Ok guys.. just want some reactions

Ahmedinajad has suggested a live televised debate between himself and Bush..

I find it particularly interesting that he suggests it. Usually people who know deep down they got some crazy arguments, PREFER to keep debates closed. But he aint..

Why is Bush being a chicken about it. I think a debate like that would be PERFECT. It would bring all the major issues to the light of day. And maybe a solution can be found. Or alternately the world can proceed with the whole "war solves all problems" thingee.. but it aint been so successful so far so i thought it's time to consider alternatives.

I would LOVE to see this debate happen. I don't think Bush is very confident with his debating skills and the Iraq War mess is just ammunition for his opponent.

I'd love to see it happen too.

Bush is NOT eloquent - but neither is he a raging lunatic, like President NutsIsMe. Bush would eat him alive.

I think that if President Bush were to debate President Ahmedinajad, it would add legitimacy to President Ahmedinajad's opinions.

There is no right to nuclear weapons, Israel is there and it isn't going anywhere, and the Holocaust happpened. President Ahmedinajad just needs to deal with those facts.

I don't think our President is being cowardly. I think he is being reasonable.

Yet Israel is doing exactly what the USA wants to prevent Iran from doing.


List of countries with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel - Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986. Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. It is believed to possess nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel may have tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979, but this has never been confirmed (see Vela Incident). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, they possess 75-200 weapons.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[14]</SUP>

I think he's being highly unreasonable considering his rhetoric of bringing democracy to the middle east. Democracy is discussion. I think it would add legitimacy to Ahmadinejad's opinions more if Bush declines this opportunity, rather than debated him. Because here is the President of Iran asking to engage in live televised debate, something that is the essence of a democracy, and to think that Bush would turn down that would only reveal Bush's rhetoric as just that; rhetoric and no action. If he wants to spread democracy, this is a perfect chance to stand up for all of his talk...because not only is this type of debate highly democratic and almost imperative to democracy...but it is also a much better way at spreading democracy than with force.

Also, I agree that Ahmadinejad has to deal with those facts. But I also believe the Bush administration has to deal with the true effects its aggressive foreign policy is taking. The 'rogue policy' of neo-conservatism is a failed cause. Preemptive warfare was ideology, without historical precedence. He must come to realize that ideology doesn't work, but rather sound policy and historical example is the true way. The Bush administration also needs to deal with the fact that Iran has rights to nuclear energy (not bombs, mind you).

Also, if Bush decides not to debate him and thus refusing to attempt to come to an understanding, he can't use the rhetoric claiming that he used 'war as a last resort'...which with neo-conservatives I'm afraid it will come to that. Because he had the opportunity to talk with Iran, yet refused. Also, let us not forget that it is the US that is the one that severed diplomatic talks with Iran.

Also, Hev, you bring up an excellent point.

Yeah dude i have to agree with katzinsky.. No doubt ahmedinejad has some crazy viewpoints. However, if bush's stance is so strong and so righteous, he should be able to wipe the floor with ahmedinejad.

heck we all know bush is a moron in a debate, so why not set up Rice or rumsfeld or cheney against ahmedinejad.

Refusing to talk to Ahmedinejad is an action that belies the dubious ethics of current US foreign policy.

That's a good idea to have an "underling" debate instead of the President.

Well dear friend ahmedinejad IS the leader of 66 million people.. Whether you like it or not his opinion HAS to be dealt with. He does not require bush to give his opinions legitimacy and he continues to gain support in the muslim world. I can tell you this.. ahmedinejad's letter to bush very clearly stated the opinions of most of the muslim world. THAT is most CERTAINLY not a good idea to disregard.

So there is no RIGHT to nuclear weapons.. i believe you are right about that. In that case NO country has the RIGHT to maintain a nuclear arsenal. But just like the US makes use of its sovereignty and maintains its arsenal, Iran can create weapons if it wishes because it is a sovereign nation.

The president may not be cowardly, but he is certainly being irresponsible. Disregarding the opinions of a huge portion of the world population is a bad idea. You may not like it, but ahmedinejad HAS VALID POINTS. At least the points are perceived as completely valid by the majority of the muslim world.

Unless the US president EXPLAINS and CONVINCES the muslim world they will continue to increase support for Iran and in the end Iran could get strong enough to fuck with the US SERIOUSLY.

Destroying Iran right now will also not help. It will only create more ardent enemies for the US.

Talk to ahmedinejad if you want to move down the road of peace. If the US stance is so righteous then bush or anybody from the admin should be able to defend it and obliterate ahmedinejad.

I understand you do not appreciate his claims about the holocaust.. but the way i see it, that is not more a crazy supposition than bush's "God spoke to me and he told me to invade Iraq" comment. Both comments are as devoid of rationality.

I reccomend that you read ahmedinejad's letter. I think you would be surprised by the peaceful nature of the letter. There are no virulent attacks on christians and jews and there are no crazy statements about the holocaust. In fact he consistently beseeches bush to come and talk to him so a peaceful solution can be found. He really does leave the ball in the US court.

If the US refuses to respond and goes directly to armed conflict and/or sanctions then there is no moral justification since the option of peaceful dialogue will not even have been explored.

Would you not rather that bush at least tried to speak to him publicly just ONCE before he sends americans in to kill and be killed?

On the other hand, why would he dignify Iranian President Asswipe Ahmedinejad with a debate?

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Ahmedinejad is an attention-whore - a toddler having a temper tantrum on the living-room floor. Don't give him the attention he's demanding. Let him self-destruct in his megalo-maniacal attempt to gain international attention.