Nigeria, the African Tiger

[poiuytrewq0987]

United Nations – Africa’s population is expected to rise from the current 1 billion people to 3.6 billion by 2100, a report released on Wednesday by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) says.

The report, which relied on recent estimates by UN Population Division, states that Nigeria’s population will increase from 390 million in 2050 to 730 million by 2100.

Nigeria will be the third most populous country in the world by 2100, up from its current seventh position.

The report predicts a global population of 9.3 billion in 2050, an increase over earlier figures, and more than 10 billion people by the end of this century.

Much of this increase is expected to come from high fertility countries, which comprises 39 in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America, the report says.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/10/nigerias-population-moves-to-390m-in-2050-as-africa-population-gets-to-3-6-bn/

[Joe McCarthy]

That Goldman Sachs forecast a few years ago projected Nigeria having almost as large an economy as France by 2050.

Certainly doesn't bode well for Western Civilization.

[derLowe]

That Goldman Sachs forecast a few years ago projected Nigeria having almost as large an economy as France by 2050.

Certainly doesn't bode well for Western Civilization.

If they do nothing about it than it dose not.

[The Lawspeaker]

There is a good side to it when the Nigerian economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria) keeps up with the population growth: less Africans will be coming our way. But then again: that's bad for the Western plutocracy who then will have to hire expensive, well-rounded countrymen or move the jobs abroad.


<table class="infobox" cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr class=""><th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)</th> <td class="" style="">$377.6 billion (2010 est.) (PPP; 31st (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29))</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">GDP growth</th> <td class="" style="">8.2% (2010 est.)</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">GDP per capita</th> <td class="" style="">$2,500 (2010 est.)</td></tr></tbody></table>But other figures are not looking good:


Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) (CPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index)) 12.8% (2010 est.)
<table class="infobox" cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr class=""><th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">Public debt</th> <td class="" style="">17.8% of GDP (2009 est.)</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">Revenues</th> <td class="" style="">$10.49 billion</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">Expenses</th> <td class="" style="">$18.08 billion (2009 est.)</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">Credit rating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating)</th> <td class="" style="">Standard & Poor's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_%26_Poor%27s):<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria#cite_note-1)</sup>
B+ (Domestic)
B+ (Foreign)
B+ (T&C Assessment)
Outlook: Stable<sup id="cite_ref-guardian_2-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria#cite_note-guardian-2)</sup>
Fitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch_Group):<sup id="cite_ref-guardian_2-1" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria#cite_note-guardian-2)</sup>
BB-
Outlook: Negative</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align:left;">Foreign reserves</th> <td class="" style="">$33 billion (2010; down from $46 billion in 2009 est.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Joe McCarthy]

There is a good side to it: less Africans will be coming our way. But then again: that's bad for the Western plutocracy who then will have to hire expensive, well-rounded countrymen or move the jobs abroad.

Population of Africa now: 1 billion.

Population of Africa in 2100: 3.6 billion.

Should we conclude less Africans will be coming across the Mediterranean to Europe in 2100?

[The Lawspeaker]

Population of Africa now: 1 billion.

Population of Africa in 2100: 3.6 billion.

Should we conclude less Africans will be coming across the Mediterranean to Europe in 2100?
If the Nigerian economy keeps growing as well: yes. Because then Nigeria will have the "sucking effect"- sucking in Africans from around Africa which we don't have to bother about anymore.

Particularly if we in Europe make it more difficult for them to come here: then Nigeria and other states that are doing relatively well (by then) will see the full shock of the population growth because they will become the attractive alternative for many Africans.

And I, personally, think that having a couple of rich African countries (apart from Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa which should be taken over by the White Africans again) is a very good prospect indeed because the Africans from the poorer and miserable parts will go there instead.

Having Nigeria, Benin, Senegal and Botswana should be seen as a blessing instead of a curse. Good on them.. and even better for us.

[Peyrol]

...and not only Nigeria, also many other west african states like Sehegal, Cote D'Ivoire, Benin, Ghana, Gabon and probabily also Botswana in southern part.

[Peyrol]

Look at equatorial Guinea :eek:

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

[Sarcofago]

ehy the pope told them to not use condoms so...

[Peyrol]

ehy the pope told them to not use condoms so...

This is why they'll be 730 millions from the actual 150s :laugh:

[The Lawspeaker]

Look at equatorial Guinea :eek:

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


<table class="infobox geography vcard"><tbody><tr class="mergedtoprow"><td colspan="2">GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) (PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity))</td> <td>2010 estimate</td> </tr> <tr class="mergedrow"> <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td> <td style="padding-left:0em;">Total</td> <td>$24.146 billion<sup id="cite_ref-wb2010_2-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#cite_note-wb2010-2)</sup> </td> </tr> <tr class="mergedbottomrow"> <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td> <td style="padding-left:0em;">Per capita</td> <td>$34,824<sup id="cite_ref-wb2010_2-1" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#cite_note-wb2010-2)</sup> (22^nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita))</td></tr></tbody></table>Hmm one would mistake them for the Netherlands if it wasn't for the fact that I have doubts whether their figures are correct though. It seems to be teeming with corruption and bribery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Equatorial_Guinea), (it's basically an oligarchy with a lot of power for the president) so their figures are probably as fake as a Greek national budget. It's a country with a substantial oil wealth.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_03/malabo2DM1603_468x313.jpg


A Western European country with the GDP per capita of $34,824 doesn't have this.

[Peyrol]

Hmm one would mistake them for the Netherlands if it wasn't for the fact that I have doubts whether their figures are correct though. It seems to be teeming with corruption and bribery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Equatorial_Guinea), (it's basically an oligarchy with a lot of power for the president) so their figures are probably as fake as a Greek national budget. It's a country with a substantial oil wealth.

Yes, i know, but i'm referring to the percentage of GDP growing (44% in a single year! Like Italy in the '50s)...also the figures of Uruguay (32% of growth in a single years) is quite good.

[The Lawspeaker]

Yes, i know, but i'm referring to the percentage of GDP growing (44% in a single year! Like Italy in the '50s)...also the figures of Uruguay (32% of growth in a single years) is quite good.
One would almost believe these figures to be true. Almost. The Italians also have their history of.... shall we say creative bookkeeping.

[Peyrol]

A Western European country with the GDP per capita of $34,824 doesn't have this.


Ehm....:D

http://www.lenovae.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/napoli.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

Ehm....:D

http://www.lenovae.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/napoli.jpg

Whoever believes the Italian figures is an idiot. :D What I found more striking in the map was to see the decline of the Icelandic and British economies.

[Sarcofago]

Ehm....:D

http://www.lenovae.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/napoli.jpg

Napoli is also the city with one of the most famous and important universities in the western world,while torino was still sleeping in the fog,so think before posting.

http://www.difossombrone.it/images/universita/napoli.jpg

http://www.ilgazzettinovesuviano.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Universita-Federico-II.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

I think we all know where the next debt crisis is going to strike: it will be either China (God help us) or Nigeria.

[Peyrol]

Ma se nel thread di BorrebyViking ho difeso Napoli per pagine dagli attacchi di inglesi ed americani....pensa te prima di postare, mongolo d'un falso toscano.

[Sarcofago]

ma vai a cagare spia,adesso segnala pure me,come hai fatto con gli altri forumisti italiani bannati grazie a te,fanculizzati.

[The Lawspeaker]

We should do Italy a favour and cut the place through half and have Smit International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smit_International) tow the Southern part to Africa. :heh:

[Peyrol]

ma vai a cagare spia,adesso segnala pure me,come hai fatto con gli altri forumisti italiani bannati grazie a te,fanculizzati.

Certo che non avete proprio un cazzo da fare e sinceramente questo trollaggio non ha senso ed è ridicolo ed immaturo, più per voi che per altro.

Se a me stan sul belino i comunisti, non vado ad iscrivermi, chessò, su "GiovaniVendoliani.com" postando cazzate...tanto non è che trollando su internet o scrivendo due insulti a me da dietro un pc si fa una "rivoluzione" o si cambia il mondo...che senso avrebbe? Che ci fate qui, visto che peraltro contribuite ulteriormente a farci far la figura dei coglioni e dei doppiogiochisti a livello internazionale col vostro atteggiamento?


Tra l'altro poi che fantasia...avete tutti lo stesso stile di scrittura...:rolleyes:

[zack]

This is not good. The birth rate i mean. Only 2% of the population growth of Africa is being compensated by immigration into Europe.

This is bad from a humanist point of view because its obvious that Africa can't support 3 billion people. They already are pushing the limits as it is!

Its obvious that Africa will be contributing almost all of the worlds population growth coming up. This is no longer just a western civilization problem but a civilization problem...period.

Almost all of the world outside of Africa has below replacement level fertility...these blacks are a threat to civilization itself.

Pay them to be sterilized :mad:

[Sarcofago]

si vabbe ma che cosa centra uaar ,hai proprio una fissa,ma ti rendi conto delle cazzate che spari? ho mai nominato l'uaar i centri sociali o chissa chi?,mangia meno gianduiotti e segnala meno padanista da tre soldi.

Tra l'altro i tuoi amici padani che si fanno tremila accounts (pensano che non li si riconosca?) non li segnali vero?

[The Lawspeaker]

Sarcofago è un provocatore comunista?

[Sarcofago]

Sarcofago è un agente provocatore comunista?

No,only in the dreams of tribuno I am.

He cannot believe that a non fascist is able to talk and study,is his weltschaaung.

[Peyrol]

si vabbe ma che cazzo centra uaar ,hai proprio una fissa,ma ti rendi conto delle cazzate che spari? ho mai nominato l'uaar i centri sociali o chissa chi?,mangia meno gianduiotti e segnala meno padanista da tre soldi.

Tra l'altro i tuoi amici padani che si fanno tremila accounts (pensano che non li si riconosca?) non li segnali vero?

Padanista? Aahahahahaah ma seriamente, curati. Questo dimostra la pochezza intellettuale di voi troll da tastiera. Uno è del nord e quindi per traslazione è padanista...si vabbè, poi non ci son più le mezze stagioni, le giornate si stanno allungando, rosso di sera bel tempo si spera etc. Altri luoghi comuni?

Sono l'unico piciu (insieme ad un altra ragazza italiana che ora non posta più) che ha difeso il Meridione a spada tratta da un anno a questa parte qui sopra in diecimila discussioni diverse (di cui l'ultima ieri dove tutti, e dico tutti i membri di 'sto forum han ricominciato con 'sta storia dei "guido"), mentre voi altri niente di serio, quei thread dove ci attaccano tutti delle più etnie disparate dal mattino alla sera li snobbate e non ve ne frega nulla, solo a postare cazzate nella sezione italiana e non solo.

Ripeto, che ci fai qui sopra?

[The Lawspeaker]

No,only in the dreams of tribuno I am.

He cannot believe that a non fascist is able to talk and study,is his weltschaaung.
Knowing Tribuno as a veteran I trust his judgement.

[Peyrol]

Sarcofago è un provocatore comunista?

Probabilmente, come molti della sua specie è bravo a fare le "rivoluzioni trollanti da tastiera" con la paghetta dei genitori :coffee:

[The Lawspeaker]

Probabilmente, come molti della sua specie è bravo a fare le "rivoluzioni trollanti da tastiera" con la paghetta dei genitori :coffee:
Io non sono sorpreso. Il mio consiglio per lui: vaffanculo!

[Peyrol]

Io non sono sorpreso. Il mio consiglio per lui: vaffanculo!

Non posta più ed 'è disconnesso.
Sarà corso a piagnucolare con i tovarich di altri forum per chiedere rinforzi :coffee:

[The Lawspeaker]

Non posta più ed 'è disconnesso.
Sarà corso a piagnucolare con i tovarich di altri forum per chiedere rinforzi :coffee:
Loki già inviato tovarich Sarcofago in vacanza permanente. Che liberazione!

[Peyrol]

Loki già inviato tovarich Sarcofago in vacanza permanente. Che liberazione!

Many others will come.
Usually when one of them is discovered and banned it go to his friends to whine like a children, and then they attack in mass.:coffee:

[The Lawspeaker]

Many others will come.
Usually when one of them is discovered and banned it go to his friends to whine like a children, and then they attack in mass.:coffee:
It will keep the mods busy. No recession and mass layoffs here. Employment is permanent. :coffee:

[Loki]

There is a good side to it when the Nigerian economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria) keeps up with the population growth: less Africans will be coming our way.

Well that is just the point. People who wish for Africa to remain poor are just plain stupid. Increased wealth will reduce population growth (as is the case everywhere else in the world) and will cause less of them to want to immigrate to Europe.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well that is just the point. People who wish for Africa to remain poor are just plain stupid. Increased wealth will reduce population growth (as is the case everywhere else in the world) and will cause less of them to want to immigrate to Europe.
And - on the plus side: we will have a bigger circle of consumers for our trinkets that we no longer have to give to the natives but sell. :wink.

[Flintlocke]

Shouldn't have let them get independent you Brits, you would get lost of cheap oil nowadays.

[Joe McCarthy]

I don't see how a future where there are almost four times as many Africans, with more money and the weapons and organization that brings, on a continent that is already suffering from resource depletion, bodes well for Europe, or really anyone else. It is a recipe for African colonization of much of the world.

Maybe Colonel Qadhafi, as nutty as he was, had a point. The future belongs to the black man.

[The Lawspeaker]

Rubbish
Africa ? Resource depletion ? You're nuts.

[Joe McCarthy]

Africa ? Resource depletion ? You're nuts.

They have mineral wealth. Might wanna look at the condition of farm land and water. Africa will need more space for these extra 2.6 billion people (duh) and one of the closest places to unload its surplus population is affluent Europe.

[The Lawspeaker]

They have mineral wealth. Might wanna look at the condition of farm land and water. Africa will need more space for these extra 2.6 billion people (duh) and one of the closest places to unload its surplus population is affluent Europe.

You seem to forget one thing, Joe: what happens to countries when they become wealthy ? That's right Joe: population growth falls. So if Africa becomes wealthy. Your terrifying prognosis won't become reality. And Africa is not short of farm land or even water. It's just that the infrastructure is lacking and the methods of farming are little better then prehistoric. Africa thus needs economic growth and an agricultural revolution.

In the United States one couldn't have dreamed of feeding the population it has today if it wasn't for the onset of modern agriculture. So what if Africa doesn't develop. It wouldn't hurt you but it would hurt us: because they would come to us.

So for short: keeping African poor is anti-European because it is not in our long-term interest. A rich Africa means more trade for us, less migration, less diseases to worry about and all in all more security along our Southern borders.

A rich Africa is in our interests. Maybe not in the interests of the Jews and Americans that want to keep Europe unstable and shackled to them but damn well in our interests - particularly if we Europeans get a share of the pie and actually keep the Chinese and Indians at bay. Which is perhaps also a geopolitical concern you would never understand: Africa, geopolitically speaking, is our back yard and I don't want to see the Chinese, Arabs and Indians there. Or the Americans for that matter.

[Joe McCarthy]

You seem to forget one thing, Joe: what happens to countries when they become wealthy ? That's right Joe: population growth falls.

You don't think these population growth numbers are taking the projected economic gains into account? Please tell me you're not that ignorant.


And Africa is not short of farm land or even water.

Even putting aside the current water supply imagine the water situation with four times the mouths to feed. :rolleyes: Countries like Somalia ALREADY suffer from soil erosion. What can we expect with almost three billion more coons? :rolleyes:


In the United States one couldn't have dreamed of feeding the population it has today if it wasn't for the onset of modern agriculture.

Nigeria may be gaining ground, but they're not Anglo-Saxons-Puritans, nor do these countries have the abundant food production potential we have.


So what if Africa doesn't develop. It wouldn't hurt you but it would hurt us: because they would come to us.

Erm, Europe going down the drain won't be good for anybody, other than maybe the niggers that become its heirs. :rolleyes:

[The Lawspeaker]

You don't think these population growth numbers are taking the projected economic gains into account? Please tell me you're not that ignorant.

With the UN everything is possible except for accurate predictions or getting their own household booklet in order.

I know one thing: you have shown yourself to have no knowledge whatsoever of geopolitics. You are just in favour of using fear to keep us shackled to the Anglo-Saxon/Jewish corpse while I would prefer to see a rich Africa which is in our European geopolitical backyard and where we can keep the Chinese, Indians, Arabs and Americans out and have our economic and geopolitical share of the pie. :)

You also forget that it's very much in the interest of European countries to maintain close relations with Africa because of linguistic and historical connections (so I am not going to help you because you have to do it for yourself) and because of trade relations.

There are two choices for Europe:

1) Remaining shackled to the Anglo-Saxon/ Jewish corpse and fight their little plutocrat wars and seeing our boys return home dead, wounded or insane and our societies disintegrate due to mass migration from the afflicted African and Muslim countries.

2) Be smart for a change and confront America and Israel and invest in Africa copying the Chinese model and using it to our advantage: investing in education, infrastructure, businesses etc and slowly, over time, forcing the Chinese out. With, as an added bonus, we would see Africans return home and fewer come here as the economy progresses. For short: engage in a new scramble for Africa.

I know which one we should choose - in the case of the first the returns are zero.. in the case of the second we could have some success. So the option we should choose is this: Fuck you, America. Go your own way.

[Joe McCarthy]

I know one thing: you have shown yourself to have no knowledge whatsoever of geopolitics. You are just in favour of using fear to keep us shackled to the Anglo-Saxon/Jewish corpse while I would prefer to see a rich Africa which is in our European geopolitical backyard

Here's what a rich Africa has gotten Europe before:

http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-12-10-11401/Provincias-del-Emirato-de-Cordoba-929.png

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/hannibal_invasion.jpg

:rolleyes:

[The Lawspeaker]

Here's what a rich Africa has gotten Europe before:

:rolleyes:
You have no knowledge of history whatsoever do you ?

[derLowe]

I don't see how a future where there are almost four times as many Africans, with more money and the weapons and organization that brings, on a continent that is already suffering from resource depletion, bodes well for Europe, or really anyone else. It is a recipe for African colonization of much of the world.

Maybe Colonel Qadhafi, as nutty as he was, had a point. The future belongs to the black man.

Numeric superiority is some times meaningless.

http://hughmurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/should-churchill-have-saved-british.html


The mechanical, fatalistic approach – the continent rules the island and not the reverse - is disproven by Britain. Around 1850 the entire British presence in India was 100,000; yet they ruled over approximately 250,000,000. The British islands dominated the subcontinent of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and more: Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Oman.


At the Battle of Plassey, with some 3,000 men, only a third British, Robert Clive defeated the Indian sepoys with 50,000.(133) Charles Napier, outnumbered 10 to 1, defeated 22,000 Ballucks at Meanee in India in 1843, and the following year, some 26,000 at the Battle of Hyderabad.(122)


In South Africa some 20,000 Zulus slaughtered 1,300 British defenders at the Battle of Isandlwhana, with almost every corpse desecrated. A little later, at the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, 120 Brits and colonials held off 4,000 Zulus. However, following that 4,000 British soldiers defeated 15,000 Zulus and burnt their capital at Ulundi.(198-99)

It came down to balls and organization and back in the day the British had plenty of both.

[Joe McCarthy]

Numeric superiority is some times meaningless.

http://hughmurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/should-churchill-have-saved-british.html







It came down to balls and organization and back in the day the British had plenty of both.

So are you suggesting old Europeans (the mean projected average will be 50 in Germany by 2050) are going to sail into Nigeria, vastly outnumbered, and kick ass?

I'll just be happy if they can avoid the equivalent of the Germanic invasion of Rome on their own home soil within the next century.

[The Lawspeaker]

So are you suggesting old Europeans (the mean projected average will be 50 in Germany by 2050) are going to sail into Nigeria, vastly outnumbered, and kick ass?

I'll just be happy if they can avoid the equivalent of the Germanic invasion of Rome on their own home soil within the next century.
If you don't know European affairs (much less the geopolitical importance of the African continent) then I think you should be uninvolved.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lOTrqaxLx9c/ScEu9FFupSI/AAAAAAAAATk/_7lbNDlnYSQ/s400/uninvolved.JPG

In Africa... let alone in Europe. :coffee: Because, it is only because of the plutocracy that you support that we have this migration problem: they demand cheap labour, fuck up the home countries of the immigrants and enforce open borders.

Yes, it is those very people that you support that are a danger to Europe and should, by all accounts, be shot without further ado.

[Joe McCarthy]

In Africa... let alone in Europe. :coffee: Because, it is only because of the plutocracy that you support that we have this migration problem: they demand cheap labour, fuck up the home countries of the immigrants and enforce open borders.

Yes, it is those very people that you support that are a danger to Europe and should, by all accounts, be shot without further ado.

Assuming you're correct and those dastardly 'plutocrats' are screwing up Africa, imagine what a richer, better armed Africa with four times the population is going to have on its mind when it sees these vastly outnumbered, old Europeans who have oppressed them for centuries across the Mediterranean? :rolleyes:

I guess it's fun to live in a pollyanna dream world where everybody is rich and happy though, and conflict is a thing of the past. I can see why you used to be a Marxist.

[The Lawspeaker]

Assuming you're correct and those dastardly 'plutocrats' are screwing up Africa, imagine what a richer, better armed Africa with four times the population is going to have on its mind when it sees these vastly outnumbered, old Europeans who have oppressed them for centuries across the Mediterranean? :rolleyes:

I guess it's fun to live in a pollyanna dream world where everybody is rich and happy though, and conflict is a thing of the past. I can see why you used to be a Marxist.

And again: spreading fear, Joe ? It doesn't work you know because at the end of the day that's all you're doing and the medicine is no longer useful because it doesn't work anymore.

[Siberyak]

Assuming you're correct and those dastardly 'plutocrats' are screwing up Africa, imagine what a richer, better armed Africa with four times the population is going to have on its mind when it sees these vastly outnumbered, old Europeans who have oppressed them for centuries across the Mediterranean? :rolleyes:

I guess it's fun to live in a pollyanna dream world where everybody is rich and happy though, and conflict is a thing of the past. I can see why you used to be a Marxist.

How do you think blacks, Mexicans and native Americans are gonna feel when they all outnumber whites in the USA. They will be licking there chops

[Joe McCarthy]

How do you think blacks, Mexicans and native Americans are gonna feel when they all outnumber whites in the USA. They will be licking there chops

Probably right.

But my point here is you don't want wealthier enemies with greater numbers and military potential.

Indeed, this goes without saying. :rolleyes:

[The Lawspeaker]

Probably right.

But my point here is you don't want wealthier enemies with greater numbers and military potential.

Indeed, this go without saying. :rolleyes:
Which only come to you because you are rich and they are not. Scare-mongering, Joe, at the end of the day it is just that.

[derLowe]

So are you suggesting old Europeans (the mean projected average will be 50 in Germany by 2050) are going to sail into Nigeria, vastly outnumbered, and kick ass?

I'll just be happy if they can avoid the equivalent of the Germanic invasion of Rome on their own home soil within the next century.

Don't set such low goals, Europe can more than hold its own against any one. Keep a stiff upper lip.

Separately the armies of Europe are no push over, together they would be terrifying and if the Deutsch Kriegsmaschine were to rises from the dead even with an army of 50 year old Africa would be an empty crater in a few months. Probably the only real opposition would have been South Africa, since we had the best army.

Further more, all this is theoretical, I currently do not advocate a elderly Germanic invasion of Africa or any invasion for that matter. In my opinion Europe has some work to do back at home minor things like investing in education, infrastructure and all of those "trifling things".

[Loki]

Probably right.

But my point here is you don't want wealthier enemies with greater numbers and military potential.

Indeed, this goes without saying. :rolleyes:

Why should they be enemies? A world without war could be a good place to live in.

[Joe McCarthy]

Which only come to you because you are rich and they are not. Scare-mongering, Joe, at the end of the day it is just that.

It's not scaremongering. It is a realistic appraisal of Europe's future unless things change.

Look at world population in 1900. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36451) Note how many more people the European countries had than the African countries it colonized. Do you not see the parallels to the reverse situation that will exist in 2100?

To survive Europe will first have to begin having babies again, and then seriously begin asking itself what it's going to do about Africa. The UN and other agencies have already failed to try and significantly reduce Africa's population growth, as we are seeing, and European imperialists no longer controlling Africa's sea borders means Europe gets lots of boat traffic. China is already in the beginning stages of recolonizing Africa. I do agree that a new Scramble for Africa is needed, but this time it'll be the West vs. China.

[Joe McCarthy]

Why should they be enemies? A world without war could be a good place to live in.

Such a world will never exist, and to the extent it can exist it means one state with unchallenged military power, ala Britain under the Pax Britannica, the Pax Romana, or yes, the Pax Americana.

[Loki]

Such a world will never exist, and to the extent it can exist it means one state with unchallenged military power, ala Britain under the Pax Britannica, the Pax Romana, or yes, the Pax Americana.

I disagree. Life is full of surprises, and - believe it or not - humans still evolve. Continuous war seems to be in the mindset of Americans, whilst virtually all of the rest of the world wants peace.

[Joe McCarthy]

I disagree. Life is full of surprises, and - believe it or not - humans still evolve. Continuous war seems to be in the mindset of Americans, whilst virtually all of the rest of the world wants peace.

I don't think continuous war is in the mindset of Americans. Our leaders after WW2 managed to create the conditions whereby world war could be prevented, at least for a time. Men like FDR and Woodrow Wilson didn't want war. Quite the opposite. That's why they led the way in creating the world peace organizations - the League of Nations and United Nations.

The fundamental nature of man has not changed. Political realists understand that man's nature is driven by a desire for power and a will to dominate. Given the chance to do so men will strive for these things, and Africans will be in a better position to strive for these things than they have been in centuries in the coming decades.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's the thing he is just obsessed about: spreading fear, spreading rumours. The thing is that the liberals do have a good point: the problem is the current elite in power. The problem is the current capitalistic economic system that is not build on the free exchange of goods but merely on coercion by the few and the exploitation of the many.

Getting rid of the present elite that has brought in HUGE groups of immigrants just to scare us into submission by offering us the "anti immigrant" solution by depressing wages, slashing benefits etc would do us all a huge favour. A new economic and multipolar geopolitical system that actually spreads power and wealth would be the ultimate solution because multipolarism is actually Joe's preferred system is not: balanced..

Joe's rhetorics is the rhetoric of a terrified elite that still tries to exert power over us and coerce us into falling in line by means of scaring us into submission again and it is high time that we see it for what it is: rhetorics, scaremongering.


I don't think continuous war is in the mindset of Americans. Our leaders after WW2 managed to create the conditions whereby world war could be prevented, at least for a time. Men like FDR and Woodrow Wilson didn't want war. Quite the opposite. That's why they led the way in creating the world peace organizations - the League of Nations and United Nations.


Actions speak louder then words. In it's entire existence as a nation the US has not known a single day of peace.

[Joe McCarthy]

Actions speak louder then words. In it's entire existence as a nation the US has not known a single day of peace.

It'd be amusing to watch you give us a chronology substantiating this claim.

But then your tendency to make kooky comments about the US is well known.

[The Lawspeaker]

It'd be amusing to watch you give us a chronology substantiating this claim.

But then your tendency to make kooky comments about the US is well known.
Give me one day without a colonial war, chasing natives or America's involvement in other wars etc. Just one day.

[Joe McCarthy]

Give me one day without a colonial war, chasing natives or America's involvement in other wars etc. Just one day.

First, define 'colonial war'.

[The Lawspeaker]

First, define 'colonial war'.
Any attack on or intervention in a foreign country which the U.S considers to be part of it's sphere of influence or who unilaterally feels the need to influence local affairs.

Do you agree with me, Joe, that if I would have a holiday from all the days that the U.S has spend at actual peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1775 .E2.80.931799) that I might just as well don't bother and stay at home ?

[Joe McCarthy]

Any attack on or intervention in a foreign country which the U.S considers to be part of it's sphere of influence or who unilaterally feels the need to influence local affairs.

Okay, find us any war or intervention the US was involved in on August 2nd, 1934. That was the day after we pulled out of Haiti and it was during American isolationism from Europe and in the era of FDR's Latin American 'Good Neighbor Policy'.

The Philippines was our posession at the time but no hostilities were underway there.

Good luck.

[The Lawspeaker]

Okay, find us any war or intervention the US was involved in on August 2nd, 1934. That was the day we pulled out of Haiti and it was during American isolationism from Europe and in the era of FDR's Latin American 'Good Neighbor Policy'.

The Philippines was our posession at the time but no hostilities were underway there.

Good luck.
One day of peace out 250 years of existence. :coffee: Jesus. I might just as well have a pyjama day and stay in bed if that's my only holiday.

[Joe McCarthy]

Do you agree with me, Joe, that if I would have a holiday from all the days that the U.S has spend at actual peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1775 .E2.80.931799) that I might just as well don't bother and stay at home ?

I'd have to think about it. At most that list looks like something I'd expect to see if I saw a timeline of European wars. As a rule major Western powers have frequently been involved in some kind of conflict to protect their interests. That's one reason they're major powers. The key question though is not whether they're involved in minor, localized squabbles but whether they successfully contain them from spreading into major conflicts. The US has arguably been the most successful of any state in history at that.

[Joe McCarthy]

One day of peace out 250 years of existence. :coffee: Jesus. I might just as well have a pyjama day and stay in bed if that's my only holiday.

You asked for one day. I provided it. I could of course provide MANY others. :rolleyes:

[The Lawspeaker]

I'd have to think about it. At most that list looks like something I'd expect to see if I saw a timeline of European wars. As a rule major Western powers have frequently been involved in some kind of conflict to protect their interests. That's one reason they're major powers. The key question though is not whether they're involved in minor, localized squabbles but whether they successfully contain them from spreading into major conflicts. The US has arguably been the most successful of any state in history at that.
Bla bla. Not every war becomes a major conflict. That's just something you make up. A little row between the football fans of Ajax and Feyenoord does not turn into a full-blown Dutch civil war either.

[Libertas]

The Pope should butt out of the argument.

All the Catholic Church is interested in is making up for the lack of priestly vocations in Europe.

[Hurrem sultana]

saw an african woman with child today the child and mom spoke french together,sad they were speaking french....is it common in Africa to speak the language of their former colonizers?

[Joe McCarthy]

saw an african woman with child today the child and mom spoke french together,sad they were speaking french....is it common in Africa to speak the language of their former colonizers?

Yes, it is. I have a feeling it'll also soon be common for Europeans to speak the languages of their colonizers...

[Hurrem sultana]

Yes, it is. I have a feeling it'll also soon be common for Europeans to speak the languages of their colonizers...

I see,i know Tunisians are about to kick out french out of universities...but they are no "real africans".:D

[Flintlocke]

Get yo white ass off this thread can't u see it's real niggaz talkin'ere? :p

[Joe McCarthy]

I see,i know Tunisians are about to kick out french out of universities...but they are no "real africans".:D

I'm more concerned about them one day kicking the French out of France unfortunately...

[Loki]

saw an african woman with child today the child and mom spoke french together,sad they were speaking french....is it common in Africa to speak the language of their former colonizers?

Yes. Generally, North and West Africa can speak French, whilst southern and eastern parts speak English.

The only nation never to become a colony of Europe in Africa really is Ethiopia.

[Gaztelu]

Here's what a rich Africa has gotten Europe before:

http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-12-10-11401/Provincias-del-Emirato-de-Cordoba-929.png

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/hannibal_invasion.jpg

:rolleyes:

:bowlol:

Your habit of scare-mongering has no bounds.

Morocco is more likely to wage war against Algeria rather than Spain or Portugal.

[zack]

Malthusian limits must be met at some point in Africa.



Looming desertification could spawn millions of environmental refugees
Africa may be able to feed only 25% of its population by 2025
mongabay.com
December 14, 2006


Africa may be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025 if soil degradation on the continent continues at its current pace, according to a water expert presenting at an upcoming United Nations University (UNU) conference on desertification in Algiers, Algeria.

Karl Harmsen, Director of UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa, says that should soil conditions continue to decline in Africa, nearly 75% of the continent could come to rely on some sort of food aid by 2025.

Harmsen's comments come as some 200 delegates from 25 countries prepare to convene at the December 17-19 meeting in Algiers to discuss the causes and consequences of desertification, a threat that puts an estimated 2 billion people at risk of becoming "environmental refugees". The U.N. warns that climate change could worsen the situation by depriving populations living in arid regions of adequate water supplies. Christian Aid has estimated that an average global temperature increase exceeding 3ºC could cause 182 million deaths in Africa this century and leave 750 million additional hungry people in Africa and Asia


"There is an overwhelming expectation that the number of people on the move due to environmental reasons will grow," Bogardi said. "We are at the beginning of an unavoidably long process. Yet, the aim must be clear: to create recognition in order to assist a forcefully emerging new category of migrants."

Bogardi explains that there are currently no mechanisms for recognizing environmental refugees, who already outnumber people categorized as political refugees. He proposes three categories of environmental refugees: environmentally-motivated migrants, environmentally-forced migrants, and environmental refugees (potentially including disaster refugees); depending on whether the environmentally-motivated migrant has a choice to leave and the swiftness of taking action ("fleeing" rather than "migrating").

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html

More coons coming to a town near you... Homo Africanus will colonize europe and get dat white pusseh.

[GeistFaust]

This is really quite a dire situation if it all may come true. Its amazing that despite the works of natural selection and social crisises wiping out large parts of their populations, they are able to bounce back like this. I bet a lot of these economic advancements have to do with Western factions and corruption.


A lot of Africans have come over to the Western world to get educated, and I have known some. It seems when they get back to their country they use Western methods to cheat and scam the system. I think Nigeria has an infamous history for having many fradulent and sham enterprises harbored within it.


This is because these people want to find anyone to steal the money flow from powerful Western nations, who are relatively rich. They see everything in the vast scheme as stolen from them, and they will use any power or money they get to try to suffocate more powerful Western nations.


Their primitive ways of thinking and applying things will be their downfall, and our main concern should be with all the immigrants that will be moving out of Africa. 1 Billion people is enough in Africa, but having 3 Billion might create some sort of social and environmental apocalypse, which will send a wave of these people to infest Western nations.


The problem is not with Africa itself, but the infestation of large and copious amounts of them into powerful Western nations, which could and is causing a degeneration and decay from within.