I think one of thhe central difficulties of the premises in this threada is that of causation. While there is an inherent sensibility that makes some conclusions "seem" logical, there is not suficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. For example, there is oil in Libya, yes, but that doesn't explain the Lockerbie bombing. Both of those circumstances are clearly relevant to the discussion, but neither adequately explains the complicated chain of events that led to the revolt and intervention. The more complicated the system, the less likely that a simple causality explanation is viable. War is always complicated, so almost always immune to simplistic explanation, and its consequences are almost incalculable. We are still debating the causation and consequences of the civil war more than 150 years hence, and that seems relatively simple on its face. Ditto WWII.


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich