Liberals Willing to Trade Blood and Treasure for Oil Company Profits Under Obama -Just as they were under Bush and Clinton and Bush II etc


US Navy/Wikimedia Commons image

Eric Blair
Activist Post

It’s perplexing to see a high level of support for the unprovoked bombing of Libya on so-called “progressive” websites.

There has been an endless stream of humanitarian propaganda flowing from these sites trying to convince average liberals that the “human thing to do” is to rain down tomahawk missiles with depleted uranium to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.

Huffington Post ran a piece by Ed Schultz titled Why I Support President Obama’s Decision to Invade Libya where he described his reasoning as follows:

…President Obama explained this won’t be a long-term operation.

Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months.

…He’s (Obama) trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi — this is the human thing to do — from slaughtering his own people.

By the very use of the word “invade” in the title, Schultz would seem to understand that the continued military support is likely to last for quite some time.  Indeed, this was confirmed on Sunday morning when Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted that the operation could indeed last for months, which seems to debunk Schultz’s main argument that it’s only a days-long conflict.  This justification is reminiscent of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld falsely stating that the Iraq war would be quick and easy — only cost a couple of a billion dollars that would be paid for by Iraqi oil.

Additionally, Schultz and others making the “humanitarian” argument that we needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is convoluted at best, if not a blatant hypocritical contradiction.  It has become clear that the United States and their imperial partners, Britain and France, are picking and choosing which civil uprisings and which dictators to support with no genuine concern for democracy or civil rights.

Everyone with an objective view knows by now that this intervention is about protecting oil resources and making sure Israel survives these revolutionary times in the Arab world. Whether it’s control over Egypt’s Suez Canal, Libya’s sweet crude, or propping up the tyrannical Saudi regime in the face of protesters there, this selective military action in Libya seems to be exactly what liberals screamed about during Bush’s preemptive oil wars.

In an informative article this weekend, Mike Rozeff wrote about the pre-Bush history of the same plans for the oil-rich Arab world:

A RAND document reviews the U.S. oil policy in the mid-East and associated regions. It points out (p. 60) that President Carter enunciated this policy on January 23, 1980 in his State of the Union Address:

‘Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.’

Even before this, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in September of 1978 issued a strategy assessment in which it wrote of ‘continuous access to petroleum resources‘ as priority #1 in the region, along with seeing that Israel survived. In 1979, the military put together a ‘Rapid Deployment Force (RDF), which soon gained full, unified command status as the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM).’