On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:59:21 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:30:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:55:49 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

I would not be at all against taking action in Africa similar to what we are doing in Syria. And, in
some cases I would be agreeable to inserting troops - SEALs or whatever. Leaving the problems to the
UN 'peacekeepers' seems to be causing even more trouble.

You want another Somalia huh?
We got our ass handed to us there and we had no interest in going
back. There is no quick SEAL strike that will do anything. It will
only encourage a larger conflict and pretty soon you will be in
another un winnable quagmire.

Hopefully we could do a better job the second time around.

Who was the last country to successfully invade and occupy sub saharan
Africa? The colonial Europeans were able to carve out plantations and
a few ports but they never tried to alter the customs of the people
out in the bush. They still had some battles with the natives that
generally ended in a stalemate. Most of the real wars were Europeans
fighting each other over their colonies. (Boers, Brits, French and the
combatants in WWI-II).
The history in South America and South Asia is even worse.
Places like Afghanistan gobble up invaders and **** them out.