Ahmadinejad Challenges Bush to TV Debate

You know, if the consequences of Iran getting the bomb weren't so dire, this would be really, really funny. As it is, it's just really funny...

"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.

"The debate should be go uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."

He brushed off calls by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, for sanctions if Tehran ignores the deadline.

"Bolton is free to say whatever he wants ... our nation is a strong nation. A nation that has been able to attain the nuclear fuel cycle with its bare hands can solve any other problems."

Read The Whole Thing Here


Of course, what Ahmadinejad seems to have forgotten is that it was the US who actually attained the nuclear fuel cycle with its bare hands. So in effect, he's praising the USA as a strong nation that can solve any problem.

He really is a loony.

EDIT: First "problem" on his list to be solved: Why wont America let me nuke the Zionist Entity?

My father, who is typically an anti-agression type guy, suggested last night that we bomb the cr*p out of Iran, and then leave. Just blow up all their plants, and leave it at that. Suggesting that they really couldn't do much to us afterwards. He also mentioned that we would piss off the Ruskies. To which I said "well, its not like we haven't dealt with that before"

We did it in Lybia, with a great deal of success. I forget the name of the guy who was raising anti-american agression in Lybia, but after we blew up a few buildings, he shut up.

Poor fellow. Cracked.

Worse though for his influence as a country's leader. 0.o

I think it's a good idea. That way we can finally discern who the nut truly is - Bush or Ahmadejanidamijihad. C'mon-Bush has started calling these 'guys' (I won't say Muslims in general, nor do I want to say just militants) Nazis. I haven't heard Iran calling Americans Nazis, despite what they've done so far in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not using their tight leash on Israel to stop them from going as far as they did. C'mon. I think Ahmadinejad is underestimated - he's a learned (he's a Ph.D for all the Gods' sake!) and respectable man, and I think the 'West's' general mind-set is one of anti-Middle-Eastern (minus Israel), thus Ahmadinejad is but a quack-pot, who'll fool himself anyway on international televesion, and Iran a threat, especially in his hands. I think we're ignorant, and so far all of the above's replies proves it.

Quoted from LamaLama: I forget the name of the guy who was raising anti-american agression in Lybia, but after we blew up a few buildings, he shut up.

Exactly-America. She solves everything through aggression. Agression to supress agression... Logic tells me that that just fuels more-you guessed it-agression!:D

If Bush were to back away from this, which he probably will, it will show that he can't stand, man-to-man, with Ahmadinejad, a loony; nut; quack-pot ruler of a Muslim nation that apparently is bent on using its new found nuclear program for the, thusfar, bombardment of the Israeli state. And of course has no good in it (while it has the program, at least ) The president of the world's leading super-power, er, dominant power, either can't stand the challenge, or feels himself above this man-behind his mighty kriegsmaschine.

But in the end it shall end in America invading Iran (it's the only kind of sanction they can impose without risking a drop of Iran's oil! Sometimes Capitalism must use force to achieve its goals in the wake of a barrier, i.e. the East India Company).

I highly doubt the 'respectablity' of Amedinejad. PHd's don't really mean much. All that means is he had enough money to get through classes, if he in fact got it legitimately.

The US's actions in Afghanistan were completely warrented. There is no question about that.

Backing away doesn't show a d*mn thing. I would look at this, and see immediately a man who is trying to pull himself up to the level of the world powers, and look strong. I see it as a last ditch effort for strength. He's thrashing about wildly, and frankly, I don't see why we should give him the time of day.

*Glances at Bjorn*

You just take every opportunity to make fun of Bush don't you?

The President of Iran is a nut case. He believes that he will lead the great jihad against Satan (i.e. us.)

It is this belief that determines his actions. Like using uranium for nuclear power and nuclear power only.

He wants nuclear weapons, not to use against us, but against Israel. He has declared that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. He views America as the big Satan and he views Israel as the little Satan.

This debate is probably just so that the President of Iran can go spout propaganda in front of the American People.

I don't see how Bush can win. He either accepts and debates a wall of religious fanaticism for an hour, or he can decline and the left can call him a coward.

Either way, the debate will give Bjorn more ammunition to attack President Bush.

Griffinkeeper wrote:*Glances at Bjorn*

You just take every opportunity to make fun of Bush don't you?

The President of Iran is a nut case. He believes that he will lead the great jihad against Satan (i.e. us.)

It is this belief that determines his actions. Like using uranium for nuclear power and nuclear power only.

He wants nuclear weapons, not to use against us, but against Israel. He has declared that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. He views America as the big Satan and he views Israel as the little Satan.

This debate is probably just so that the President of Iran can go spout propaganda in front of the American People.

I don't see how Bush can win. He either accepts and debates a wall of religious fanaticism for an hour, or he can decline and the left can call him a coward.

Either way, the debate will give Bjorn more ammunition to attack President Bush.

Bieng that far to the left to sympathize ith people like Ahmadinejad is "edgy" and "kewl" these days, apparently. Kids...psh.

Anyway, LamaLama, the leader of Libya is/was Muamar Qaddafi. And I've been advocating a similar plan to that for about 2 years now. (Read: Osriak take two)
For those who don't know what the Osirak raid was, read about it, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

Qaddafi!! I knew I knew the name.

Anyway, the crazed lunatic ramblings of Qaddafi can be seen in Ahmadinejad- and I still don't see why we should give him the time of day.

Alright- here's a situation where I would feel bad if we didn't.
Amadinejad destroys his nuclear facilities, allows the UN to come in and inspect every inch of his country. He starts exporting oil exclusivly to western countries like the UK and the US (with the exception of fance, of course) and highly discounted prices.
He starts wearing an american flag baseball cap, and even attends a Yankies game.

Then I would feel bad if Bush didn't debate him.

EDIT: But only a little.

There are many reasons why you do not see TV debates between world leaders. The first reason is of course because it's unseemly, but that's not the reason why you never see such debates at all.

A TV debate between world leaders simply undermines diplomatic negotiations and any ties between two countries. Debates are for political candidates vying against each other, not two presidents trying to outdo each other. World leaders are supposed to resolve differences, and the way they choose to do that varies, but you do not resolve differences in debates. Rather, you enforce such differences and make them stronger when you opt for televised debate.

A TV debate between two world leaders is nonsensical. What is there to be achieved in such a format? Forgive the language, but what the President of Iran is doing essentially is inviting Bush to join him in a pissing contest.

As for having a PHD, what does that have to do with anything? The last time I took a taxi, the driver had a PHD.

LamaLama wrote:Qaddafi!! I knew I knew the name.

Anyway, the crazed lunatic ramblings of Qaddafi can be seen in Ahmadinejad- and I still don't see why we should give him the time of day.

Alright- here's a situation where I would feel bad if we didn't.
Amadinejad destroys his nuclear facilities, allows the UN to come in and inspect every inch of his country. He starts exporting oil exclusivly to western countries like the UK and the US (with the exception of fance, of course) and highly discounted prices.
He starts wearing an american flag baseball cap, and even attends a Yankies game.

Then I would feel bad if Bush didn't debate him.

EDIT: But only a little.

If he went to Yankees games, that would be reason enough to bomb Iran, ahhahaha. After all, they ARE the Evil Empire (Yankees, I mean)

Griffinkeeper wrote:*Glances at Bjorn*

You just take every opportunity to make fun of Bush don't you?

Yes.

Griffinkeeper wrote:Either way, the debate will give Bjorn more ammunition to attack President Bush.

Und yes.



The guy cracks me up-"Rarely is the question asked, "Is our children learning?"-Bush

"Rarely is the question asked, "Is Bush really what he seems to be?"

Let's not forget that time when he tried to 'escape' from reporters questions (hmmm), only to find that the door was locked!

But this thread is not for Bush-bashing


Well I respect all your people's beliefs! It may not seem so, but without you we couldn't have debates or wars! But really, I think politicians would do well to debate on television, not bomb the noodles out of each other until the one with the most remaining infrastructure and population remains. That they don't confront each other in public...hrmm. I wouldn't mind a dictator, where he a good one who understood the people (i.e. Tito) and tried to make their lives better (and placed the running and decision-making of factories and work-places in the hands of the workers...).

Now I'm rambling! And have a mob of YWSers who now have a diminished view of me! Curse my uber-liberal mind...mouth...hands...

So.... you would prefer a dictator? Go to Africa, there are a lot of dictators there.

Fact is: dictators are never good. They may start out that way, but inevidably, soon enough, they stop being the lovey dovey dictator and start doing real business.

Pulling out random Bush quotes doesn't really help your position. The fact that Bush trips over his own words is meaningless. Bush Sr. did that. Lots of people do that. I do that. Because Bush's case happens to be particularly severe means nothing. I know people love to use that, but believe me, there are plenty of perfectly acceptable things out there that you can use to make fun of Bush.

And Grif:
He doesn't have to like the game. He just has to be there. He can root for the other team if he wishes. I wont even require that he has a hot dog, but he should, just to show his good faith.

But its gotta be a Best's Kosher, or Vienna beef!

And the only real way to eat a hotdog--Chicago style!

Oh God.. not another 'Bush is amazing' debate..

*leaves*