Do you not suspect an ulterior motive?
When idi amin was whilin' the u.s. did not intervene.
When the junjuweed (sp), along side the sudan govt
were killing and raping folks of the darfur, the u.s. did
not intervene.
When the conflict between the hutu were killing the tutsi by the
thousands (or was it the tutsi killing the hutu), the u.s.
govt did not intervene.
As an aside, the u.s. invaded grenada (sp), led by general
collin powell. A black man in charge of leading a force
against a black country.
Do you not see the irony in all that?
Only weak, powerless governments have no ulterior motives.States are always cold calculating monsters that have their own interest first at heart. It's also ludicrous to count on a predominantly white nation to intervene in African affairs all the time.
Not going to blame Africans for the atrocities you mention either, simply because large societies have psychotic periods as they evolve; however, hopefully, they learn from their mistakes, which could have been avoided with some common sense.
To me it doesn't matter whether there are ulterior motives; what matters is, are they going to be harmful or beneficial to Africa as a whole, since it is impossible for Africa to be an actor on the world stage if it remains isolated.
African nations must step up their game as well. But the problem here are corrupt leaders that think only of lining their pockets. Those ought to be assassinated as essentially they are reducing a nation to a private property. But who are we fooling, Obama doesn't have the balls to assassinate every corrupt leader of Africa and I'll be revolted if a white President were to do this