I'm not sure that I necessarily disagree, but to do so is at the expense of accepting sloppy thought. In the last citation, for example, "economics" is defined so broadly (e.g. "territory") as to be essentially meaningless. Were the Crusades all about economics, or Mohammed's Caliphate? Is that what motivates Al Qaeda or the Taliban? The argument can be made, but the distortions required to get there may abuse logic. My point is merely that the broader the assertion, the wider must be the definition to accommodate its logic. Indeed, bordering on tautological.

I posit that all wars are initiated by bad people. "Initiated" includes all participants - after all, it takes two to tangle. "Bad people" are those that initiate wars. A solid, unassailable assertion.

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