carmen510
Deity
Poor africans, as if "you" were not already doing more than enough to keep them screwed.
First there was the whole colonial episode, then there was the sponsoring of rebellions all over Congo with the use of mercenaries (and who paid those mercenaries, it was a questions worth asking...), then the placement of that thief Mobutu there, then the rwandan mess spilled over thanks to the oh-so-well-intended "humanitarian intervention" which meddled with the civil war there by sheltering one of the parties to that war across the border (the civil wars on Rwanda being also the result of a long history of foreign meddling and supposed good intentions), then there are the religious fanatics in Rwanda accidentally created by the oh-so-well-intentioned missionaries...
And the end result is that always, always, there is an excuse for yet another "humanitarian intervention". More more meddling. For preventing the region from reaching any kind of stability on its own. The "humanitarian interventions" will sow the seeds of future conflict and ensure the excuse for future "humanitarian interventions. That's how modern colonialism works.
Supporting brutal regimes so that countries won't align with your enemy does not count as humanitarian intervention, at least in my book. Your whole theory about perpetuating humanitarian interventions is simply wrong. The United States, China, and any other "colonial power" have economic and political concerns for the continent of Africa, sometimes with a dose of humanitarian good intentions. They don't want instability, since that directly harms those interests and costs them money.
Plus, there's a difference between supporting a dictator like Mobutu and stopping someone who has quite clearly committed crimes against humanity.