Originally Posted By Beaumandy TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced defiance on Tuesday as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs, and challenged President Bush to televised debate. In a news conference, Ahmadinejad condemned the U.S. and British role in the world since World War Two but made no direct mention of the international nuclear confrontation. “I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues,†he said.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey the dems have found a new hero. His talking points would be identical to the Dem Presidential candidate. The Dem speech writers would probably be volunteering to write his speech and prep him for the debate. The moderator would likely give him the questions ahead of time. All the major newspapers would be rooting for Hitler, errr, Ahmadinewackjob to make Bush look bad. The scary thing is that I am not to far off the real live truth here.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Seeing as how Iran is the fourth largest oil exporter in the world, don't you think it would make sense to at least hear what it's President has to say? The U.S. needs to start listening to the thoughts of other countries, even if we disagree with them. To refuse to even listen is perceived as arrogance (which it is) and makes us hated throughout the world.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The world may be right about the arrogance, but there's also incompetence in play. Bush can't debate. He can't think on his feet, and needs to be told what to say. Yes, I'm obviously not a bush supporter, but that doesn't change the facts. We've all seen bush in debates, and he barely squeaks through intact, and usually makes gaffes. There's no way he'd engage in a debate with anyone voluntarily - he'd incapable and would certainly lose.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom In responce to post # 3: Seeing as how Iran is the fourth largest oil exporter in the world, don't you think it would make sense to at least hear what it's President has to say? Who needs a debate? I'll print some of what he has to say here. <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961353170&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull" target="_blank">http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S atellite?cid=1145961353170&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull</a> <<<Holocuast denial "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them." "The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless." "The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?" "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?" Threats against Israel "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations." "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." "If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated." "Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed." "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm." Relations with West "[There is] no significant need for the United States." "Iranians possess delicate characteristics. They introduce their merits, which are extremely attractive to whole the world." "We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime." "Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes." "We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?'" "There are no limits to our dialogue." "Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?" Conspiracy theory "Could [9/11] be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?" Freedom of speech "We believe that accurate dissemination of news and information is necessary for political growth and awareness as well as effective interaction among nations in today's world.>>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Bush can't debate. He can't think on his feet, and needs to be told what to say.<< This is, sadly, true. Although, maybe if he asks Ahmandinejad, "Wanna buy some wood?" it would be a boost to the timber industry. ; ) Seriously, the outrageous statements the president of Iran makes SHOULD be challenged. The problem is that 1. Any salient points President Bush might introduce would surely be edited out of the 'Mideast Version" of the proceedings. 2. The format couldn't truly be a free-for-all, for the reasons Gadzuux stated. (Although, Al Gore's unlikeability, and kindergarten teacher preachy tone in some of the 2000 debates actually made George Bush much more appealing. Perhaps with a goofball in a Members Only jacket ranting away about how there was no holocaust, President Bush wouldn't have to do much but let him blather, and occassionally looking into the cameras with a "Can ya believe this nut?" expression.) Of course, Ahmadinejad knows there is no way this debate would ever happen. It's yet another red herring he's tossed out there.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom More: <<<The World without Zionism A speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism" (26 October 2005) They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime? Source: Translation by CNN (Dec 2005) [1] If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision. Source: Translation by Islamic Republic News Agency (Dec 2005) [2] The establishment of the Zionist regime was a correct move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world Source: Worldpress.org [3] Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. Bold faced text was widely spread in news media as a call for the destruction of Israel Source: Infomationclearinghouse.info [4] (Originally from ISNA and NY Times) The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. Source: [5] Anybody who does not recognize Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. Source: CNN [6] [edit] 2006 International Qods Conference address How long can this situation last and be tolerated? When Imam Ali, Commander of the Faithful, heard that an anklet was forcefully removed from the feet of a Jewish woman by the invaders in one of the frontier cities under his rule, he said, "If a man dies from grief because of this act, he should not be reprimanded." Today, even the children are not spared and are targeted by their bullets. Palestinian men and women are abducted and tortured in their fearsome prisons. People are shot dead in schools, on the streets and at markets. The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat. The closer these nations are to the epicenter of this threat, the more threatened they feel. The people of Palestine are at the very core of such a threat. They have not been able to spend a day with peace of mind for the past sixty years. Three generations of sons and daughters of Palestinians have lived and are presently living under these circumstances. The peoples of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the entire Middle East are essentially under similar situation. The bullying powers use different excuses to prevent transfer of science and technology and progress of the nations of our region. They regard our advancement as a threat to the corrupt Zionist regime. They do not allow the countries of the region to tread on the path to progress and advancement. They even oppose indigenous technologies in the Islamic countries and interpret any scientific advancement as a threat to the security of Qods occupier regime. Some Western powers admit that they have killed a large part of Jewish population in Europe and founded the occupied regime in order to put right the wrong they had committed. With deference to all nations and followers of divine religions, we are asking if this atrocity is true, then why the people of the region should pay for it by occupation of Palestinian lands and unending suppression of Palestinian people, by homelessness of millions of Palestinians, by destruction of their cities and rural areas and agricultural lands. Why should they pay by fire, bullets and imposition of forces? And why should they pay by tolerating occupation of Islamic lands? Are the consequences of the establishment of this regime less than the Holocaust you are claiming? If there are doubts regarding the Holocaust, there is really no doubt regarding Palestinian disaster and Holocaust. The Holocaust in Palestine has persisted for more than sixty years. The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm. Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine, especially the African and Asian settlers are living in [p]ain, poverty and discontent. Source: IRNA Full text of President's address - Part One. Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush The letter was the first direct communication between Iran and the US since a break of diplomatic ties in 1980. It lists greviences of the Iranian government and questions current and past US foreign policy (8 May 2006). Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH)... and have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze. Paragraph 2 Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price?... On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Paragraphs 3-4 There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. Paragraphs 6-7 ...many questions about the phenomenon of Israel... Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist... I tell them to study the history of WWI and WWII. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained? Paragraphs 8, 10-12 Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations? Paragraph 20 Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Paragraph 23 The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à -vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter. Paragraph 23 Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity Paragraph 25 Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) [edit] 2006 We thank God that our enemies are idiots. (6 February 2006) [7] They (Western countries) know that they are not capable of inflicting the slightest blow on the Iranian nation because they need the Iranian nation. They will suffer more and they are vulnerable. That is why if the Iranian nation and government steps back on nuclear energy today, the story will not end there and the Americans will make another pretext. (8 March 2006) [8] If (problems) are decided through the use of force, everything becomes double-complicated....He who sows the wind will reap a hurricane and this will be a very strong storm in the whole Middle East region, which will strike painfully....All questions on international security have to be settled only through dialogue because using force will not lead anywhere. (July 25, 2006) [9] [edit] Attributed America's unilateral move to sever ties with the Islamic Republic was aimed at destroying the Islamic revolution. We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy. [citation needed] There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world. Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who talked against future relations with the United States. Also, in an interview with the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting a few days before the elections, Ahmadinejad accused the United Nations of being "one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam." Biography on Babnet Tunisia Current President of Iran, Populist, defender of the poorest, fighter against the capitalists and their American collaborators, the only hope for Iran against the American threat. (link to a Fârsi text page - this needs more info: date and author) Those who insist on transferring the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council have received an additional argument for doing so. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responding to the news of Ahmadinejad's comments that Israel should be "wiped of the map" "Iran leader's comments attacked" (27 October 2005) (BBC) [H]e is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'être is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. --Time Magazine: "Today Tehran, Tomorrow the World" March 2006 >>>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom The guy does a lot of talking ( typically his speeches run for 40 minutes ). He doesn't do any listening. In my opion he is this century's equivilant of Adolph Hilter.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Yes, I'm obviously not a bush supporter, but that doesn't change the facts. We've all seen bush in debates, and he barely squeaks through intact, and usually makes gaffes. < I am certainly not going to argue that Bush would be the captain of any debate team....but he is hardly alone -- Al Gore who was supposed to be the intellect also sucked as he was as likeable as a auditing agent from the IRS John Kerry came across as a pompous gasbag IMHO..Cheney comes across like he's always pissed at the world -- the last communicators at that level were Clinton and Reagan, who although most presidents say really very little in direct debates, knew it's the way you deliver it..... When you think of our party leaderships -- there aren't many I want to see in an intense debate that is not pre scripted. not easy to come across as knowledgeable / likeable and not come across as if you have only one agenda ... one of the 3 leaves most out.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The guy does a lot of talking ( typically his speeches run for 40 minutes ). He doesn't do any listening. In my opion he is this century's equivilant of Adolph Hilter.< he ain;t there yet, but unchecked he has the capability to be
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo But on the flipside, a wise man once said we have two ears and one mouth, and we should use them in that measure. If this is an opportunity in detente, then great. Sadly, we all know that despite Ahmadinejad speaking English as a 2nd language, he would still debate with greater skill. Sad but true. Let's face it, we have been devoid of good debators in the last half of the century, and all of them were controversial: Clinton Reagan (at times) Nixon JFK FDR
Originally Posted By Dabob2 This guy challenging Bush to a debate reminds me of someone offering bets (of annual passes and the like) to people here and then saying "won't take me up on it? Huh? Afraid you'll lose? I win, I win!"
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Let's not worry about the politics now, and i will be the first to admit, al gore was terrible at debate, cause he was listening to liberman, or was in with him, which is most likely the case. But i think discussion is necessary, and not with bush, but it must be with condoleeza rice, in an open forum, and she can prove if she has the stuff or not to the world. I think she does. I think one thing she should discuss first is what kennesaw tom brought up, about the holocost. I want condoleeza rice, to go with the irani president's entourage to germany if they have to, the simon wiesenthal center, our museums, the smithsonian, whatever is needed to convince him first that the holocost was indeed real. Then after he agrees it was real, we make sure he is just trying to protect the iranis and doesn't really hate anyone, or if he hates someone, i would like to know why. Then go into why he must immediately stop testing missiles, and plutonium enrichment. Then condoleeza rice goes into a room with george bush and this guy from iran, and he tells him exactly what is going to happen to him if he doesn't stop this very instant, and the discussions of what he gets in return, should be extremely generous. Give him anything he wants, but i would suggest hydrogen/oxygen, water seperation research as the future to protect the world's environment. Then come out with the happy faces, tell the world how generous americans can be, not just with money, but with our spirit of good will.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The guy is clearly out to lunch when he denies the Holocaust, but there is a certain amount of truth in other things he has to say. Since Jews were being massacred in Europe, why weren't they given a homeland in Europe rather than the Middle East? Why did the Palestinians have to pay for Hitler’s crimes with their land?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Bush can't debate. He can't think on his feet, and needs to be told what to say. Yes, I'm obviously not a bush supporter, but that doesn't change the facts. We've all seen bush in debates, and he barely squeaks through intact, and usually makes gaffes. >> Bush is so bad in debates he wins every election he is involved in. This is another examle of the libs claiming to be the real "intellectuals" as they lose again and again and again. I saw Bush debate many times and he comes across as very sincere and real. It's why he wins. The sad thing is that is this stupid debate were to happen the libs would be rooting for Ahmadinejad, the modern Hitler of our time, in huge numbers. THAT is why they are to be mocked and exposed every single day of the year until they go away.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Since Jews were being massacred in Europe, why weren't they given a homeland in Europe rather than the Middle East?>> RT, if you are really wanting to know the answer to this I would suggest Michael Medveds tapes on the history of Israel.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Tell the arabs if they stop attacking, and bombing israel, the israei's will go back to being accountants, and bankers for the oil firms, that will end up doing business with the irani's in the long term, anyway.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I saw Bush debate many times and he comes across as very sincere and real.<< I must have missed those. He usually comes across as nervous and often glib. I think even most of his ardet supporters would agree that he isn't great at communicating.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Michael medved is that incredibly ignorant film analyst who slants film reviews to make bad films seem good. His logic was never any good, and only fooled the ignorant. He is tall right? Tall people have been proven recently not to be very intellegent, which is why they just posted the article that taller people are supposed to be smarter. What the study found is tall people are less curious, but more comfortable, and secure emotionally, which allows them to develop their intelligence due to their privaledged status. Usually the most intelligent are the pampered, simply because they have time to think in this modern world of possesions.
