Who comes out best?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-11 06:17pm

While some may argue it's premature to ask this, I have to ask anyway: which of our world's political leaders came out of this situation looking the best?

Chirac: loudly, virulently, anti-war and anti-American. I think most people agree he comes out looking worse than everyone else.
Bush: commander-in-chief of the American armed forces. However, he didn't need to overcome any real domestic political opposition, and he bungled every diplomatic opportunity, leaving much of the world with the impression that this was more of a corporate acquisition than a war of liberation.
Blair: provided eloquence to counterbalance Bush's marble-mouthed diplomatic blundering, stood firm against a tide of opposition in his own country and his own government, and tried to hold the patchwork of the UN together by clearly enunciating the need for a UN role after the war.
Chretien: my own prime minister. A bit player in this global drama, but somehow he found a way to sit on the fence while keeping both feet on the wrong side. He pissed off the anti-war and Muslim contingent by keeping 3 warships in the gulf in support of American forces, but he also pissed off the Americans by publicly speaking out against the war and "officially" keeping us out of it. Fucking moron ...

You can probably guess who I think came out on top. What do you think?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-04-11 06:21pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:It would seem in your opinion Blair did.

Bah crap, skip that I'm a dumbo. REQUESTING DELETE!

Done
-Everyone's Favorite Rampant AI

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-04-11 06:21pm

Blair is the man.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-11 06:22pm

I would say Blair; Bush, I don't think, is ever going to be able to ingratiate himself with the rest of the world. Blair, however, managed to pull off actively supporting the war without telling the U.N. to go to hell, and I think Blair can be seen as sort of a moderating factor in what the rest of the world appears to see as a American cowboy crusade.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-11 06:30pm

I honestly have to wonder that if faced with the poll numbers Blair had near the end before the war started whether Bush would not have moderated himself a bit. I believe at one point Blair had only 27% support for the war from the general populace and ministers were threatening to resign left and right.

He honestly faced the hardest opposition, while I do not agree that Bush had a cake walk in terms of American support, cearly the country was split nearly 50/50 on the war up until it began and he had Congressional leaders starting to question his motives and decisions Blair faced a real threat that his government would collapse.

But now, its all over, Bush comes out smelling like a rose but I am happier for Blair because the poll numbers have nearly flip floppped for him and frankly he is just an eloquent speaker. Its almost embarrasing to see those two together when Bush starts speaking.

So I have top agree that Blair comes out on top and he was a true leader in the sense that he made a decision (particuallry an unpopular one) and stuck to it no matter what while seeming almost garceful about it.

I suspect that France is in for a VERY RUDE awakening soon. Consequences and reprecussions. There are some in Cherac's govt that are already predicting political and economic isolation unless he starts changing his tune. But that fucktard is off with Russia in a tete to tete trying to figure out what the fuck to do now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-11 06:37pm

OK, who the fuck voted for Chirac?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-11 06:40pm

Blair, by far. Among other things, he's easily the second most popular political figure in America.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-04-11 06:40pm

Blair, he has managed to keep afloat.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-04-11 06:43pm

Out of those guys, I go with Blair, but I'm still a Putin fan. Putin is one suave motherfucker.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2003-04-11 07:23pm

Blair takes this easy.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-11 07:24pm

Tony Blair came out of this with the best impression. He took an unpopular stand which, as things stand now, turned out to be right. It was his diplomatic efforts that kept this from turning into a international cluster fuck. He showed himself to be a loyal friend and savy statesman.

Chirac, well he upheld the french national tradition of being one of the most arrogant nations in the world with the least reason at to be. He came off looking like either a back stabber in bed with the devil or a gutless coward with no stomach for the hard choices.

Bush, once again scared the world for no good reason at all. While I'm pro war his handling of the pre-war diplomacy was atrocious. He managed to needlessly piss off plenty of countries. He came off looking like a bull in a china shop.

Chretien, barely a blip on the radar.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-11 07:28pm

Well I voted for Chirac, because from day one he's held a policy and stuck to it.

And that policy called for international law to be followed.

He hasn't changed positions, made a fool of himself (outside of the eyes of jingoists) and the rest of them have tried to make a mockery of France, cmon, how are Freedom Fries etc not a fucking moronic travesty...

Chirac comes out smelling like roses. Blair is likely going to lose the next election, not just for himself but for his party. Bush is now a pariah in the eyes of much of the world and Chretien is still in his box.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-11 07:31pm

weemadando wrote:Chirac comes out smelling like roses. Blair is likely going to lose the next election, not just for himself but for his party. Bush is now a pariah in the eyes of much of the world and Chretien is still in his box.

Okay, whatever...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-11 07:48pm

weemadando wrote:Well I voted for Chirac, because from day one he's held a policy and stuck to it.

And that policy called for international law to be followed.

He hasn't changed positions, made a fool of himself (outside of the eyes of jingoists) and the rest of them have tried to make a mockery of France, cmon, how are Freedom Fries etc not a fucking moronic travesty...

Chirac comes out smelling like roses. Blair is likely going to lose the next election, not just for himself but for his party. Bush is now a pariah in the eyes of much of the world and Chretien is still in his box.

You're so desperate to be right about this that you've crossed the line into delusion, haven't you?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-04-11 07:48pm

None of these guys really look as good as they did eight months ago, but I'd say Blair has the most worldwide respect, even though he's probably gonna get kicked out of 10 Downing Street soon.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-11 07:53pm

RedImperator wrote:
You're so desperate to be right about this that you've crossed the line into delusion, haven't you?

No, but the person who comes out best is Chirac, mainly because world opinion about him hasn't changed.

And like I said, he had a policy and he stuck to it. He was acting in the best interests of his nation and I have to respect that. What I respect more is that he was acting in the best interests of his nation AND keeping international law onside to boot.

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-11 07:54pm

Chirac is a populist toad. He threatens a veto no matter the circumstances (or whatever the orginal quote was), gee that's helpful

Of course my favorite was the promise that France would send troops and support the war should Saddam use WMD.

So let's assume France beleives Saddam has WMD, then obviously they beleive the Iraqis HADN'T maid a full declaration, as required by 1441, and stood in direct violation by denying possession ... and yet they threatened veto under any circumstance.

Or on the otherhand let's assume France beleives Saddam doesn't have WMD, then what in hell are they making this promise for? Making a promise you intend to never have to fulfill is worthless.

As far as Chirac backing the rule of international law, oh piss off. While I doubt any leader gives an honest damn about international law beyond the bully pulpit, how can you possibly take any action that leaves Saddam in power as consistent with say the universal declaration human rights? How can working through the deal for a frikking nuclear reactor to Iraq and magically thought Iraq wasn't going to try to violate nuclear weapons treaties with it. Chirac plays to the letter of the law for political purposes, he pisses all over the spirit of the law and doesn't give a damn about the implication.

Bush was frankly too blunt about the world around us. He pissed off numerous people for no gain and frankly is going to require major work to get basic crap working again. He should have either not been so absolute from the beginning or he shouldn't have tried to work within the UN at all.

Chretian, sorry I gave up on that bastard when he began his quest to cut his in party opposition out of the goverment. I swear the only reason he is still in power is because the alternatives are worse ... thinking of Stockwell Day. I view him as neutral, and a poor one at that.

Blair is the real winner. He stood on his convictions, convinced his populace, endured a backbench revolt and at the end of the day history will be his judge. I swear we should make Blair the US's official spokesman on our foreign policy.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-11 07:58pm

Ignorant twit wrote:I swear we should make Blair the US's official spokesman on our foreign policy.

I think Bush should just have let Blair take the lead in the business with Powel supporting him. Blair handled the situation quite well.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-04-11 08:11pm

Robert Treder wrote:Out of those guys, I go with Blair, but I'm still a Putin fan. Putin is one suave motherfucker.

No, he's not.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-12 03:26am

Ando, you hate the US so much you'll spin this just to make a point. When did Bush or Blair change their course? They stuck to their goal in theface of world opposition and domestic protest. Chirac certainly did not have to defend an unpopular position, according to you and other protesters he was in the popular side.

Folks, lets not forget that in all of Ando's arguments is a devoted Marxist ready to rant against anything the US does-- hardly a neutral position.

And yeah, Blair gets the crown.

What tards voted for Saddam?

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-12 04:07am

Coyote wrote:Ando, you hate the US so much you'll spin this just to make a point. When did Bush or Blair change their course? They stuck to their goal in theface of world opposition and domestic protest. Chirac certainly did not have to defend an unpopular position, according to you and other protesters he was in the popular side.

No. I won't spin this. I'm simply putting forth my opinion. After all, isn't that what this thread called for? Opinions? Or should I just be sent to the camps now because I disagree with you.

Bush and Blair didn't change their course either, but opinion of them within their own nation significantly changed, for better or for worse. Chirac continued on being Chirac, you could argue that his interest in the campaign was maintainign the status quo.

Actually I didn't go to a single anti-war protest. I don't have an anti-war bumper sticker on my car and you sure as hell won't find me slogan shouting. But don't let that stop you from making an ad hominem.

Folks, lets not forget that in all of Ando's arguments is a devoted Marxist ready to rant against anything the US does-- hardly a neutral position.

Ad hominem count +1. Thankyou for your buffoonery.

I am not a Marxist. I think that Marxism's THEORIES are nice, but practically I am a democratic-socialist, it seems to work much better in reality. Perhaps you should join us there.

And yeah, Blair gets the crown.

How? His own goddamn political party have turned on him, not to mention the public.

What tards voted for Saddam?

Thats what I'd like to know.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-04-12 04:36am

Or should I just be sent to the camps now because I disagree with you.

Yes.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-04-12 04:41am

I vote for Blair; and having gotten here late, there are no reasons I can give (that I can think of readily at least), that haven't already been said before.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-12 04:49am

weemadando wrote:Or should I just be sent to the camps now because I disagree with you.

I love opinions, but Chirac? And such hyperbole is so unbecoming.

weemadando wrote:Bush and Blair didn't change their course either, but opinion of them within their own nation significantly changed, for better or for worse. Chirac continued on being Chirac, you could argue that his interest in the campaign was maintainign the status quo.

Why should it make a difference if opinion changed of Bush and Blair? The fact that Chirac stood up to defend fat-cat business deals that supported the regime of a dictator, and did so consistently, with the admiration and compliance of his countrymen is hardly a prideful thing. Hell, Adolph Hitler was consistent, too, and did everything he said he was going ot try to accomplish in "Mein Kampf", while folks like the Russians, Brits and Americans switched positions on him-- so what?

weemadando wrote:Actually I didn't go to a single anti-war protest. I don't have an anti-war bumper sticker on my car and you sure as hell won't find me slogan shouting. But don't let that stop you from making an ad hominem....Thankyou for your buffoonery.

Yeah, yeah, and saying I'd send you to the camps for diasgreeing with you was "poetic liscence". Although I do have some admiration for democratic-socialist ideas, although they must be driven by a capitalist engine that awards work and investment fairly...

But I think Blair handled the PR much better than Bush, and he's always kept a light burning in the window for future UN involvement for the postwar setup, which I think will be important to assure people that this is not a US grab.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-04-12 05:19am

I voted for Blair, while I am in the anti-war camp, leading up to the war when Bush and Blair were giving a joint press conference I had to contain myself from laughing so hard that I would pass out from lack of oxygen when ever Bush 'spoke'. However when Blair did his bit, I was almost willing to change my position to the pro-war camp.

While Chirac has kept his stance pretty much constant, he really misjudged American willingness to go to war without his 'approval', so really it was a screw up for him politicaly.

Blair on the other hand, in his handeling of the war during Parliamentary sessions once again demonstrated the sheer inteligence that he seems to posses. My own PM, little Johnny, isn't even important enough to rate.

The final outcome though remains to be seen, where is the proof of the WMD, the links with international terrorism? Have we forgotten these? These were the main arguments for war to begin with, and yet so far I haven't seen a god-damn-thing to substantiate them.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who comes out best?

Who comes out smelling like roses?

Who comes out best?