GERMAN CHANCELLORS SURVIVOR- winner: Willy BRANDT, over Adenauer !

[Antonio the Sixth]

One SPD and the other Zentrum... I absolutely don't know the people, so I will choose in terms of parties.

Heinrich Brüning

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kurt Georg Kiesinger

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kohl

No, I hated his hugely opportunistic behaviour (Irak war e.g.).

You just seem to forget that Chirac, Villepin, Schröder were right and that Bush, Rumsfeld, H. Clinton and Blair were wrong ( or even liars for the first two ) on Iraq. You can't honestly blame someone for having been right just because you supported those who were wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kohl

No, I hated his hugely opportunistic behaviour (Irak war e.g.).

You just seem to forget that Chirac, Villepin, Schröder were right and that Bush, Rumsfeld, H. Clinton and Blair were wrong ( or even liars for the first two ) on Iraq. You can't honestly blame someone for having been right just because you supported those who were wrong.

Be careful: I've said that Chirac, Schröder, Berlusconi were pro-Putin. I haven't refered to Iraq on this.
And on Iraq, I'm not saying that Schröder was wrong, I'm saying that he over-exploited this in his own advantage.
He was so glad to hide his own unpopular reforms -especially in his own camp- behind the Iraq war.
Without a warmonger in the WH, Schröder would probably have been beaten.

Even Chirac hasn't tried to use Iraq in 2004 elections (granted, they were local; except that the socialists made them national, so he could have used Villepin and all this foreign stuff).

Again, I agree with many things and policies Schröder led. And I'm of course convinced that the Iraq war was a big strategic mistake, based on a big lie.

I just don't like the man and his "career" afterwards...

So what you are doing is judging him on mere intent, saying "yes, I would have done what he did, but he did it for the bad reasons". Probably you are right and he did it for political reasons, and so what ? The only thing that counts is that he refused to follow Bush and Blair in their crusade against the Evil, and I would prefer a crook that takes the good decision in order to be elected, than an honest idealist who really thought he was going to free Iraq but in fact ruined his country and destroyed all the Middle East.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kohl

No, I hated his hugely opportunistic behaviour (Irak war e.g.).

You just seem to forget that Chirac, Villepin, Schröder were right and that Bush, Rumsfeld, H. Clinton and Blair were wrong ( or even liars for the first two ) on Iraq. You can't honestly blame someone for having been right just because you supported those who were wrong.

Be careful: I've said that Chirac, Schröder, Berlusconi were pro-Putin. I haven't refered to Iraq on this.
And on Iraq, I'm not saying that Schröder was wrong, I'm saying that he over-exploited this in his own advantage.
He was so glad to hide his own unpopular reforms -especially in his own camp- behind the Iraq war.
Without a warmonger in the WH, Schröder would probably have been beaten.

Even Chirac hasn't tried to use Iraq in 2004 elections (granted, they were local; except that the socialists made them national, so he could have used Villepin and all this foreign stuff).

Again, I agree with many things and policies Schröder led. And I'm of course convinced that the Iraq war was a big strategic mistake, based on a big lie.

I just don't like the man and his "career" afterwards...

So what you are doing is judging him on mere intent, saying "yes, I would have done what he did, but he did it for the bad reasons". Probably you are right and he did it for political reasons, and so what ? The only thing that counts is that he refused to follow Bush and Blair in their crusade against the Evil, and I would prefer a crook that takes the good decision in order to be elected, than an honest idealist who really thought he was going to free Iraq but in fact ruined his country and destroyed all the Middle East.

No, no, that's not the point.

Don't mix the decision to say "no" to Bush and the campaign. Refusing to take part in the war was a good decision based on good motives, no problem. I don't have any remark on this: I agree with you, with Schröder, with Chirac (even though the personal behaviour of Villepin was ridiculous... many French thought he was almost a hero then because he "resisted" the USA; I thought about REAL acts of resistance: those of de Gaulle, Moulin, Frenay, Aubrac, etc).

No. I'm talking about the over-exploitation of this subject during the campaign. I.e. I'm talking about the fact that, during the campaign, he tried to hide any other debate about any other question than Iraq. That's the point.

OK, understood. Thanks for explanations.

[Antonio the Sixth]

but in fact ruined his country and destroyed all the Middle East.

Please explain.

I agree with Franzl, who will probably tell you that the Middle East has been a mess for, well, many centuries, but at least since 1917 (Sykes-Picot) and that the evil Bush (yes, he was a bad, a very bad president) isn't the only and first cause of all this.
But you'll start again on the only question that gathered all French people in modern times... (and so not an interesting question....) and discuss on Palestine/Israël, etc, the most sterile debate in the world ever !

Please, don't make me play the part of the primarily anti-american french idiot. What the hell would I do on this forum if I believed that USA were the Empire of Evil ? I think it's a great nation, a nation that could promote democracy in the world, but only on condition that his actions are intelligent and considered, not simplistic and ideologic.

Bush is not the Lord of Evil, he is just an idiot.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, I'm not going to break this wonderful unanimity...
Scheel

but in fact ruined his country and destroyed all the Middle East.

Please explain.

I agree with Franzl, who will probably tell you that the Middle East has been a mess for, well, many centuries, but at least since 1917 (Sykes-Picot) and that the evil Bush (yes, he was a bad, a very bad president) isn't the only and first cause of all this.
But you'll start again on the only question that gathered all French people in modern times... (and so not an interesting question....) and discuss on Palestine/Israël, etc, the most sterile debate in the world ever !

Please, don't make me play the part of the primarily anti-american french idiot. What the hell would I do on this forum if I believed that USA were the Empire of Evil ? I think it's a great nation, a nation that could promote democracy in the world, but only on condition that his actions are intelligent and considered, not simplistic and ideologic.

Bush is not the Lord of Evil, he is just an idiot.

That wasn't my aim. No offense.
Just that Bush didn't "destroy all the Middle East": he screwed many things up, but not everything.

Yes, I certainly used a too emphatic tone. I obviousily exaggerated saying that, and I didn't want to mean what you understood. Really sorry .