Where has Andrew Tattersall gone? I'm still waiting to find out why he thinks Chirac is ghastly & wrong then and now.
That's the whole point Brian. Bush alone made the decision, not Bush with UN backing...
How he sleeps at night is a mystery to me !
Exactly and my opinion is that Blair has just said enough in the last 48 hours to begin to admit that the US made war was wrong, that there was another way. What will follow is another question all together.
Powell had simply lied, de Villepin spoke for the world a powerful, overbearing minority was not going to listen to. He led the opposition Germany, Belgium, Russia and China were expressing and showed that nobody need to kowtow to the USA. Sadly far too many nations still do. He was entirely right about the need for building a long and durable peace and what was going to exacerbate those very divisions that have nurtured terrorism and regional undermined stability producing IS. The USA did not listen, was not willing to listen and the UK only listened to them. The world is paying the price for not at least using his quarter of an hour of sense to think again. Seeing that speech again is a serious reminder of what a total mess Bush made of the world with that one decision to invade.
@ Colin
Hi Colin - The Chilcot Enquiry whether good or bad has at least brought Blair out of the shadows. Events have proved to me at least that the invasion of Iraq on such tenous grounds was indeed a mistake and the subsequent loss of life totally unncessary. No chemical weapons, stated by Bush to exist were found and de Villepin's ideas at the time appear to me to have been the way which should have been followed.
Just my opinion of course.
Thank you Brian and Peter - I'll listen to the de Villepin speech after sending this, because I wanted to let you know serendipity has stepped in thanks to Peter Oborne and the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kgvcl
There is a short bit on exactly the misrepresentation I had that blurred memory of - but it was a Downing Street misrepresentation. It's about half way through. Where Chirac said "ce soir", Downing St presented it as "never".
Just to follow up that Margaret.
Here is the de Villepin speech at the UN. He was the Foreign Secretary at the time (later PM) and it's an almost chilling speech made more dramatic by the Scottish lady translating. It's worth listening to in order to understand what the French were trying to implement. Following the French line would have yielded a different ending to the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_1hWqSz6I
The only thing missing from this recording is the standing ovation..............
Blah, blah. Peter. Been said 1,000 times, all of them wrong.
Chirac? "sticking to their guns" made me laugh, as did yr comment: "a waste of time" - you are talking about Chilcot, right? That was Gordon's revenge.
Thanks Margaret. People working for the international NGO I was working for in Kurdistan (I was employed by the Swedish 'branch') were from several countries, the Europeans in general were really suspicious of me at first because of being from the UK, but then they got my measure when I expressed certain political views and was shouted at by the couple of US people who called me leftie, commie and all else that they could think of without explaining why I might be what they were suggesting. As you say, there is a lot of water under the bridge in terms of what has happened and is still happening in the world and very personally. However, I hope that next June/July when Chilcot's report is published nothing is whitewashed, but perhaps that is a bit naive of me. Whatever else, the record needs to be put straight and people allowed the truth, as for Blair or anybody else I doubt much will ever happen. I am no 'fan' of Chirac or de Villepin but both deserve to have the record put straight and as a matter of protocol and good manners Chirac receive an apology. However, I have enormous respect for Kofi Annan, who I had the fortune to meet very briefly twice, who is one of the few Secretary Generals I have any time for and his declaration that it was an illegal invasion be confirmed thus vindicating the UN position.
Here are links to the speech Chirac made on 18 March 2003, a BBC translation, and the debate:-
https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/irak/a9943
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2860715.stm
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2003/mar/18/Iraq
It wasn't the translation but the interpretation that was misleading. I listened to the debate and couldn't reconcile what was being said with what I thought I knew of the French position. If after 12 odd years my memory of the details has blurred, it's because much has happened internationally and privately. It's the gist of it all I remember. As one speaker in the debate said: "The attempts to make France the scapegoat for the miserable failure of British diplomacy have demeaned both our Foreign Secretary—I regret to say that—and our Prime Minister. Listening to some of today's debate, one would think that there is such an anti-French feeling that people have started to read the editorials in The Sun."
Is it unreasonable to think that the owner and creator of the site you are using might have some say in how the site is used?
Why? (I'm assuming you mean Chirac when you say "ghastly man, wrong then and wrong now").
Catharine
Sorry. So shouting is wrong, but OK when you do it? because it is your site? Is that really what you're saying?
Andrew
PS Does this apply to being unpleasant and anything else?
Véronique and Bruce - brilliantly put, both of you and yes, I will be very happy when the Blair-Bush lies result in a prosecution for war crimes. I admired Chirac at the time and still do so.
Not when it's our site Andrew.
And it's CathArine !
Catherine
Was there not a point also about not shouting? Do as you would eh?
Andrew
You're welcome! You can say what you like on SFN as long as you keep it polite and DON'T GET PERSONAL :)
Have a nice evening everyone! x
Brian
Read what you wrote. I.did.not.call.anybody.stupid. That was what I challenged in what you wrote. Read what people say before you write about them. When there is a chance people will read what I actually say and respond to it rather than something else they think I might have posted, but which I did not, then maybe I will justify what I wrote. What's the point of taking part in a debate if people don't read what you wrote and write nonsense based upon a misunderstanding of what you wrote.
Catherine
Thank you for that. I am glad the site has such a policy it is such sense.
Andrew
No, I said offensive for using the word stupid. I had no idea it was directed at me either. Not agreeing is fair enough. But please go ahead and explain why Chirac was wrong. I would not say I am a 'fan' of his but why he was wrong and, if you read carefully, the Secretary General of the UN, who does not speak without a great deal of advice, is not elucidated. If you would care to explain I am sure we would feel the benefit of your opinions. Just calling anybody stupid is not intellectually rigorous, simply rude.