Ahmadinejad challenges Obama to TV debate on solving world's problems

page: 2
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Unless the debate is prescripted and telepromptered, the big O is going nowhere near any debate.

Have you seen this guy talk without a telemprompter or earpiece feeding him information.

dur er um er ou,




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


i sens that you agree with what Israel and Obama would say but you will close your ears to the president or Iran
Iran sometime hang and stone peoples because of their crimes yes i know..
USA is doing the "same" things and the DNA clears out the guy often after his executions... everybody is egual ..they both have problems .. they BOTH have hiddens crimes.. dont denied it and ...
Dont superestimate/underestimate peoples before they can explain things up...

No mediator ... ?? you think that ...??
there is always a neutral mediator... to be between the parties
to control the room.... let the other speak and questions them up


Unlikely as it seems, it could be a provocative proposal. It might even be considered a brilliant offensive tactical maneuver....


i would say the most brilliant offensive peace politicaly strategic maneuver

what else can he make .... ???
he know that Israel and USA will strike Iran in November
between this maneuver and a tactical offensive military air strike maneuver .. i would choose HIS maneuver


Exactly my point. Being a leader involves making choices that do not necessarily benefit the short term goals but rather the long term goals. "Being most popular President" does not always serve the interest of a country.


exactly my point to
he is doing that for his peoples last chance before they get destroy the hell out by air strikes.. its the best last peacefull chance he can attempt .. its not to start a career in hollywood..
USA diplomats always runs when he speak at the UN
its time for a FAIR debate

and i will listen to both egually ..you should to



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Obama, the world needs something like this. A change of style. Communication... It would also give us insight into Iran.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventytwo
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


And what about Israel?
Israel would be opposed to this I'm sure, this could cause a Huge diplomatic row..


And of course this implies that Israel controls US policy and actions... I guess we know who the REAL world power is... This situation is dangerous...

______________________________________________________________

To the OP:

Ahmadinejad has always been avant-garde and unrestricted in the world of politics, as far as his speech is concerned. It seems to me that this makes most politicians who are bound by the "politically correct" and "common way of doing/saying things" jealous. It seems that logic has escaped from western leaders who are forced to "go with the flow" and "do what they are told" by the REAL people in power (whoever they are).

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has had more freedom than any of us to speak his mind, to say what is right, and to "stick it to the man". Every time he opens his mouth and offers a possible solution, exposes a lie, or tells people his thoughts, it makes more and more people realize the stupidity, hypocrisy, greed, and savagery of western politics/foreign policy.

My 0.02$ for today...

Magum

[edit on 10/8/2 by Magnum007]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
What is it Churchill said?

"Jaw Jaw is better than War War."

Precisely why Obama will turn it down.

Obama could even surprise us and win the debate, but he has not the guts to attempt to such a debate.

Ahmadinejad knows this, and for him it's a win-win situation. If he debates with Obama, he will make Obama very uncomftable regarding US Foreign policy over the years.

Obama knows it, and his attempts at raising Iran's human rights issues will be seen to distract from Ahmadinejad's questions to Obama regarding US policies, which in part, Obama will be hoping to distract from.

In short, Obama may well lose the debate. Obama is afraid of losing the debate, so will not debate.

Instead of agreeing to the debate, and standing by his "principles" and perhaps winning the debate, he won't bother. Too worried about losing to Ahmadinejad, rather than thinking that beating Ahmadinejad in a debate might win more support for an anti-Iran stance in the world.

No guts, no glory, Obama.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 


I wanted a cool metaphore "gifted powers"
im saying that i know usualy what side are lying or exagerate things up.
peoples today are filled with one sided propaganda (TV brainwash)
it will not let open their minds to start questions things around us
especially things that can lead up to a big war with thousand of innocent dying ...

Many peoples did and still agree to the airstrikes that destroyed Irak, Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon ... etc
with hundred of thousand of victims innocents
those people dont have gifted powers

you dont agree = you have "gifted power" to free you mind from corruptions and evil intentions.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Relax!!!

I am merely saying that, from an outsiders point of view, you guys appointed a leader for your country and here you are (almost) chanting the Iranian national anthem. I think that's ironic..


I think it is better to trust neither one..(
what a typo!!!
)

Peace

[edit on 2-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This would be a lot of fun to watch. My guess is that it would be like professional wrestiling, in that it is two really stupid people making nonsensical statements that they don't understand.

Both of these morons have proved that they do not have the intelligence, ideas, leadership capabilities, or morals to lead a nation.

Hopefully they will debate get angry and kill each other.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Ben81
 


Relax!!!

I am merely saying that, from an outsiders point of view, you guys appointed a leader for your country and here you are (almost) chanting the Iranian national anthem. I think that's ironic..


I think it is better to trust neither one..(
what a typo!!!
)

Peace

[edit on 2-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]


first im Canadian lol (from the french Quebec province)
we didnt elect better in Harper
Canada follow USA that Follow Israel

I dont relax .. when i see somebody(i dont say you) who would agree on the Irak and Afghanistan war and others possible wars (IRAN) and that thinks peacetalks/debates are just silly

We have MANY wannabe/big empire dictators today
the world will really plunge into Darknest if Obama doest agree on this debate to save Us from this big futur war
that today seems unstopable ... I HAVE HOPE IN THAT DEBATE
nobody should reject that great idea of this debate
i wanted one for so long between them .. my wish was granted

can Obama repeat "YES" WE CAN one more time plzzzz pretty plzzz

I will update the thread if i see any info that he have accepted to have a contructed debate with Amhadinejad
that would be just GREAT


[edit on 8/2/2010 by Ben81]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 

laffed greatly at the vid(s) and put him in my favs thanks...

I saw Obama coming because he telegraphed him self by saying the opposite things to the opposite people many times during his campaign,,,very telling when a candidate is talking to business people.
he told the truth to foreigners like Canadian business men and lied to Americans...that was a telling move right there IMHO

Trouble is Israel would stop supporting Obamas administration if he were to agree to a debate with Ahmadinejad, and then what...?

You would wind up with a republican who might not be able to read a teleprompter...

Mr Ahmadinejad says Iran has a right to the measures allowed in the treaty Iran is a signatory to.."
and Mr President what is your response?
Mr President: "I would put food on my family "



[edit on 2-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by russ212
 






Priceless.......



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
It would be awesome.

Problem is; the Elite is so bent on putting puppets in place in the White House, that the puppets can barely function without the strings to the puppet master. On the other hand, a loose cannon like Iran puts leaders in place who are strong, and - like this guy - knows their #. Dangerous, possibly, but damn intelligent.

Obama wouldn't stand a chance without a teleprompter, no.

Which is why it would be awesome. I would probably enjoy the debate more than I should, if it ever came to be, which it won't.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Ben81
 


Relax!!!

I am merely saying that, from an outsiders point of view, you guys appointed a leader for your country and here you are (almost) chanting the Iranian national anthem. I think that's ironic..


I think it is better to trust neither one..(
what a typo!!!
)

Peace

[edit on 2-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]


Actually Obama won on the back of huge donations from TPTB, a catalog of lies and probably a smidgeon of electronic vote rigging just to be sure. He's now doing everything he can to justify an attack on Iran. Compare that with Ahmadinejad who might very well be supporting the Taliban against the foreign invaders but has shown no interest in threatening the soveriegnty of any country. He continually denies any interest in developing nuclear weapons and that is supported by numerous western experts and analysts. But that doesn't count.

Part of the Obama war strategy is controlling the information about Iran and painting them as an oppressed people desperate for liberation. Agreeing to an open debate with Iran's president where it would be difficult to censor his comments would be counter-productive.

For Ahmadinejad, it's a win-win proposal unless he actually has something to hide. If that were the case, it would be a risky gamble but the odds would still be in his favor.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Where can I purchase a Pro-Ahmadinejad button? I would love to pin one on my shirt in the event of an actual debate.

The sad truth is that it will never happen. Obama would have to be crazy to debate Ahmadinejad, he knows he would have his ass handed to him. He would be exposed for everything he truly is and the west will finally be able to see how Ahmadinejad really is, a good guy.

I believe there really is a new 'curtain' up, just like the old 'Iron Curtain' we now have a new curtain, whether you want to call it the 'Western Curtain' or the 'Capitalist Curtain' or even the 'Materialist Curtain', whatever you want to call it. We have a curtain up against the developing world, where only the ideals of the West (i.e. Imperialism, Liberalism and Capitalism) will go unquestioned, they can't allow in any proposals from the developing world or their monopoly would be destroyed.

There is a new Soviet Union, and it is called NATO, G20 and EU.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by Misoir]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This thread, and the vast majority of the add-on posts to it, are just additional testament to the pitiful state of this site. ATS has become (or maybe always has been) an anti-American, anti-West flame fest.

Ahmadinejad has (faux) challenged Barak Obama to a debate, knowing full well it won't ever happen. How very brave...

And the nearly universal take on this (here) is that Obama won't debate him because America would thus be exposed to be (take your pick) evil, wrong, imperialistic, war mongering, genocidal...whatever.

How about the possibility that the President of the United States would not take up the challenge because Ahmadinejad is the leader of an oppressive, repressive, terrorist-supporting, holocaust-denying, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-democracy, anti-freedom-of-speech regime...that has not earned the right to share a stage with the leader of the free world?

Now...I am no fan of Obama. I think he is taking America in the wrong direction - including pandering to the very same (extremist) Islamic elements that would love nothing more than to see America go down in flames, literally.

I believe that his original policy idea of engagement with radicals like Ahmadinejad was idealistic - and now that he has been in the Presidency for two years, he realizes this.

Those of you who really think that this Iranian leader could actually win a debate with Obama are dreaming. Those that think Ahmadinejad's posturing and delaying, dodging and weaving will somehow result in a geo-political win against the West are delusional.

Whether you agree with it or not. Whether you think the West's arguments hold water or not. Iran will toe the line - and soon - or we will all be discussing the former Islamic Republic of Iran in future ATS debates.

Get real people.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
Americans interests need to be at the first, second and third places in the top priority to-do list


NEED to be will NEVER be as long as there is money to be made out of WAR.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Obama hasn't got a single hair on his ass if he doesn't accept this sweet invitation to exposure.

I would pay good government owned money to watch this phony get exposed for the fraud he is. (referring to Obama)



[edit on 2-8-2010 by snowen20]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Any President of Iran would win this debate hands down. He doesn't have to worry about what the political opposition, his own party, or the electorate thinks back home, and can pretty much say whatever he wants, whether it's true or not, and he also doesn't have to worry about Iranian media coverage of him in a bad light as the Iranian Government has pretty much reigned in their media.

Any US President has to worry about all of the above in every single thing that he says. He can't say what he means because of this.

ANY Iranian President would tear ANY US President a new one in any debate.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Ben81
 


Unless the debate is prescripted and telepromptered, the big O is going nowhere near any debate.

Have you seen this guy talk without a telemprompter or earpiece feeding him information.

dur er um er ou,


he always need one i know that ..
the reasons... i beleive some speechs may be to important being listenned by millions of peoples... you cant have any risks to make any little mistakes in them
but during/before the elections ... they cant possibly go debate with a teleprompter its impossible ..
Obama was pretty good VS Mccain during those public live debates
but he wont stand any chances VS Amhadinejad

if you pass the debate you win the election then all your futurs speech will be telepromted to help you and avoid any mistakes
just to forgive any statements can have enormous consequences today

I have a question ...
which president in the USA never used a teleprompter ????
did JFK used one ???
but im 100% sure Washington himself didnt use any teleprompter lol



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I'd pay to see this. Hope Obama accepts.

Both are highly intelligent and intellectual, though I'd have to give one the edge over the other when it comes to geopolitics and ME politics.

Ahmadinejad issued a similar if not identical request to Bush, if I'm remembering correctly. Now that would have been comedy.

reply to post by mobiusmale
 


Faux challenge? I have no doubt that if Obama were to accept, Ahmadinejad would be there.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by ~Lucidity]





new topics
top topics
 
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join