Originally posted by NuclearPaul
No way in hell would Obama agree to this. He would be exposed for what he is very quickly.
ya, obama is not "THE SUPREME LEADER".
While the President of Iran is in direct support of and supports and works for an individual who is to be addressed as "THE SUPREME LEADER".
why not just move THE SUPREME LEADER to the white house, so Americans can know something about being SUPREME FOLLOWERS?
Move Obama to Tehran.
see which lasts longer, at the very least we would have saved alot of gas on moving troops.
Iran plays politics very well, far better than the western world. Ahmadinejad would tear him to pieces with questions Obama could never give a
why does obama owe Ahmadinejad answers or nuclear technologies?
Ahmadinejad has spoken in the US, why hasn't Obama or Bush spoken over there?
do they still gather by the tens of thousands once a week and do more than criticize the western cultures in public?
do Americans gather by the tens of thousands once a week and spew anti-iranian rhetoric and burn Iranian flags?
which is more tolerant of truisms? (rhetorical question) I don't know, simply because the Main Stream Media is insufficient at supplying us with the
correct information to know the answer, i think. i think one of those "Ms" in MSM should stand for MARSHAL. as in marshal law, cuz we are in it to
some degree, aren't we? iranians and americans alike?
Those who speak the truth welcome questions.
what are the number of laws i would have to abide by in order to live in Terhan? the specific number of laws that i would have to conform to in order
to be an effective citizen of Iran, please?
what are the number of laws i would have to abide by in order to live in Washington DC? the specific number of laws that i would have to conform to in
order to live up to the expectations and be an effective citizen of America, please?
these are variables in my "opinion maker".
if people are not in support of the united nations and group rule where individuals of various specialities all have an equal voice, then are we in
favor of someone who speaks that is motivated by a "supreme leader"?
united nations "nwo" OR pro "supreme leader" ... with nukes.
not sure if either choice is perfect. Both may have flaws.
these two talking, debating?
world leaders who face off with eachother on a stage to argue their positions and the interests of their people BEFORE THE BOMBS START DROPPING?
sounds to me like exactly what they do at the united nations already, under a slightly different format.
there are secrets both sides probably have that it is percieved as not being in the best interests of any nations' best interests of their peoples to
be revealed. but i am glad to know i may be wrong.
true measure of success should be which nation has an average citizen that can debunk the other nation's "president" in a debate.
i think we are too conditioned to believe opposites actually exist on all issues.
there is a big puzzle, and each of us are a piece of it.
some people want the puzzle, some are content to admire what they can of the masterpiece that is the puzzle.
who makes the rules?
rulers make the rules.
upon election and taking office, i think President Obama may have learned about rules that exist that Senator Obama did not know about.
As for the President of Iran, maybe our collective problems are the same problems. Blind little men touching the same giant elephant in different
places and both determined that what they are touching is more truth than what the other is touching.
on behalf of myself, all alliances and loyalties aside:
Dear Supreme Leader & President of Iran,
when i'm in your city or town, i will treat it like it is the capital of earth.
when i'm in your city or town, i will treat it's inhabitance like they are the royal family of all the planet.
when you are in my city or town, please afford my city/town and it's inhabitance the same respect.
[edit on 2-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]