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.

 

Ahmadinejad Challenges Bush for a T.V. Debate!

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
In continued Iranian taunts president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has challenged president Bush to a televised debate over it's nuclear ambitions, this on the eve of the deadline set for the halt of uranium enrichment. Iran has stated that it will continue uranium enrichment as Tehran inaugurated its heavy water reactor project in Arak Sunday.
 



www.sabcnews.com
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, challenged George Bush, the US president, to a televised debate and voiced defiance as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs.
The White House said Ahmadinejad's call for a presidential debate on global concerns was a "diversion" from international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

The UN Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend uranium enrichment and has threatened sanctions unless it does so.
Ahmadinejad said Iran had laid out a framework for talks in its reply to an offer by six world powers of incentives in exchange for a suspension of enrichment. That framework provided an "exceptional opportunity" to solve the nuclear dispute.
Washington has called for a swift response if Iran does not meet the deadline. But analysts say divisions at the UN about how to handle Iran's file could delay such a move.

Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, said talks with Iran were important, but only after it halted enrichment.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has thumbed his nose at the world community once again and has stood defiantly and stated he will not give in on the nuclear issue.

So what is next? sanctions? preemptive strikes? should he have the nuclear capability he is seeking? as the deadline draws near the tensions are rising, all this as the price of oil has finally started to fall.

Should bush take him up on the offer??

Related News Links:
english.people.com.cn
www.ncr-iran.org
www.swissinfo.org

[edit on 29-8-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 29/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
As much as I would love to see two world leaders go at it on a televised debate, I believe it sort of defies the idea of diplomacy in this case. If Ahmadinejad thinks he's so right than what he should do instead is offer to meet with Bush personally so that they can explain eachother's concerns and actually negotiate. Although sadly I don't see either a debate or meaningful dialogue between Ahmadinejad and Bush happening in the near future, and it's both leaders to blame for it.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I do not see why Bush should not take him up unless he is A) a coward, or B) unable to talk for himself, or C) just plain intolerant and hard-headed. or D) All of the Above.

I think its C to be honest.

Our world leaders should actually start doing this. Sure would make our Earth a little more interesting.

We have the teleconferencing technolog and the data tools to beam it to millions across the globe. This would be quite a wonderful debate IMO.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I wish it happens, it'd be very........ intresting. I'd go out and buy popcorn and recordable tapes, maybe i might win americas funniest home videos.


But on a serious note, i WISH they debate, this would be a great way to settle some things, or just to hear what each man has to say. So us the people could see all sides of the conflict. But um, it just seems funny to me George Dubya and the "kooky" iranian president go at it, comon you know it'd be good.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
it cannot happen IMHO, we are talking about putting Bush infront of a camera and allowing him to attempt to defend his position against unscreened questions?

Iv'e seen this before...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must know that this will not happen, but it's like a trump card, how can any logical person deny a debate in order to define each others positions. So he knows bush cant handle the debate, and bush is going to look like more of an jerk for not accepting. This is going to make me sick.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
For real! They should speak. We should hear their issues out. They can take it even further and have a reality TV show with all the world leaders.. Survivor style. Pitted against each other in teams, in front of cameras exposing their methods of battle and deception!

As we all know, the Iranian PM wrote him a very long letter a while back ( as wiki would say, source needed). Now I think it was a bad idea if they expected Gorge to write back. Unless from speechwriters lol!

I won't go as far as to say that Ahmad's letter was not overlooked by top Iranian admin..but I can hardly imagine a 10-pager from Gorgie going on and on and on about Weapons of Mass Dutrucksion, the unilaturul need for sekurity, sucuruti this and national sucurity that, weapons of war, war, weapons etc..

So perhaps this face to face proposition is more on Bush's level.. He could host him as he did with other middle-eastern politicians.. hold hands and stuff. I mean, the ranch is such a nice place to be as he displays it here:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Personally I feel like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done this because he is getting nervous with the deadline fast approaching, and he veiws this as a way of making the west look unreasonable, knowing full well that the U.S. and or Bush would never agree to such a debate.

I have to say that it is a pretty shrewd move on the part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he certainly has the "gift of spin" working on his behalf.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Global nuclear war is more likely to break out, before that debate will ever happen.

US Dismisses Bush-Ahmadinejad Debate SFChronicle

The likely US course on Iran: Go slow CSMonitor
U.N. may hold off on confronting Iran AP





[edit on 30-8-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I do not see why Bush should not take him up ...


Because to do so would raise the whacked Iranian leader up to the same level as the President of the United States. To go on stage with the Iranian leader would give him more credibility and more clout then he deserves ... and to give that nut ANY power is deadly for us and for the world.

When POTUS is seen with people it gives those people a boost. POTUS certainly isn't going to go down to the level of that nut.

Absolutely won't happen.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
IMHO the debate would be just 2 religious nutcases (with dangerous ammounts of power) telling the other that they are wrong, while in truth, both of them are nutcases, but offcourse that's just my opinion.

One thing i know for sure, if they would have such a debate, Bush would look like teh bigger fool because he is just incapable of answering unscreened questions in an acceptable way.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   


posted by the_sentinal

Should bush take him up on the [debate] offer?



A commentator said a debate was unlikely because one guy could not speak English well enough to be understood and the other guy was Iranian.



Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has challenged president Bush to a televised debate over it's nuclear ambitions . . “



The United States - and France in this story - have adopted the strangest policy towards Iran. They want the Iranians to comply with their demands BEFORE they will sit down with them. If the Iranians did that, what would there be to talk about? What does the word “negotiate” mean anyway?

We have done the same with the Hamas. Disarm we say, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist we say, before we will talk. Well, what is left to talk about? I just don’t understand how this can be called a “policy.” It is a “non-policy.”

This tells me the United States has no intention of talking to any of its adversaries. Our policy is “do it our way or no way at all.” That was formerly called an ultimatum. Before Bush43. Now it’s a pre-condition. Ugh!



The UN Security Council gave Iran until Thursday to suspend uranium enrichment . . President Ahmadinejad has thumbed his nose at the world community and has stood defiant and states he will not give in on the nuclear issue . . analysts say divisions at the UN how to handle Iran could delay such a move [sanctions] Is a preemptive strike [in the works]? Should Iran have the nuclear capability he is seeking? As the deadline draws near tensions are rising, all this as the price of oil has finally started to fall. [Edited by Don W]



A fair amount of petroleum is shipped out of the Persian Gulf through the narrow - 4 miles wide - Strait of Hormuz. Should that passage into the Indian Ocean be blocked, the price of oil would sky-rocket. Bush43 apparently cares not, as he has said or done not a single thing about the recent round of price of gasoline to over $3 a gallon. So don’t count on any help from the Oval Office. Nor from Congress as they too seem to be unconcerned over the price at the pump. Keep that in mind this November 7. God has given you this one chance to make life better around the world.

We know this atom bomb stuff is a phoney issue. It’s hype for Americans. Electioneering Bush43 style. Fear mongering. Trade your liberties for security. Security. That is what Bush43 offers. At a great price! There must be a better way. Just look at Iraq. Is this man capable of protecting anyone? Did you hear the Oberfuhrer speak yesterday and accuse anyone who disagrees with the Gang of Four - B43, VP Cheney, Rmusfeld and Rice - as betraying America?

Every intelligence agency around the world says Iran is 5-10 years away from having a deliverable nuclear bomb. North Korea OTOH, is generally admitted to have material for 2-10 bombs already on hand, but not a word is mentioned about Kim Jong Il. It looks to me like we are going to witness the barbecue King of Crawford eat those “Axis of Evil” words before his term is over. January 20, 2009.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 8/30/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Oh great...more moronic static on the boobtube. We would get two arrogant idiots trying to blow smoke up each others asses.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   


posted by grover

Oh great . . more moronic static on the boobtube. We would get two arrogant idiots trying to blow smoke up each others asses.



So what's new? We will be between $2 and $3 trillion behind in 2009, compared to where we would have been if the Supreme Court had not intervened in the 2000 election. We would be in much better shape to deal with the Baby-Boomer Social Security short-fall. It will be dealt with, on borrowed money, but there is a limit to how much even the US can borrow.

The total worth of the United States is about $45 T. To muck up and loose $3 T. does not sound like much. It is hard to see the loss because we still have $42 T. left. If we keep this up, we will soon be down to $30 T. then to $15 T. and then we will begin to look like India, East. We are going the wrong way.



[edit on 8/30/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DYepes
I do not see why Bush should not take him up ...


Because to do so would raise the whacked Iranian leader up to the same level as the President of the United States. To go on stage with the Iranian leader would give him more credibility and more clout then he deserves ... and to give that nut ANY power is deadly for us and for the world.

When POTUS is seen with people it gives those people a boost. POTUS certainly isn't going to go down to the level of that nut.

Absolutely won't happen.




OOOOOHHHHH cuz Bush is sooooooo great.


That is the stupidest reason I have ever heard. If the US had any sense of credibitily left, Bush should face him. This isn't about giving undue credibility to Iran, this is about not letting the world see the issue for what it really is. To state that the leader of a nation isn't 'worthy' to be in the presense of the President of the US is absurd. ANY leader of ANY country should be allowed to meet and discuss issues. Bush wants war and he is a coward. THAT is why the debate will never take place.


BTW, the intro paragraph is biased in stating that Iran is taunting the US by requesting a debate. What better of a way to get the truth out?!? Oh, I forgot, the truth is unamerican these days.


[edit on 30-8-2006 by LogansRun]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I think this would be a great idea. Let's find out who the real out of touch nut-job is and who is just trying to protect his country's best interests. Just make sure Bush doesn't have any strange "bulges" in his back this time.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
This would be really cool!!!!!!!!!!!! I can just Imagine it on PPV!!!!!!!! Cool.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

"Iran may want to look first to allowing free expression and open debate within its borders, as opposed to the current practice of crushing dissent."


Why doesn't A-MAD-JIHAD go debate the majority of the Iranian population living in sub standard condition's while he and the Mullah's dump billion's into nuke research? All the while sitting on some of the world's largest energy reserve's.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

A commentator said a debate was unlikely because one guy could not speak English well enough to be understood and the other guy was Iranian.


*giggles*


That's the funniest thing I've read all week!

Two thumbs way up!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
How about the Pope meets them both in Jerusalem and spanks their little hinnies? After they run the gauntlet of rabbi's standing by at the Wailing Wall.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Bush would be destroyed in a debate with Ahmedinejad. It's no contest.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join