Unpopular opinions

Author: KingLaddy01

Posts

Total: 304
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@ethang5
Congo is larger than Europe. 

This is a nitpick but are you referring to DR Congo? Because no, it is not larger than Europe. It's not even the largest country in Africa for that matter.

That said, the aforementioned countries outside of DR Congo and itself are unquestionably too much for the military to contain. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@KingLaddy01
@Alec
This is a nitpick but are you referring to DR Congo? Because no, it is not larger than Europe. It's not even the largest country in Africa for that matter.
D.R. Congo is in fact larger than Europe.

On our actual planet, Africa is bigger than China, India, the contiguous U.S. and most of Europe—combined!
Scientific American just published a correctly proportioned image to show how Africa swallows up these nations, with Japan thrown in.

The variation between the equatorial regions is quite vast in reality and as long as we have flat screens it will always be not quite true to the true size and scope of the continents.

That said, the aforementioned countries outside of DR Congo and itself are unquestionably too much for the military to contain.
Thank you! Look at the size comparisons in the 1st link. It is crazy to think that the US could gain, much less hold, territory that size.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
"Look at the size comparisons in the 1st link. It is crazy to think that the US could gain, much less hold, territory that size."  Why not?  Europe held almost all of it and that was when they were divided and conquered more.  If a divided Europe, not even all of Europe, but 5 European nations can control almost all of Africa, why can't a united America hold the whole continent, especially if we treat the natives better then the Europeans did?
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@ethang5
DR Congo and Europe are pretty close in size. Now, military-wise, they are not Europe, but nonetheless, seizing Africa is costly, impossible, and a worthless task.

KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Alec
Refer to when he talked about the rest of the world being prepared.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
why can't a united America hold the whole continent, 
Because,
1. America doesn't have enough soldiers to do so.
2. Other powers like China, India, and Russia will not let them do it.
3. When the European countries took over, there were only 2 countries in Africa. Egypt and Ethiopia.
4. Africa has about a billion people. Too many for any current military to capture and hold.
5. Today African countries have things they didn't have during colonial times, like bombs, fighter jets, tanks, and a lot more soldiers with fully automatic weapons.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Aaron Rodgers is not a top 3 QB
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Papa John's pizza is trash; mediocre at best. They taste like giant Lunchables.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Bojack Horseman is the best adult cartoon in recent memory.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11

"America doesn't have enough soldiers to do so."  The US has about 2 million soldiers and our soldiers are better trained and equipped then African soldiers.  

"Other powers like China, India, and Russia will not let them do it."  China and Russia would be hypocritical if they cared since they invaded Tibet and Crimea respectively.  India is our ally and they invaded Kashmir so if they accuse the US of annexing land, all of those countries are hypocrites.  I think the US military is stronger then all 3 of their militaries put together, so an invasion would be successful, even with their resistance.  We could use the justification that we had helped Europe out with defending freedom from Russia and an African invasion would be a good way of repayment.


"When the European countries took over, there were only 2 countries in Africa. Egypt and Ethiopia."  Then what was all the other land for?  I think there were other tribes on the continent before Europe came along.  I just don't know the names.

"Africa has about a billion people. Too many for any current military to capture and hold."  If the locals are okay with it, which they probably would be if the US increases the standard of living for them and doesn't treat them badly, then the military will only have to defend the area from outsiders.  Keep in mind that the African military, once the consent of the people is obtained, probably would help the US military in defending the area.

"Today African countries have things they didn't have during colonial times, like bombs, fighter jets, tanks, and a lot more soldiers with fully automatic weapons."  Africa has $50 billion in military spending annually and about 5 million troops as a whole continent.  This is about $10,000 per solider for everything the soldier needs, per year.  They aren't well equipped compared to American soldiers, who get on average $664,000 worth of supplies at their disposal per year.  Africa may have some bombs and fighter jets, but the US has much more of them and the US can make more on demand.  If Africa loses a tank, it would take a long time to make a new one.  If America loses a tank, they could make 5 more.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Alec
Tribes =/= today's military 

America < Russia, China, India, and Africa






KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Alec
Also we have 2 million soldiers, but we can't use them all.

Would Russia and China care about being hypocrites? Invading those territories is nothing compared to a continent anyway.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@KingLaddy01
"Invading those territories is nothing compared to a continent anyway."  It's still an invasion of a foreign place.  If Russia and China took their influence out of these area, it makes our enemies weaker.  If they decided to declare conventional warfare on us, they would lose because they need time to train their troops.  By the time China and Russia train their troops well enough to reconquer Africa, Africa probably would be okay with being a US territory just like PR since the US would make Africa much better then it currently is and this would satisfy the locals to the extent where they don't want independence.

"Tribes =/= today's military"  Can you explain what this means?

"America < Russia, China, India, and Africa"  Currently, the US has a stronger military then all of those regions combined if your unit is military spending.  By the time Russia and China militarize themselves, it still would be America, Africa > Russia and China since the US would treat Africa better then Europe and Africa therefore would be an ally.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Alec
But it would still take a long time to take over Africa, assuming it is possible. I don't even think much training would be needed if there is a major advantage in personnel. I could be incorrect, but assuming we would have won the war by the time or slightly after they are done training is wishful thinking.

You also make it seem like "Africa" is one nation with you stating that "they" would be okay with being taken over. Even in the unlikely event that some nations secede, there is still a long way to go from there. Most countries wouldn't take too kindly to America invading them.

You mentioned that outside of the 2 countries in Africa conquered by Europe, you mention "other land" and "tribes". The fact of the matter, is that tribes were full of borderline neanderthals. In today's world, again as ethang mentioned, African countries have legitimate militaries, even if they individually are inferior to the United States.

The U.S. would not be a good ally to African countries after invading them, so they wouldn't join them. 

I want to reintroduce my point that the U.S. cannot simply use their entire military, so even if they do have 2 million soldiers, there wouldn't be 2 million in the battlefield. 

I apologize for not quoting you. It is very late at night and I don't feel like it.

I am not too educated on this so I am prepared to be wrong on a few things, but I still believe the core of your argument is based on the idea that we are this dream team of a country that can do anything, even if that is not asserted. This war scenario is not a favorable outcome for America.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@KingLaddy01
Instead of one of your crew an idiot.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@disgusted
Heh heh...

what?

KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@disgusted
Didn't catch that, there. Sorry.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
I will only respond this one time because you can't restrict a person from being stupid. You aren't making sense. Observe.

The US has about 2 million soldiers and our soldiers are better trained and equipped then African soldiers.
It doesn't matter. They aren't enough. Do you know how many a billion people are? 2 million soldiers are not enough to hold even the single country of Nigeria with 100 million people.

China and Russia would be hypocritical...
Yes, they would be, but they still won't stand by and allow America do it, hypocrital or not. China and Russia need raw materials from Africa, they currently have investments and agreements with several African countries, they would be crazy to allow America freedom to attack and take over Africa.

I think the US military is stronger then all 3 (India,China, Russia)of their militaries put together,
Then you are either young and very ignorant, or you are just stupid. The US is stronger than EACH one of them, but cannot fight all of them simultaneously. That is not something a knowledgeable person would think.

Then what was all the other land for?
It was for the taking as there were no organized countries to oppose their taking.

I think there were other tribes on the continent before Europe came along.
Who do you think it would be easier to invade, an area with a few scattered tribes with bows and arrows, or an actual country with an actual military with jets, bombs, and tanks? Europe did it when there were just tribes. America would have to do it multiple times to a real and active militaries. And each time America would have to leave a chunk of their soldiers there who would be useless in the attack on other countries. This would happen more than 50 times, and they began without enough soldiers. Think man.

If the locals are okay with it, which they probably would be if the US increases the standard of living for them and doesn't treat them badly, then the military will only have to defend the area from outsiders.
Are you stupid? OK with "it"? Would you be "OK" with someone invading your country? The African soldiers that would be killed, who do you think their mothers and fathers will be? Do you think promising their brothers and sisters a better standard of living would make them OK with America invading their country and killing their family? Would you be OK with your dad and brothers being killed and your country taken over if your standard of living would be made "better"?

Keep in mind that the African military, once the consent of the people is obtained, probably would help the US military in defending the area.
Because the American army is going to hold a vote? And the African army defending their country are going to wait till there has been a vote? What country's army do you think would help an invading army?

They aren't well equipped compared to American soldiers,
Doesn't matter. There are too many of them. Plus, the African soldiers will be home, so will not need as much logistics as the invaders. American soldiers will still die, no matter how much more better equipped they are. And after America loses the element of surprise, more of them will die with each successive invasion.

Africa may have some bombs and fighter jets, but the US has much more of them
Doesn't matter. America doesn't have enough of them. And each plane or tank lost in battle will delay the next invasion.

...and the US can make more on demand. 
Not fast enough.

If Africa loses a tank, it would take a long time to make a new one. 
Russia, China, and India would supply the African countries instantly.

If America loses a tank, they could make 5 more.
But when they lose soldiers, of which they already don't have enough, they can't make 5 more. And they would lose soldiers. The idea is ludicrous. 

How old are you by the way?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@KingLaddy01
I would expect no better.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,355
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@disgusted
For a non-American, you really are a special kind of dumbass with the mindless pooflinging.

What happened to foreign excellence? Guess you must not be the best, nor the brightest Trump was referring to. I hope nobody sends you here.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
That's your best! Don't try again.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@disgusted
Great! Thanks for wasting minutes of my time scratching my head.

I should probably give that "high IQ" brain of yours some space anyway. Sorry for polluting your thought. Ciao!

KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Democrats are not the party of science.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Takis are trash.


KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Women are terrible leaders.

KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Feelings getting hurt =/= rights getting infringed upon

This shouldn't be unpopular, but is all too relevant.

KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
"Ban all guns" isn't strictly a liberal position, it is a nutjob position. You are only rational if you support guns being legal. End of story.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
^Background checks and age limit laws are fine. But supporting a universal gun ban screams "I AM MENTALLY DISABLED!" and is good enough to argue that you are.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Should be another unpopular opinion. 

Non-American =/= Having intellectual superiority over Americans.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,355
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@KingLaddy01


Non-American =/= Having intellectual superiority over Americans.
I guess they are smart enough to illegally immigrate here apparently. Wish they could get more stupid so we didn't have to spend so much on defense and border protection....