View Full Version : A durable solution for Africa
I can think of only one, and it's rather drastic, let's recolonise parts of the damn place, with force if needed. Birthrates are too high it can never be sustainable, but we can hardly let them starve either. We have the expertise to make sure there is enough food, and the military capacity to ensure the stability. In a period of 30 years we can build it up the and teach them how to do it themselves, after that we leave. We would be taking away their freedom and dignity, but in the long term we would help them. Africa will not improve when left to their own devices
Major Robert Dump
08-07-2011, 12:23
If there were a way to move the continent farther away from Yemen well that would be a start.
Papewaio
08-07-2011, 13:00
Isn't the overall stats for Africa improving... not as fast as India or let alone China, but overall Africa as a continent is getting better... particularly the non-oil countries.
Cute Wolf
08-07-2011, 13:23
well. africa is pretty :daisy: up right now, but who can tell that China, no more than 30 years ago is also still :daisy: up as well and now they are better than USA in some aspects?
classical_hero
08-07-2011, 13:24
I can think of only one, and it's rather drastic, let's recolonise parts of the damn place, with force if needed. Birthrates are too high it can never be sustainable, but we can hardly let them starve either. We have the expertise to make sure there is enough food, and the military capacity to ensure the stability. In a period of 30 years we can build it up the and teach them how to do it themselves, after that we leave. We would be taking away their freedom and dignity, but in the long term we would help them. Africa will not improve when left to their own devicesAnd if they don't comply we can just send them to concentration camps. Yeah.
HoreTore
08-07-2011, 13:25
Isn't the overall stats for Africa improving... not as fast as India or let alone China, but overall Africa as a continent is getting better... particularly the non-oil countries.
7 of the countries on the top 10 list for highest expected economic growth in the next 10 years are african.
They are all relatively politically stavle, howevr. That is the main factor in Africa, not economic system or resources, but stability and peace.
And if they don't comply we can just send them to concentration camps. Yeah.
Why if we just stop feeding them they die out of theirselves no
Skullheadhq
08-07-2011, 13:54
The most durable solution for Africa is just to not care, look the other way and let them solve everything themselves like we did ourselves. Placing them on a food-and-money infuse isn't helping anyone and is just killing any impulse to let them do anything themselves, it is just a neverending cycle. Africa is fertile enough, they should manage.
The most durable solution for Africa is just to not care, look the other way and let them solve everything themselves like we did ourselves. Placing them on a food-and-money infuse isn't helping anyone and is just killing any impulse to let them do anything themselves, it is just a neverending cycle. Africa is fertile enough, they should manage.
Horrible but true, but we got to be able to help somehow, you don't just let your fellow humans die
Adrian II
08-07-2011, 14:05
They are all relatively politically stavle, howevr.
You mean 'stable' dictatorships in which the undeserving few usurp all the riches.
I wouldn't mind colonising any backward dictatorship, if only it were feasible. There will be tremendous resistance however, and even in places where there isn't, it will be impossible to enforce democracy, install a middle class, raise education levels and improve productivity without the whole operation spiralling into chaos. I mean, whom would you entrust with mission? Ngo's? :rolleyes:
AII
Skullheadhq
08-07-2011, 14:09
Horrible but true, but we got to be able to help somehow, you don't just let your fellow humans die
If we feed them now, the next food crisis will be 8 times worse. Somalia obviously can't handle this huge number of inhabitants.
rory_20_uk
08-07-2011, 14:12
Yes, leave them alone.
The reasons loads of africans die in the famines is because there are too many people for the land to support and the rulers can also use famine as a weapon in itself.
We let our fellow humans die all the time. But it would be better for them to die once rather than cling on to life, have a litter of malnourished children and for the cycle to continue.
The concept of a country taking over a piece of Africa, replacing the existing beaurocratic apparatus with something that works better, possibly even redefining borders and then leaving the locals to sort themselves out is tantamount to Racism as you are clearly saying that the locals are less able to do this than Europeans.
~:smoking:
Skullheadhq
08-07-2011, 14:16
The concept of a country taking over a piece of Africa, replacing the existing beaurocratic apparatus with something that works better, possibly even redefining borders and then leaving the locals to sort themselves out is tantamount to Racism as you are clearly saying that the locals are less able to do this than Europeans.
~:smoking:
Because it is regarded as racist doesn't mean it doesn't work better. And the locals have, over the course of 60 years, clearly shown that they are less able. The permanent state of civil war and food crises just proves it.
Major Robert Dump
08-07-2011, 14:31
The next big multi-national campaign is going to be North Africa. This has been in the works since well before the Libya debacle: despots, pirates and islamofascists all working side by side, pretty obvious actually.
Because it is regarded as racist doesn't mean it doesn't work better. And the locals have, over the course of 60 years, clearly shown that they are less able. The permanent state of civil war and food crises just proves it.
Sure. But not able is not the same as not capable. Now if we put the money we throw away now in something that can work. Screw the accusationss of racism and govern for while
Skullheadhq
08-07-2011, 18:38
Sure. But not able is not the same as not capable. Now if we put the money we throw away now in something that can work. Screw the accusationss of racism and govern for while
We did it once, and they screwed up afterwards and we were seen as evil and blamed for the failure of what happened afterwards, even to this day some hold this view.
Centurion1
08-07-2011, 18:54
You mean 'stable' dictatorships in which the undeserving few usurp all the riches.
I wouldn't mind colonising any backward dictatorship, if only it were feasible. There will be tremendous resistance however, and even in places where there isn't, it will be impossible to enforce democracy, install a middle class, raise education levels and improve productivity without the whole operation spiralling into chaos. I mean, whom would you entrust with mission? Ngo's? :rolleyes:
AII
Don't we all dream for that one Cinncinnatus esque military genius? A man (or woman) who is smart enough to rule and fix somewhere like this but who is incorruptible and truly wishes to bring the nation up......
Unfortunately such individuals with the ability to seize power are few and far between and those who could do so are usually found within the worlds western militaries. Which is nearly worthless because what fragony is suggesting is likely to never happen.
When I saw the thread title, and the person who started it, I laughed a lot. When I opened the thread, I laughed some more.
I agree with recolonization, but why leaving? Why should a economical failing Europe invest in defeating well equipped and modern armies, plus having to endure guerilla groups in every single country, and then dumping loads of money (Provided we actually manage to defeat or minimize guerrilla groups), and then leaving?
If we actually went in, we would be there to stay for another couple hundred years. Africa has a huge economical potential, but its elites are braindead retarded, most of the African societies are run on corruption and patronage. Wealth and opportunity are absorbed and siphoned off to those elites. We'd have a green-based electrical powerhouse in the Sahara if it were up to the Europeans, providing a much cheaper and reliable alternative to the Russian imports. And that is just one side of how a united Europe could turn a colonial Africa into a superpower.
We could really start with Somalia. Invade the whole :daisy: thing and implement European colonial rule. No more pirates in a year's time.
Tellos Athenaios
08-07-2011, 18:59
Meh. There's lots of misery in Africa, but if you were truly intent on fixing it I suggest you donate some money to the likes of Oxfam and leave the White Man's Burden at home. Micro credit beats colonial rule.
Adrian II
08-07-2011, 19:07
We did it once, and they we all screwed up afterwards
Exploitation, slavery, humiliation and bloodshed left their mark on Africa at least as much as railways, schools, cigarettes and Albert Schweitzer did.
Afterwards everybody screwed up, not just Africans. The greatpowers mangled that continent and bled it dry with their proxy wars and military coups and fights over minerals.
I don't know, I have a sense that somehow we're not welcome yet as overlords of Africa.
AII
Fisherking
08-07-2011, 19:33
..., but its elites are braindead ...
and ours are better? :inquisitive:
Centurion1
08-07-2011, 19:44
and ours are better? :inquisitive:
I am going to answer that one............... YES. A thousand times YES.
Fisherking
08-07-2011, 20:08
I am going to answer that one............... YES. A thousand times YES.
And I think that political leaders will get away with what ever they can.
I don’t think that a Bill Clinton or George Bush would govern an African country much different from the leaders they have.
When someone has power of that extent they tend to use it in the same way.
Look at the colonial legacy and see if they are not handling things in much the same way as those who came before.
and ours are better? :inquisitive:
I'll leave that as a rhethorical.
So would a "durable" solution be something similar to a "final" solution? Oh, I couldn't help myself! Thank you, thank you, I'll be playing here all week. Try the veal. Tip your waitress -- but don't tip her over!
HoreTore
08-07-2011, 22:49
You mean 'stable' dictatorships in which the undeserving few usurp all the riches.
AII
No, I do not.
Strike For The South
08-08-2011, 01:10
Europe installs ruthless colonial regimes which pillage the natural resources, all the while pllaying ethnic and tribal strife against eachother
Then Europe leaves in the dead of night leaving the colonial head crackers in charge. They in turn become ruthless despots...surprise
Now we should do it again?
Papewaio
08-08-2011, 01:59
Look at the colonial legacy and see if they are not handling things in much the same way as those who came before.
India was a colony, so were Singapore and Malaysia. Seems to be that colony =/= automatic failure.
gaelic cowboy
08-08-2011, 02:11
India was a colony, so were Singapore and Malaysia. Seems to be that colony =/= automatic failure.
No indeed an ex colony does not always mean present failure, the failure's in the places you mention were when the Empire was still knocking about.
Centurion1
08-08-2011, 02:14
Wait can you rephrase that. The syntax has me confused. The statement doesn't really make any sense. I have an idea what you meant but I am not sure.
Europe installs ruthless colonial regimes which pillage the natural resources, all the while pllaying ethnic and tribal strife against eachother
Then Europe leaves in the dead of night leaving the colonial head crackers in charge. They in turn become ruthless despots...surprise
Now we should do it again?
Quite a few countries had a choice between becoming South Africa or Zaire.
I do distinctly recall Belgian government in the 60's having a phased plan for independence, where they would build up the country and actually build up a pluralist-minded ruling elite, who would little by little take-over and assume control, starting with the municipal administrative regions. Elections would be held repeatedly while still under Belgian sovereignty, which would make sure that those who ventured politics in Congo were not unaccountable warlords or people with blatant disregard for the rule of Law or autocratic tendencies. So as the people and ruling elites would gain some measure of pluralist culture over the decades, with the appearance of different parties et al. and the appearance of accountability of the Congo politicians to the people, Congo would become actually a viable country, some sort of African Brazil. Instead the elites wanted immediate power, played upon the frustrations of the people, and massacred enough Belgians that the events surpassed the Belgian plans and they got what they wanted: Total and immediate power. The rest of the history can be guessed. It's just about the same thing as your average African country. Worse even.
Plans had been made for roughly the same purpose in the Portuguese African colonies.
gaelic cowboy
08-08-2011, 02:19
Wait can you rephrase that. The syntax has me confused. The statement doesn't really make any sense. I have an idea what you meant but I am not sure.
the idiots like to think they ran these places all spiffing and whatnot, that is a big lie.
Centurion1
08-08-2011, 02:24
But how does that address other colonies being well off afterwards?
gaelic cowboy
08-08-2011, 02:26
But how does that address other colonies being well off afterwards?
does not matter in the slightest if an ex colony is bad or good today they were all bad when they were colonies.
Name one that did not have terrible and sometimes unimaginable horrors visited upon the native population.
Adrian II
08-08-2011, 06:59
I do distinctly recall Belgian government in the 60's having a phased plan for independence, where they would build up the country and actually build up a pluralist-minded ruling elite [..]
Hahahahaha! :bounce:
Seriously, Belgian rule of the Congo is generally recognised as being among the worst colonial regimes ever. The Belgians made a total mess of it, they left in a hurry and all they could do was pick a probable winner in the ensuing power struggle in which the US, the Soviets and South Africa were already involved as rival outside forces.
AII
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2011, 07:26
Advocates of imperialism should always consider how keen they would be for the situation to be reversed. To be consistent, European imperialists should welcome the armed intervention of the People's Liberation Army to come and sort out our inability to run our own countries.
Unwanted colonisation seems to be a subject that exercises Fragony most of the time - odd to see him advocating it as a solution for others.
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 12:17
Hahahahaha! :bounce:
Seriously, Belgian rule of the Congo is generally recognised as being among the worst colonial regimes ever. The Belgians made a total mess of it, they left in a hurry and all they could do was pick a probable winner in the ensuing power struggle in which the US, the Soviets and South Africa were already involved as rival outside forces.
AII
The source of Congo's problems is not that the colonists left too soon, but that they have never left.
I'm going to be obscenely pretentious, and quote some poetry to make my point. It's Kipling, funnily enough.
Take up the White Man's Burden
The Savage wars of peace-
Fill the mouth full of famine
And bid the sickness cease.
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 13:20
Shall we have a look at another overpopulated area which has struggled to feed its population for millennia?
That would be China. That area has always been overpopulated and always struggled to feed itself. It's actually only managed to do that during the last 50 years or so. China found its answer on its own, and I see no reason why Africa won't do the same.
India is another starvation-area which has managed to feed itself first after the west stopped meddling.
It's actually only managed to do that during the last 50 years or so
Wut, forgot about the Great leap Forward
Adrian II
08-08-2011, 13:27
That would be China. That area has always been overpopulated and always struggled to feed itself. It's actually only managed to do that during the last 50 years or so.
The largest famine in Chinese history (and probably human history as well) took place under Mao in 1959-61 and it was government-induced.
AII
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 13:31
The largest famine in Chinese history (and probably human history as well) took place under Mao in 1959-61 and it was government-induced.
AII
What is 2011 minus 1961, Adrian?
What is 2011 minus 1961, Adrian?
Before that there was pretty much enough food. The effects were felt WAY longer than 1961, especially in the 'wild west'
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 13:42
Educate thyself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Educate thyself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Maybe they should, almost 50 million died not 15. See more mistakes, 20.000 dutch in WW2, it's closer to 100.000
Good book on China, it's a roman though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Swans
I'm going to be obscenely pretentious, and quote some poetry to make my point. It's Kipling, funnily enough.
Take up the White Man's Burden
The Savage wars of peace-
Fill the mouth full of famine
And bid the sickness cease.
I always thought his warning about colonialism (from the same poem) was on the mark:
By all ye cry and whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
I always thought his warning about colonialism (from the same poem) was on the mark:
By all ye cry and whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
It isn't a warning about colonialism he is dead serious
edit, wrong poem
gaelic cowboy
08-08-2011, 14:39
And I say to my people's masters: Beware
Beware of the thing that is coming,
Beware of the risen people
Who shall take what ye would not give...
Pearse said it best with this line even if he was a bit mad in the head.
Adrian II
08-08-2011, 15:00
What is 2011 minus 1961, Adrian?
Oh please, the world's most prominent historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine:_The_History_of_China%27s_Most_Devastating_Catastrophe,_1958-62) of the episode makes it 1959-62 and starvation in China continued for years after that. So did cannibalism.
AII
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 15:03
Oh please, the world's most prominent historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine:_The_History_of_China%27s_Most_Devastating_Catastrophe,_1958-62) of the episode makes it 1959-62 and starvation in China continued for years after that. So did cannibalism.
AII
How is 49 years different from "50 years or so"?
How is 49 years different from "50 years or so"?
The days of the Great Leap Forward are nicely catogarised, the actual effects less so, some say up the the late seventies. Some estimates go up to 200 million in total
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 15:44
The days of the Great Leap Forward are nicely catogarised, the actual effects less so, some say up the the late seventies. Some estimates go up to 200 million in total
How is that relevant when what I was referring to was the period after that event?
That was after all the last famine in China. Before that, there was always a famine going on somewhere in China. No more of that now, China is now well-fed.
How is that relevant when what I was referring to was the period after that event?
Because it took a while to recover, duh. The famine lasted a lot longer, 159-1961 was just the period of the politics. After the Great Leap Forward the Cultural Revolution started and it's all guesswork from there.
Adrian II
08-08-2011, 16:40
That was after all the last famine in China.
Is a 1979 famine in China late enough for you?
AII
Vladimir
08-08-2011, 16:49
So would a "durable" solution be something similar to a "final" solution? Oh, I couldn't help myself! Thank you, thank you, I'll be playing here all week. Try the veal. Tip your waitress -- but don't tip her over!
Agreed.
You can't treat an entire continent as a problem. In less, of course, you're in Antarctica and the problem involves birth control.
Advocates of imperialism should always consider how keen they would be for the situation to be reversed. To be consistent, European imperialists should welcome the armed intervention of the People's Liberation Army to come and sort out our inability to run our own countries.
Unwanted colonisation seems to be a subject that exercises Fragony most of the time - odd to see him advocating it as a solution for others.
I welcome a Belgian takeover of the U.S. The healthcare plan would include free waffles, fries, and beer for seniors.
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 16:52
Is a 1979 famine in China late enough for you?
AII
Cease your endless stream of facts at once! Bloody dutchie. You're making it very hard to make broad statements.
Anyway, the food situation in China is now stable and it does manage to feed its population. Or do you disagree with that?
Adrian II
08-08-2011, 16:59
Cease your endless stream of facts at once! Bloody dutchie. You're making it very hard to make broad statements.
Anyway, the food situation in China is now stable and it does manage to feed its population. Or do you disagree with that?
1. Fact (http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfp083699.pdf): 1979–1982: Emergency food assistance to refugees and people affected by natural disasters. WFP assistance started with provision of emergency food assistance for Indo-Chinese refugees in Guangdong and Yunnan provinces through quick-action projects.
2. Fact (http://english.cctv.com/program/newshour/20091016/102916.shtml): When China began co-operating with the World Food Program thirty years ago, it depended on the organization's aid to feed 400 million people.
This, plus the One Child Policy, is what prevented millions ferom starving in the 1980's and 1990s.
AII
HoreTore
08-08-2011, 17:06
Again with the facts....
When did we stop discussing things using only bigotry and hyperbole?
Adrian II
08-08-2011, 17:32
Again with the facts....
When did we stop discussing things using only bigotry and hyperbole?
Wait for my coming hyperboles, you'll be amazed :smash:
AII
Hahahahaha! :bounce:
Seriously, Belgian rule of the Congo is generally recognised as being among the worst colonial regimes ever. The Belgians made a total mess of it, they left in a hurry and all they could do was pick a probable winner in the ensuing power struggle in which the US, the Soviets and South Africa were already involved as rival outside forces.
AII
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. Not one of the worst, but up to par with the German methods, it is THE worst. Nevertheless, the massive brutality ended after the transfer of sovereignty from the King to the country, and improved after World War 2. The 50's/60's saw a gradual improvement in the treatment of the African population, which is exactly when there was the discussions to build up the native elite to rule.
Portuguese colonization on the other hand, always placed a great deal of influence on the intermingling between colonial and native populations. So much that when the revolt started in Angola (Imported from Belgian Congo, where they thought that with similar handful massacres they could also scare the Portuguese into running away.) a lot of the native population actually sided with the Portuguese. So much that there were plenty more dead black people (Portuguese supporters) than white people in those initial massacres. Plus there was a broad support from the native population to maintaining the Portuguese administration. The expansion of infrastructure and native education in the colony withered away the support that the independence movements had. But obviously the economy was mostly agricultural and small-scale industry.
That is the type of colonization I do propose, with the adaptations needed to suit the modern day's challenges and opportunities.
Papewaio
08-09-2011, 03:43
Meh I think Gandhi and India is a better choice of colonial transition.
Mind you I think the reason Gandhi looked such a good option was a choice to go violent and then have to front up against the Seikhs... something even Indian Prime Minister have regretted doing.
Noncommunist
08-09-2011, 05:10
If there were a way to move the continent farther away from Yemen well that would be a start.
There is, it's just happening very slowly.
India was a colony, so were Singapore and Malaysia. Seems to be that colony =/= automatic failure.
Some of that is probably related to their history with governance. India, Singapore, and Malaysia have had experience with larger and more expansive states than much of Africa and perhaps that wore down any tribalistic mindsets that favored using the state apparatus to only benefit one's ethnic group.
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2011, 05:21
Question: Why do we care if Africa is a hell hole? The last generation that perpetrated colonization in their countries foreign policy should all be sitting in their nursing homes by now since it was 50 years ago. Today's Euros had nothing to do with any of what is going on today besides sending them food.
Question: Why do we care if Africa is a hell hole?
You don't?
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2011, 07:22
You don't?
Not really. What business is it of the US to get involved? With the exception of some North African states, there really isn't any significant threat to the US originating from Africa.
Are you surprised?
Not really. What business is it of the US to get involved? With the exception of some North African states, there really isn't any significant threat to the US originating from Africa.
Are you surprised?
Don't see why we shouldn't just mob up a few failed states and build something from it, better than sending a few sacks of grain. Most aid organisations are economic hitmen who suck the life out of the place.
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2011, 07:51
Don't see why we shouldn't just mob up a few failed states and build something from it, better than sending a few sacks of grain. Most aid organisations are economic hitmen who suck the life out of the place.
Your great-great grandparents tried that already. They rebelled and ultimately broke/removed everything you guys built there. Unless you want to just eradicate the locals from entire sections of Africa, I highly doubt any sort of European building is going to survive.
What is wrong in letting them deal with their own situation? Are you really that disappointed with the under utilization of Africa's resources that you are willing to invest Europe's resources to get involved and try to create order in a region that really has no economic nor security threat to you?
you are willing to invest Europe's resources to get involved and try to create order in a region that really has no economic nor security threat to you?
Yeah, the development-aid budget is better better spend that way. That or no at all
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2011, 08:12
Yeah, the development-aid budget is better better spend that way. That or no at all
Then go with the latter.
EDIT: If you choose the former, all you are doing is setting yourself up to be laughed at by future generations reading history textbooks wondering why the grand children of those that allowed Africans their independence went back to try and take it all back again.
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 08:53
If you wanna go hardcore real politik then they are actually draining us of money. All the billions in aid and for what tangible benefit? To hope that 25% of the aid supplies get to aids, rape, war, genocide, starving residents?
Either clean it up completely or stop wasting money. Give me a relatively (i said relatively) strait laced PMC like Xenon with minor government oversight choose a leader you like, install said individual, enforce his rule using draconian but fair methods (western style courts and crimes but far harsher penalties) train up a competent and corruption native force, invest in infrastructure (corporations want to expand to places like africa but stay largely within asia because they are more stable) there your long term benefit, and so on and so forth until the place is functioning member of the world stage.
rinse and repeat.
That sort of scenario will eventually become reality. And I eagerly await the day.
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2011, 08:55
That sort of scenario will eventually become reality. And I eagerly await the day.
I still don't understand why. Why would we do this? Are we so determined to see Africa all cleaned up and proper so we don't feel bad about changing the channel on those starving child commercials anymore?
Strike For The South
08-09-2011, 08:57
Becuase mercenaries in Afirca turn out so well
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 09:00
I still don't understand why. Why would we do this? Are we so determined to see Africa all cleaned up and proper so we don't feel bad about changing the channel on those starving child commercials anymore?
Eventually they will do something to really piss us off and we will decide hey why waste american troops and dollars lets just send in a PMC. It isn't like the mercs would even have to deal with the kind of opposition we face in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Becuase mercenaries in Afirca turn out so well
It is probably safe to say South Africa is the most stable country on the continent and they are famed for the quality and quantity of their mercenaries. :laugh:
Edit: the world has a stigma against mercenary soldiers. I say get over it. Sure keep them out of normal campaigns and no need to use them to prop up our military because we lack in manpower. However, I see no issue with using them for such a purpose as what I descried. They don't have the same ethical issues and don't have to follow certain international guidelines. This isn't ancient Rome we will never be disposed by an army of mercenaries and we are different people. They aren't going to go off and rape and pillage the landscape in all honesty and most will likely behave themselves like most western soldiers.
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2011, 09:07
Eventually they will do something to really piss us off and we will decide hey why waste american troops and dollars lets just send in a PMC. It isn't like the mercs would even have to deal with the kind of opposition we face in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that they could do in the near future that will piss us off.
Well, except for the fact that Africa will be the new ******** in the public view for taking everyone's jobs at 10 cents an hour once China's workers get into the middle class.
Strike For The South
08-09-2011, 09:07
It is probably safe to say South Africa is the most stable country on the continent and they are famed for the quality and quantity of their mercenaries. :laugh:
Edit: the world has a stigma against mercenary soldiers. I say get over it. Sure keep them out of normal campaigns and no need to use them to prop up our military because we lack in manpower. However, I see no issue with using them for such a purpose as what I descried. They don't have the same ethical issues and don't have to follow certain international guidelines. This isn't ancient Rome we will never be disposed by an army of mercenaries and we are different people. They aren't going to go off and rape and pillage the landscape in all honesty and most will likely behave themselves like most western soldiers.
Just like they did in the 70s, when they werent raping and pilligang.
It is probably safe to say South Africa is the most stable country on the continent
Someone hasn't been paying attention, South Africa is a mess
Adrian II
08-09-2011, 09:13
Edit: the world has a stigma against mercenary soldiers. I say get over it.
And someone hasn't read his Machiavelli.
AII
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 09:15
Just like they did in the 70s, when they werent raping and pilligang.
Was it done under the supervision of America or a western nation? Don't get me wrong the western world isn't perfect but these days we aren't THAT quick to not give a **** about what our programs overseas do.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that they could do in the near future that will piss us off.
Well, except for the fact that Africa will be the new ******** in the public view for taking everyone's jobs at 10 cents an hour once China's workers get into the middle class.
Who knows maybe they pull some sort of 9/11 attack (since its speculative i see no reason to give motive) or swarm an embassy and butcher everyone inside. I can think of a thousand things that could happen. Note I said such a scenario would happen eventually.
Someone hasn't been paying attention, South Africa is a mess
Yeah and how is the rest of Africa? Rwanda, the congo, ivory coast, egypt, sudan, chad, nigeria, etc. Give me a break Frags.
Furthermore these sort of merc operations will be how we handle all of our future small scale engagements. Regular soldiers cannot fit a native entrenched guerrilla war and maintain a presence forever. PMC's can as long as the volunteers and cash flows. And volunteers do flow and they are professionals. A seal operative goes from making 50k (if he's lucky) to scoring 200k a year.
Papewaio
08-09-2011, 09:27
Gees which country rebelled again and in it's document of rebellion complained about the use of mercenaries?
Mercs have a dirty name because they are used as security guards and get into all sorts of trouble like Fallujah, shooting into markets because they are full of people like that is an unusual thing for a market or they are used for really unsavory things.
Mercs are the dictionary definition of money grabbing greed by violence.
They are an expensive way to create, to train, to inflame and to justify asymmetric warfare against the state that pays for them.
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 09:28
And someone hasn't read his Machiavelli.
AII
Ah I am going to enjoy this argument.
Machiavelli was a smart man and I agree with quite a bit of what he says but in this he is wrong, at least for this day and age.
First let's look at precisely machiavelli's position on Mercenaries.
He who holds his State by means of mercenary troops can never be solidly or securely seated. For such troops are disunited, ambitious, insubordinate, treacherous, insolent among friends, cowardly before foes, and without fear of God or faith with man. Whenever they are attacked defeat follows; so that in peace you are plundered by them, in war by your enemies. And this because they have no tie or motive to keep them in the field beyond their paltry pay
Mercenary companies are not what they were in 14th century florence. They are professional businesses which are legitimately run. Second in my little scenario who said anything about running the state with mercenaries? They will simply be an arm of the government sent in for nation building and guerrilla fighting. After their job is done they leave to do more bidding. So the issue of a plethora of armed killers being left unemployed after their contract is up is inconsequential in this situation (they hop back on a plane to their homes or off to other contracts). Disunited? no not really. Ambitious? Sure why not. Insubordinate? Not when everyone except their head honchos are one of their own. Insolent? not an issue who cares. Cowardly before foes, maybe in Machiavelli's world but not in PMC's of today. Most of you godless heathens probably enjoy that last bit haha. As for paltry pay..... I addressed this and think it speaks for itself.
Finally no one is talking about displacing the military with PMC's that would be ludicrous. And with the presence of an always superior military behind them mercenaries aren't about to sack Washington or Paris. Nor are the kinds of PMC's I am talking about going to turncloak on their employers to go help their enemies. Say Xenon (prominent US PMC) did so. The vast vast majority would refuse.... since yah know their families and places of residence are in the US. Not to mention their corporations headquarters, and other important things for them.
The main point is that the PMC's of today are not what they were four centuries ago.
Strike For The South
08-09-2011, 10:00
The more things change.....
Delusional mercinary scenarios included
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 10:04
The more things change.....
Delusional mercinary scenarios included
We will see. Unless western government allows draconian methods when trying to fight an insurgency you will be seeing scenario's like I just predicted. The future and recent past of war revolves around fighting insurgencies. And until we develop some sort of nuclear bubble shield :rolleyes: I don't see large scale conventional warfare getting back in the limelight. And if does..... we have bigger things to worry about.
Skullheadhq
08-09-2011, 10:19
Question: Why do we care if Africa is a hell hole? The last generation that perpetrated colonization in their countries foreign policy should all be sitting in their nursing homes by now since it was 50 years ago. Today's Euros had nothing to do with any of what is going on today besides sending them food.
This.
Adrian II
08-09-2011, 10:50
Second in my little scenario who said anything about running the state with mercenaries?
It says 'holding the state', i.e. defending it, not running it.
Most of the qualities of mercenaries which you shrug off are self-defeating. For instance merceneries are insolent with friends, says Machiavelli. You say that doesn't matter. But in the low-intensity warfare we see today, local friends are more important than ever.
You ignore his lessons only at your peril. Indeed, the world has changed a lot since Machiavelli. But man hasn't.
AII
Centurion1
08-09-2011, 10:59
It says 'holding the state', i.e. defending it, not running it.
Most of the qualities of mercenaries which you shrug off are self-defeating. For instance merceneries are insolent with friends, says Machiavelli. You say that doesn't matter. But in the low-intensity warfare we see today, local friends are more important than ever.
You ignore his lessons only at your peril. Indeed, the world has changed a lot since Machiavelli. But man hasn't.
AII
Holding the state in your definition is still irrelevant. Traditional forces would defend the state and fight conventional wars.
Insolence is showing a lack of respect for someone. Yeah insolent with friends. Machiavelli means compatriots and officers. The local village elders and such you are implying would likely not be treated any more insolent than regular forces treat them, which is to say not at all. Maybe in private life but not in combat then it is just stupid and you die. These mercenaries aren't some kids looking for adventure they are professionals.
Papewaio
08-09-2011, 11:33
The future and recent past of war revolves around fighting insurgencies.
As I said before Mercs will only lead to more asymmetric warfare. Mercs are the very bane of winning hearts and minds. They are the gold standard of infidel in any religious or enlightened mind.
They were used in Iraq as a quick way of ramping up assets on the ground, under the very mistaken assumption that the locals would rise up and throw off the yoke of tyranny and be running democracy and McDonalds in a year or may three tops.
If the plan had looked at the longer view and factored in the need for more boots on the ground and maintaining a positive presence with the locals then the amount of mercs would have been reduced to maybe the equivalent of shopping mall guards in the green zone.
Mercs as you have pointed out are more costly, aren't tied into the chain of command as well, and as proven by Blackwater they really do not make build positive relationship building any easier.
Meh. There's lots of misery in Africa, but if you were truly intent on fixing it I suggest you donate some money to the likes of Oxfam and leave the White Man's Burden at home. Micro credit beats colonial rule.
As far as I'm concerned Oxfam et al is a manifestation of the White Man's Burden, not an alternative to it.
Tellos Athenaios
08-09-2011, 13:09
Yes, and after you pay up you can pretend to have done your bit and leave the rest of it at home, as opposed to some harebrained takeover scheme.
Adrian II
08-09-2011, 13:12
These mercenaries aren't some kids looking for adventure they are professionals.
Like Blackwater, those steeled professionals, known for overbooking the US government for $300 million in Washington and stealing weapons from regular US troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Shees, how naive can you be. :rolleyes:
AII
Vladimir
08-09-2011, 13:29
Like Blackwater, those steeled professionals, known for overbooking the US government for $300 million in Washington and stealing weapons from regular US troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Shees, how naive can you be. :rolleyes:
AII
A great quote from an Army Colonel: "I hate seeing people get paid $100,000 a year for doing the same :daisy: they were doing when I kicked them out as a private."
Owwww mr Mandela what's that http://youtu.be/fcOXqFQw2hc
It would certainly explain the 4000 dead white farmers so far
Greyblades
09-05-2011, 22:37
As much as I would like to see a new period of colonialism, this time done without all the ugly bits that make every european uncomfortable, I dont think it's feasable even if africa just rolled over and let it happen. Personally I think we should have all the warlords and corrupt leaders assassinated then light a fire under the assess of their replacments to get thier act together or they'll be killed too. Now if only there was a chance that it would work without sending the area into more chaos.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.