Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (11844)	10/7/2003 11:37:08 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Respond to of 14610

I guess this means no Terminator IV for a while <g>

To: zonder who wrote (11844)	10/8/2003 11:39:49 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

What he actually said is that France will veto ANY resolution that gave way to an automatic invasion of Iraq if certain conditions are not met, WITHOUT a further UN decision. But that's NOT what he said. What he said was "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'" The rest is revisionist history circulated because the original statement was so outrageous. Why is he (supposedly) telling this to Blair? The guy who needed to know what he really thought was GWB. And the American public, whose opinion of their "ally" was sinking fast. Other than one reporter, is there any evidence of Chirac's statement? Wouldn't something this important to international relations be in writing? Riddell raises an intriguing "what if?" by suggesting that in March 2003 a last-minute deal could have postponed, if not prevented, the war with Iraq. He reports that on 9th March, Blair and President Ricardo Lagos of Chile discussed giving Iraq a 15-day deadline to comply with six benchmarks, or face invasion. If this compromise had appeared viable, Blair might have backed it, although he would then have risked a rupture with Bush, who probably would have refused to delay. Then on 10th March, Chirac made his infamous statement that France would vote against a new UN resolution, "whatever the circumstances." Riddell reports that Blair rang Chirac to clarify exactly what he meant. Chirac said he would not agree to an ultimatum which implied war if Saddam failed to take certain actions by a certain date. Riddell thinks Chirac mistaken not to have backed the Blair-Lagos compromise, for it could have put Blair in a very awkward position. (Both books rely mainly on Anglo-Saxon sources and would have benefited from more conversations in Paris and Berlin.) Yes, this definitely sounds like revisionist history. Given the effect his position would have on Franco-American relations, I find it impossible to believe that Chirac would not want his position clearly understood by both Bush and the American public. While I felt previously that France was not particularly friendly and cooperative towards the US, this incident moved them into the "enemy" column.