if hillary wins i will go africa could i ally with the african

>>31872788
yeah i think namibia is a great place to start

>>31872788
>If this irredeemable tyrant wins my election I'm going to carve a nation in Africa where I can truly be free

I can't wait for space travel to finally be safe and relatively common so I can go carve out a great nation on Mars with guns, gambling and alium hookers.

Dream on my fellow /k/ommando

Dream on.

>>31873128
Maybe tomorrow the good Kube'll take you awaaay-ay

>>31872788
After nation is formed we call it Kubeland, official religion will be Kube, and finally we steal the glorious Kube and transport it there and start trading and creating a military to slowly expand our land.

Bump for interest

>>31873128
>>31873177
>>31874213
rhodesia 2.0 with more porn, more traps, and more guns

Good luck trying to recolonize Africa, OP.

But, in all honesty, Africa is pretty devoid of suitable land. Most of the land that nobody cares about is in the Sahara.

And, realistically to start your country you're going to need quickly accessible natural resources - the first that comes to mind is obviously oil, but the majority of the oil located in Africa is centered around the Congo.

But, if you're going into the areas surrounding the Congo you're going to need to fight off the local governments and Boko Haram. And, if the US can't fight off local insurgencies with the largest military in the world, good luck trying to protect your claims with the ragtag group you manage to gather together.

If what you're looking for is merely unclaimed land, then you could start with the unclaimed territory in the Westen Sahara under Morocco. Although, I doubt you would be able to fend off the Moroccan military, given their de facto rule of Westen Sahara.

That's not even considering the fact that lack of immunization in Africa means that outbreaks of diseases will happen far more often, killing off your settlers.

Realistically, unless you have several regiments worth of troops, you won't be able to enforce your rule, let alone conquer the land you want.

Of course, the repercussions of failing to create a new country will involve being brought before an international tribunal, so you should probably avoid become an insurgency and set up an interim government as soon as you conquer any territory.

File: zero.jpg (14KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 299x168px

>>31872788
>and ally with african poachers
>gets shot dead by instructor zero

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv_B4zed5vE

>>31874874
i like a challenge

>>31874874
>And, if the US can't fight off local insurgencies with the largest military in the world, good luck trying to protect your claims with the ragtag group you manage to gather together.

The US aint willing to burn a couple warlord assholes alive as an example for the others. These people speak the language of terror pretty fluently, you just gotta foster communication at their level.

>>31874929
you need better reading comprehension

>>31875103
Toppling local warlords is beneficial in that you gain local support, however in doing so you mark yourself as a potential rival for other warlords.

As machiavellian as it sounds, it's more beneficial to ally yourself with the warlords at first to give your rule an aura of legitimacy. After all, there's not much in being seen in a good light, other than preventing potential uprisings.

Certainly after amassing a large enough military force it becomes obvious that one should relinquish their ties to any warlords, but until then there is little incentive to make yourself more of a target than you would already be after conquering a respectable amount of territory.

>>31872788
I'm in Big Boss

QUICKLY ROBIN!
TO THE /K/ARRIER!

File: 1308594654662.png (33KB, 499x314px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 499x314px

>>31874874
>Realistically, unless you have several regiments worth of troops, you won't be able to enforce your rule, let alone conquer the land you want.

the corollary to this of course is that with a several regiments worth of troops you could enforce your rule and conquer all the land you want

>>31876536
War is a numbers game; if your opponent has 1000 troops and you have 15000, you will beat them every time unless they resort to guerilla warfare.

Relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

Also, you'll also have to deal with the Chinese since they want the resources in Africa.

It would be really funny to watch a band of untrained fatties get utterly annihilated by the armed forces of some 3rd tier African power, so please do this

File: tumblr_ms0yx1hRoH1rrjpupo1_1280.jpg (136KB, 695x1041px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 695x1041px

>>31874874
>but the majority of the oil located in Africa is centered around the Congo
>the Congo
>Congo
[Desire to cut hands intensifies]

File: Screenshot_2016-11-02-10-16-24.jpg (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>31879101
Looks to me like your wrong.

File: africamapoilproduceren2008.png (39KB, 465x650px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 465x650px

>>31879247

>>31872788

Anti poaching is a business very much like the pmc military business.

You wont ally with shit and you'll be told to fuck off unless you apply for work there.

Also please I beg you, never trust african negroes or ally with them in any way.

t. A Wyatt Mann

>>31873177
Why not just buy it? Stealing would be extremely painful for ourselves

File: 1455664795734.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>31872788
>Colonize Africa
Better men than you have tried.

The problem with Africa is that it's full of Africans.

>>31874874
Because the US military is too scared to burn down villages and execute random stuff at a whim. We have nothing to lose.

>>31879517
It's scared when the opponent is brown.
Where it white on the other hand...

>>31879079
That's a great video.