devorah wrote:
> John, Wikipedia has not updated since 2013.
> My first questions are; does a civilian still head the Mali
> military such as it is? Has the useless UN peacekeeping force
> assumed national defense? Even at its present reduced area,
> prmitive nomadic Mali is ungovernable, most surely in the UN NWO
> sense.
> The African Union suspended Mali in 2012. John makes no mention of
> Mali's president or the judicial branch. Judges are president
> appointed and also review legislation which is also known as
> MAKING law. The NWO UN seems unwilling to recognize jihadist goals
> and aggression. Or are UN goals the same and Mali lives
> meaningless? Mali is an example of the consequences of leftist
> stupidity. So is present day America.
I've written about Mali a number of times since 2012, and I've
occasionally drilled down into politics, but as with most countries,
the politics rarely matters. A history professor once contrasted what
I do with what he does -- he's on the ground collecting evidence and
talking to people, while I'm watching what's happening from a hot air
balloon five miles above the ground.
In the case of Mali, what I see from my hot air balloon is the
government, the Tuaregs, AQIM, and various other ethnic and rebel
groups. Each of these groups is doing what is dictated by population
and generational forces. The behaviors and actions of the politicians
and leaders is irrelevant except insofar as they represent the
behaviors and actions of the people they represent.
So fortunately or unfortunately, it wouldn't make any difference who
is president or who is heading the military. Each of these
populations is on an unstoppable path that cannot be diverted, and
these paths are going to collide and produce some sort of bloody
collision and climax. The UN peacekeepers are supposed to prevent
this, but they're no more able to do that then you can use a teaspoon
to stop a tsunami.