Iran's leader calls for TV debate with Bush

[freethefly 6]

Quote

There is nothing for Pres. Bush to gain from a debate with Iran's leader.

Untill this government sits down and talk, the tension will only get worse untill it snaps into a full scale war. Bush much prefers war over diplomacy, so it seems. He has made a mess in Iraq and will eventually do the same in Iran (Iraq will look like a cakewalk compare to the asskicking the U.S. will get if it dares to waltz into Iran). Unless he takes the diplomatic approach. Most likely he will threaten them with some "Shock and Awe" and kill any hope of a diplomatic solution. Bush is an egostistic moron and has never done anything right. No reason to expect him to do the right thing anytime soon.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[wmw999 2,485]

Quote

We as Americans must begin to realize that the world is not full of reasonable people

We as Americans need to understand that we don't necessarily define reasonable. And it's not bounded by "whatever is best for America" either.

That doesn't mean I'm against America or anything like that. It's just that other people love their countries, want their children to have a good life, etc. Sometimes what we want is probably not in the best interest of some other countries, and sometimes what they want isn't in our best interests.

That's why you discuss. We're a good country, the US. But sometimes good people, and good countries, can disagree.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,031]

>We as Americans must begin to realize that the world is not full of reasonable people.

So as I asked before:

If most people in the world are unreasonable, democracies will never work. So what's the alternative?

[vortexring 0]

We become Communist ants?

'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.'

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Quote
We as Americans must begin to realize that the world is not full of reasonable people
We as Americans need to understand that we don't necessarily define reasonable. And it's not bounded by "whatever is best for America" either.

That doesn't mean I'm against America or anything like that. It's just that other people love their countries, want their children to have a good life, etc. Sometimes what we want is probably not in the best interest of some other countries, and sometimes what they want isn't in our best interests.

That's why you discuss. We're a good country, the US. But sometimes good people, and good countries, can disagree.

Agreed.

Not every conflict on this planet can be resolved through discussion. There are those where a clear winner must emerge, if it's to end.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>>We as Americans must begin to realize that the world is not full of reasonable people.

>So as I asked before:

>If most people in the world are unreasonable, >democracies will never work. So what's the alternative?

Ah, now I understand your question. And an excellent one it is. The simple answer is - I don't know. The thought "Benevolent Dictator" sprang to mind, but that's just too magical an expectation.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,031]

>Not every conflict on this planet can be resolved through discussion.
>There are those where a clear winner must emerge, if it's to end.

Not every conflict on this planet NEEDS to be resolved. We didn't resolve the war in Korea; there were no winners. We didn't beat the Soviet Union; they fell apart. There was no resolution to the problem of Cuba; hasn't hurt us. A war would have.

We're not the world police. We don't need to solve everyone else's problems. We wouldn't want other people solving OUR problems, after all.

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

Bush is an egostistic moron and has never done anything right. No reason to expect him to do the right thing anytime soon.

Even I disagree with that statement. He avoided Vietnam, and got his arrest record sealed. He managed to get his rich buddies to buy him the presidency, and his decision to invade Afghanistan was correct (even though he bolloxed up the occupation leading to our current difficulties there).

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote from Wolfowitz, when asked why military action was required in Iraq but not North Korea: ""Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Don't believe it. The most important difference is that North Korea has a semblance of a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq does not. And too great a chance that it would adopt Israel's policy on not dying alone.

-----
There's no point to such a debate, even though Bush would handily win. If he could beat out Gore, he'd have no trouble with a war monger of a nation that would be irrelevent were it not for oil. Agreeing to a debate only legitimizes a guy who open advocates the destruction of another nation. Letting him talk about how to achieve peace is no better than asking China for help on human rights.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>Not every conflict on this planet can be resolved through discussion.
>There are those where a clear winner must emerge, if it's to end.

Not every conflict on this planet NEEDS to be resolved. We didn't resolve the war in Korea; there were no winners. We didn't beat the Soviet Union; they fell apart. There was no resolution to the problem of Cuba; hasn't hurt us. A war would have.

We're not the world police. We don't need to solve everyone else's problems. We wouldn't want other people solving OUR problems, after all.

Agreed, that not every conflict needs to be resolved.

Every conflict where there is continued violence does need to be resolved. And, a clear winner needs to emerge.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,031]

>Every conflict where there is continued violence does need to be resolved.

Why?

>And, a clear winner needs to emerge.

Why?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>Every conflict where there is continued violence does need to be resolved.

Why?

>And, a clear winner needs to emerge.

Why?

Why let there be continued blood shed on both sides?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,031]

>Why let there be continued blood shed on both sides?

Yes, that is the question. If there is violence, why add to it? Why not let them resolve their differences their way? We'd be pretty mad if someone invaded us and killed our president to stop the violence in Iraq we set off by invading.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>Why let there be continued blood shed on both sides?

Yes, that is the question. If there is violence, why add to it? Why not let them resolve their differences their way? We'd be pretty mad if someone invaded us and killed our president to stop the violence in Iraq we set off by invading.

I'm specifically referring to violence already inflicted upon us. I am not referring to the Iraq conflict, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, though those are serving as prime opportunties for continued violence upon our country in the here-and-now.

We are in a culture clash, in my opinion. By we, I mean America, my country. I don't think that's a general concensus in this country, and it worries me.

We need to be smarter in how we're dealing with radical Muslims, and those that support them. And, yes, in my opinion, that will involve inflicting violence on those who would inflict violence upon us. That should also include persons who financially support others who would inflict violence upon us.

We need to be the clear victors here. It's going to come to that, sooner or later.

We are all engines of karma

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

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!

GWB would kick his ass, did you ever wonder what the director of the CIA's kids did for summer break or on take your kid to work day?

[billvon 3,031]

>I'm specifically referring to violence already inflicted upon us.

Oh, that's different. We take out Al Qaeda, and we do that via international cooperation. International cooperation has already done far more than our military action to arrest/stop/kill Al Qaeda members. But that's not a "culture clash" or "a war on terror." That's destroying someone who attacked us.

>We are in a culture clash, in my opinion. By we, I mean America,
>my country. I don't think that's a general concensus in this country,
> and it worries me.

I agree. But to have a clash you need two things:

1) Different cultures. Everyone has a different culture. No problems there.
2) An attempt to impose our culture on someone else. Which is what we're trying in Iraq, and which is what terrorists are trying with us. Neither one works.

>We need to be smarter in how we're dealing with radical Muslims,
> and those that support them.

Absolutely. Look at how we stopped the recent attempts at terrorism. That's how we fight them - by stopping them when they try something against us.

>We need to be the clear victors here. It's going to come to that,
> sooner or later.

The tighter we close our fist, the more will slip through our fingers. If it really comes to us vs. muslims - and we feel we must exterminate them to "win" - we will lose. Simple as that. The world doesn't agree on much, but they will stand up to genocide, as they have in the past.

[Dolph 0]

Bill, you're suggestign a reactive approach to handling terrorism.

While I disagree with how this 'war on terrorism' has been and is being implemented, I do not believe a reactive approach to dealing with terrorism is going to be particular effective.

Take the multi million main US battletank, the M1 Abrams. Really nice piece of hardware. Very powerful, all sorts of fancy electronic gizmos with armour that's top notch.

Armour is reactive though - it's the response to a threat. A cheap shoulder launched missile can destroy the Abrams with little difficulty. In these cases, the advantage is always with the initiator - the guy with the rocket.

Now, if the Abrams decides to use its main gun as well as its protective armor, the rocket guy is gonna have to work a lot harder to kill the tank. Mindlessly blowing stuff up is obviously a pretty dumb way to go about things since it tends to generate more rocket guys than it destroys, but selective targetting is a different matter.

It is in my opinion extremely naeive to think that one can resolves issues with most fanatics of any religion or ethnicity with rational debate. That ain't a problem as long as the fanatic does his thing and leaves the rest alone. It's when they try to impose their will on others the problems start, whether they are US presidents or local Imams or what have you.

Some people simply cannot be discussed with. And, to borrow from Catch-22:

"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Even I disagree with that statement. He avoided Vietnam, and got his arrest record sealed. He managed to get his rich buddies to buy him the presidency, and his decision to invade Afghanistan was correct (even though he bolloxed up the occupation leading to our current difficulties there).

I agree only on the decision to strike back at Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which he ultimately screwed up. The rest of what you say brings up the question of his integrity.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,031]

> Bill, you're suggestign a reactive approach to handling terrorism.

No, a proactive one. Proactive is stopping them before they get on the plane. Reactive is trying to stop them after they blow it up, by (say) invading unrelated countries. Reactive is what we're trying now - and it's not working.

>Take the multi million main US battletank, the M1 Abrams.

Not so sure that military hardware compares well to geopolitical planning. (How many RPG's would you have to destroy before you win the hearts and minds of the rest of the RPG's?)

> That ain't a problem as long as the fanatic does his thing and leaves the
> rest alone. It's when they try to impose their will on others the problems
>start, whether they are US presidents or local Imams or what have you.

That's exactly right. And whether it's a terrorist strike that kills 3000 innocent people, or a pre-emptive invasion that kills 50,000, it is the people doing the killing who are the problem - and they should be dealt with.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

The world doesn't agree on much, but they will stand up to genocide, as they have in the past.

The people of Sudan would most likely disagree with that statement. Unless there is something to gain monetarily, genocide, for the most, is overlooked.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>We need to be the clear victors here. It's going to come to that,
> sooner or later.

The tighter we close our fist, the more will slip through our fingers. If it really comes to us vs. muslims - and we feel we must exterminate them to "win" - we will lose. Simple as that. The world doesn't agree on much, but they will stand up to genocide, as they have in the past.

By saying clear victor, I'm not saying we need to kill them all. Being a clear victor could be something like successfully moving away from an oil based economy. At least this would deny the money people funding for continued violence, at least at their current levels.

We are all engines of karma

[crwtom 0]

Quote

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.

which world?

I can easily imagine that if a group of conservative muslims and a
group of conservative westerners/christians can look at one and
the same debate and conclude that "their guy" won and that the
other one looked like and evil idiot.

Ahmadinejad has been obsessive at gettting attention in the
Muslim world and is not shy to bluntly borrow from Nazi ideology
to get there. Even he will realize that he won't score publicity
points in the west with that. This and the open letters and
debate challenges to what is perceived the most powerful man
in the west are publicity stunts directed at his own people.

I'm not sure what his ultimate ambitions are - but on a more
immediate scale this is an internal power struggle between
Iran's mullahs and the office of president. The former used to
be the moral/ideological/spiritual/legislative leaders and the
president was basically just executing what they said. In order
to push the mullahs back Ahmadinejad has to dominate all
moral and ideological discussion and appeal to conservative
and religious fundamentalist in his country on which the mullahs
lean.

Although it doesn't go to some of the fashist extremes as in Iran,
there are mirror images of all this toxic dynamics of wielding
grandious ideology and aggressively moralizing in order to
cement power and support in a religious/conservative populance
also here in the west.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

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 you don't think that western influence has had anything to do with the course of their development? One question, let's say that Iran didn't have any evidence of nuclear ambitions but decided that they were going to sell all of their oil to China and absolutely none to the US. How long do you think it would take the US to find a reason to invade or before their leadership was overthrown and replaced with a pro-western president?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

There has never been a country called "Palestine".

See attached.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

There has never been a country called "Palestine".

See attached.

The British Mandate had no official diplomatic representation and had no self government, nice try though.

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!