Casey struck out again

Here is a snippet of something that I dashed off to PSN. I continue to be baffled by those who deny the vastly important economic issues/resources that underlie the current and on-going crisis. There was no oil in Vietnam, but the U.S. still was responsible for killing perhaps millions. Because the strategic military situation can be to PROTECT oil and other profits, whether or not there is oil there. Casey may be right on some of the details, but he's dead wrong on his analysis, and on his cutesy attempt to label those who oppose the U.S. war as being "fundamentalist."

 

===============Here's an excerpt of what I sent to PSN, apologies if you read it there already=============

 

The issue isn't even a narrow economic one, as to whether there are immediate profits to be made by the U.S. from a huge coal mine in Yugoslavia or natural gas in Afghanistan, although those might be aspects of the discussion. But in any case, the underlying factors relate to the maintenance of the U.S. political-economic capitalist system. Don't they?  If the U.S. government were seriously concerned about humanitarian saving of lives, they would take those billions and pump them into injured, bleeding Africa, torn apart by AIDS. Millions and millions of lives could be saved. But most of Africa doesn't seem to be that important strategically yet. So there will be a few token dollars, but nothing compared to securing that especially important band around the Earth, currently centered in Saudi Arabia, from North Africa, through the Arabian peninsula, the Caspian, Central Asia and even Indonesia, coincidentally another very oil-rich country that has a Muslim majority.