Sorry Joes Place, but I'd like to answer this before someone else says it. Africa? If so, I can only say that I agree and good to see others are catching onto this.
Al-Qaeda in Syria calls for revenge attacks on Russia
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Exactly. Finally you can make that step to admit it. Now, you can go look up U.S. military expenditures as % of GDP and see how much MORE we spent vs. the Soviets for 4 decades vs. now.
It's different players now, but it's the same story. And although the US actually has decent energy independence now, the rest of the world does not. Thus, maintaining free flow of oil/energy from that area is of key worldwide economic significance, even if the US does not need any of it directly.
If MIT were to come out with a truck-sized nuclear fusion generator next week, able to upscale for power generation all over the country within a few years, we would have zero interest in the Middle East, nor would we need to play policeman over there.
You think I didn't already know that? You say that like you're one of the first people to have ever figured that out. Listen Joe, let's say this is a book. In this book I'm already on Chapter 9. You're at best maybe half way through Chapter 2.
Rinse, lather, repeat does not fit this Joe, as this isn't a repeat of anything. It's the continuation of a process, not a repeating of the process.
You clearly haven't been following my posts, if you think that i needed to admit that. I've spoken about this multiple times.
I will say that he never said I was wrong when I pitched my idea for what he was trying to hint at.
Listen Husker, I never said you were correct either. I sure as husk didn't say you were wrong though.............who knows?
JOEY!!!! have you figured it out yet??! At least an idea?
Listen Husker, I never said you were correct either. I sure as husk didn't say you were wrong though.............who knows?
JOEY!!!! have you figured it out yet??! At least an idea?
Not really interested in your guessing games. You've already conceded my key point here. If you want to outline your additional insights, feel free.
Your key point wasn't a point. Again, it wasn't anything I didn't already know. Do you think you taught me something here?
The ANSWER to the question is Africa. Africa will be the next region we go after. Go learn something about it. Instead of telling the math teacher that you know and have taught them what 2 + 2 is.
....which has nothing to do with Syria and ISIS, the original point of the thread.
So....it really IS NO DIFFERENT this time. All your blather here about 'US Invading Africa' is completely irrelevant with respect to Russia getting involved in Syria and getting bogged down in the Middle East (again).
It absolutely is Lather Rinse Repeat.
Your whole 'Africa' premise is simply a smokescreen indicating you have no idea what you are talking about. Hint: 'Africa' is NOT the 'Middle East'
Hint, the Middle East is the land way opening into Africa. There is no other land access into the continent. Smoke screen? That's precious.
Again, it's not lather rinse repeat. It's still very much in the lathering phase. You fail to see the big picture.
I bet I know a handful of guys here who DO know exactly what's going on here, in Africa, with health care, the economy, housing, urban planning, energy issues, 9/11, etc.
LOL....you fail to understand that 'land access' doesn't mean it's traversible, nor easily defendable (and it's not). That's why I pointed out that 'Africa wasn't a unifiable territory' that you can take over by establishing a beachhead in one corner of the continent.
'Africa' has limited strategic value relative to Middle East oil, or Middle East influence/control; that was the point we'd agreed that you had already conceded was our reason for playing policeman over there (for the past decades).
Africa is simply not a strategic foothold to control what goes on in the Middle East, which seems to be what you're implying here or attempting to link together. (Unless we're invading Egypt and taking over the Suez canal, but we certainly wouldn't be playing around all over Africa to do that, we'd take over Egypt directly.)
You often argue against people who's points match your own. I believe what is being is said is that the Middle East is the land into Africa and securing that region gives control to both the region and that land way.
You missed the entire point of what he said. Controlling the land that leads into Africa is a strategic must, for more than one reason. You are aware that out Navy can handle any other access into the continent correct.
Anyways, the point is that it's a slow, strategic and very methodical process that is going on. The articles the OP provided went over that numerous times.
I really don't understand where you're even trying to go with this. You're agreeing and at the same time disagreeing because you're unable to recognize the similarity in what you and prime are saying.
Bottom line: Africa is being invaded by both us and the Chinese, and they're using skirmishes within the region as an excuse to slowly exercise control over a land area, that time and planned execution of strategy is what is needed. Look up the stories for yourself, look up AFRICOM, look up U.S. Military involvement in Africa, as well as China's. This isn't some fairy tale.
You're arguing a completely different point. The previous discussion was the Middle East, and the attempts to control areas there; Africa is NOT a strategic stop-off point for that. The U.S. and China have different reasons for obtaining influence in Africa; it has little or nothing to do with Putin in Syria, which is what the first arguments were in regard to.
No one said that Africa was a stop-off point for The ME. What is being said is that the ME is wanted for controls sake, as everyone agrees and because it is a stop-off point into Africa. The only land way into Africa. With bases in the ME already established it makes sense that they will start to work their way down eventually.
I don't even think you know WHAT you're trying to argue here anymore.
US involvement in Africa has nothing to do with the Middle East. There are completely different metrics governing it. And I doubt you know what they are.
Perhaps you can educate me then? Think dominos. Your opinion of this is your opinion, but you seem to be in denial.
The #$#$ it doesn't Joe. Once again, you don't ever see the big picture. It's exactly why DC gets away with what they get away with, because they are always several steps ahead of the public. Light years ahead of you in particular.
It's all part of the same game Joe. Its exactly what George HW Bush and co. have envisioned for decades now. You from admitting that the Middle East was all about oil and control, then you come along and deny that going into Africa is not based on the same thing. Why would we go in there you, if they weren't expecting to get something out of it? Seriously, you're being schooled here badly and you're making of yourself. NOTHING I have claimed in either this thread of the Africa thread has been successfully argued against. Nothing. You're out of your league here buddy.
Again. See if you can guess. I already posted the answer in another thread.
And it has nothing to do with the Middle East.
Your answer in that other thread was admirable, but it does in fact tie into the Middle East. The Middle East is a key geographical position in all of this. We need it for land reasons. It also keeps people out east from being able to just walk in and take control. It's why the threat of radical groups such as ISIS and Al Queda are always being pointed out as moving over into that region. It's an excuse to keep our presence as spread as possible.
If you were trying to take over a continent the size of Africa, would you not want as much access into it, as controlled as possible. I sure would. You're getting there Joe.
No. The Middle East holds zero strategic or tactical value for control over areas in the vast majority Africa. As much as you want to claim it has, to save face here, it is totally irrelevant. You cannot 'just go from the Middle East' and take over Africa; the topography is pretty unforgiving. You need sea and naval assets, primarily, both for protection and trade.
Actions in the Middle East to try and maintain oil supplies/stability by us are absolutely Lather Rinse Repeat, just as I'd stated, regardless of what you want to claim about Africa.
And, you can make a decent argument that colonization/control/influence over areas in Africa is the same thing (vs. all the colonization that went on during the 1700s/1800s). Only if we do things 'right' this time, it WON'T be a repeat, if the efforts are made to provide benefits to the local populations and not just to the friendly local dictators to control all the wealth.
But if that is what transpires, Africa will be yet another Lather Rinse Repeat, just on a much longer timescale.
Your naive answers here make about as much sense as taking over parts of Chile so you can establish a beachhead to invade the United States. PRETTY SURE our military has zero concerns over an invasion of Chile.
So you just move the goal post, and use examples that do not relate to try and argue against a very valid point?
Why do you think Egyptian and Libya stability was so important these past few years?
YOU moved the goalposts to try and save face here. (You actually weren't even in the same stadium....it's like you were on Chapter 23 of Volume 1, whereas I was finishing Chapter 1 of Volume 23
)Egypt is unique, due to the proximity of the Suez canal. Libya is strategically irrelevant to the rest of the African continent where those mineral resources are. Egypt is relevant to SEA travel/trade, not LAND travel/trade.
I know you can look at a map of that area of the world and think like going from sub-Saharan Africa is the equivalent of a trip from Des Moines to Iowa City. Newsflash: it's not. There ARE NO MAJOR ROADWAYS for trade in those parts of the world. And there probably never will be. Thus, they are tactically and strategically irrelevant to Middle East policy. I understand that you WANT them to be, so that you don't look like a complete fool here. But I really cannot help you with that; you did that on your own.
