It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

US declines Debate on TV, but...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The US has declined a live TV debate with Iran, calling it a diversion to the upcoming deadline.

Now what would be funny is if we "kept it real" and said that if it comes to bombing their sites, we'll make sure that its aired live on CNN.


US Declines Debate




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Allow the Iranians to make their case before a live TV audience? That would be nuts. They might actually persuade some people that they're not the menace that the USG wants everyone to think they are.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Theres no way it would happen of course, but if it did, Bush would shyte himself and make a complete fool of himself and the US. Wheres Clinton when you need him!



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Fool!
The policy of US to the country like Iran as a terroristic country is no dialogue!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by super70
The US has declined a live TV debate with Iran, calling it a diversion to the upcoming deadline.

Now what would be funny is if we "kept it real" and said that if it comes to bombing their sites, we'll make sure that its aired live on CNN.


US Declines Debate



Curious who would speak for the United States in such a debate? Who would speak for all Americans? What "elected" officials would be up to the challenge?

Bush?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Pity, definately one worth setting the video for!

If there was a god, it would've happened. For it is a crime of gargantuan proportions to deprive the world of what could've been the funniest thing on TV........ ever. And nothing brings people together like laughter.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
If Bush stands by his convictions then why not have an uncensored debate on live TV where everyone can be able to hear both sides?

I think Bush is afraid that we will become sympathic to Iran and their needs and actually listen to reason and he wants to propegate the fear that they are the bad guys. Can't hold that over our heads if we listen to both sides and actually have an independant thought and formulate our own opinion.
Bush wants us to have a herd mentality.


Ox

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
It was a NO BRAINER that the US would decline this debate. Why would they want the WHOLE country to be made to look like war mongering fools? When they can just attack and invade an inferior Nation, take what it wants and leave.. Kind of reminds me of Pirates actually, purge, pillage, plunder.. Leave... Or somewhat like Locusts... Swarm in, destroy everything, ravage the land and move on...

The US has NOTHING to gain from debating with Iran. So why WOULD they debate them? To look like global fools? To lose votes? Someone with nothing to lose would debate.. Why wouldnt they?

This is sending a VERY clear message of what the US government REALLY thinks about "Diplomacy" and "Democracy"...



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My global studies teacher told me that true demrocratic countrys wont ever go to war with each other because "the people" dont want war, they dont want to die.

I think that a debate is what we need. I think there needs to be a direct open diolage between the Middle East, (not just Iran) and the U.S. This would be a great step towards ending hostilities and achieving peace and security.

I believe in demrocracy, and I believe in Mankind, but demrocracy dosent work when the people arnt in charge. Business is running America, business dosent want such diolage.

Complete open diolage would eventually end all if not most of the hostilities between the West and Middle East because we would come to an understanding. They dont want us to understand each other, they want us to think everyone who uses an AK47 or uses themselfs as a bomb is some crazy wako religious terrorist when in reality both sides have their hands stained in blood and both sides have wako people.

A debate is something that would help the moderates on BOTH SIDES see each others flaws and steps could be taken for the moderates to take contol of the suitation. This wont happen if we dont talk.

I think its time we, the people, step up. We need to do something before our brave soldiers and people die needlessly. The final answer to everything is "listen"; You cant listen if they wont let us talk. *beep* trhe Government, you cant see what they are doing?

Do we even know why there are hostilities? Do we, the general public even have a clue? No. The media will tell us that is the religious extreamists who are causing this. But I can tell that even if everyone in the middle east was Christian or atheist, we would still have these problems. So why wont they let us listen? This is a complete dishonor to Lady Liberty and to everyone who will die on both sides. (and that includes our brave men in uniform)



[edit on 30-8-2006 by Mujahid187]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
It would be a pleasure to see Bush stutter and butcher the English language in an international debate and he would get his ass handed to him, earpiece or not. But the question is would the Iranian president be honest in the debate? Would he be spouting all that "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric in the debate? I don't think so. He would be all suited up and acting the perfect gentleman.

It would be a pointless exercise and wouldn't change anyone's mind on either side. In times gone by it used to be that the idea of debate was to highlight both sides of an argument so that listeners could make an informed choice. In today's psychotically polarised world, such events are like glorified team sports - you don't stop supporting your team because they lost a game.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
America’s ultra rightist say Jane Fonda won the war for the North Vietnamese. Even though we could not go outside Saigon at night. Hmm? Where have I heard this lately? I think it was the Oberfuhrer at the American Legion. A re-run of the old Joe McCarthy tactics. In fact, the Oberfuhrer went further back than Joe McCarthy, darling of the Republicans, and called us doubters “Chamberlains” as in Neville. Him of the “peace in our time” message from Herr Hitler.

You don’t have to talk to your friends; you had better talk to your enemies.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
You don’t have to talk to your friends; you had better talk to your enemies.

a very strange logic.
When you got trouble you have to talk with your friends to ask help or even suggestion, but how do u talk with your enemy? Maybe the culture is different!



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   


posted by emile

" . . a very strange logic . . how do u talk with your enemy . . ?" [Edited by Don W]



1) That's why we hire people to be president, to figure out the hard issues. Clue 1: You start by sending your assistant sec of state. Clue 2: You don’t dictate the outcome before the talks begin as a pre-conditions to talk. That’s a distinct disincentive to talk.
2) Your friends cause you no trouble,
3) You ought to learn first hand what make the person your enemy.
4) Pick up the telephone

I could go on, but would that matter?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
lol why would we debate with a country that doesn't even allow its OWN PEOPLE the freedom to debate?


Ox

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Uhh lets think about that for a minute.. to avoid another pointless war!


Just a guess.... To bring peace, diplomacy and democracy to the world.. without invading anyone.. you know.. that crap that W. spews out.. MINUS the invasion part?

Just a shot in the dark



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
You don’t have to talk to your friends; you had better talk to your enemies.


Like the old saying goes:

Keep your friends close.
Keep your enemies even closer.

I know, let Cheney debate him with his trusty sidekick.
Maybe his aim has gotten a little better.
(Just Kidding!!!!)



[edit on 31/8/06 by Keyhole]


Ox

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I think the point Emile was making and I could be wrong.. correct me if I am.. is that.. talking to your friends to stop something .. wont help.. it will just make it worse... talking with the enemy (in this case...as stupid as it is..Iran) Would probably help matters.. instead of giving them a demand and expecting them to just do it.. try negotiating with them.. willingly.. openly... with a fresh slate.. and not be a war mongering dictator moron



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DDay
If Bush stands by his convictions then why not have an uncensored debate on live TV where everyone can be able to hear both sides?

I think Bush is afraid that we will become sympathic to Iran and their needs and actually listen to reason and he wants to propegate the fear that they are the bad guys. Can't hold that over our heads if we listen to both sides and actually have an independant thought and formulate our own opinion.
Bush wants us to have a herd mentality.


I wouldn't be sympathetic towards Iran no matter how bad Bush got his ass kicked in the debate.

We should have submitted our response to the debate challenge in the form of a nuclear explosion in Tehran. Debate that

I support a war with Iran. Forget this world peace crap. It's all BS. As long as humans are the dominant intelligent life on this planet, there will never be world peace. It's not human nature. Human nature is to disagree. We disagree with people who don't have the same interests and views as us. We have this arrogance about us that everything we believe in is right. When you have a conflict of interest and beliefs, there's a fight. Every human has this way about them. When you give humans these powers as high ranking officials in governments have, they will use it. When they use it against other officials of governments that have conflicting interests and beliefs, it escalates into a fight..and when you're that high up..you fight with your military. Military conflicts means war. War is here to stay. It's never going away. You're never going to have world peace. Get used to it. It's life. It's not going to change. You're whining about "pointless wars" and "innocent people dying" isn't going to change this. Get over it. Deal with it. Learn to accept war and realize that if you had that power, you'd be itching to use it too.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I'm not surprised that Bush & Co. declined the debate. I'm not sure I would have accepted the invitation either. What about safety concerns?

I saw on CNN that Mark Warner is holding a virtual debate. That could be an option for these two.

I still don't think Bush would accept, though.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mujahid187
My global studies teacher told me that true demrocratic countrys wont ever go to war with each other because "the people" dont want war, they dont want to die.


Sadly, I think your global studies teacher isn't quite right on this, Mujahid. There's a quotation from Hermann Goering, who was on trial at Nuremburg for war crimes and about to be sentenced to death, that is all too relevant and which most of the Americans who post on this board need to understand as it relates to their situation all too clearly, not that they can see it...

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

Things have changed, of course, since Goering's day. These days, it's far less likely that some poor slob is going to come back unscathed: DU munitions have seen to that. Even if he is in one piece, it's likely that his health will have been impaired at least in the long term, and of course there is the genetic damage to be dealt with, although it's nothing like the epidemic of hideous birth defects afflicting the Iraqis.

And of course, it's no longer "we are being attacked": it's "we might be attacked, so we can't take the chance." And no-one seems to notice the lack of any actual evidence of a threat, or the omissions and distortions of the news that are required to make the threat credible.

The effectiveness of this technique is demonstrated by the attitude of many of the posters on this thread: most notably PrettyPrincess (a misnomer if ever there was one, judging by the character of her contribution):

We should have submitted our response to the debate challenge in the form of a nuclear explosion in Tehran. Debate that.
She would have fit right into Germany in the 1930s. And her notions of why wars happen utterly ignore the real motives involved, which - however they are dressed up - are invariably economic. If Iran had no oil, would they be in the cross-hairs right now? Kim Jong Il, whose regime makes Iran look like Holland in terms of liberty, actually has nukes and is testing weapons that could certainly reach Japan, an important US ally. Are the war drums being beaten for regime change there? No. But then he's not sitting on one of the largest oil reserves on the planet.

In another thread I've asked people to post actual evidence (as opposed to propaganda or unfounded accusations) that Iran is actually a threat to the US. So far there has been a lot of hot air and precious little that, on closer inspection, doesn't fall apart. It is absolutely tragic that the US public, having been duped into a hopeless war in Iraq, is falling over themselves to believe the propaganda thrown at them by their media only four short (and, one would have hoped, instructive) years later.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join