Originally Posted by rporter314
Quote
So, if what the author meant was "creation" instead of "invention"
please don't embarrass yourself by pleading the authors ignorance. It is the language of delusional folks. He meant invention because in his delusional world that is how the conspiracy works i.e. government = evil, CIA = evil, MSM = evil etc.

Quote
the main point IS that the cause of the intervention IS ECONOMIC

I think the author took a different approach. The author suggests from his delusional perch, that it was a unilateral intervention from the French aspect, thus abrogating the legitimate Mali government to make a point that the intervention is economic in nature and nothing more.

I suggested that the author because of his delusion neglected the real possibility that it was in fact the Mali government which requested the intervention even if based solely on political principles which may have economic overtones. I don;t know the answer to that as I suspect that if the intervention had been unilateral from the Mali viewpoint, there would have been a loud condemnation from not only the Mali government but from the UN.

Quote
very much beside the point
the problem with that is the obvious i.e. economic interest was not the point. It was the vehicle to bash every icon of government i.e. CIA, MSM, Big Business, etc.

The events on Mali are a little more complex than characterized by the citation. If we take the events out of historical context, on the one hand we have the legitimate government which has been unable to contain an insurgency. I know of no government which self abdicated r dissolved itself, therefore it stands to reason that the de facto government would at least pretend to have the self interest to survive. Those reasons may range from personal self interest such as not having one's head on a platter literally to maintaining ones economic lifestyle. The insurgents on the other hand have publicly displayed motivations ranging from islamism to pure thuggery.

It is at this point which exposes the author to his true motivation. He bypasses all the possibilities in order to do what he intended i.e. bash those in his gunsights.

T Jefferson made it a part of American foreign policy to protect economic interests of business in foreign lands by making those interests the interest of the United States. Every country in the world has the same viewpoint. In some cases the reasons reveal themselves as the most reasonable interpretation of events and in other cases it becomes more complex. It is easy to say bananas in central america or oil in iraq, but is it so easy when one says vietnam or WWI? I much rather suspect Mali is an example of of the latter. It is the nexus of all manner of competing reasons, one of which is economic.

It is apparent that your interpretation, and that is exactly what it is, differs from mine.
You say delusional, and you are embarrassing yourself by reading into an author's intention your own bias.
From what I understood, most of his attacks go to the economic benefit reaped by the intervention.
You can certainly disagree with what he says, but your interpretation is not the final word. It is good that you understand that. I'm not saying that mine is either, BTW, but it is how I read it.

If you do not see that WWI and WWII and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. all had economic motives then you need to brush up on your history.

Invading other countries or disrupting their governments because of economic interest is just plain WRONG, I don't care who does it or what ridiculous reason they use to justify it.
If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were doing it here I think one's interpretation might be very different.

Your attempt to justify intervention is one sided and very unconvincing.

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce

"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky