The faster the situation in Libya deteriorates, and the stronger ISIS becomes in this war-torn land, the more people start asking who’s responsible for this nightmare in order to avoid a repetition of the such a scenario in the future.

According to various Western experts, the actions taken by the United States, NATO and Gulf monarchies against Libya in 2011 constitute a war crime, no matter how you define the term. At a result, hundreds of thousands perished, including a massacre targeting dark skinned Libyans and immigrants from other African countries in particular. Entire cities were turned to rubble by America’s terrorist proxies. President Muammar Gaddafi was murdered by these forces who could only have succeeded in this crime with Western financial and military support.

The American-led military intervention in Libya resulted in the devastation of this nation which to this day is still being ravaged by violence. Libya has no government and has become a safe haven for ISIS terrorists. It’s curious that ISIS has achieved the most in Iraq, Libya and Syria, all of which were targets of Western regime change.

In a bid to find those responsible for this mayhem, The Huffington Post would note:

Hillary Clinton’s support for “regime change” in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and Honduras. Thousands of Americans died in the Iraq War, and many more were wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians have died and millions have been wounded or displaced; and President Obama has said specifically the “mess“ in Libya was his “worst mistake,” in which Clinton played a decisive role.

One shouldn’t downplay the crucial role Hillary Clinton played in Honduras following the 2009 military coup, when the military kidnapped the democratically elected president in his pajamas and flew him out of the country. The then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did everything she could possibly do to make the military coup in Honduras succeed by legitimizing the coup even with pro-Western forces there violently cracking down on the media and the opposition, notes the Huffington Post.

The respected alternative media source – Global Research – would go a step further by claiming:

Hillary Clinton is quite rightly taking heat for being the US mastermind of this atrocity. As secretary of state she made the case for the American nightmare. She was quite proud of this evil achievement and infamously said, “we came, we saw, he died.” of course these machinations were the cause of blowback in 2012 when jihadists killed the American ambassador at Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is the villain in the story. If there was any justice in the world Barack and Hillary would fear being on trial. Instead he leaves office and they work together to make sure that she sits in the oval office after him But they will work hand in hand like the political twins they have always been.

In turn, Counter Punch is not shy either of labeling Hillary Clinton the Queen of Chaos and War Goddess, while noting that from Asia to Latin America her record has been scrutinized to oblivion; support for the Contras in Nicaragua; support for NATO’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia; support for the 2003 Shock and Awe invasion and destruction of Iraq; support for Operation Enduring Freedom; then, as Secretary of State, ” her“ war of turning Libya into a divided and destroyed failed state; the 2009 military coup in Honduras; and finally, support for violent regime change in Syria.

In his article written for Counter Punch, the well-known and well-respected American economist and publicist Paul Craig Roberts asks the following question: “Would the world survive President Hillary Clinton?” He argues that if Americans don’t recognize the fact that Hillary Clinton has been the instigator of numerous wars, they would end up with a restless warmonger heading up a militarist state. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton as president could mean the end of life on earth.

As Paul Craig Roberts goes on, he notes:

Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source ofterrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation. She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize the use of public office in behalf of the office holder’s interest. The Wall Street Journal reported that “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.” According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Under these circumstances the American Conservative feels entitled to warn the world of the possible dangers it can encounter should Hillary Clinton become the US president, since her distinguishing feature is an avid support of every US military intervention over the last twenty-five years – which makes her the most militaristic Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson.

There’s little doubt that there’s a long list of ruthless client states that will be pleased with a Clinton victory. Hawks everywhere will be reassured that there is once again an American president that would be eager to launch unprovoked military interventions everywhere, without any pretense of caution. However, the rest of the world should be resenting and fearing the unreasonable manifestation of American power that Hillary Clinton advocates.

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.