Africa...Can we do anything?
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 02:38
VIEWED: 5821
PAGE 3 of 7
Quote:This is something you need to explain to Germany, Japan, and a myriad of other states, not me.
Originally posted by citizen:
I can think of NO examples where a foriegn power has overthrown a goverment and it has ended in anything but chaos.
But the argument is pointless, because the Westerns states are probably not going to be united enough, either internally or externally, to make a regime change a workable solution in Africa. Hell, I can't even bring the idea up without being ridiculed.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:This is something you need to explain to Germany, Japan, and a myriad of other states, not me.
Originally posted by citizen:
I can think of NO examples where a foriegn power has overthrown a goverment and it has ended in anything but chaos.
Probably should of worded that differently. Enforced regime change is what is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what has happened and is happening there.
The destruction of the Nazi regime in germany and the imperial goverment of Japan are very different situations.
Quote:
Hell, I can't even bring the idea up without being ridiculed.
Weren't ridiculing you, just the thought that seems to be pervading our society at the moment that believes sending in the troops is the best way to go.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The secret is totally overwhelming force. A large, external military force might be useful in those cases... but it would have to be very, very large. No half-measure would be successful.
ONLY if such a force was brought in and supported by the majority of the local population.
As an example the American war of idependence would have been unwinnable without the French, yet they were 'asked' to interfere, so that once the British had been defeated America could form a stable goverment of thier own creation.
The problem is regime change where a countries goverment is toppled and a new one is installed under the direction of the invading force.
Why? I think its becuase the invading force will be trying to 'buy' loyalty by only allowing goverments/systems that would be loyal.
Quote:
Here is another consideration- many African "nations" were created by colonial rule for the imperialists' convenience. Larger groups were broken up, smaller groups were set against each other. Is it possible to re-draw artifical divisions without setting off a massive land-grab?
I can't think of an example where this hasn't happened.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, they weren’t. They were the same situation. The same problems were faced in Japan and Germany that are being dealt with in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not worse problems. Regime change is a not an easy or pretty thing, and it never has been. It needs to be weighed carefully against the status quo. But if the status quo is such that a genocide of 800,000 people and fifty years of oppression and starvation under corrupt regimes are real possibilities then one really shouldn’t dismiss regime change with all of its atrocities, especially if it can lead to a stable liberal government.
Originally posted by citizen:
Probably should of worded that differently. Enforced regime change is what is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what has happened and is happening there.
The destruction of the Nazi regime in germany and the imperial goverment of Japan are very different situations.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're right about that, although I'm not sure it takes a "majority" of the population. Without that support, the local population (whatever their disgreements) could agree on one thing- get the invaders out.
ONLY if such a force was brought in and supported by the majority of the local population
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, they weren’t. They were the same situation.
Not exactly but i'm not making myself clear I think. Germany was occupied by the conquering powers from 1945 until at least the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. In fact there is STILL a major foreign military presence in germany. Europe as a whole was actually a fairly stable enviroment in 1989 at the beginning of the withdrawl.
The same cannot be said of Africa. To enact military regime change it would have to be performed on MANY nations in the region, not one. The region is not even as stable as Europe after the second world war. Any military intevention in the region would be seen as an aggresive act, not one of defence.
The continent and nations are carved up by independent warlords, NOT a single dictator.
With Africa you are dealing with vast swaths of wilderness occupied by groups violently opposed to each other, not just a single fairly well developed country, with a relativly united population.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/
The situation in Japan was also different.
The Japanese goverement was not disposed in one military action. They were occupied by the US, and their military was demobolized, yes. The changes that occured to goverment in Japan were more gradual and the roots had been inplace BEFORE the 2nd World War.
Quote:
The new Constitution was a perfection of the British
parliamentary form of government that the Japanese had been moving
toward in the 1920s.
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/98.htm
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:You're right about that, although I'm not sure it takes a "majority" of the population. Without that support, the local population (whatever their disgreements) could agree on one thing- get the invaders out.
ONLY if such a force was brought in and supported by the majority of the local population
If a minority of the population were behind the invasion they could be seen as capitulators rather than part of a liberation force. With a sizeable minority, 35% to 45% say it may work as other groups may have their own agendas.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is probably going to shock Finn, but I agree with him that enforced regime change works. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually the norm in human history - it's been happening over and over since the dawn of recorded history, and probably a long time before that. I'm not saying that I like it or that it's right - usually it's just been the stronger nation conquering the weaker, until somebody stronger yet comes along. This latter point is why IMO it's not a great idea to go around invading other nations; you are implicitly agreeing that it's OK in principle for another nation to invade you, should they become the stronger one. Civilized nations don't invade others unless they have to, as the Allies did with Germany and Japan. We don't have to invade Africa; it's simply not a threat to us in any governmental or military sense.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to help, but in the case of Africa, it's pretty hared to figure out what will help.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Sarcasm? More like conceit, but it is the depth of the intellect I have come to expect from you.
Originally posted by perfessergee:
the sarcasm is entirely deliberate
Well, if having been there, having witnesssed the AIDS epidemic personally and up close, and having some idea of what I'm talking about makes me conceited, then I guess I have to plead guilty.
Skepticism is an important quality for an inquiring mind, but expressing doubt that there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't a display of skepticism, it's a display of lack of awareness. A visit to a South African cemetery would cure you of this - you wouldn't be able to alone because there will be multiple funerals occurring during all daylight hours. It's actually hard to schedule a funeral because there are so many of them. The health and social service agencies dealing with the problem have had to invent a neologism to fit a new category of homes: "child-headed household". A colleague at the University of Cape Town who works in the townships informs me that there are lots of them. Because so many parents with young children are dying. Of AIDS. If that doesn’t qualify as an epidemic, the word has no useful meaning.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
This is probably going to shock Finn, but I agree with him that enforced regime change works. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually the norm in human history - it's been happening over and over since the dawn of recorded history, and probably a long time before that. I'm not saying that I like it or that it's right - usually it's just been the stronger nation conquering the weaker, until somebody stronger yet comes along. This latter point is why IMO it's not a great idea to go around invading other nations; you are implicitly agreeing that it's OK in principle for another nation to invade you, should they become the stronger one. Civilized nations don't invade others unless they have to, as the Allies did with Germany and Japan. We don't have to invade Africa; it's simply not a threat to us in any governmental or military sense.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to help, but in the case of Africa, it's pretty hared to figure out what will help.
perfessergee
It works in so much that it removes the goverment of the nation, and is often beneficial to the invading nation. The point is that it doesn't help the people being invaded.
Enforced regime change doesn't work if your goal is to stabalise a country or improve a peoples situation.
I really can't see how millitary action could work in Africa. In fact I can't see how its working or will work in the middle east.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME