You seem to have many of them.
North Viet Nam
Was that because the US lacked the ability to win that war?
That is another debate entirely. I’m not entirely convinced we could have - though we may well have pressured China into more action and started a larger war.
Zagadka said:
Please dont call me names conditionally.
If I’m reading your point incorrectly, let’s save the bandwidth. Correct me. You’re asserting that the US, in partnership with other countries, could not successfully invade that region. Is that right? Not that they wouldn’t, or that it would be political suicide, or even that it would bankrupt the country. That we couldn’t ; that we lack the ability. Is that right?
Wasn’t the Inchon invasion a response to an earlier invasion by the North Koreans that overran the South Korean defenses? Given that it 50 years ago, what does it say about the capacity of the US (or other developed nations) to bring to bear immense military resources? Has our capacity to wage war diminished? And, would the likely opponent in Africa be as well equipped as the North Koreans? Was the Inchon invasion a success for the military?
In what way are we “scratching” for troops? Did we not field around 250K troops in 1991? Could we not do that today if needed? During peace time we would expect to reduce troop counts. In war, calling them up would be expected. Nor did I ever assert that the USA would go it alone, or that they would wage a war throughout the world simeultaneously. (Iraq, Afganistan, Africa etc)
Are we on the verge of bankruptcy, or just hyperbole?
Once again, maybe we’re in total agreement and talking past each other. I agree that it is expensive (prohibitively!) and near impossible politically. But as to the capacity, ability, for the developed nations to do this, unquestionably the resources exist.
If a broad based coalition (UN sponsored or not) wanted to invade Africa, there is certainly enough troops and hardware in the world to get the job done.
This comment made me think that we are talking in circles. This comment speaks of political will, and I think we proably agree on that. For many reasons like that it is unlikely that an invasion of Africa will ever happen. And it is likely that any one of those countries would not have the military might to do this on their own. But…as part of a coalition they collectively have the ability. (If not the will)
No more than Japan or Germany in 1945. Listen, I’m not a fan of this war. But it is too early for either side of this to claim victory. It is way too early to say if this ends up a long term victory or defeat.
Best wishes with that…
Exactly.
I’m convinced that this is going in senseless circles. I agree that there were larger issues that made it impractical to continue that war, or to expand it exponentially with China. (and at least the possibility of another world war)
Those are political considerations given the extenuating circumstances. But in it’s purest sense, absent those circumstances, we certainly had the ability to bring much higher levels of resources to bear. For all the right reasons we took a loss and packed our bags and went home.
In 1991, the worlds was almost unanimous in it’s outrage towards Saddam Hussein. There was nothing preventing a broad based coalition from brining together an impressive amount of military might in repelling his invasion.
If similar circumstances presented themselves in Africa, there would be little that those few countries could do to repel the wrath of the free world.
Yes, certainly.
The US, Australia and whoever else participated tried pretty damn hard, but it just wasn’t winnable. (That is, outside of bizarre thought-experiments involving mobilization of all men between 20 and 40, or nuclear weapons, neither of which are or were possible).
lol
I find it ironic. You’re talking about the “wrath of the free world” to “subjagate” the third world.
In any case, you’re now avoiding the point that it would be impossible - impossible politically, impossible socially, impossible economically, and impossible militarily - to conquer Africa.
For now I’ll be charitable and assume it was unintentional, Kel, but that OP is pretty racist.
Yipes. I can’t add much to this thread in the historical analysis, but I have to agree that most of Africa’s problems were either caused or made worse by colonialism. So MORE colonialism sure as hell won’t fix it.
Again, just yipes.
Yeah, because that strategy really made things better for the people around the world who lived under it.
Suuure it would. It would help a few wealthy elites in Africa and make Western businesses rich. You do realize this is pretty much the same as the system we have now, right?
Hoo boy…
How exactly would it be to Africa’s benefit OR the West’s if millions and millions of soldiers were sent there to kill and to occupy? The Africans would hate it for reasons I hope don’t have to be explained, and everybody else would hate it not just because of the imperialism but because they wouldn’t want to be sent to die for such ridiculous and transparently greedy reasons. You’re claiming, Kel, that this is basically a war for charity. Congrats, that’s the weirdest premise for a war I’ve ever heard.
Unfortunately, I think you do need to explain.
Why is there a moral objetion to colonalism? The people over there are dying. Something needs to be done and people are not going to help unless they can see what is in it for them.
Colonialism and imperialism are what got Africa into this mess in the first place, by setting up states with arbitrary borders and leaving them without government, education or healthcare systems, but with ethnic divisions, fervent nationalism and a whole lot of guns.
More recently, we’ve staged the odd coup, armed the occasional group of maniacs, supplied aid that is funnelled through governments and used as a tool of oppression and fought against those trying to make AIDS drugs cheap.
We caused the problems in the first place and we perpetuated them. Your solution to these problems rests on fundamentally racist notions. Furthermore, it’s impossible, and even if it could be done, would involve stripping people of whatever political power they hold and repressing them further.
That’s what’s wrong with colonialism.
When people “help” other people because of what is in it for them, Kel, somehow it usually works that what they do does not really help.
Jeez! Look at this! How did this OP rate a two-page thread?
My point, I think, is that most of those children go on starving when there IS aid. Because the aid doesn’t get to those who need it.
I don’t believe Cuba was ever under worldwide sanctions. I could hop on a plane and vacation there tomorrow, and return with all the cigars and rum I wanted. Under US sanctions != worldwide sanctions.
I was talking about Zimbabwe specifically, because it’s one case where there was a strong moderate opposition party, that could have taken over IF the ruling party did not have the threat of withholding food as a weapon.
Nope. But that’s no excuse for continuing to prop up dictators. Western governments and corporations, especially oil and minerals companies, are continuing to do this today.
Those are not all individual things. NEPAD and SADC are initiatives that need government support from western powers. Debt alleviation a la Bono is also, in my view, a good thing.
My thesis is that stability should be achieved internally. Africa has to OWN its own stability for it to mean anything. I see stability flowing from the South, the way SA and Botswana and Mozambique are now mostly stable, and Zim was for a long time. Replace Mugabe with a good government, and the trend continues. The knock-on effects for the Congo and the other central African countries will be almost immediate.
Because the level of ignorance and implicit racism in the OP just couldn’t go unopposed? Because very few people know what Africa’s really like, or how africans really feel about their colonial legacy? So it’s informative to see how condescending some people can be, advocating a Manifest Destiny-approach to our problems. “Yes, Bwana! Mesa let you run my country!”
Do those people debating the pros and cons of military attack know that there was one nuclear African power? Man, we gave it up…nobody else has ever done that! It’d suck if the thanks we got, was invasion. Hate to have to pit our rooivalk against your apaches…or our (proven) APCs against whatever tin cans you have rolling around Iraq (or smoking in craters) 
There is certainly a hell of a lot of ignorance here that needs to be worked on. Try looking at the GD “Can Africa be Saved” thread of Jan this year.
See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236726&highlight=Africa if I have got it right.
Aid does much damage as good, especially long term food aid. As an example here in Angola during the civil war it’s delivery was “taxed” allowing the MPLA and UNITA to feed their armies for free and the leaders to cut themselves off from any need to feed the population. Many observers believe it literally fed the continuing War as much as arms sales and military aid did.
Much too is conditional on purchases or cooperation from the donor countries; or. like much US and EU food aid, is actually a roundabout way of subsidising first world farmers and dumping Western agricultural output on the African market - detroying any attempts to develop the sector regionally in the process.
Trade is the main issue. Until global trade rules change to give a half-even playing field to the only output in which Africa could compete and develop economically (agriculture) then its problems will continue. Pretty much everything else is pissing about with the symptoms and not the underlying causes.
About Western firms propping up local regimes to secure access to oil and mineral reserves, as MrDibble mentions, well I can give first hand confirmation of that. The US government in particular is determined to dominate West and South-West African crude output to protect themselves against Middle East politcal risks. The spy centre, sorry new embassy, the US are completing here (with six basement levels full of electronic equipment) says alot for their aims in the region.
It’s well-known that embassies are used as listening posts for the CIA and others…BUT: I’m not sure how you would have the sort of knowledge you are posting about the extent of equipment. I worked in a lot of embassies worldwide, and in countries far more sensitive than Angola, and never heard of or saw anything remotely resembling “six…levels full of electronic equipment”, let alone anything beyond one basement level containing anything but storage. Methinks I call “bullshit” on this one. The technology available today for intelligence gathering puts the lie to your comments.
Did you read any of the replies to your post? 
I was unaware colonialism solved this problem. I seem to recall hearing in history class that colonizing an area usually entailed killing a bunch of people.
See, the thing people are taking issue with is your notion that this would help Africans (that and your presumption that Africans are incapable of taking care of themselves). It wouldn’t. Colonialism is/was about exploitation, not charity.