I admit i do believe...public and official sources, at least as long as they seem reliable.
If that sounds stupid for you, it´s fine for me.

See my links in other comment. Initialy i knew only about uranium in Mali, but i already suspected that
the oil fields in the neighboring Niger wouldnt stop at the border (despite not yet being extracted).

Apologies for the late replay, but anyways..

About the uranium in Mali.
About the [oil](https://theconversation.com/how-oil-exploration-is-adding-to-malis-security- woes-85268) in Mali.
If you search around a little bit, you will find more sophisticing sources, but these should
be already sufficient.

> That doesn’t sound like self interest then does it?

Uh, i cant imagine a scenario where british troops would evacuate british citizens and tell
citizens of the commonwealth to wait for the next bus without damaging their "savoir"
reputation forever...

> I care more about what the people of Kosovo had to say

Then you should have probably read the article you left there thoroughly, because there is
an example why the name Blair was popular for a short term back then:

> The name was suggested by an Italian business partner and friend who sheltered the family when they were driven out of Kosovo in March 1999. "He had told me before the war that the only ones who would help us would be the English,"

The article is indeed very interesting, especially if you take a closer look at the actual economy of Bosnia,
which is overwhelmed by the influx of products imported by stronger economies. I could also throw in
how the bosnian people (actual people, who fled during that time) i know have a differentiated opinion
than simply looking at Blair as their "savior" or my personal (and certainly quite minor) participation,
but all this doesnt matter. Because either way, it would only mean that you have picked up
the one occasion after WWII, where western forces (mainly: US) got voluntarily involved for
a case not related to their interests or their citizens.
And now maybe compare this one time with the loong list of western(usually US) interventions..
Good luck filtering out those which support your opinion, i m honestly too lazy to do the same vice-versa :P

I think you should rather reverse the statement: it is rarely
driven by anything else than self interest. If you take a closer look
at any of your examples, you ll get a different picture.
The UK intervention was primarly meant to evacuate british
and other foreign citizens from Freetown, where they were eventually
attacked by the rebel forces. The biggest diamond mining corporation happens also to be british (Sierra Leone´s President used to sell-out
the diamond mines for military support, it was only after the long
civil war that a ban on "blood diamonds" was installed).
Uranium and oil in Mali as well as in Niger are big part of France´s
strategical interest in Westafrica so their intervention is not surprising
and can be clearly considered as a means to save "their" resources. And speaking about the Balkans, you might want to read what Taylor
Branch had to say about the leaders of the "west".
I understand the desire to see the west, especially the US, as some kind
of a "good" world police force, at least to some extend, but it simply doesnt
hold true, except in Hollywood movies.

Your description of the US (and the west in general) as a morality-driven force doesnt reflect the reality at all.