Printable View
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.
There is, it's just happening very slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
You don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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?
Yeah, the development-aid budget is better better spend that way. That or no at allQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Then go with the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Becuase mercenaries in Afirca turn out so well
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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:Quote:
Becuase mercenaries in Afirca turn out so well
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.
Just like they did in the 70s, when they werent raping and pilligang.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Someone hasn't been paying attention, South Africa is a messQuote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
And someone hasn't read his Machiavelli.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
AII
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.Quote:
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.
Yeah and how is the rest of Africa? Rwanda, the congo, ivory coast, egypt, sudan, chad, nigeria, etc. Give me a break Frags.Quote:
Someone hasn't been paying attention, South Africa is a mess
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.
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.
Ah I am going to enjoy this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It says 'holding the state', i.e. defending it, not running it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.
As far as I'm concerned Oxfam et al is a manifestation of the White Man's Burden, not an alternative to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II