Iran's leader calls for TV debate with Bush

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Most people who are interested in politics, no matter whether they're republican, democrat, libertarian, green, or other, would watch that debate. Others around the world would probably watch it. China, Iran, Iraq and some other middle eastern countries might not see it, but it would be accessable to a good part of the world.

OH come on! Do any of us REALLY want to listen to Dubya try to pronounce "Ahmadinejad?"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Actually, we as a nation have a lot to lose if Bush did this. You're
> lending creditability to someone that shouldn't have creditability lent
> to. He won't answer questions, and he'll just try to inspire all of the
> Muslim fanatics that are already out there.

If he is a nut, and Bush responded reasonably and logically, it would go a long way towards showing the world which side is the more reasonable one.

Of course, if Bush does the same thing he does (i.e. gives speeches and refuses to answer questions) then nothing is gained; both leaders come off as ideolouges.

Everyone is already against Iran seeking nuclear weapons. Who is there to convince that this is reasonable? It isn't just the US that is against Iran on this issue.

[vortexring 0]

I'm all for it happening - after reading the Iranian Presidents letter he wrote to Georgie, and taking into account both mens characteristics, the stakes would be massive - as would the entertainment value.

On that note, pity they couldn't solve the entire situation in the ring - how entertaining would that be!?

With chainsaws!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 3,031]

>Everyone is already against Iran seeking nuclear weapons.

I don't think that's true. I mean, there are people who think that it's a good thing that Pakistan has nuclear weapons - and that country is run by a warlord who took it over in a military coup, and the country gives at least some support to terrorism. He just happens to be friendly to the US, so _we_ don't think it's a problem.

In addition, I think many people believe that he's not going to use his nuclear program to manufacture weapons. These are the sorts of things that might come out in a public debate.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.nuclear/index.html

Bush would never go for it. He aint the sharpest tool in the shed, and I can t see him intellectaully debating anyone, but I sure would love to see this happen.

Funny thing, I was thinking that even those of the left would give credit where credit is due regarding the President's political tact, having more credibility than the Iranian leadership could ever hope of achieving.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[beowulf 1]

Really, you think if the Pres. of Iran says in a debate that he isn't seeking Nuclear weapons the US should believe him? Nothing will come out in a public depate but the same rhetoric that Iran is already saying.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

having more credibility than the Iranian leadership

The problem is most Americans tend to see the world from only their point of view.

Do you really think GW who has less then half of his own citizen’s support is considered creditable in the world’s view?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

America is in control of Iraq's oil

Would everyone stop, please, on this topic? If it was really about the oil, WE WOULD OWN THE OIL. We don't own the oil, so therefore, it's not about the oil. QED.

Um....if it wasnt for the oil...we wouldnt be there...I hate to break this to you.

One of many points, and not exclusive, never has been. However, it is quite important, and the fact that the rest of the world is dependent on it too, I think it's funny that the rest of the world is simply willing to watch the region deteriorate (and see the same culture corrode their own society too).

When a hundred generations of people have allowed their civilization to decline for half a millenium, they can't simply be talked into a new direction.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,031]

>you think if the Pres. of Iran says in a debate that he isn't
>seeking Nuclear weapons the US should believe him?

Not at all. Would go something like this:

A: We are not pursuing nuclear weapons. We are just pursuing peaceful uses of nuclear power.

B: Then allow us to place inspectors on-site to ensure enrichment stays below 5%. If you allow that we will stop all talk of sanctions.

A: Uh - no.

B: OK, then we will ship you four CANDU reactors on our dime. They use natural, unenriched uranium; you can stop your enrichment program. And they can't be used for nuclear weapon development by design. They'll make all the power you will need. There will be no sanctions and you'll have your reactors.

A: Uh - no.

B: So you are unwilling to consider any sort of nuclear power other than the type that leads to weapons development?

A: Uh, look . . .

(translate into flowery diplomatic prose as needed.)

If done well, you could show that Ahmadinejad wants a weapons program, thus proving to the world what's going on. Or he could agree to the CANDU reactors - and the problem would be solved.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

One of many points, and not exclusive, never has been. However, it is quite important, and the fact that the rest of the world is dependent on it too, I think it's funny that the rest of the world is simply willing to watch the region deteriorate (and see the same culture corrode their own society too).

When a hundred generations of people have allowed their civilization to decline for half a millenium, they can't simply be talked into a new direction.

Do you think that the Middle East is only just now receiving influence from the United States and Britain?
It has been going on for a very long time. Maybe if we stayed out of peoples business, didn’t start wars, basically just stopped fucking with people lives in pursuit of our standard of living they would not hate us.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 3,031]

>I think it's funny that the rest of the world is simply willing to
> watch the region deteriorate . . .

"Willing to watch?" The rest of the world HELPED the region to deteriorate! Who armed the Mujahideen? Who's helping Israel kill Lebanese? Who's helping Hezbollah kill Israelis?

We have no problem with the region deteriorating as long as it deteriorates in a direction we like. We were ecstatic when Afghanistan became a hellhole in the 1980's. In the words of the CIA, we "gave Russia their Vietnam."

>When a hundred generations of people have allowed their civilization
> to decline for half a millenium, they can't simply be talked into a
> new direction.

They can't be killed into a new direction either.

[beowulf 1]

I don't see Ahmadinejad even answering any questions at all. It would probably be much more like that recent televised interview.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Everyone is already against Iran seeking nuclear weapons.

I don't think that's true. I mean, there are people who think that it's a good thing that Pakistan has nuclear weapons - and that country is run by a warlord who took it over in a military coup, and the country gives at least some support to terrorism. He just happens to be friendly to the US, so _we_ don't think it's a problem.

Pakistan was destabilized by its incursion into India during the Kargil conflict in 1999. President Musharraf took control before the government collapsed. Since then, he has released his executive powers to PM Jamali, who was succeeded by PM Aziz. Parlimentary elections were held in 2002.

Quote

In addition, I think many people believe that he's not going to use his nuclear program to manufacture weapons. These are the sorts of things that might come out in a public debate.

Since Iran has publicly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map, why would you need that to come up in a debate?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

One of many points, and not exclusive, never has been. However, it is quite important, and the fact that the rest of the world is dependent on it too, I think it's funny that the rest of the world is simply willing to watch the region deteriorate (and see the same culture corrode their own society too).

When a hundred generations of people have allowed their civilization to decline for half a millenium, they can't simply be talked into a new direction.

Do you think that the Middle East is only just now receiving influence from the United States and Britain?
It has been going on for a very long time. Maybe if we stayed out of peoples business, didn’t start wars, basically just stopped fucking with people lives in pursuit of our standard of living they would not hate us.

On a high level, I agree with this wholeheartedly. My fear is that things have become so entangled economically and politically that there are no options for a graceful exit. The end game on this one is going to be very ugly.

As for the debate. Ain't gonna happen. Sure Ahmad will look very bad by not answering tough questions in anything resembling a manner that would gain him any level of acceptrance. But the Bush camp would never risk having Bush look like an idiot - which is very likely to happen when he adlibs some answers. No matter how well prepped he is, it isn't worth the risk.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Do you think that the Middle East is only just now receiving influence from the United States and Britain?
It has been going on for a very long time. Maybe if we stayed out of peoples business, didn’t start wars, basically just stopped fucking with people lives in pursuit of our standard of living they would not hate us.

I don't think I could even pretend to be that naive. However, I will point out that not a single country in the region today, was ever a "US colony".

Judgements I may have passed on the west's actions in the middle east aside, I've understood the argument in the context of the times. The context of today is far different. There must be a direct intervention to effect real change. Even the west's own history is evidence of that, and unfortunately, it has come at great human cost.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Since Iran has publicly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map, why would you need that to come up in a debate?

I remember in his TV interview Ahmadjonny said he doesn’t understand why the Palestinians have to pay the price by having Israel formed on their land. Why is Israel not in Germany or Europe? Which I believe is a legitimate question.

As for Israel here is another place where we are directly responsible for causing deaths then we wonder why we are hated. The whole reagion not mention even countries out of the region view Israel as an Inhuman, Illegal, cruel, terrorist state. The united states and Britain are in the minority who believe Israel deserves support and our tax money, But let me guess once again every one is wrong and we are right because we are (play the Music “America Fuck yea) America.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 3,031]

>Pakistan was destabilized by its incursion into India during the Kargil conflict in 1999.

No argument with any of that. He's still an unelected warlord with nuclear weapons.

>Since Iran has publicly stated that Israel should be wiped off the
>map, why would you need that to come up in a debate?

Because bombastic rhetoric is pretty universal. He does it, we do it, Kim Jong-Il does it, the USSR did it. Most people recognize this. Discussing his plans for nuclear weapons might give people more insight into what he's planning. Also might not, but it's worth a try.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

America is in control of Iraq's oil

Would everyone stop, please, on this topic? If it was really about the oil, WE WOULD OWN THE OIL. We don't own the oil, so therefore, it's not about the oil. QED.

Um....if it wasnt for the oil...we wouldnt be there...I hate to break this to you.

One of many points, and not exclusive, never has been. However, it is quite important, and the fact that the rest of the world is dependent on it too, I think it's funny that the rest of the world is simply willing to watch the region deteriorate (and see the same culture corrode their own society too).

When a hundred generations of people have allowed their civilization to decline for half a millenium, they can't simply be talked into a new direction.

I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I remember in his TV interview Ahmadjonny said he doesn’t understand why the Palestinians have to pay the price by having Israel formed on their land. Why is Israel not in Germany or Europe? Which I believe is a legitimate question.

There has never been a country called "Palestine". There is no language, or culture that the Palestinians can claim as "their own". The fact that the Palestinians aren't in their own "country" is their own damn fault. They rejected the solution 60 years ago, and have tried, unsuccessfully, to regain what was never theirs.

Quote

As for Israel here is another place where we are directly responsible for causing deaths then we wonder why we are hated. The whole reagion not mention even countries out of the region view Israel as an Inhuman, Illegal, cruel, terrorist state. The united states and Britain are in the minority who believe Israel deserves support and our tax money, But let me guess once again every one is wrong and we are right because we are (play the Music “America Fuck yea) America.

Yeah, Israel blows up their own people while trying to kill women and children at a school or market. So, pardon me while I scoff at those that say Israel is a terrorist state.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[pop 0]

Quote

There has never been a country called "Palestine". There is no language, or culture that the Palestinians can claim as "their own". The fact that the Palestinians aren't in their own "country" is their own damn fault. They rejected the solution 60 years ago, and have tried, unsuccessfully, to regain what was never theirs.

I make this argument all the time. How can a nation complain that the land that was never theirs was taken from them? I dont get it

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[billvon 3,031]

>Yeah, Israel blows up their own people while trying to kill women
>and children at a school or market.

No, Israel uses cluster bombs on populated areas. If Hezbollah had delivery systems and cluster bombs they'd use them too. They don't, so they go low-tech.

This is war. Anything is OK in war. The objective is not to make anyone your friend, it is to kill the enemy and destroy his country. We killed 350,000 innocent civilians in WWII not because we might have lost, but because it was a war and we wanted to win more quickly. If we had had to, we would have killed those civilians up with cluster bombs or napalm. If we were really desperate, we would have used suicide bombers in markets. And if people questioned such tactics they would have been called traitors or "cut and run" types. "Why don't you move to France? I hear they love surrender monkeys like you."

Since we are assured of winning nowadays, we have the luxury of tsk-tsking such desperate tactics. But we'd use em ourselves if we had to; I think you realize that.

All of which leads to - if you don't want civilians blown to bits, DON'T HAVE THE WAR.

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

He debated Al Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and did a respectable job both times. In fact in most people's opinion, he won both debates.

Oct. 2, 2004 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, .... according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

He debated Al Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and did a respectable job both times. In fact in most people's opinion, he won both debates.

Oct. 2, 2004 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, .... according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

Do I also need to post the video where Bush is asked a questions and cannot respond or say a word for 60 seconds?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Gawain 0]

Quote

This is war. Anything is OK in war.

No, it isn't, and hasn't been. I do not need to explain that (or shouldn't have to).

Quote

We killed 350,000 innocent civilians in WWII not because we might have lost, but because it was a war and we wanted to win more quickly.

That is incorrect. It was part of the doctrine of conducting warfare at the time in terms of diminishing a country's ability and willingness to prosocute their war effort. The technology also did not exist either. Carpet bombing campaigns were necessary because only 1 in 10 bombs came anywhere near their target. The paradigm has sifted dramatically since then.

Quote

If we had had to, we would have killed those civilians up with cluster bombs or napalm. If we were really desperate, we would have used suicide bombers in markets.

Even the resistence in France didn't do that in WWII. They targeted military assets of the Third Reich.

Quote

Since we are assured of winning nowadays, we have the luxury of tsk-tsking such desperate tactics. But we'd use em ourselves if we had to; I think you realize that.

We did to an extent, during our own revolution against England...against British troops I might add. We didn't indiscriminantly lob bombs or explosives into the communities of those that were sympathetic to the British Empire.

Quote

All of which leads to - if you don't want civilians blown to bits, DON'T HAVE THE WAR.

No argument there. But we're all aware of human nature enough to know that is not likely to be a reality for some time.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Quote

You make it sound like the world is full of reasonable people. It's not, Bill. Far from it. That's why we're at this point in the Earth's history.

We, as Americans, must start seeing this as the case. Only then will we be able to deal with this potentially long term conflict effectively.

>That everyone but us is incapable of self-government?

No. We as Americans must begin to realize that the world is not full of reasonable people.

We are all engines of karma