A “Humanitarian” Conquest Of Libya
Paul Joseph Watson
February 28, 2011
Before President Barack Obama even took office, we warned that his administration would continue to follow the Bush-era policy of bankrupting America both financially and morally with new wars, but that these conquests would be done in the name of a humanitarian crisis rather than a pre-emptive assault.
The “international crisis” that Vice-President Joe Biden warned Obama would face has now arrived, with the increasingly chaotic situation in Libya forging a pretext for military intervention on behalf of the United States, NATO and the United Nations.
The prevalence of the US military-industrial complex, even under a government that promised peace, was guaranteed all along. Under a Democratic administration, wars remain the health of the state, only the rhetoric behind their justification is different. By citing humanitarian concerns as a pretext, the Obama administration can send US troops into battle safe in the knowledge that they can rely on left cover – the vitriol that accompanied Bush’s foreign adventures will be non-existent.
In an article I wrote with Alex Jones back in November 2008, before Obama had even defeated McCain, we foresaw the fact that new wars would be launched under Obama with a tricked up, contrived, humanitarian veneer that would fool the left into biting their tongue and going along with it.
“Obama may eventually withdraw a portion of troops from Iraq, but mark our words, they won’t be home long before they are sent off to bomb another broken-backed third world country, this time in the name of a United Nations-backed “humanitarian” war, just as Bill Clinton presided over in Somalia and Serbia with the full support of the establishment political left.” we wrote on November 4 2008 in an article entitled, The More Things “Change” The More They Stay The Same.