Does that not seem a little far-fetched? And to what end? It’s terrible and all that people are starving in Africa, but I don’t think stirring up a giant shit-storm is the answer.
Did you read what you quoted? I’ll requote it:
“Not” was in caps for emphasis; I was not advocating military intervention, so no sh*t storm.
And, “concerted effort”, and “numerous nations” (read:broad coalition like the first gulf war…) were** bolded** for emphasis; I didn’t suggest that the US A) Intervene militarily, or; B) Do it alone.
That’s pretty clear, yes?
I am not a military planner. (although it would seem from other threads that there a few who fancy themselves that way…) But it has been widely reported, true or not, that many of the top military felt that more troops were required in Iraq from the outset.
I don’t know if that’s true. The same reports say that Donald Rumsfeld nixed higher troop counts for political reasons, figuring that smart bombs and technology would make higher troop counts unnecessary. that makes sense and the war “proper” bore that out. Lower troop counts were in fact enough to get into downtoen Baghdad pretty darn fast. it would seem that no one saw the vitality of the insurgency movement and it would appear that higher troop counts were required, not for the war, but for ongoing security and domestic control.
Who knows?
But to your inference that we can’t handle Afganistan and Iraq, I would say once again it is NOT that we lack the ability to handle those venues, but that we, as a people, do not want to send large numbers of troops overseas for battles like these. IMHO the military planning, from Rumsfeld, were made in part due to political considerations, and without the widespread demonstrations (and impending election) there would be higher troop counts.
My point remains. If the International Community wanted to rid the world of the tin horn despots they could certainly mount such an effort, as was done in the first gulf war and even the conflict in the Balkans. the notion that it is impossible because it is “Africa” isn’t valid IMO.
You do realise the meaning of ‘subjugate’?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=subjugate
How do you conquer or enslave without a military presence?
BHabve you ever heard of Inchon, genius? Also, we dropped more ordinance in Rolling Thunder than we did in all of WWII combined.
If you think that, then you’re an idiot and need to visit Iraq for a prolonged vacation.
He probably thinks they would welcome us with open arms.
Please do not call me names.
To suggest that the Korean War is on par with WWII is absurd and the Inchon example belies the original claim of your’s which was, “Conquering the entire continent of sub-Saharan Africa is an impossible (for all intents and purposes) task.” and; “Short of invading China, this would be the biggest disaster ever.” (But thanks for thinking me a genius… 
)
This is getting horribly off point, and I’m losing interest…But we can talk about Iraq if you wish. You are maintaining that it would be impossible to subjugate that region, if I understand you correctly. Let’s contrast this war with the first gulf war.
If I remember correctly, (I don’t mean to be snarky but you would have been in about the 5th grade, correct Zagadka?) the USA sent around a quarter million troops. The other members of the coalition sent many more troops that the current “coalition” and the amount of hardware was immense, from many nations. I believe even the French sent troops and aircraft. The amount of sorties flown was mind numbing; I remember some statistic that said something along the lines that the amount of sorties flown in the first month eclisped the entire Viet Nam war. At the time, Iraq had the 4th largest army (maybe the 5th…) in the world. The crack Replubllican Guards were said to be particularly fierce and well trained.
Even the most ardent supporters projected many casualities. Others, like Daniel Shore the journalist predicted body bags coming home by the thousands. For him, and many like him, it was…well…“this would be the biggest disaster ever.”
While the prowess of the Iraqi war machine may have been overestimated, they were a formidible army. (Not like say…Botswana or Uganda…) And yet the Republican Guard were surrendering to CBS camera crews. I don’t think any serious observer would have doubted that **that **coalition could have gone into downtown Baghdad with no trouble; and not just to go into Baghdad but to maintain order. The troop counts on the ground were immense and the hardware available to them was equally impressive.
Isn’t that so? I’ve noticed your profeciency with Google from prior discussions. Go ahead and give us 2 columns, one with the names of the 1991 coalition members, their troop counts, harware supplied and even their body counts. Do the same for the current coalition. Even the USA (for what I maintain is purely political reasons) have sent something along the lines of only 60% of the troop strength that they sent in 1991. (I could be corrected with a valid cite; the Baltimore Sun is not the kind I’m looking for…)
I submit that the 1991 coalition is/was vastly superior in almost every way. (I read that the 1991 war used about 50% “smart bombs” as opposed to 80% in 2003. That would be a notable improvement) I would also submit that that fighting force would have been able to handle Iraq’s insurgency better, and would have been better prepared to maintain order, if for no other reason than much higher troop counts.
Even the current war, by most measurements has been a success. It is too early to judge the overall strategy or efficacy of the war. (So you know, I am NOT a supporter of this war; I’m only pointing out the military’s abilities) We have become so inured with painless victories with low cost and quick resolutions that the notion of 1 whole year! and 900 lives lost is somehow an abject failure. Short of the Gulf War, which has become the measuring stick for this war, history suggests that when you go to war it takes time and many people get killed. (despite little excursions like Haiti, Panama and Grenada)
My point is simply this: It is politically unfeasible to subjicate this region. The various nations do not have the political will, nor the inclination to come together as they did for the invasion of Kuwait. It’s economically unfeasible. (Iraq is showing us that…)
But…if WWIII broke out tomorrow, and there was a common goal as existed in 1991 the Allies, NATO or any other valid coalition wanted to subjugate that region they certainly have the military ability. (For that matter, even with the current coalition of the bought, browbeat and blackmailed Iraq qould be a different place of the same amount of troops that showed up in 1991 were on the ground there today)
The world showed it could come together in 1991. It showed something similar on a smaller scale in the Balkans/Baltics. The will is not there for Africa, but certainly the ability is.
A vacation to Iraq is impractical for the forseeable future, but there’s nothing keeping you from getting out of your dorm room and Berkeley for a different perspective…
I will clarify my point…
You cannot, within the context of this thread, subjugate this region (as you can subjugate economically) without a military presence.
As to the question as to whether we should intervene in the affairs of those countries, my opinion is *No. * I would imagine on that point Zagadka and I agree.
OTOH, if circimstances changed and we (‘we’ being any potent coalition) did intervene there was raised the question as to whether we could.
Zagadka maintained that, “Conquering the entire continent of sub-Saharan Africa is an impossible (for all intents and purposes) task.”
I respectfully don’t think he knows what he’s talking about.
It was conditional.
How does the fact that I’m right belie the points?
Dunno, how old were you during D-Day?
Are you suggesting that one must have lived through an event to discuss it?
lol. OK, I was in 6th or 7th grade, but even I remember that we attacked, they instantly retreated, then we bombed the holy shit out of them mercilessly.
Granted.
lmao
Nope. We can barely hold Iraq, they’re scratching for troops, it is bankrupting the government, and you want to invade a place how many times bigger, in the jungle?
I stand by my “if you believe that, you’re stupid” line.
Nope. See above line.
Most of Europe and Asia can’t project power beyond their own borders. They have neither the political, social, nor military will to do anything remotely resembling your invasion of Africa. The UN was not even capable of fighting one warlord in Somolia before crying and running home - and you think they can do that times a million?
But why? I thought that by most measurements, the war was a success, and Iraq is basking in Freedom and Democracy?
Nice dig. I’m in LA right now, spud. But at least I seem to be working at getting an education.
And your proof is that Iraq has been a resounding victory for the US. O_o
Yyyyeeeeeeea. Tell ya what, I’ll get back to you on that one.
If you don’t know the difference between those two, why should we rely on anythign else you say?
I have a theory.
Hey raindog… who won Viet Nam?