Should the US invade Africa with the long term goal of making the continent many US states?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 97
--> @Alec
Not even close. Try again.


Although DDT soon became synonymous with poison, the pesticide was an effective weapon in the fight against an infection that has killed—and continues to kill—more people than any other: malaria. By 1960, due largely to DDT, malaria had been eliminated from eleven countries, including the United States. As malaria rates went down, life expectancies went up; as did crop production, land values, and relative wealth. Probably no country benefited from DDT more than Nepal, where spraying began in 1960. At the time, more than two million Nepalese, mostly children, suffered from malaria. By 1968, the number was reduced to 2,500; and life expectancy increased from 28 to 42 years.
After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:
• In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.
Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.
Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed. Indeed, the only type of cancer that had increased in the United States during the DDT era was lung cancer, which was caused by cigarette smoking. DDT was arguably one of the safer insect repellents ever invented—far safer than many of the pesticides that have taken its place.
Carson’s supporters argued that, had she lived longer, she would never have promoted a ban on DDT for the control of malaria. Indeed, in Silent Spring, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical pesticides never be used.” But it was her contention that DDT caused leukemia, liver disease, birth defects, premature births, and a whole range of chronic illnesses. An influential author can’t, on the one hand, claim that DDT causes leukemia (which, in 1962, was a death sentence) and then, on the other hand, expect that anything less than that a total ban of the chemical would result.
In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.

White Man's Burden all over again...
--> @Greyparrot
I think DDT is off topic to the focus at hand; if the US invading Africa is a good idea.
--> @Alec
How is it off topic? If the government is so inept as to listen to junk scientists and make bad policy that kills billions of Africans, how can you trust the government to take care of Africa now?

--> @Greyparrot
If the government is so inept as to listen to junk scientists and make bad policy that kills billions of Africans
If DDT is good, then it can be legal.  I don't know too much on DDT, so I might change my mind.  There aren't billions of Africans to kill.  The US gov can provide the Africans with money via trade.  We give them $500 billion in cash annually.  They give us $800 billion in Natural resources annually.  The US sells that to other places for $800 Billion.  Africa gets $500 Billion annually.  The US gets $300 Billion annually.  Both parties profit.



--> @Alec
The Africans would eventually revolt and confiscate the resource plants, and become Socialist dictatorship. That's always the way historically.
--> @Greyparrot
The Africans would eventually revolt and confiscate the resource plants
They won't revolt if they aren't oppressed.  Most colonies have had oppressed natives.  The few exceptions tend to not want independence.  Some examples are French Guiana and Puerto Rico.  If America make them capitalist with incentives, then their economy will prosper.
--> @Alec

If we invade Africa, and pay them territory subsidies, then I would think that Africa would be a friend, not an enemy.
- Is it purchasing land or invading territories that you seek? These are two very different approaches. 


As history has shown, as long as the locals aren't oppressed, they are fine with being a colony.
- First, when has history shown this? I fail to recall... So you want to negotiate with the locals to acquire their lands (basically a settlement)?

This is why French Guiana and Puerto Rico are mostly fine with being territories. If the Africans aren't oppressed, but instead have trade opportunities, then they won't want to break away.
- The US has shown very little non-oppression tendencies so far... The US (& Europe) has always been about Win-Lose deals with Africa (& others).


The UN would be okay with it if the locals are.  If the locals aren't oppressed, once invaded and paid territory subsidies, they would be okay with it.
- The only realistically possible way this could happen is if these countries carry out referendums subsequent to which the supermajority must approve of the US sovereignty over their territories through negotiated settlements... & hopefully countries around the world recognize such results through the UN council... none of which I see happening. This is an extremely lengthy & complex & volatile process with very little chance of succeeding, it's practically impossible.

If we invade and help the countries(not for free, my idea is to provide a $500 billion annual territory subsidy to Africa and in exchange get $800 billion worth of natural resources, which Africa has a lot of), then America would have a better reputation worldwide as those who invade and develop.  The US could then turn around and sell those natural resources for $800 billion to Europe, Asia, and other interested parties.  Africa gets $500 Billion annually more in addition to their current economy, the US gets $300 billion.  The rest of the world gets cheap resources to improve their economies
- Why not just invest that $500B into all sorts of infrastructure & trade & industries to modernize the continent to gain a market worth much more than $800B... just like what China is planning. But as you said, invasion is the only thing the US is good at. Case in point, you are American, your first solution was to invade... The truth is, the US (or Europe) do not want a strong Africa (or China or anybody), never have. In fact, economic prosperity of the other is a 'strategic threat' to 'national security' as per the Pentagon official policy in the US. If that wasn't the case, the US can easily invest into the infrastructure of Africa & reap the benefits for decades to come.


Not sure if this is true. 
- Of course it is, two thirds of US FDI stock (foreign direct investment) to Africa is in mining:


This wouldn't be true since the US is in charge.  Just as when the British were in charge of India, the Indians got more assimilated to the British then the other way around, despite their superior numbers,
- India was a colony, the Indians were never part of the kingdom. If they were, it would've been a totally different story of course...

if America invades Africa, the Africans would get assimilated to American rule from a ideological standpoint.  The exception to this is states/territory/colony rights, where on some issues they can make their own laws.
- So, you want to invade African countries to make them into colonies but not American citizens? 


If the US invades Africa, they would rely on Africa more.  China would be a little hypocritical since they invaded Tibet.  Granted Tibet is now okay with it since their standard of living has gone up, but they used to want independence.  Once China improved Tibetan life, Tibet doesn't want independence.
- What does Tibet have to do with anything..? It is very obvious that if the US tries to invade an African country, the latter would take recourse with China to push out the US. 


If your referring to foreign aid, that barely works.  The UN has been at it for 100 years, it has barely worked.  The US should invest in things to make African life better.  I would prefer it if we got something in return.  My proposal is:

-The US gives Africa $500 Billion annually.
-Africa gives the US $800 Billion worth of natural resources and agrees to become a colony of the US.
- That's all great & dandy but it has never been the desire or policy of the US to invest in Africa in the first place, instead they get excess currency in aid, which as you said is no help...


Can you cite this?


Some pros to the invasion:
1. This does not help the African countries though... Also, this could be achieved from FDI, invasion is much more costly.
2. The UN stands for United Nations, which comprise all world nations -including African nations-, which would doubtfully agree to this...
3. Legalizing homosexuality is not human rights, not because you did that yesterday the whole world must. Humans are about much more than just what's between their legs.
4. FDI can do that, without need for invasion.
5. Investing in infrastructure & health can achieve that.
6. I assure you, invasion & good reputation don't concur, especially in the case of the US.
7. Now that's something, but why though?
8. With every invasion, you will surely have even more of them.
9. The $20Tr that the US has spent on wars could've instead been used to rebuild Africa 5 times over.
10. Investment in education?
11. The US has the 2nd largest land area after russian, that's plenty enough land.
12. SERIOUSLY! HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF INVESTMENT???
--> @Yassine

“Is it purchasing land or invading territories that you seek? These are two very different approaches.”

Buying the land won’t work.  I propose invading the place and then once invaded, making the continent better wit territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources at a 5:8 ratio.


“The US has shown very little non-oppression tendencies so far”

 We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.

“The only realistically possible way this could happen is if these countries carry out referendums subsequent to which the supermajority must approve of the US sovereignty over their territories through negotiated settlements”

If the US promises to help the region and to make it 1st world from a fiscal perspective and has a legit plan to achieve this, then they probably will sign on. If they don’t(low chance), they’ll get invaded and helped out anyway.  I don’t see the Africans rejecting US citizenship (under some situations).


“Why not just invest that $500B into all sorts of infrastructure & trade & industries to modernize the continent to gain a market worth much more than $800B” 

That is the basic plan. The US would invest $500 billion into the continent. They just want something in return for this. China is offering low interest loans and is basically giving money away with nothing in return.  They only invested $60 billion in the continent. Under my plan, the US would invest more in jobs such as cutting down trees in the center of the country to make room for farmland. If you live up north, their money may go towards installing solar panels to give the Africans cheap to free electricity.  If they live down South, a combination of alternative energy and minerals could be where the investment goes.

“But as you said, invasion is the only thing the US is good at.”

 When have I said that? The US is good at protecting certain regions from authoritarian regimes.

“Case in point, you are American, your first solution was to invade... The truth is, the US (or Europe) do not want a strong Africa (or China or anybody), never have.”  

If Africa was part of the US, the US would want Africa to be strong.

“If that wasn't the case, the US can easily invest into the infrastructure of Africa & reap the benefits for decades to come.”  

The US doesn’t invest in Africa because Africa is not part of the US. I mean there are food drives, but those barely help. A $500 billion annual investment in exchange for more natural resources would benefit both parties.

“Of course it is, two thirds of US FDI stock (foreign direct investment) to Africa is in mining”:

I was suggesting other resources primarily.  Mining helps but only generates some revenue.  I was suggesting that the Congo can be mined for trees and the sahara can be mined for sand (which can get turned into glass) which can benefit the economy.



“India was a colony, the Indians were never part of the kingdom.”

Most of Africa would start out as colonies. Exceptions would be countries that provide enough rights to their locals.  The requirements for this are unknown, but places like South Africa would be territories instead of colonies, which give them more rights within congress such as more representation and better trade deals.

“So, you want to invade African countries to make them into colonies but not American citizens?”

I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status.  If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.


“It is very obvious that if the US tries to invade an African country, the latter would take recourse with China to push out the US.”

I think the US would win against Africa even with China allying Africa. China can barely win in the Korean peninsula, let alone a different part of the world.


“instead they get excess currency in aid, which as you said is no help”

Under the current status quo, the foreign aid barely helps because there is not a lot of foreign aid going there.  However, with $500 billion a year, this would help the continent develop.

--> @Alec
Hey man, watch some documentaries on Africa. Those Warlords love living that way. They are smiling and laughing as the American interviewers walk them down the street with gunfire in the background. One guy said, "we love this, it's our world." So, everyone telling you that we would have to do a mass genocide is right. We would have to kill a lot of people, that by the way, won't be easy to kill since their whole lives are living a war... that is the only choice. If you are okay with America going in hot, with missiles, warplanes, ground troops, marines, and mowing people down... Then that's what you're okay with. These nations run by these Warlords won't make it easy though... you'll have to kill innocent people to get to them. You'll have to kill kids bc guess what, they fight too. Then, once you pass all that, you'll have to go up against rapaciously war hungry gorilla warriors. 

I don't know how it would play out other than a mass genocide. You are coming at this question like they don't like their lives over there... sure, you're right towards some, but you're also very wrong. They love it. It's their own world, kings among the slums type shit. Why would they give that up? The only way is to take it away from them and erase them... genocide.   
--> @Outplayz
Hey man, watch some documentaries on Africa.
Can you provide some links?

Africa spends $50 billion on it's collective military, the US spends close to $700 billion.  We can beat them.  I imagine some innocents and soldiers would die but the amount of lives that get saved by American influence would surpass the number of lives lost due to the initial invasion.  Here are a few ways lives would be saved:

1: The infant mortality rate would plummet.  
2: AIDS influence gets reduced.
3: Gays who would have gotten killed would be saved.  There are around 100 million LGBT there, whether in the closet or out.  Those that come out get killed and painfully.

They love it.
I am pretty sure they don't live living off of $2 a day for their lives.




--> @Alec
Can you provide some links?

This is one that i remember watching and can find (it was easy bc who can forgot 'cannibal warlords'). 

I am pretty sure they don't live living off of $2 a day for their lives.
You're not getting it. Of course some or i'll even say most people don't like it. Who likes to be tied up and turned into a slave? You'll notice that in the documentary too... but don't turn your logical mind off... bc what you'll see is it's the older guys that have matured that aren't eating each other anymore. But that same guy preaching in the end of the video use to eat people's hearts. 

You have a country of warlords, young, easily malleable, drugged up, and blood hungry. Do they overall love it? Maybe not, like you see... when some get older they regret it, but do they all? No. They are kings of the slums. They are powerful man over the weak. You think they'll just hand you that? Good luck taking power from a lion when it looks at you as the deer. 
--> @Outplayz
Who likes to be tied up and turned into a slave?
There would be no legal slavery in an American owned Africa.

Africa is pretty messed up from all that cannibalism, that's why they need the US to liberate the oppressed Africans that are oppressed by other Africans.  The US benefits economically.

They also have a lot of AIDS.  This can be fixed with extremely rigid sex rules and by prohibiting anyone with AIDS/HIV from engaging in sex.  If even some people obey the law, the spread of AIDS would be lower then if no one obeyed this due to the law not existing.

Some kid said that they had no help.  Under American rule, this would change as they would get territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources that would benefit the US.

bc what you'll see is it's the older guys that have matured that aren't eating each other anymore. But that same guy preaching in the end of the video use to eat people's hearts. 
If they continue to murder and eat each other under US rule, they would be severely punished, either with the DP or life in prison with daily torture.

Good luck taking power from a lion when it looks at you as the deer. 

The US is not the deer and Africa does not see the US as the deer.  We're the tank.  Africa is the deer by comparison.

--> @Alec
Africa is the deer by comparison.
By comparison yes, but mentality no... they are lions. They will fight until their last breathe... and live stream eating American hearts. 

Now, you are right we can change it. I mean, crap... we should liberate the whole world. They would all be better if they were more like us.. right? But guess what... that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will die. That is the only thing you are either overlooking or don't see seriously enough... people, Americans, will die. We are a powerhouse and less of us will likely die... but death is death. And further, for this exchange in death, or you sure things will change? Do you really think force will change a culture? Are you okay with having Americans be full time police to make sure they don't go back to eating hearts? Do we kill all of those that eat hearts? How many are there? How many children will we have to kill to get to them? Will we kill the child fighters? See what is repeated throughout this... killing. If you are okay with that, i agree if they were more like America more people would be happy.  
--> @thett3
Finally, someone who agrees with me on this issue.  I thought it was my idea.  Turns out I was wrong.
--> @Outplayz
I mean, crap... we should liberate the whole world.
I don't think the US has the ability to do that and to keep the areas ... yet.  I would rather take Africa, liberate, assimilate, and fiscally develop Africa with territory subsidies in exchange for more valuable natural resources, then once that is done, I would want to move on to other areas of the world to annex.

that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will die.
Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die (as a guess, it might be more, might be less).  Once the invasion is complete:

-Millions of homosexuals that would have gotten killed for being gay would have their lives spared because an American ruled Africa would be nicer to homosexuals then some african countries.  
-Infant mortality rate plummets, saving an estimated 1.1 million children annually.
-Life expectancy is expected to increase by about 10-15 years, saving about 1 million lives annually.

In other words, the number of lives saved would make up the number killed in less then 2 years.

Are you okay with having Americans be full time police to make sure they don't go back to eating hearts? 
I think Africa needs militarized police until the African territories have enough human rights to become territories.  Until then, they should be colonies.  The only reason why some Africans are cannibals is because they often don't have other options for food.  If these Africans are given jobs in sectors such as extracting Africa's natural resources, and if they get paid $15 an hour or so, depending on their job, then these Africans won't have to resort to cannibalism for food.  Some sample jobs that they could have are:

-A miner in the southern portion of the continent.  This gives the US minerals.
-A lumberjack in the Congo area.  This gives the US wood that can be used to enhance American cities.  It also makes way for farmland, so less Africans are starving and so food is more common.
-A sand miner in the Sahara.  These people mine sand to be turned into glass that helps modernize Africa.
--> @Alec
Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die
And do you think the rest of the world would be okay with that? Or, maybe would that cause a world war? 

"They eat hearts bc they don't have food" 

No my man, they eat hearts to assert power, put fear, and take the persons soul within themselves. The one's eating hearts are actually the one's fine with food. The warlords control the slums, they are kings. They get everything they need by force: food, drugs, sex, etc. They sound like scary people huh? 

You didn't answer one of the more important ones... do we kill the child warriors? 

What effect will that have on Americans fighting this war? 
Buying the land won’t work.  I propose invading the place and then once invaded, making the continent better wit territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources at a 5:8 ratio.
- Just to be clear, are we talking about realistic scenarios or fantastic ones?


We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.
- By invading them instead & killing millions in the process...


If the US promises to help the region and to make it 1st world from a fiscal perspective and has a legit plan to achieve this, then they probably will sign on. If they don’t(low chance), they’ll get invaded and helped out anyway.  I don’t see the Africans rejecting US citizenship (under some situations).
- This is done through investment, not invasion. Of course Africans are not reject being invaded!!!


That is the basic plan. The US would invest $500 billion into the continent. They just want something in return for this. China is offering low interest loans and is basically giving money away with nothing in return.  They only invested $60 billion in the continent. Under my plan, the US would invest more in jobs such as cutting down trees in the center of the country to make room for farmland. If you live up north, their money may go towards installing solar panels to give the Africans cheap to free electricity.  If they live down South, a combination of alternative energy and minerals could be where the investment goes.
- Of course China is getting plenty in return, Africa is geared to become the fastest growing market for the decades to come, it's paramount for China to take stronghold there before anyone else. You don't know much about Africa it seems. Here is an interesting one, America can invest into greenifying the Sahara desert. We are living in a technology driven world, it's not really about minerals anymore.


 When have I said that? The US is good at protecting certain regions from authoritarian regimes.
- You mean disobedient* regimes. The number one catalyst of authoritarian regimes in the world is the US itself.


If Africa was part of the US, the US would want Africa to be strong.
- Or they can just invest... why is that such a bad idea? You seem to be under the impression that Investment = Loss. We live in a globalized corporate world, the capital & finance of the world is run mostly by corporations, not states (with few exceptions).


The US doesn’t invest in Africa because Africa is not part of the US. I mean there are food drives, but those barely help. A $500 billion annual investment in exchange for more natural resources would benefit both parties.
- Maybe it should start investing before it's too late.


I was suggesting other resources primarily.  Mining helps but only generates some revenue.  I was suggesting that the Congo can be mined for trees and the sahara can be mined for sand (which can get turned into glass) which can benefit the economy.
- Sand is mostly used for construction. Regardless, technology >>> mineral resources.


Most of Africa would start out as colonies. Exceptions would be countries that provide enough rights to their locals.  The requirements for this are unknown, but places like South Africa would be territories instead of colonies, which give them more rights within congress such as more representation and better trade deals.
- In this case, this is a giant failure, who would wanna be a colony...!


I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status.  If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.
- This is so impossible on so many levels. Once these countries prosper, they can easily take over the US...


I think the US would win against Africa even with China allying Africa. China can barely win in the Korean peninsula, let alone a different part of the world.
- The US is never going to war with China, that's unattainable. Which is exactly why it can not invade allies of China either.


Under the current status quo, the foreign aid barely helps because there is not a lot of foreign aid going there.  However, with $500 billion a year, this would help the continent develop.
- It would, in FDI.
--> @Yassine
Just to be clear, are we talking about realistic scenarios or fantastic ones?
I think the trade would be both realistic and fantastic.

We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.
- By invading them instead & killing millions in the process...
We saved way more South Koreans and Japanese from our presence then the alternative of us not being there because communism would have taken over these areas militarily, and China would have caused millions to die.

You mainly suggest an alternative to invasion: investment.  The thing is though is that investment is not popular for americans to carry out.  If the government encourages others to invest in Africa, only a few people would engage in it.

it's paramount for China to take stronghold there before anyone else.
The US should get there first.

The number one catalyst of authoritarian regimes in the world is the US itself.
The #1 liberator of regimes in the world is the US.  We liberated South Korea and Japan from communism.  The people there wanted capitalism.  China tried to prevent this.

Sand is mostly used for construction.
Maybe where you live (I don't know where you live) but if the sand gets turned into glass, it can be used to make bigger, more valuable buildings in Africa, which would help out the locals.

technology >>> mineral resources.
I don't know if Africa has enough minerals to pay off the $800 billion worth they would have to pay to the US in exchange for $500 billion annually.  If they don't, then they can exploit other resources.  Africa has a lot of them and this would benefit the USA.  Investment won't be popular enough to increase the economy by that much.

who would wanna be a colony
If the locals are getting paid $500 per person on average in the form of jobs and they aren't getting oppressed, why wouldn't they want to be a colony?

I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status.  If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.
- This is so impossible on so many levels.
What makes it impossible?  Areas have became states before.  Most states in the US were all or part of a territory before becoming states.

Once these countries prosper, they can easily take over the US
They won't take over the US if the US already overtook them.

The US is never going to war with China, that's unattainable. Which is exactly why it can not invade allies of China either.
We would win in a war with China over Africa.  Nukes won't be used due to Mutually assured destruction.  Our military spending is multitudes that of China and Africa put together.  China can barely keep North Korea communist, and that's a country bordering China.  

Interesting how you dropped my point on human rights.
--> @Outplayz
And do you think the rest of the world would be okay with that? Or, maybe would that cause a world war? 
There won't be a nuclear war over Africa since Africa doesn't have nukes.  If the UN gets on my(and thett3's) side for this(which I think is actually achievable) then I don't think there will be WWIII.

They sound like scary people huh? 
If they are willing to use violence to get in the way of the invasion, then they should get treated like enemy troops and killed.

do we kill the child warriors? 
Just like any other enemy solider.  I want to kill the enemy warlords because it would be necessary to bring peace to Africa.  If the soldiers fight out of fear, then they won't have a reason to fight anymore.  If they fight out of loyalty, then killing them will be necessary.  More lives get saved in the long term under US rule, and I think you dropped this point, so it would be a net positive for the continent on the basis of life.

What effect will that have on Americans fighting this war? 
Since our military technology is superior to the Africans, I think almost no Americans wills suffer death or injury.
--> @Alec
There won't be a nuclear war over Africa since Africa doesn't have nukes.  If the UN gets on my(and thett3's) side for this(which I think is actually achievable) then I don't think there will be WWIII.
But do you think there is a potential for there to be? Other powerhouses really don't like when we throw a government over just bc we want to make them more like us. What message does that send to the rest of them? They'll be thinking, "what?, one day you are going to want to attack us bc we aren't like you? Naw, lets not let this happen without showing our force." Which is sorta what is happening in the middle east. A bunch of nefarious reasons i'm sure; but, i do think on reason is that someone like Russia wants to assert their power too. That they aren't weak. 

If they are willing to use violence to get in the way of the invasion, then they should get treated like enemy troops and killed.
Sure, that is my whole point... they will be enemy troops and we will have to kill them. From your last posts, i've realized you are okay with some loss of life in order to obtain a better future. I can't fully disagree with you bc i want them to be better too... it's just all of the implications in getting us there i'm wary about. 

More lives get saved in the long term under US rule, and I think you dropped this point, so it would be a net positive for the continent on the basis of life.
I don't think i've dropped this point, bc i'm pretty sure i've said i agree. If anything i did now. The long run isn't what i'm personally focusing on however. Bc i feel the implications of taking over a country and their states is very dangerous. You don't know who you are pissing off; you don't know if the extremists will just go underground, strengthen, then come back full force again; you don't know what effect it will have on our soldiers mental health that they had to kill children, especially if it fixed nothing; we will lose lives in the millions as you've said, we will have to have a long war and a long time our troops staying back to rebuild the country (taking them away from a life they can have in the country they love); you'll be going against ruthless warlords in a gorilla warfare setting, which will be really hard for our troops bc missile strike have to be careful not to kill civilians; Missile strikes will actually probably kill innocent lives if we have to bomb somewhere our troops need help; bc missile strikes will be hard in an urban warfare scenario, we need troops on the ground... but how many? How long should they stay? ... etc., i can go on. I just see too many detriments in starting this war for the "hope" (bc it ain't guaranteed) that we will fix their culture... which is another important point, we are switching culture. 

Since our military technology is superior to the Africans, I think almost no Americans wills suffer death or injury.
Have you ever read the Art of War? It doesn't matter who is superior or not, it's all strategy. The American troops were far superior in the middle east. But, they kept getting blown up with bombs vested, or IED's on the ground they missed. That is how a less technologically advanced country fights. They fight dirty, and it doesn't matter how much technology you have when you miss a bomb that takes out your whole crew. There are many other ways, and examples, that an underdeveloped nation can be very effective in harming the more powerful nation. I mean, we have in America a blueprint of what the most effective way to defeat an alien invasion that would be way more advanced... and, we've figured out ways understanding the Art of War (not the book this time, i mean in general).

Side note: 

I don't understand why you are not thinking of alternative ways we can help them. Get volunteer doctors, get volunteer educators, crap, get a campain going that we will give all the people being abused and iPhone or Android with full access to the internet. If you look at the IQ of most of Africa, you can see a trend. I think this correlation is proper, less iq... the more you are prone to violent behavior. We need to teach them, we need to wake them up... then trust me, they'll fight back themselves. Maybe at that point we can all give them a hand. This is bc nothing is created through force. That creates more chaos (although i concede you can change cultures by adding chaos and letting it rework itself back to baseline - different story, if you're curious ask and i'll explain how). The way you change a culture is by empowering and enlightening its people from the ground up. Any good marketing person knows building ideas, a movement, etc... will always tell you it happens from the ground up. It rarely happens by the end product being pushed, especially through violence since that can only lead to more violence.