It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ahmadinejad VS. Bush: Iran Issues Debate Challenge

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:25 PM
I am very disappointed,

For a person like me that likes to heard all sides of the issue it seems that we the American people have been rob from hearing what the Iranian leader has to said.

I guess we are a censored nation after all.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
Gosh this is sad. I mean look at this thread. We really have no respect for our President? Sad.

On the CNN site, a poll reveals that 67% believe that Bush would lose the debate. What a brilliant leadership we have.

these are mostly americans voting on the cnn poll . i voted for ahmadinejad, seemed like a no brainer. bush would get owned by him! right now its 24,000 votes for bush, 40000 for ahamdinejad. maybe this poll should be on to give bush a chance.

last nite bill maher was on larry king and he said , why cant we have a president smarter then all of us. wouldnt that be nice.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:47 PM
The fact that"dubya"could'nt even win a debate against homer simpson is obvious.What bothers me is that he was elected...TWICE!

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 05:15 PM

its easy to pick on lil bush.

wanting a debate with bush? thats silly. i mean sure on his part its a smart move because it makes him enter a win win situation. but how much of a win is it? its george bush jr. if you must pick on george bush by calling him out to a debate (especially when you are actually a very articulate and good public speaker) then whos the real chump? its like a big guy who knows MMA picking on a small guy who only knows how to hit the bags in his garage.

what would be a better debate is to have the iran adminstration against the bush adiministration. that would be more interesting.

ahamdinejad would never pick on bill clinton if bill clinton was president right now and we were under the same global situation as we are now.

im no bush supporter... i actually voted for kerry.... but lets use some common sense here... its like everyones just looking at this from the "I hate bush eyes".... and not being objetive about it.

I hope americas next president is very articulate and can talk for once. Bush is a puppet anyways.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:53 PM
When have two heads-of-state ever publically debated like this on TV? It's a ridiculous offer that breaks all diplomatic protocols. We don't even have any diplomatic relations with Iran!

Of course the usual suspects will use this to make fun of and attack Bush. :shk:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
I am very disappointed,

For a person like me that likes to hear all sides of the issue it seems that we the American People have been robbed from hearing what the Iranian leader has to say.

I guess we are a censored nation after all.

I completely agree. Besides, Georgie's two small testicules don't give him enough mojo for him to discuss things mano-a-mano with the Iran PM. He would not be able to make sense of his contradicting Freedom War. He would surprise the heck out of me if he accepted. He's a liar and a coward in my book. He's bringing down the USA. It will collapse under the American Union. It's so clear I don't understand why there are still so many sheeps out there. Okay. End of rant. I guess we're all very angry deep down.....

[edit on 29-8-2006 by La Balance]

[edit on 29-8-2006 by La Balance]

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:22 PM
everyones giving bush too much power.

he is a figurehead.

the more i think about this debate request by ahmadinejad the more silly i think it is on his part.

it does seem like a diversion. he's got nothing else to do to try and stale.

or maybe he does?

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When have two heads-of-state ever publicly debated like this on TV? It's a ridiculous offer that breaks all diplomatic protocols. We don't even have any diplomatic relations with Iran!

Yes you are right but remember that the one nation that has alienates Iran is US.

I am very amazed how nations will dictate how other Nations should mind their business and when their leaders are not what our administration wants them to be they are targeted for very convenient reasons.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:32 PM
Doesn't anyone remember Saddaam asking for a debate as well? Bush declined, then what happened? Shock and awe! Bush is sad. I want a president that would welcome such a debate.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When have two heads-of-state ever publically debated like this on TV? It's a ridiculous offer that breaks all diplomatic protocols. We don't even have any diplomatic relations with Iran!

Of course the usual suspects will use this to make fun of and attack Bush. :shk:

I don't think such an event has ever taken place, it is true.

However, that is not say that such a thing Could never occur.

To debate is not the same thing as to negotiate. So even if the US, through the Bush administration, views President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government as "representatives" of a terrorist nation", they would merely be debating the issues which divide them; no expectation of concessions need be implied.

That said, I perceive a possible ulterior motive in Ahmadinejad's challenge/offer; one that gives me pause to consider what else might be hidden up his agenda.

By all accounts, President Ahmadinejad, along with being a very intelligent man, is also a devoutly religious Muslim. I'm sure he realizes that the paths Iran and the US are heading in could easily lead to armed conflict. Iran, at least in terms of shear military might cannot but see itself at a severe disadvantage should a conflict of arms erupt. By the dictates of Islam, the faith he holds dear, in such a conflict, he would be required to fight the US with every weapon and tactic at his diposal; no quarter would be given to any of the oppressor.

I'm sure many of us have heard of the "warnings" profered in the form of audio and video tapes by another "radical Islamist", Osama bin Laden. As I understand it, OBL was pressured into making these recordings by his spiritual advisors as a way to reconcil the bloody violence of his attacks against the West, with the demands of his faith; the enemy must be warned, and thus given a chance to "repent" before he may be justifiably slaughtered.

Is it possible that the Iranian President, no less a devout Muslim, views this offer, and perhaps the "Secret" letter to President Bush which preceded it, as similar warnings to a potential enemy?

Are these "Unprecedented Acts" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's way of observing the "Protocols of A Righteous and Holy War"?

In this light, I find it most disturbing (and potentially telling), that President Ahmadinejad insisted upon the condition of No Censorship.

On the surface, such a stipulation might seem to be nothing more than naive posturing; at most, perhaps, a sly dig at the US's honesty.

But I think there is more to it than that. I think, perhaps President Ahmadinejad, compelled by the strictures of his faith, wants to make absolutely certain that, having heard both men detail their positions, that the American public (and perhaps the western world at large) is given the opportunity to make an informed consent with regard to which side they are to be counted amoungst.

Therefore, in Ahmadinejad's mind, fair warning has been given, as required by Allah. The choice is ours to make; the consequences of our choices, ours alone to face.

Iran is thus free to do whatever it must to defend itself, no matter how otherwise heinous such acts might seem. And the populace of the the US, by their consent/support/acquiessence of President Bush and the US military, are thus to be put on notice that they, too, will be considered fair game.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:46 PM
As your resident screaming Liberal-in-Chief (in the absence of RANT) even I can acknowledge that this is ridiculous.

This isn't about two men, whatever is said is said on behalf of two nations and I wouldn't like to see either nation be embarassed by their leader.

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:07 PM
Once again, and many times this year the iranian president has managed to use the public opinion against the USAs unjust illegial occupation, to make the american president and way of government look highly suspicous.

Of course bush wont accept a live un censored debate with the Iranian president..
because bush doesnt have a leg to stand on in ordering iran to cease nuclear enrichment.

Keeping Iran from gaining the nuclear bomb is simply a moral protective concept.
There's no proof they are going to get nuclear weapons, like that is no proof they are going to incinerate israel.

Of course Iran is trying to gain nukes, either to hold israel hostage, or to march a suicide attack.

Iran are a long way off the bomb though,
Its Israel that we need to be debating and ensuring the peace in the regin continues to grow.

we have seen Israel, doesnt care about the UN,
or about innocent lives.
They are prepared to callup there citizens to fight for what they believe is the existence of israel.

I believe Israel will black mail america into fighting Iran.
Israel will tell america the only way to tackle iran, is to use strategic nuclear weapons, bceause they dont have enough military ability to wage a decent conventional war, unless america assists.

So will america sit by and let a nuclear exchange take place in the defense of israel?
Or intervene, to ensure a nuclear exchange DOESNT occur.

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:10 AM
the fact that the US gov did not take on this unprecedented chance for diplomacy is sickening. this is complete trash. this proves this administration has turned this country into nothing more than a joke.

this is disgraceful i dont even know what to say, a country that waves the patriotic flag till you are blue in the face wont follow its own country's policy of diplomacy

im tired of this. this spoon fed garbage has to stop. human beings dont deserve to live in an invisible tyranny. you know i am not a violent person but dang it, i think if there truly was an orgainized plan to democratically and if neccecarily forcelully overthrow the oppression that has now become our government, i would join the resistance fight to reinstate the real constitution and overthrow the people that are doing nothing but lying to us, malnipulating the masses, supressing information, and demorlizing this nation and all the people who died for the persuit of "freedom".

this debate challenge, if accepted, would have been one of the most historic political occurences in history. 2 nations that have a disagreement debating in a fully public forum on the issues that separate them and trying to resolve their differences in a peaceful way. We had the possibilty to start the world of the future in peace.

Instead, bush and the US stoop so low as to label a country that they dont like, a terrorist nation and therefore will not talk with them. pathetic. that is just outright PROPAGANDA. how can a "terrorist" nation want to talk to you in peace? No terrorist nation on earth would ever think about negotiating with anyone about anyething. so i ask, who are the real terroists?

the worst part is, the news wont cover this. you wont see this being talked about on forums openly in the media because the gov will suppress it.

i dont even know how to express my anger about this, real upseting.

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by lombozo
Surprise, surprise, Bush turned it down.........

Of course he turned it down.

He couldn't risk having Ahmedinejad ask him, in a non-censored debate, why the U.S. is violating the NPT treaty while at the same time expecting Iran to honor it.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:46 AM
Just want to point out..

We have had ... another 21 thousand megawatts of nuclear power plants approved by the parliament that will be built in the next 20 years," Seyed Ala'addin Barojerdi, chairman of Iran's Parliament National Security and Foreign Affairs Commission, was quoted as saying.

There are Jews in that Parliament!
You really think they would endanger their homeland?

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:34 AM
come on... how can anyone see this debate request as brillant? its all that dude has really. save face any way you can right?

if he is really big sh-it why doesnt he (iran) just challenge the us to an armed conflict in a neutral battle zone?


because.... he doesnt have that.

all he has is great oration.

and against Bush ... that aint no big deal.

richard simmons can make Bush look silly in a debate.

how tuff is that? lol seriously.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by krossfyter]

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When have two heads-of-state ever publically debated like this on TV? It's a ridiculous offer that breaks all diplomatic protocols. We don't even have any diplomatic relations with Iran!

Of course the usual suspects will use this to make fun of and attack Bush. :shk:

As far as making a point goes, if Bush has thoughts about Iran being a part of the "Axis-of-Evil'', then let him prove so, right in Ahmadinejad's face and the rest of Iran. Screw diplomatic protocols! These protocols are just the very thing that prevent person's like Bush from tripping over his own words. And lets be honest, somebody has to break through the ordinary diplomatic chit-chat to make a good point.

Personally i find it a daring challenge, lets face it, since Iran has witnessed their neighbouring country being invaded for false reasons and hungers for oil, dont they have the right to ask the President of the US personally why they suspect them of building nuclear weapons? Push aside the threats made by Ahmadinejad, and what remains? All speculation.

I say, go on with the debate, i'll be sitting infront of my television all night if i have to, with some popcorn ofcourse.

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:56 AM
how would this even be entertaining? bush would be slaughtered... no matter if it was richard simmons or ahmadinejad.

thats not entertaining at all. id rather see a good challenge.... like ahmadinejad and henry kissinger .

please. bush? pfft.

give me a break. pick on someone your own size ahmedinejad... for real.

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:03 AM
So then kross fyter,

You are of the opinion we are to hard on our President if we expect him to run the gauntlet. Did Kennedy backdown from Kruschev? No he won as a poker faced
American should. Bush would lose the first time he smirked or babeled on.
We have no one to blame but fellow Americans. His father who blackmailed the Supreme Court into leaving it up to Jeb Bush to deal with the Florida Supreme Court. And Americans allowed the selling of the Presidency. And four years later we sanctioned the stealing of it by massive vote fraud.
In short my little kross fyster you get what you paid for. Nothing for nothing.


"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

-- H.L.Mencken

[edit on 30-8-2006 by longgone]

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:40 AM
just reading through this topic and i almost shat my self laughing (its true)
since a large minority actuily see their president as a ignorant fool who cant even bable a half decent sentence why did you americans actuily vote him back, isnt the idea to vote someone in with a strong backbone that can actuily stand on their legs on their own?

back on topic:
would be nice to see bush get screwed on national TV again

new topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in