Who comes out best?

[Vympel]

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

Well, at least he's not a drunken invalid like Yeltsin

[Gandalf]

I voted for Bush, I have a feeling that he'll be portrayed as a "Rogue Liberator", the man who defied everyone to free an oppressed people.

[Lord Pounder]

I go with my leader, Blair. I'm not a fan of the Labour Party, the actions of the said party during the war prove my reasons why. But through it all Blair has proven him self to be a great diplomat and world leader in his own right. Too many people where quick to try and portray Tony as just following Bush's lead.

As for Ando when did Bush or Blair change their stance? They stuck to their guns, like Chirac, but they where in the right in the first place and not talking knee-jerk anti-whoever desicions.

The problem with many people these days is that they are quick to condem any American action for the simple reason of petty jealousy.

[Peregrin Toker]

Chirac: Changes his opinion about the war as soon as it is over. When you do that, you can't help looking like a doofus.

Hussein: He's disappeared.

Bush: Unfortunately, he happens to be George Bush.

Chretien: Don't know who he is.

Blair: He still seems quite respectable, unlike any of the aforementioned.

[Next of Kin]

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 ...[/list]

Not to metnion flip flopping over the possibility of sending the mounted police to Iraq but only if he is asked nicely.

[RedImperator]

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.

So Chircac is brave and admirable for sticking to a position that was in his own country's self-interest. Fine--I've heard repeated accusations from the left (and, to be fair, some on the right) that this whole war was fought for America's self-interest and didn't have anything to do with liberating Iraq. Why isn't Bush admirable for looking out for HIS country's self-interests and sticking to his guns?

And as Ignorant twit pointed out, a country that sold Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade fissile material has absolutely ZERO right to cloak its obstructionism behind international law (the legitimacy of a "law" that can't be enforced and is routinely disregarded by any nation that finds it convenient to do so is a question for another time).

Just because you agree with him and you WISH he was the one who looks like a hero doesn't mean that he DOES.

[Wicked Pilot]

I voted for Blair because I think British people are cool.

[fgalkin]

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

Well, at least he's not a drunken invalid like Yeltsin

He may be drunk, but he's not an invalid:


Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ignorant twit]

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.

If you mean Chirac continued being a populist toad, then yes Chirac maintained his position. If you mean he maintained a consistent set of ideals and principles, don't make me laugh.

Let's look at Chirac's positions and opinions throughout his career shall we?

In the mid 1970's Chirac moved a deal to sell Iraq two nuclear reactors and of course 26 pounds of weapons grade enriched uranium. Utterly consistent with a rule of law, pacificistic position.

Of course then we need to look at Kosovo. A military operation NOT sanctioned by the UN, with NO weapons of mass destruction present. Indeed Chirac's justification can best be given in his own words.

"Europe cannot tolerate having on its soil a man and a regime that for almost ten years have engaged in "ethnic cleansing," assassinations, massacres and operations destabilizing to the whole region in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and now Kosovo, resulting in more than 200,000 dead and millions displaced."

So how do we reconcile the Chirac who gladly sells nuclear weapons technology with the man who supports war outside security council mandate in Kosovo, and the man who opposes the US removing Saddam by force?

Has not Saddam engaged in Ethnic cleansing? coughMarshArabscough. Assassination? Do we even want to try to count them? Destabilizing the region? No he just funds Palestinian terrorists and nothing happens because of it. Displacing millions? Oh please.

Chirac is and, always been, a populist toad. When it was popular for the French to pursue nuclear policy outside of Washington and Moscow's scope ... he did. When it was popular to bomb Serbia, he supported that too. When it was popular to thumb your nose at the US and veto the UN, he supported that too.

Beyond the populist appeal I see very little that is consistent from Kosovo to Iraq.

[Robert Treder]

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

No, he's not.

Oh, come on! Putin's a cool guy. He's a ruthless mother who doesn't take shit from no one. Selling stuff to both sides, saying 'no' to the US...he's an undeniable badass.

And check this out:



That's Putin throwing a Judo student.

[Andrew J.]

That's Putin throwing a Judo student.

He is former KGB, it's only natural he should know all sorts of self-defense tricks.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Chretien's going to finally be gone is 2004. Does that count?

[Darth Yoshi]

I voted Blair because he hasn't mangaged to alienate the UN.

[Skelron]

sort of in the wilderness when it comes to the war. I was Anti-War, unless second UN resolution. Then that was scuppered by by a Poilitical mistake a six year old might make, but surely not a President of a nation. NEVER EVER say no matter what happens I'm vetoing something, hold that position by all means it's your choice for the nation, but annouce it to the world and they are going to ignore you from that point on. Even Worse he basically allowed the Coalition to say, well Sod the UN route then if no matter what happens France is going to stop us, why bother, it's a useless route, even the facts are of no use. If Hans Blix came back with live footage of a Nuke France has said they will Veto us... As you can see this shows my position on France's leader...

Yep I', going with Blair, I can't quite explain it, Blair made me belive in him a lot, his speaches are always good, and he just inspired Trust in him. I hate what he has done to my Party, but for some reason I respect him, and even when I was very strongly anti-war I respected him.

[Edi]

Blair by far, for the reasons so many others stated.

Chirac is just a toad. He has his moments, but they are few and far between, and far outweighed by his usual obnoxiousness. Chirac may have been right on the legal grounds, but he's still just as bad as ever. He is no friend to the smaller EU countries, and has done enough shit-stirring in general that it is virtually impossible to like him at all.

Edi

[Crown]

Blair by far, for the reasons so many others stated.

Chirac is just a toad. He has his moments, but they are few and far between, and far outweighed by his usual obnoxiousness. Chirac may have been right on the legal grounds, but he's still just as bad as ever. He is no friend to the smaller EU countries, and has done enough shit-stirring in general that it is virtually impossible to like him at all.

Edi

Add to the fact that Chirac played right into the hands of the US hawks, when he told the candidate countries that they missed a good chance to 'shut up'. As much as I despise Rumsfield I got to admire how he used the old 'devide and conquer' military truism to effectively nuetralise the French and the EU. There was no such thing as 'Old and New Europe' til Rumsfield coined the term (still isn't really, at least within the EU), while the so-called 'New Europe' was supporting the US through NATO, a legal co-operation as there really isn't any such presence in NATO for the EU.

Aslo France's foreign ministers attack on Colin Powel in the UNSC (very justified rebuttle since the 'evidence' was pure bullshit), was detremental to France's cause. Powel and Blair were and still are the moderates in the whole scenario, when France launched an attack on them, the Hawks came out best and managed to by-pass the UN with justification. Something which Powel and Blair did not want.

The French managed to cluster-fuck their position by over-reacting to provocative statements (and make no mistake these were cleverly thought out provocative statements, meant to distabilise the EU) made by the US Hawks. Shame really.