Iran President Proposes Debate With Bush

Saturn can get mighty upset if you suppress things... better listen to him.

If I were advising Mr Ahmadinejad I'd tutor him on the BBC standard pronunciation of 'nuclear' and encourage him to correct Bush every time he bungles it.

I can actually visualise Ahmadiasdjaonoksfdjasodf (sorry...) crawling out of the room crying with laughter.

He'll just continue on his usual monotonous rants, and the media will be all over replaying segments of the entire conversation that are exactly the same.

The result of Sir George accepting this would be Iran laughing at the UN's demands to stop enriching uranium and then there'll be a full blown (excuse the pun) nuclear world war and then we'll ditch ourselves into an early ice age! At least the tropical islands won't have to worry about sinking, though.

"We are ready to discuss the ways of managing the world for achieving justice, peace, friendship and removing violations and threats,"

This made me laugh. Bush doesn't want that! Is this man completely blind?

Ahmadinejad said Bush would be able to bring advisers to the debate.

So maybe not completely blind... I wonder if he stated the maximum number of advisers Bush could bring...

And if I were advising George, I'd recommend that he just stick with "nukes." Unfortunately, the only Ahmadinejad-Bush debate we'll ever see will be on SNL between Fred Armisen (Ahmadinejad) and Will Forte (Bush)

Oh, he has Bush pegged. "False advocators of Democracy"..."arrogance"..."lack of logic".. That is definitely Bush and is administration.

They were advocating Democracy? I thought they were using it as a pun.

Silly me.

You all seem pretty supportive of Ackie.

This would not be a good idea for a few reasons. Iran can say anything they want but they dont seem to ever have to back up their statements to the media, only the US seems to be required to do that. Additionally Bush is not the brightest guy and public speaking is not his forte. This is also another game to try and delay for the showdown with the UN over their weapons. Bush could say ok but only once they agree to stop enriching uranium and let UN people in to verify.

Additionally, Iran is making the assumption that this is a debate between our vision for the world or theirs. First of all, they are not on par with us. They have done nothing besides position themselves as the puppeteers of terrorists to claim any real position of power in world politics. And I am sure there are several countries who want neither the US's vision of the world or Irans. Not to mention the supposed threat that is being reported for not having the debate. This is how Ackie works. He probably said it and will claim, "I dont threaten anyone. I merely stated that there will be repercussions in the worlds eyes of the US standing if it doesnt want to face criticism." Meanwhile, Iran is being very forthright in dealing with their criticism. They say they dont care, they have the right. Well guess what Ackie, we dont care, we have the right.

it's empty rhetoric designed to keep drone-like american citizens from waking up to what's really going on in their name around the world. and to make them frightened of phantom enemies so they'll allow increasingly tyrannical control by the government.

Same that again about million more times for the sheeple!

Bush couldn't possibly win the debate.

Ahmadinejad would unfairly use his blue Mahdi aura to hypnotize the judges...

;)

i think we need new terms for right and left as the neos are perpendicular.

We can be rightest, and we can be leftest -- And you can go and learn English.

Learn how to debate and not insult, both of you.

Exactly. He gives "rightest" a reason to wake up in the morning. They get excited that we might spend billions on another non-deserved war.

@ Robbie Lawrence - Or you can learn to better internalize what is being typed.

I'm just going tit-for-tat with Ugly Bastard because his statement was just as ludicrous as my own and shame on those who support either statement.

Sorry; my bad. I assumed since it was an entirely separate post you were being just as ignorant as him.

My apologies : )

Accepted, my apologies for not hitting the reply button nor spelling it Rightist. :P

President (elected) Ahmadinejad has every right to call out President Bush. One can claim to be the leader of the free world, but one also has to accept the fact that there are other leaders who are democratically elected that will oppose him on many issues.

Iran wants nuclear technology so they can have a renewable resource and make oil production a mostly export business. It makes perfect economical sense. That leaves the double blade sword of nuclear technology on the table, but that can be said of China, Pakistan, and India who also developed their nuclear technology domestically.

The real problem I see is that on August 26, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad inaugurated an expansion of the country's heavy-water plant near Arak. Iran has indicated that the heavy-water production facility will operate in tandem with a 40 MW research reactor that has a scheduled completion date in 2009

The USA only uses heavy-water plants to help produce plutonium and tritium for the US nuclear weapons program. It makes sense that US politicians find the heavy-water production facility troubling because the only reason we had use for one was to help make WMDs.

I can see both sides from an objective point of view but when it comes down to it, Iran with nuclear technology would be a stabilizing force in the Middle East, granted it would cause a regional Cold War.

It's unlikely Iran would use it as a threat to the Middle East when America and Europe have big signs above their masses saying "BOMB US PLEASE!".

I can understand Iran wanting to harness such a powerful and renewable resource, but they are making huge diplomatic mistakes for continuing with it without controversy and political battles.

I think North Korea and Russia are the greatest threats overall. Iran starting this late in the game would be foolish to even think about bombing a country that has for decades proven to be the dominant nuclear super-power. We are, right now, sitting in a shrouded cold war, we just don't really look at it that way. Iran is just a newborn mortal surrounded by temperamental war mongers with 1 big red button per flag right at their fingertips..

While I hate to use this analogy, but Germany had they conquered Europe could have been considered a "stabilizing" force as well.

is that some kind of Zen Koan? What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is the color of wind? What does the sun light taste of? I think for an answer you must find and ask a Buddhist

HaHa! Touche!

The governments are just paranoid, and in some respects they have every right to be, but they should let Iran continue, since they have absolutely nothing but speculation to stand on.

If Iran does start acting dodgy and the UN has more than the fickle speculation they are currently relying on, then they should take action. Until then, they have to trust...

When exactly has Iran acted trustworthy and not dodgy?

Be serious. The U.N. is the United State's slave. Whatever the U.S. says goes, regardless of the U.N.

If the UN is our slave then why weren't the member nations launching bombs into Iraq along with us?

When exactly has Iran bombed the @!$%# out of the US or threatened to? : )

The U.N. listens to all countries wants and needs, but we just hear more about America's because all America wants to do is bomb places -- The U.N. is not run nor is it the slave of the United States...

I didn't realise public debate was illegal.

Sorry sir!

Why is Ahmadinejad a dictator? He is a president freely-elected by the people of Iran.

He's a "freely-elected" figurehead who is hardly a dictator with hardly any power.

He probably has less power than the president of an elementary school's PTA.

What I find somewhat funny is that in Iran you can not publicly disagree with the president or the Supreme Leader, but it is okay for them to call out those they do not like. IF it happens I'll be sure to watch... I like surprises (usually) and I hope that the VP lubes his arm up well to feed the President his lines on cue. Is Bush stupid (like low IQ), no I don't think so. I just think hes deaf in one ear. He listened=s to himself and his cabinet, but not really what the congress wants him to do. Bush doesn't play a lot of congressional games and congress hates that about him. As a result so do we.

We really don't have anything but speculation to stand on in this "debate" that could occur, but the speculation is well founded and both sides will suffer the burden of proof. In that sense both will fail. Iran can't prove it means only peace - especially since the university system and government seats have been replaced by fundamentalists, militaristic individuals, and inexperienced people. Bush can't prove where some weapons were in Iraq, so how can he prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran will use its technology for weapons? Neither side has a strong argument and I honestly don't believe that Iran expects Bush to take part. I actually think they bank on tha fact he won't. I think their reasoning is to make Bush further look bad. If the leader of the free world isn't "man" enough to stand up to an "evil dictator", but that "evil dictator" is "man" enough to stand up tot he leader of hte free world, then who has the power by default? Iran. It's about image, people follow image - look at football and music stars. We follow them like lost puppies and this is just a political showcase of the same thing.

Yes, as Matt pointed out, he does have little power but he is nonetheless an elected official and by no definition a dictator.

What I find somewhat funny is that in Iran you can not publicly disagree with the president or the Supreme Leader, but it is okay for them to call out those they do not like.

That's called hypocrisy, and isn't limited to Iran, the Middle East or any other third-world countries.

Is Bush stupid (like low IQ), no I don't think so.

Actually no; Bush has the lowest IQ rating of any of the POUSA's, leveling off at a tidy 91. His dad was 98.

Bush doesn't play a lot of congressional games and congress hates that about him. As a result so do we.

...No. We hate Bush because he truly is incapable of running a world superpower. In which case it's safe to assume it is him that bows to the pressure of congress, not the other way around. He also likes oil.

I think their reasoning is to make Bush further look bad

It wouldn't surprise me, but I'm sure his administration will come up with some snazzy excuse and dig him out of that hole. The world thinks of him as dirt anyway (feel free to flame me), so this won't make his position much worse.

Why would I flame you for a differeing opinion that has touched on Bush and not the issue? You must be mistaking me for Ugly Bastard or something... sorry, wrong guy.

I will however clear up a few things for you:

..No. We hate Bush because he truly is incapable of running a world superpower. In which case it's safe to assume it is him that bows to the pressure of congress, not the other way around. He also likes oil.

CORRECTION:

No. We I hate Bush because he truly is incapable of running a world superpower.

I don't hate Bush, so until someone comes along and agrees 100% with every bit of yourstatement (and I know someone will, but until then, it is "I" not "WE").

Actually no; Bush has the lowest IQ rating of any of the POUSA's, leveling off at a tidy 91. His dad was 98.

We, as a nation, still elected him in office - twice. Don't hate the player, hate the game. They say that every vote counts, so I assume that all voting Democrats voted? If not blame them, if so, you guys need to breed.

That's called hypocrisy, and isn't limited to Iran, the Middle East or any other third-world countries.

Yes, I think it's in the political closet of every nation as well as channels 4,5,7 and 9 during various hours of the day as well. Some tell me that it is every American household and afflicts men women and children - it is a non-discriminatory disease with no cure in sight.

It wouldn't surprise me, but I'm sure his administration will come up with some snazzy excuse and dig him out of that hole. The world thinks of him as dirt anyway (feel free to flame me), so this won't make his position much worse.

Yep, those wacky admin boys do it every time...gee they're swell.

It might not make his position worse, but it sure as hell wont make it better. The nice thing about the bottom is there is nowhere to go but up... or butt up... .I don't know, its not my kind of thing. ____________________

On a serious note, I think that in all honesty its just to distract Bush from being told about the real issues. Someone has a Napoleon complex and the other a Napoleon Dynamite complex.

Nope – No mistaking or flaming here.

CORRECTION: No. We I hate Bush because he truly is incapable of running a world superpower.

Learn when to and when not to correct someone if you're going to start twisting and stabbing. When I say we, I clearly mean the people that hate Bush, and that's the reason we hate him.

We, as a nation, still elected him in office - twice. Don't hate the player, hate the game. They say that every vote counts, so I assume that all voting Democrats voted? If not blame them, if so, you guys need to breed.

That's got nothing to do with anything. You specifically said "Is Bush stupid (like low IQ), no I don't think so.", which has been proven wrong. If you can't handle your opinions getting challenged by fact, don't disclose them. Additionally, the votes both times were nearly half and half – Democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans. All that proves is that there is a slightly larger majority of republicans in America.

Yes, I think it's in the political closet of every nation as well as channels 4,5,7 and 9 during various hours of the day as well. Some tell me that it is every American household and afflicts men women and children - it is a non-discriminatory disease with no cure in sight.

It's also in our pen ink and Coke bottles – No, really! Hint: Don't segregate one minority if you already know that every other minority does it.

The nice thing about the bottom is there is nowhere to go but up... or butt up...

… So does this mean you support Bush? Or not? Your stance on the matter seems to vary per comment…

Sorry if I missed anything. Feel free to twist and jive again and I'll be more than happy to reply : ).

Oh, and I'm not Republican ("If not blame them, if so, you guys need to breed").

Learn when to and when not to correct someone if youre going to start twisting and stabbing. When I say we, I clearly mean the people that hate Bush, and thats the reason we hate him.

Amazing, because I would think that someone would instead say:

"No. We who hate Bush, hate him because..." THAT defines clearly to whom you are referring. So, apparently it isn't too clear.

Thats got nothing to do with anything. You specifically said Is Bush stupid (like low IQ), no I don't think so., which has been proven wrong. If you cant handle your opinions getting challenged by fact, dont disclose them. Additionally, the votes both times were nearly half and half Democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans. All that proves is that there is a slightly larger majority of republicans in America.

I don't recall acting bent about anything there. I said I didn't think he was dumb. It doesn't mean I think hes smart, just that I don't think he's dumb.

Hint: Dont segregate one minority if you already know that every other minority does it.

I don't. I will however, segregate the minority who is in the act of doing it. If I don't see them doing it, then I can't claim to have seen it, and I won't. If I see them do it or the world sees them do it, then I can separate and make what opinion I deem necessary.

Thats got nothing to do with anything. You specifically said Is Bush stupid (like low IQ), no I don't think so., which has been proven wrong. If you cant handle your opinions getting challenged by fact, dont disclose them. Additionally, the votes both times were nearly half and half Democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans. All that proves is that there is a slightly larger majority of republicans in America.

I felt it had a lot to do with why Bush is in office. Apparently he did well enough during his first term to get re-elected. Of course his opponent wasn't too great, but that's not Bush's fault. If Republicans didn't want Bush in office, they'd have not voted or converted to democrat. So, I think my statement was pretty valid in terms of trying to say that it's OUR fault Bush is in office.

So does this mean you support Bush? Or not? Your stance on the matter seems to vary per comment

Insufficient Option; not everything is high contrast.

Oh, and I'm not Republican ("If not blame them, if so, you guys need to breed").

Sounds like you and every other Anti-Bush person has got a problem until 2008 then. Sorry about your luck.

So, where exactly did I twist and jive your words again? I mean, I read them, and I took from it what was said how it was written.

The US is a threat to the world, not just Iran.

and THAT is a reasonable comment?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Whatever you say.

Well, how is it reasonable and how is it not reasonable?

All the comments that reside in the 14.x's are reasonable... end.

My head just exploded.

Dinner!

Our nation is nearly fascist? Have you read about fascist countries throughout history and what it was like to live under them? I agree with much of what you said, but people need to take it easy on comparing nations to big historical notions like Nazi-ism and Fascism.

Fascist countries started out as liberal democracies. Only when the corporations of those countries were so interwoven with each other and the government did fascist policies start to take place. It wasn't like one day they just decided to become fascist. It was a gradual process that most people didn't have any idea was taking place around them.

I don't think our nation will necessarily go that way, but it could. And the militant-nationalism that has taken the nation by storm of late, as well as the entrenched corporate-congress reach around fest going on, are the exact ingredients to get us there. If people were really striving for that kind of state do you think they would make it obvious or give any serious credence to those claims?

Would it be worse to not talk about it because its offensive and makes people upset, or would it be worse to just ignore the warning signs and deny that it could ever happen here.

Have seen the clip of the senator saying "the President [Bush] is always right"? To me that seems absurdly wrong. I suppose thats anecdotal and not necessarily a sign of a majority mentality. Maybe I should take it easy, but I probably won't.

No, I wasn't saying that we shouldn't stand up and talk about the facets pushing the governmental policy in that direction. I'm just saying that we're far from close to being a fascist state. I get freaked out by what a lot of those in power say these days, and I hear senators on all ends of the spectrum saying all kinds of repellant things, but more often than not, those people don't represent the majority.

Also, I don't think there's a militant nationalism taking the U.S. by storm. I think many on the right are CALLING for a militant nationalism, and some folks around here have latched onto it, but the President's ridiculously low approval rating speaks volumes about how the American public really feels about the job he's doing.

So, all in all, Deh Ehn, I see and agree with your concerns, but I think maybe I'm a little more hopeful.

You're talking about George W. Bush and a mad leader of an Islamic extremist country.

Everything they say to each other will become null and void before the sound-waves hit media microphones.

I agree with you. But isn't it better for us to hear them make a fool of themselves. Both of these guys have issues. Let the world see that they're really alike.

don't forget the inverse stereotypes. You know people dressed in headdresses waving Aks and screaming foreign tongue, burning flags and pressing red buttons...

It'll be nothing like that, and to think so is pretty foolish.

For round one, yes I think that'd be funny...morbidly funny... and I need to scrub myself clean now for that thought, but round two should be in the Iranian nuclear plant so we can see what's really going down.

I wonder why we just don't google it, google seems to know everything...

See, like that statement there, you still kicked Bush in the face, you're blind hatred for bush is so heavy you would rather be with the iranian president than our own.

See, like that statement there, you still kicked Bush in the face, you're blind hatred for bush is so heavy you would rather be with the iranian president than our own.

Stop twisting peoples words and being so inflammatory.