Bush refuses to debate Iran leader

[Caliber]

Can anyone here who’s calling Bush out for not doing this tell me why they think the President SHOULD debate this maniac?

Because it would mean they could actually talk about issues instead of avoiding them until they are forced to talk about it.

 

[Tangled Web]

No if Bush was the leader he says he is, he would debate him. He would have to debate because sending someone else is just a cop out.

Hey, it's better than looking like a dumbass and getting every other country against us.

 

[Caliber]

Hey, it's better than looking like a dumbass and getting every other country against us.

Its too late for that but most people are blind to that fact. He already looks like a dumbass here and all over the world.

 

[Darthphere]

The Reverend Jesse Jackson should debate him, he always has a plan B.

 

[Fenrir]

The Reverend Jesse Jackson should debate him, he always has a plan B.

Is that...a lightsaber?

 

[Caliber]

The Reverend Jesse Jackson should debate him, he always has a plan B.

That would be a ok debate but its pointless without George W bush debating Ahmadinejad himself.

 

[War Lord]

Bill Clinton?

Sure. Assuming that he's had time to stay informed when he was with Monica.

 

[War Lord]

No if Bush was the leader he says he is, he would debate him. He would have to debate because sending someone else is just a cop out.

No. The only purpose of this debate would be to enhance the reputation of the Iranian leader without doing anything productive.

It's a standard ploy by politicians who won't lose anything by doing a debate knowing that the public won't remember anything that is said other than the guy who has the most to lose.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No. The only purpose of this debate would be to enhance the reputation of the Iranian leader without doing anything productive.

It's a standard ploy by politicians who won't lose anything by doing a debate knowing that the public won't remember anything that is said other than the guy who has the most to lose.

wouldn't a maniac stand to lose the most in a debate?

 

[THWIP*]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14568773/

Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, challenges Bush to a televised duel on ‘world affairs’

Bush chickens out. I remember when Kerry won the nomination he challenged Bush to one debate a month. Bush responded with "There will be no presidential debates. But then after months of pressure and Kerry offering concession after concession and agreeing to a ton of debate rules, then finally Bush agreed to 3.

now he refuses to debate this guy as well. Bush should have this debate. What's he afraid of?

and not only that, but this is just so damn embarassing. Our president's a moronic coward.

WHAT THE HELL........SINCE WHEN DOES G.W. BUSH SHY AWAY FROM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN ASS OF HIMSELF ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE?
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

 

[maxwell's demon]

No. The only purpose of this debate would be to enhance the reputation of the Iranian leader without doing anything productive.

It's a standard ploy by politicians who won't lose anything by doing a debate knowing that the public won't remember anything that is said other than the guy who has the most to lose.

you have a warped sense of reality.

 

[War Lord]

wouldn't a maniac stand to lose the most in a debate?

No, because a maniac doesn't have to be held accountable by anybody.

 

[War Lord]

you have a warped sense of reality.

Whatever, but it's still true. The party that has the most chance of governing is also always the government that has the most to lose.

 

[Addendum]

you have a warped sense of reality.

He's an american poser.

 

[War Lord]

He's an american poser.

I am a proud American poser.

*salutes.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No, because a maniac doesn't have to be held accountable by anybody.

but that "maniac" would be shown as a "maniac" on the world stage, there would be no denying his "maniacosity" this would potentially strenghten the case of anyone who wanted to show the world that the "maniac" is indeed a maniac incapable of dialogue or rational thought, and that he indeed has all these plans and points of view rife with extensive "maniactitude" unless the person debating him fear that he could be overwhelmed by logic or asked questions he'd be unable to answer it merely underlines the weakness of a given position.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Whatever, but it's still true. The party that has the most chance of governing is also always the government that has the most to lose.

see, jonty, this is the thing. Its not "true". It's your opinion. And continually saying "you can accept it or not but its the truth" doesnt make it any more or less true. It only illustrates your inflexiblity to make room for other viewpoints, and inability to imagine that you might be wrong.

beyond that, im not sure i even follow your "expanded" point.


I fully disagree with your founding tenet. so what does that mean to you? can we find some common ground or is it bascially "I'm right, you're wrong". Is that your basic stance?

 

[War Lord]

but that "maniac" would be shown as a "maniac" on the world stage, there would be no denying his "maniacosity" this would potentially strenghten the case of anyone who wanted to show the world that the "maniac" is indeed a maniac incapable of dialogue or rational thought, and that he indeed has all these plans and points of view rife with extensive "maniactitude" unless the person debating him fear that he could be overwhelmed by logic or asked questions he'd be unable to answer it merely underlines the weakness of a given position.

No he wouldn't. Ahmadinejad is well known to be a charmer and seemingly rational. Just like Hitler, just like Stalin and Mao. It's only after millions are dead through war and destruction on a grand scale are these people recognized for what they are.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No he wouldn't. Ahmadinejad is well known to be a charmer and seemingly rational. Just like Hitler, just like Stalin and Mao. It's only after millions are dead through war and destruction on a grand scale are these people recognized for what they are.

but they will discuss world affairs, how could he make "I want to kill everyone in the US and other countries" sound charming?
it seems you are as afraid of him as Bush, perhaps because you partly know your "facts" to be fiction.

plus, I found the bold part to be Ironic, given the results of Bush's war on terror, funny, but not like funny Ha Ha!. just funny, like milk passed it's freshness date.

 

[maxwell's demon]

No he wouldn't. Ahmadinejad is well known to be a charmer and seemingly rational. Just like Hitler, just like Stalin and Mao. It's only after millions are dead through war and destruction on a grand scale are these people recognized for what they are.

Or like Bush? Or Reagan? Or Nixon? or any other world leader? how many hundreds of thousands of innocents have died under the watch of these various U.S leaders?
Perhaps the only reason our leaders arent's recognized as such is three fold
1)they don't do it on asingular grand scale, instead preferring to cultivate their interests in the long-term- spreading out the death and destruction to a more "respectable" "passable" levels
2)Our media might show them as bufoonish at times, which seems to suggest they are "fair" and or "Balanced"- but in reality our media is very good at casting our leaders in an overall "non-crazy" light, while casting those from other country's in a "total-whicacko-crazy" light.

3) actually they ARE recognized as homicidal maniacs--in many many parts of the world. The only reason we can't see it is due to point 2) listed above.

 

[tomahawk53]

-because the reason we all think the guy is a maniac is largely due to second hand aco****s.<--(um...typo. that should read "accounts".)O)
-because in his original call for the debate he made at least supeficially valid points.
-because i can't really see openig the lines of communication as being a bad thing, ever. I mean really, what's the harm here?
-because it would show the world community that we are capable of handling things WITHOUT resorting to violence and bad intell first.
-because it would add a level of transparency to these dealiings that has been sorely lacking in world affaris for at least a hundred years.
-And because i like debates.

So really, for me. It should be done becuase it would make me happy inside.

--I thought him saying that he wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map' was proven to be a direct quote.

--I'll have to re-read what his superficially valid points were.

--This will not be a civil debate. It may start out that way but it won't end that way (IMO). You can say that it's just my opinion but look at how the Iranian pres acts

--Or that we are easily suckered in to meaningless debates. Or succumb to peer pressure easily...

--True

--Me too

 

[tomahawk53]

Because it would mean they could actually talk about issues instead of avoiding them until they are forced to talk about it.

But we have been talking to them about it.

 

[War Lord]

but they will discuss world affairs, how could he make "I want to kill everyone in the US and other countries" sound charming?
it seems you are as afraid of him as Bush, perhaps because you partly know your "facts" to be fiction.

plus, I found the bold part to be Ironic, given the results of Bush's war on terror, funny, but not like funny Ha Ha!. just funny, like milk passed it's freshness date.

I'd love to be wrong, but I know I'm not. History is on my side that maniacs start worldwide wars and we don't recognize them for who they are until they've done what they did.

Unfortunantly, you're probably going to have to experience it as your grandfather experienced it to learn.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I'd love to be wrong, but I know I'm not. History is on my side that maniacs start worldwide wars and we don't recognize them for who they are until they've done what they did.

Unfortunantly, you're probably going to have to experience it as your grandfather experienced it to learn.

again with the Irony.

 

[tomahawk53]

wouldn't a maniac stand to lose the most in a debate?

Well that depends on who was watching it.

To the US if the Iranian president stepped down off the podium and challenged Bush to a fist fight or sword fight or a duel then he would look bad in the US's eyes (well half the US's eyes anyway )

But to the Iranian militants he could end up looking like a brave warrior.

Our culture is too different for all things to be equal.