Would taking over Africa by the EU or US be ethical and the best thing to do?

Question

War is generally not good, and war would be required for the conquering of all nations of Africa. However, if under Western influence, the people there would be much better off. The incredibly corrupt governments would be abolished, the crisis in Darfur, huge famines, AIDS better controlled, and many more benefits. Would this sort of mass conquering be justified, ethical, and the best thing for Africans? Or is there a better way?

Answer 1

Before answering the main question, an observation on the first respondent is in order:

There was no "EU" when some euro-peon states had afriggan colonies under white rule.  When they did  the afriggans were better-off.

Now, in-fact, the "EU" does have afrigga as it's series of colonies. In fact, the "EU" was successful in discouraging  the afriggans, who were suffering terribly from a blight of their favorite starchy root crop, from partaking of a blight-resistant cultivar of it offered  by the U.S.  If you're willing to let your citizens starve on the orders of some foreigners, you're their de facto colony. The only difference now being that the governor-general of the particular colony will be an afriggan instead of a euro,  so  the citizenry of the colony will suffer many times worse  than otherwise.  

Another example of how afrigga currently serves as a colony for europe would be that even before the "EU"  came into existence euro-peon interests  destroyed the natural ecology of Lake Victoria by placing nile perch in  it to feed  THEIR economic interests in having more of those avaialable to euro-peon   markets.

I'm glad I  could clear that up  before we go on.

The only way the U.S. should ever "take over" afrigga would be  after the free-rein on the afriggans just described above results in the inevitable and they've all hutu-ed each others' tootsies or partaken of sufficient quantities of diseased "bush-meat" to completely wipe them all  out so that  taking over that continent then would be a matter of  reestablishing  a human population.

Under those circumstances, certainly the U.S. ought to get afrigga, seeing as how the U.S. has suffered so horribly from being sold  afriggan slaves  as  worthy of a warranty of merchantability  for workers, and then  their descendents after the War Between the States.  The afriggans of that time used us as a dumping grounds for  their social misfits--first trying to use them as slaves and when they turned out to be incapable of functioning even under that highly-structured  environment, unloading them on the first unsuspecting itinerant  band of arab slavers who  would come by and only see the glistening shiny outlines of the musculature and not worry about the ultimate behavioral problems those trying to use them as laborers would experience.  We're owed at least  that due to the fraud we suffered.

Of course the shippers and sellers had their part in the fraud too.

A zionist-esque program to identify every currently extant accretion of wealth which can even remotely be traced back to those frauds and the United States Department of Justice  ought to seek reparations for the families of those who were fraudulently sold  these "laborers".  Particular attention  ought  be paid to any such "deep pockets" which are domestic first, *then* foreign ones.

But a deadly-stupidity depopulated afriggan continent  would make a nice start in that direction.

So  a conditional YES is my answer to your question.  Under my conditions we needn't  worry about whether or not the afriggans are better off, happy, sad or indifferent, because they would have been allowed (literally) to take care of themselves, with predictable results.

Answer 2

Well I'll tell you.  I like this idea.  It would give us control over many of Africa's diverse reasources.  I want it to look like it was white people.  I want the people to really REALLY suffer, and eventually be driven out so that the only people there are commercial miners, slaves, and contractors.  Maybe hunters.

Answer 3

EU already tried that. It was called "Colonialism" and nobody liked it, especially the indigenous people in the various countries/fifedoms. They wanted self rule and they got it. Why do it over again?

Answer 4

How old are all you people didnt you know Africa has only been independent for about half a century it has all these wars and corrupt governments due to fing colonism by Europeans it does not take 50 years only to become stable please have any of you ran you own community let alone a country or a continent the size of Africa....

You got to first answer why Afirca is the way it is before thinking of ways to solve what Africa is untill then you are simply making false statements which in no way will help either continents and Africa will only fight for independences again and fall even more greater down. Europe is the one holding debts on African countries the western world is the one still doing un fair trade and we all know it yet they still dont do nothing about it aid to Africa lol that is a joke its just a way to cover up their un fair trade they dont need hand outs but fair trade lifted debts and corruption between both African leaders and western world leaders.

Also if what you say were to happen youll see how quickly the western world economy will fall as the western world profits from poverty and making Africa equal to them will shift the balance of wealth to resource plenty Africa

Dont you remember Europe in the 14th century, Black death days was no other continent in such a mess but slavery and colonization of a lot of the world helped them exploit their way to the top swapping their poverty with the countries they controlled!

Answer 5

US is already controlling most of the Middle East, so it is China's turn to control Africa and Europe should rest in this century having been colonists for many centuries!