Hans Blix Speaks, And Still Does Not Make Sense
According to this news story the former United Nations diplomat, Hans Blix, has gone on the record, and stated Iraq was better off under Saddam:
Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Wednesday described the United States-led invasion of Iraq as a "pure failure" that had left the country worse off than under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
In unusually harsh comments to Danish newspaper Politiken, the diplomatic Swede said the US government had ended up in a situation in which neither staying nor leaving Iraq were good options.
"Iraq is a pure failure," Blix was quoted as saying. "If the Americans pull out, there is a risk that they will leave a country in civil war. At the same time, it doesn't seem that the United States can help to stabilise the situation by staying there." ...
...Blix said the situation would have been better if the war had not taken place.
"Saddam would still have been sitting in office. Okay, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse," he was quoted as saying.
Let this be a lesson for all of the Left out there WHY we dislike the United Nations. They would have preferred that Saddam had been left alone. They would have been happy with issuing empty threat after empty threat. And they would have been quite content leaving the Iraqi people to continue suffering under a ruthless despot.
And are we surprised? We should not be. The United Nations allowed the people of Iraq to suffer under the Oil-for-Food program that went over so well. It was a good program for those getting the kickbacks and for Saddam, but in the end the people suffered and starved. But Mr. Blix seems to think that would be better than freeing the nation, and helping it to stand on it's own.
Are things worse over there? We do not believe so. We do think that it is time the Iraqis stand up to protect and defend their nation, and they are doing that with their new security forces. Their military is being rebuilt and retrained to handle the terrorists that are running rampant in that nation. Part of our problem in Iraq is still Moqtada al-Sadr and his militias in Sadr city. The Iraqis are afraid that if they go after him that the shi'ites that support him might turn on the government.
But is it worth it to have the man building an insurgency force? Is it worth it when that man, most likely, is receiving help from his native Iran? The Iraqis have a tough choice to make, and it is their choice not ours. Al-Sadr must go, and so must the al-Qaeda elements still operating there. We are working with the Iraqis to accomplish that goal, but war never quite seems to go the way it is planned. We learned that a very long time ago.
While Mr. Blix's opinion is noted, I must say that a good majority of the world would disagree with him. It is a good thing that Saddam is gone, and the Iraqi people are better off without him. Constructing a democracy takes time. The people have faith that they can make it work. And I would like to remind Mr. Blix that there was a span of eleven years between our Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution which formally outlined not only the government's powers, and limits thereof, and the people's unalienable rights. We did not instantly have peace and prosperity when the Declaration was signed, nor did it come when the Constitution was ratified. But it has become the fact since then. It takes time, and unlike the time the United Nations gave Saddam to comply with the resolutions it passed, ours was time well spent. And so it will be with the Iraqis.
Marcie
According to this news story the former United Nations diplomat, Hans Blix, has gone on the record, and stated Iraq was better off under Saddam:
Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Wednesday described the United States-led invasion of Iraq as a "pure failure" that had left the country worse off than under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
In unusually harsh comments to Danish newspaper Politiken, the diplomatic Swede said the US government had ended up in a situation in which neither staying nor leaving Iraq were good options.
"Iraq is a pure failure," Blix was quoted as saying. "If the Americans pull out, there is a risk that they will leave a country in civil war. At the same time, it doesn't seem that the United States can help to stabilise the situation by staying there." ...
...Blix said the situation would have been better if the war had not taken place.
"Saddam would still have been sitting in office. Okay, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse," he was quoted as saying.
Let this be a lesson for all of the Left out there WHY we dislike the United Nations. They would have preferred that Saddam had been left alone. They would have been happy with issuing empty threat after empty threat. And they would have been quite content leaving the Iraqi people to continue suffering under a ruthless despot.
And are we surprised? We should not be. The United Nations allowed the people of Iraq to suffer under the Oil-for-Food program that went over so well. It was a good program for those getting the kickbacks and for Saddam, but in the end the people suffered and starved. But Mr. Blix seems to think that would be better than freeing the nation, and helping it to stand on it's own.
Are things worse over there? We do not believe so. We do think that it is time the Iraqis stand up to protect and defend their nation, and they are doing that with their new security forces. Their military is being rebuilt and retrained to handle the terrorists that are running rampant in that nation. Part of our problem in Iraq is still Moqtada al-Sadr and his militias in Sadr city. The Iraqis are afraid that if they go after him that the shi'ites that support him might turn on the government.
But is it worth it to have the man building an insurgency force? Is it worth it when that man, most likely, is receiving help from his native Iran? The Iraqis have a tough choice to make, and it is their choice not ours. Al-Sadr must go, and so must the al-Qaeda elements still operating there. We are working with the Iraqis to accomplish that goal, but war never quite seems to go the way it is planned. We learned that a very long time ago.
While Mr. Blix's opinion is noted, I must say that a good majority of the world would disagree with him. It is a good thing that Saddam is gone, and the Iraqi people are better off without him. Constructing a democracy takes time. The people have faith that they can make it work. And I would like to remind Mr. Blix that there was a span of eleven years between our Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution which formally outlined not only the government's powers, and limits thereof, and the people's unalienable rights. We did not instantly have peace and prosperity when the Declaration was signed, nor did it come when the Constitution was ratified. But it has become the fact since then. It takes time, and unlike the time the United Nations gave Saddam to comply with the resolutions it passed, ours was time well spent. And so it will be with the Iraqis.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home