Dismiss Notice

STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

easiest country to invade?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Pantisocrat, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. KitAkira

    KitAkira Wait! Wait! I gots an opinion!

    Messages:
    8,628
    Likes Received:
    118
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Saying "all you really need is a powerful military" is sort of like saying "It'd be easy to kick Superman's ass; all I'd need is a Kryptonite gun." Where are you going to get the military? How are you going to keep your soldiers fed, armed, and loyal? How are you going to keep the local population in check, especially since you've renounced the dictatorship route? There is a whole basket of "how" questions your invasion plan does not take into account. Don't get me wrong; I admire your spunk and ambition. But it's pretty clear you haven't played armchair general on internet forums as often as some. [​IMG] Problem with African countries is that the people are constantly starving, pissed off, drug-addled, or a whole bunch of other messes. Keeping them in check is extremely difficult without establishing a dictatorship, and yet, a dictatorship always breeds resentment. It's a catch 22. Most would-be rulers choose the dictatorship route so long as they can maintain control over their military leaders. They bank on the fact that their people will be too broken to rise up.
    Armies aren't hard to raise in exploited countries and $50bil will get you enough for a few tanks and the guns to take control, then just build up your defense budget to make sure that you. As for supplying the army, not all that hard. They don't need to be paid like American soldiers (and taking over with foreign soldiers/mercenaries is the easiest way to distance your people). Besides, you don't need armies of millions to take a country that's impoverished and brittle. I wouldn't need to "keep the population in check" as I said, my plan is to gain public support, not mass fear. Fear = dissent, support = peace. Healthcare, education, infrastructure improvements keep people happy. African dictatorships fail because they become paranoid once in office and feel that they need to keep their people down in order to prevent uprisings, which in turn fuels them instead. They also focus on building large militaries rather than spending money on actually fulfilling the things they tend to promise when they start their coups
     


  2. StephenHero

    StephenHero Black Floridian

    Messages:
    14,187
    Likes Received:
    1,937
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009


  3. GlenCoe

    GlenCoe Senior member

    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Prague
    Czech republic.

    /thread
     


  4. burningbright

    burningbright Senior member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    179
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    The City by the Lake
    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Hungary.

    Those spineless jellyfish have been rolling belly up for nearly every invasion force since the Khans first came across the steppes nearly 800 years ago.

    If that doesn't work then there's always the Principality of Sealand:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

    Pretty certain all you would need would be a zodiac boat and a few inebriated bums with a modicum of determination (like telling them there's a cache of booze on the rig) and I imagine it could be yours. That or send some BP workers out there; I'm sure they'd find a way to muck it up pretty good.
     


  5. Don Carlos

    Don Carlos In Time Out

    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Armies aren't hard to raise in exploited countries and $50bil will get you enough for a few tanks and the guns to take control, then just build up your defense budget to make sure that you. As for supplying the army, not all that hard. They don't need to be paid like American soldiers (and taking over with foreign soldiers/mercenaries is the easiest way to distance your people). Besides, you don't need armies of millions to take a country that's impoverished and brittle.
    I forgot that our hypothetical scenario involves starting with $50B in disposable cash, which I find sort of like playing a video game in god/cheat mode, but fair. Even still, by "support" your army, I'm not just talking about keeping them armed. I'm talking about keeping them trained and keeping them in line. What's to stop some of the more enterprising and charismatic generals in your army from banding together and booting you out of the whole operation to begin with? Let's say you're at least smart enough to keep all your money offshore and can make the "if you kick me out, there goes the hand that feeds you" argument. But that argument only goes so far. If your army is firmly entrenched in the country and can start living off the land and its resources, they will pretty much say to hell with you sooner or later. Or they'll just move on to someone else who's savvier and can pay their price. That's the problem with mercenaries: no loyalty to you; only to the almighty dollar. What'll happen if they start extorting you? "We want a raise or we're walking out and taking the equipment with us." Or worse: "we want a raise" being demanded at gunpoint. They'll keep at it every time you give in, and sooner or later, you'll end up with a bunch of supremely high paid slackers. Corruption will run rampant, and eventually, you'll need to start looting the national treasury to keep your soldiers paid and/or appoint them to cushy political positions and land entitlements to keep them satisfied. Suddenly, your anti-corruption and liberation message looks a little hypocritical to your liberated population, wouldn't you say?
    How are you going to gain support when you're a nonnative who doesn't speak the language and has no ethnic or cultural ties to the country? African nations have always held a deep mistrust of foreigners and are constantly paranoid about colonization, which is somewhat understandable, given their past. As an (I assume white?) American outsider, you will be seen as an occupier to be resisted, not a charismatic liberator. It's very easy to suggest that you'll be ousting corruption at gunpoint, but to the people you're now ruling, you look just like every other warlord who's marched in at gunpoint and claimed to be cleaning up the local act: only you look very, very foreign. I don't care how many hospitals you build or roads you pave; terrorists will blow those up and blame you for the malaise. Have we learned nothing from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? And the US has spent trillions on those wars and their subsequent reconstruction efforts, not just a measly $50 billion. It's infinitely easier said than done to gain the trust and support of a native population that you've conquered from outside. Historically speaking, democracies and "peacekeepers" have had an extremely hard time ruling populations abroad. Look at the history of colonization and of empires. Peace has almost always been maintained by the sword, not by the checkbook. Half-assed domination of a foreign people never goes well. You've got to make the hard choice: are you simply occupying them until you can transition back to a native rule, or are you going balls-deep and subjugating them? You can't really toe that line. You need to pick. And if it's the former, one wonders why you're even going in in the first place.
     


  6. KitAkira

    KitAkira Wait! Wait! I gots an opinion!

    Messages:
    8,628
    Likes Received:
    118
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    I forgot that our hypothetical scenario involves starting with $50B in disposable cash, which I find sort of like playing a video game in god/cheat mode, but fair. Even still, by "support" your army, I'm not just talking about keeping them armed. I'm talking about keeping them trained and keeping them in line. What's to stop some of the more enterprising and charismatic generals in your army from banding together and booting you out of the whole operation to begin with? Let's say you're at least smart enough to keep all your money offshore and can make the "if you kick me out, there goes the hand that feeds you" argument. But that argument only goes so far. If your army is firmly entrenched in the country and can start living off the land and its resources, they will pretty much say to hell with you sooner or later. Or they'll just move on to someone else who's savvier and can pay their price. That's the problem with mercenaries: no loyalty to you; only to the almighty dollar. What'll happen if they start extorting you? "We want a raise or we're walking out and taking the equipment with us." Or worse: "we want a raise" being demanded at gunpoint. They'll keep at it every time you give in, and sooner or later, you'll end up with a bunch of supremely high paid slackers. Corruption will run rampant, and eventually, you'll need to start looting the national treasury to keep your soldiers paid and/or appoint them to cushy political positions and land entitlements to keep them satisfied. Suddenly, your anti-corruption and liberation message looks a little hypocritical to your liberated population, wouldn't you say? How are you going to gain support when you're a nonnative who doesn't speak the language and has no ethnic or cultural ties to the country? African nations have always held a deep mistrust of foreigners and are constantly paranoid about colonization, which is somewhat understandable, given their past. As an (I assume white?) American outsider, you will be seen as an occupier to be resisted, not a charismatic liberator. It's very easy to suggest that you'll be ousting corruption at gunpoint, but to the people you're now ruling, you look just like every other warlord who's marched in at gunpoint and claimed to be cleaning up the local act: only you look very, very foreign. I don't care how many hospitals you build or roads you pave; terrorists will blow those up and blame you for the malaise. Have we learned nothing from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? And the US has spent trillions on those wars and their subsequent reconstruction efforts, not just a measly $50 billion. It's infinitely easier said than done to gain the trust and support of a native population that you've conquered from outside. Historically speaking, democracies and "peacekeepers" have had an extremely hard time ruling populations abroad. Look at the history of colonization and of empires. Peace has almost always been maintained by the sword, not by the checkbook. Half-assed domination of a foreign people never goes well. You've got to make the hard choice: are you simply occupying them until you can transition back to a native rule, or are you going balls-deep and subjugating them? You can't really toe that line. You need to pick. And if it's the former, one wonders why you're even going in in the first place.
    I wouldn't use mercenaries (or at least, not many of them) but rather the native peoples (as I've said, people don't really like it when an invading army takes control). Wouldn't need a massive standing army, meaning no real chance of a coup (and who would want to join a coup attempt if the ruler is doing a good job). The only real use of mercenaries would be training, and once control is taken they would be no longer necessary (replaced by "security advisors" from whatever large power that would want to expand their influence or whatever) so they can leave if they'd like, and the weapons of course wouldn't be left under their control. I doubt the nonnative argument would hold much water in a country that has been historically ravished by its own people. If someone comes in and starts helping them out (whatever their background), they'll gain the support of the populace. You don't bite the hand that feeds you just because it's not the same skin color as yours, especially if it's the only hand that is feeding. While I wouldn't be one of their countrymen, the army and whatever bureaucratic sub-commandantes would be. And I ain't white, fool. The Iraq war is very different, but I ain't fueling that fire.
     


  7. RSS

    RSS Senior member

    Messages:
    10,042
    Likes Received:
    291
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Location:
    No.1 Nonsuch Place
    Yachts are a cashsuck...
    You are correct ... but quite an enjoyable one. And with $50B ... there will always be plenty of money left.
     


  8. Don Carlos

    Don Carlos In Time Out

    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    I doubt the nonnative argument would hold much water in a country that has been historically ravished by its own people. If someone comes in and starts helping them out (whatever their background), they'll gain the support of the populace.
    This has been proven categorically false hundreds of times throughout history, including to the present day, and especially in Africa. Nationalism usually trumps all other concerns in impoverished and downtrodden countries. Modern-day African dictatorships almost always use the threat of foreign exploitation (whether real or imagined) to shore up their own support when being invaded, even if they are worse for their own people than the foreigners would be. This has been pretty much the life story of the dictatorships in the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and so forth. People who've been beaten nearly to death by their own corrupt rulers will still side with those rulers over a foreign army or leader, even if the foreign leader has good intentions. That's why I think it's a weak argument to say you'll break this pattern. It's also questionable how you, as an outsider, are going to raise a native army. That part is even sillier, actually. I'm not trying to be difficult or combative here just for the sake of doing so; I'm simply being realistic. You're certainly thinking through some of the major problem with invading or taking over an African country, but I think your plans put too much faith in notions or assumptions that almost never hold up in real life and/or have been proven false by countless numbers of historical examples.
    My intention was not to bring up some sort of debate over the merits of the Iraq war, and like you, I have no desire to fuel that fire either. I'm just pointing out, as an example, the complications that Iraq's people presented to our invasion plans. Most of them knew Saddam was repressive, and they feared and loathed him. But many of them still turned on us shortly after we ousted him. Appeals to nationalism and nativism are extremely powerful, and they cannot be underestimated. Obviously Iraq would not be an apples-to-apples, perfectly correlated comparison. There are a lot of nuances in the Iraqi population, and in the way Saddam masterfully divided and pitted his own people against each other, that made Iraq unique in a lot of respects. But it's naive to assume many of the same issues wouldn't be encountered in a downtrodden African nation that had been under the bootheel of a repressive dictator or series of warlords.
     


  9. RSS

    RSS Senior member

    Messages:
    10,042
    Likes Received:
    291
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Location:
    No.1 Nonsuch Place
    People who've been beaten nearly to death by their own corrupt rulers will still side with those rulers over a foreign army or leader...
    How ... Machiavellian.
     


  10. KitAkira

    KitAkira Wait! Wait! I gots an opinion!

    Messages:
    8,628
    Likes Received:
    118
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    This has been proven categorically false hundreds of times throughout history, including to the present day, and especially in Africa. Nationalism usually trumps all other concerns in impoverished and downtrodden countries. Modern-day African dictatorships almost always use the threat of foreign exploitation (whether real or imagined) to shore up their own support when being invaded, even if they are worse for their own people than the foreigners would be. This has been pretty much the life story of the dictatorships in the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and so forth. People who've been beaten nearly to death by their own corrupt rulers will still side with those rulers over a foreign army or leader, even if the foreign leader has good intentions. That's why I think it's a weak argument to say you'll break this pattern. It's also questionable how you, as an outsider, are going to raise a native army. That part is even sillier, actually. I'm not trying to be difficult or combative here just for the sake of doing so; I'm simply being realistic. You're certainly thinking through some of the major problem with invading or taking over an African country, but I think your plans put too much faith in notions or assumptions that almost never hold up in real life and/or have been proven false by countless numbers of historical examples. My intention was not to bring up some sort of debate over the merits of the Iraq war, and like you, I have no desire to fuel that fire either. I'm just pointing out, as an example, the complications that Iraq's people presented to our invasion plans. Most of them knew Saddam was repressive, and they feared and loathed him. But many of them still turned on us shortly after we ousted him. Appeals to nationalism and nativism are extremely powerful, and they cannot be underestimated. Obviously Iraq would not be an apples-to-apples, perfectly correlated comparison. There are a lot of nuances in the Iraqi population, and in the way Saddam masterfully divided and pitted his own people against each other, that made Iraq unique in a lot of respects. But it's naive to assume many of the same issues wouldn't be encountered in a downtrodden African nation that had been under the bootheel of a repressive dictator or series of warlords.
    As you said, money trumps everything. If you're dying of starvation and someone offers you a fistful of dollars you don't say no. And I'd like to see your sources on Somalians or Sudanese using threats of foreign support given that one is full of warlords fighting each other for control and the other is committing genocide on one of its minorities. Fuck, with $50bil I could pay off many nations to take me ($8.4bil at $100000 per person to take Seychelles? I think I could convince the majority of the populace to take that deal, $39bil to pay the same amount to every accounted for person in Zimbabwe, I highly doubt they'd be turning that down even from Don Black)
     


  11. redzapper

    redzapper Senior member

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    The Maldives. Heck, with 50 billion, you could probably just buy the country.
     


  12. mkarim

    mkarim Senior member

    Messages:
    4,645
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Quebec.

    What do they have that anyone needs?
     


  13. mkarim

    mkarim Senior member

    Messages:
    4,645
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Wrong question.

    What's the easiest country to leave after we invade? [​IMG]


    +1000.
     


  14. wetnose

    wetnose Senior member

    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    What do they have that anyone needs?

    Really hot french girls. Amazing cheese. Great skiing. Quebec City.
     


  15. HRoi

    HRoi Senior member

    Messages:
    17,913
    Likes Received:
    5,878
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by