US gets criticized for intervening in situations but then also gets criticized for NOT intervening.
most of the time, not to say always, they intervene for their own benefit ( oil profits, mine concessions, important geopolitically locations )
The situation in Nigeria perfectly illustrates that with people complaining that the UN and US haven't done anything to save the kidnapped girls
I thought they sent ground forces and surveillance drones to help rescue the girls. 80 US soldiers were sent into the adjacent Chad. That sounds ridiculous somehow. I cant believe that they are anything else then military observers.
But the situation in Nigeria and the rest of Africa is a bit more complicated. If someone would have a closer look, one might see there totally different and much more serious crimes, which are even worse.
anyway, those islamic radicals, who presumably also kidnapped the girls, killed this year about 1500 people during their assaults. They claim the north for an islamic state (Chad borders to the north east). in my opinion, the US simply uses the girls terrifying situation for an evaluation of the islamic influence in that region. Im not so sure that they ever intend to find the girls. otherwise they might already have found them.
During the Bush and Obama era they showed that they are capitalists in its pure sense and that they care about nothing except money. which leads me to the final question:
Is there any good reason that america should judge other nations or intervene national or international conflicts?