"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," went Marx's single-bullet theory of the past. The German crackpot's inheritors continue to project economic determinism upon matters having little to do with economics. Take Desmond Tutu, who blames terrorism on poverty. "You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate -- poverty, disease, ignorance, et cetera," the South African clergyman claims. But Osama bin Laden hails from one of the most prosperous families in Saudi Arabia, Muhammed Atta's father was a doctor, and most of the 9/11 terrorists came from relatively comfortable backgrounds. It's easy to blame "oil" greed for wars or poverty for terrorism. It's generally not correct.
Tutu's the man! He's like an African Jesse Jackson in a red frock.
Speaking of oil greed for wars here is Greenspan saying he made just that economic argument repeatedly to the Bush WH.
I would find the status of oil a more reasonable argument for meddling in the ME then what were given as justifications. At least Saddam did have an impact on oil, and that was there even if WMD's were not.
I said that at the beginning. If they were honest, instead candy coating our entry into Iraq as a wholly noble and defensive effort, I think that most Americans would have understood and been on board.
[[It's easy to blame "oil" greed for wars or poverty for terrorism. It's generally not correct.]]
So if not generally... WHEN IS IT CORRECT TO BLAME "OIL" GREED FOR WARS OR POVERTY FOR TERRORISM?
I'd like specific examples, since it's not GENERALLY and it's not NEVER......
