At one point in my life I had a lot of respect for Noam Chomsky, but the analysis that you quoted here, Ezekiel, is so thin as to be laughable... indeed, I did. He was once a dizzying intellect. Now, he is just dizzy. The problem is that he creates a premise, then allows no other explanation than his stated view even when the evidence he adduces doesn't even support his point. Hidden in all of the words is a startling lack of substance.

Libya is probably the least economically-driven conflict currently in the Middle East. There is certainly an economic component, but it was far more about the history of suppression and possibility of freedom than an external push for resources. Now, was there a significant element of economic interest for some of the intervenors? Of course. But the brush is simply not broad enough to paint a majority of them that way.

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