Invasion Of Mali By The US and France -- It's all for the Gold!

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Well lets face it their not going to go after South Africa or Ghana
South Africa speaks for its self and Ghana is a strong trader with Israel but mainly the US, it's also a strong member at the UN and has deployed its forces in the past under the baner of the UN

But it's not just the gold, there are plenty of other resources there of interest. Uranium being one of them that's of interest to the French

Other things to consider if you will

The control of a northern tip of the Niger River a major water source to mali and the region as a whole, and potentialy a major source further into NE Africa, what with water becoming an ever more valuable resource

And also the land itself
Land available for industrial cultivation, transforming Mali and eventually other parts of Africa into a new bread basket, the other resource becoming ever more valuable. Mails weather isn't as bad as many would think, generally between Feb and June is the dry hot period while the rest of the year is more suitable to cultivation

Add to this our old friend Monsanto, and their activities in Mali ............and plans........an interesting topic of its own



Consider these two separately...........................Now add them together and consider that as well


Whom ever controls the food..............
edit on 6-2-2013 by Neocrusader because: Added
edit on 6-2-2013 by Neocrusader because: Auto




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The events happening in other states should not be what matters what matters is what is happening in Mali. To say “well they didn’t do anything about Zimbabwe so it’s must be a conspiracy” is a false premise because every situation is different. The reason they went in with Mali is because the government of Mali requested it and the French justified by arguing that French military intervention would prevent terrorists getting a huge foot hold in the state and it turning into Yemen or Somalia for example.

If you want to talk about why then don’t they do something about Yemen or Somalia that is a different argument as we are then talking about different scenarios.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Libya has the largest underground fresh water aquifer.
Mali has a ton of gold.. .hell, Africa has a huge amount of rare earth minerals.
Egypt is a good place... strategically speaking.
The US has deployed troops to 35 Africa countries and we arent the only ones with a large presence. Africom already had a presence and this administration added to and expanded it.

Im seeing a pattern here.... and old old pattern revived.



Official reports indicate that the Pentagon forces will operate as small units in conjunction with various governments, including Libya, Somalia, Niger, Mali, among others. Gen. Carter L. Ham, commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), made it appear as if this is a new initiative on the part of Washington. Yet it is a continuation of the ongoing policy that has accelerated under the current administration.

www.workers.org...

Check your country's presence in Africa out.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Sorry but I believe you to be wrong. Please refer to previous post to explain why.

I also cannot even comprehend why you think a localised Afghanistan tribe would even begin to attempt the takeover off a country 4500 miles away on the West Coast of Africa. I believe your understanding of global politics to be seriously skewed if that is what you believe and further discussion is more than likely pointless.




If you want to talk about why then don’t they do something about Yemen or Somalia


France does a great deal off the coast off Somalia protecting shipping, I.E world trade, another economic issue.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Actually, it's not different.

There are major terrorist organizations, in other nations that are more powerful, deadly, well equipped and better organized that those of Mali.

We aren't going after them in those nations because there is no actual benefit to doing so. Operations done under the guise of terrorism prevention are a farce.

How can anybody really think that they are fighting terrorism when the bulk of the groups they fight, were created by them to destroy governments long past?

How can you discount all of this information presented? At the very least you must admit that the connections and motives are fishy right?

You see absolutely nothing strange about this operation?

NATO was actually NEVER contacted regarding this. They aren't involved in any capacity according to them.

I'm sorry and perhaps my tin foil hat is screwed on far too tight, but this doesn't make sense to me.

The justifications given in the media are poor.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Hi Gentlemen,

This is the way i see it :

These last years have seen many conflicts concerning the Middle East where international forces including NATO have been involved.

Most of these conflicts have been fought with the belief that international troops have been sent in in order to regain peace in the particular regions involved, with (I add equally that we all know that petrol and financial gain was also a huge factor).

However, whilst everyone has been focusing all their attention on the Middle Eastern issues being fought in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria etc… this has given the Islamic fundamentalists lots of time to creep into other African countries and slowly but surely starts to take control of those regions too.

If you look at Mali and the surrounding countries it’s easy to see how this happened and how the borders were crossed by escaping well armed fundamentalists in order to anchor themselves into lesser secured zones.

Ok, the French went into Mali in order to rid the country of the Sharia practicing fundamentalists and I believe that they had the fingers up from other UN countries to go ahead and do so (with logistical back up from quite a few UN countries too).

I believe that someone had to go in there and do this and seeing as France has long time close ties for historical reasons with Mali this was probably the wisest option.

However, I also believe that that with all the natural resources available in that actual region that all those involved in stopping the Islamist fundamental takeover (with regards to the UN) are not only just there for peace keeping missions… of course there is something to gain and lots of pieces of pie to take!

I think that things are going to get hotter also in North Africa too, only yesterday the left wing opposition leader in Tunisia Chokri Belaid was gunned down, taking thousands of protestors to the streets to accuse Ennahda (the Islamic party in control) of carrying out this assassination…

See link : www.france24.com...

The French also have very close ties with this country too so would be interesting to see what happens there!

Kindest regards

Rodinus


edit on 7-2-2013 by Rodinus because: Typo error
edit on 7-2-2013 by Rodinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tuttle
 


I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying; I was not saying that the Taliban are going to head in to Mali. What I was saying is that if AQIM were not stopped in their progress through the state they would have turned Mali into a state that is reminiscent of what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban.

Also the point I was making about Somalia was not to say they weren’t doing anything their rather that the absence of a similar intervention, that is to say a full military presence in the failed state and there reasons for not doing so where for a discussion another time.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Sorry to say but I do think your tin foil hat is on a little too tight.

Your entire argument there was from the perspective that the wars on terrorism were a farce and the very groups that the west is fighting against in these wars are a western creation. That is not a position that I shear with you, I view such a statement as a falsehood. We will probably therefore not reach an agreement on this as we are at opposite ends.

To me it makes no sense to create a terrorist group covertly and then send that terrorist group to go and start taking over parts of another country as a rouse to justify the French to go and liberate the parts of the country the terrorists have taken over all because Mali is the third largest exporter of gold.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Here's the problem with you disagreeing with the United States creating terrorist organizations: They admit to having done it.

al-Qaeda was a CIA creation. They were armed, trained and supported by 3 letter American agencies for many years before they stopped being complacent and bit the hand that fed them.

There is no denying that fact. There are multiple examples of Western and European nations funding and training groups of insurgents, rebels or whatever other moniker you'd like to place on them. Libya and Syria are good current examples.

My perspective and views are based on history and how these people have operated in those regions over the last several decades. There is a clear pattern of imperialist control or at the very least, the seeking of control by imperialist nations.

Now it's more so business interests than actual military power. The military is just the tool that serves business.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I avoid getting into the arguments that “the CIA created Al-Qa’ida” the reason I avoid doing so is because to many on this site that statement is a fact when it’s not. To explain why it’s not a fact would involve writing a very large thread that would no doubt just be flamed so I have never bothered writing said thread.

For anyone who make such claims I would say read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll or any other book by a Al-Qa’ida historian I have yet to find one that has said explicitly that Al-Qa’ida was created by the CIA or any American organisation. I could do the same with the suggested links to the Syrian and Libyan rebels alleged links to Al-Qa’ida, I have a thread on the former if you are interested. The reality of violent Islamic extremism is way more complex that most of the alternative media portray it to be, they have a very simplistic view of groups like Al-Qa’ida.

So if I say to you that I am approaching this thread from the perspective that Al-Qa’ida does or did exist and that the wars on terror are very real and not a some kind of façade for another more nefarious goal then I am sure you can understand why I disagree with your assessment of the Mali conflict.

I can respect your views and I can understand them because I used to hold similar views myself when I was a younger man but now my views are very different that I have spent so long researching and studying terrorism in all its forms. I know I am not exactly arguing my case with you by saying that Al-Qa’ida are not a CIA creation but then not really bothering to tell you why. The reason I do that is because to demonstrate this I would have to write a very very long thread exploring the history of Al-Qa’ida something that would probably only get shot down in the end. That is also why I usually avoid the arguments that Al-Qa’ida is a CIA creation.

edit on 7-2-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Various countries and multinational businesses have been lurking about Africa for years.No matter how many people try to sugar coat it it's blatant imperialism,pure and simple.NATO left Libya in shambles and now they are looking to turn North Africa into a corporate colony.





top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join