Iran TV debate challenge to Bush

[graymatter]

From the BBC: Iran's president has challenged US President George W Bush to a live TV debate on world affairs.


... I gotta give Ahmadinejad some credit, he knows Bush couldn't even pronounce his name...

why not challenge him to a debate?

[SmokingPlatypus]

Are you serious? That's incredible. I know that Bush won't accept. There's no way that he would allow himself to be debased in front of his country by "the enemy."

[Hamlet]

Now THAT would be something to see! C'mon Bush, you pussy! Bring it on!

[dopesmoker]

haha and bush wont do it either.

[Hamlet]

k...lemme think about this. Oh man, this is going to be good. Accept or decline (of course he'll decline), he's still going to get his ass handed to him. The press will eat him alive. This is big. This has ramifications. Got a link to that story?

[birdgirl73]

I would love to see it happen, but everyone's right. Bush will never do it. Boy, it would be a real ratings-grabber if he did, though!

[dopesmoker]

he already said he wont do ithttp://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/29082006/2/world-iran-s-president-challenges-un-security-council-offers-debate.html

"The White House immediately rejected the Iranian president's debate proposal as a "diversion" from serious concerns over the country's nuclear program."

[SmokingPlatypus]

Haha, that's hilarious. I can almost hear Bush whining to his wife over this.

[Oneironaut]

What, you mean TALK to another world leader in full view of the public about the differences between your ideologies and visions for the world? No, it's unthinkable!

Dumb pussy can't even defend his political positions against a fucking theocratic dictator.

[graymatter]

k...lemme think about this. Oh man, this is going to be good. Accept or decline (of course he'll decline), he's still going to get his ass handed to him. The press will eat him alive. This is big. This has ramifications. Got a link to that story?

Here ya go... the full story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5295550.stm

[stormannorman]

bring back the draft and in we go boot them and take the oil

[Oneironaut]

bring back the draft and in we go boot them and take the oil
Sorry, but forcing innocent civilians to kill and die for the interests of the imperialists and the oil tycoons is only going to make things way worse for everybody (well, everybody but the imperialists and the oil tycoons of course).

[Maggz]

why are you guys routing for an anti-american piece of shit who hates all of you? supporting bush is out of the question i understand that but supporting THIS guy? lol he isnt any better

[Cas]

the thing is a debate would be really cool if they could keep on topic and not beat around the (the) bush. I don't know how much a debate would help things out but it sure would be a step in the right direction.

[Hamlet]

"why are you guys routing for an anti-american piece of shit who hates all of you?"

Someone was rooting for Bush?

[Fengzi]

"why are you guys routing for an anti-american piece of shit who hates all of you?"

Someone was rooting for Bush?

LOL, good point :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone was rooting for the "anti-american piece of shit" Just laughing at another example of Bush's stupidity.

[Bong30]

Lets Have Michael Savage Debate that Fuck.....



Then Lets snipe him in Ney York, blame it on Alex jones..............

[Ozarks]

Bush shouldn't debate him for the same reason that FDR & Churchill didn't debate Hitler, What could be more irresponsible than legitimizing a murdering psychopath ?

I guess some of you think Clinton should've debated Kim jon in North Korea or Kennedy should've have debated the Russians. Carter "debated" the Iranians for 444 days, Reagan straightened them out in 1. We already know what works, and what is the only thing the Iranians respect and respond too.

Any kindness on our part is viewed as weakness on their part.

Adaminajhid will be in front of the UN tomorrow and can spew all this sicko propaganda, how it's his "right" to build nuclear bombs and murder anyone that disagrees with him and its not his fault because "his God" told him to do it.

Everyone at the UN will sit and let him speak, knowing full well that if ANYONE went to Iran and said the things about his country, he says about other countries they would have their head chopped off.

Hypocritical, murdering puke, in the name of his God.

[graymatter]

Lets Have Michael Savage Debate that Fuck.....



Then Lets snipe him in Ney York, blame it on Alex jones..............

Michael Savage couldn't hold a match to him in a debate. But he could probably kick his ass.

[Bong30]

Michael Savage couldn't hold a match to him in a debate. But he could probably kick his ass.

Please...Just Cause Dr. savage wouldnt be saying what YOU want to hear...doesnt mean he couldnt hand him his ass.

Gray....Do you believe the Hollocust happened?

Do you Believe that Isreal Has the right to exsist?


VVVVVVVVVVVVHEAR IS YOUR BOY, grayYVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV


see him on the right there...hes your BOY.....Moron.

[iasscarra]

Just to be clear...... Mr Bush wants to spread/promote democracy OUTSIDE the USA and then throws the invitation of an elected head of a state, in the states face, when the opportunity arises for debate ( and I always thought that Harvard pupils DON'T refuse debates ) ......... oh wait I think I got it now! BUSH! ......... you DON'T debate when it may save lives of other people namely Arabian/ Muslims... for the record Bush is not a stupid man if you believe that you must give him credit for altering your perspective......



please have a look at this openly and thanks
my regards


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14547.htm

[iasscarra]

I guess some of you think Clinton should've debated Kim jon in North Korea or Kennedy should've have debated the Russians. Carter "debated" the Iranians for 444 days, Reagan straightened them out in 1.


Ah christ comon you cant just make up shit...... where did you come across this information I am interested...
Oh! one more thing Ozarks WHAT YEAR ARE YOU READING THIS ? and if you are trying to make tyhe point of corrective historical comparisons well then Americans should be begging for the forgiveness from the NATIVE red indian People.culture, nurtured land and peaceful traditions, just to borrow another quote from YOU.Ozarks.Hypocritical, murdering puke, in the name of his God. yah yah we all hear you next please.

[Ozarks]

I guess some of you think Clinton should've debated Kim jon in North Korea or Kennedy should've have debated the Russians. Carter "debated" the Iranians for 444 days, Reagan straightened them out in 1.


Ah christ comon you cant just make up shit...... where did you come across this information I am interested...
Oh! one more thing Ozarks WHAT YEAR ARE YOU READING THIS ? and if you are trying to make tyhe point of corrective historical comparisons well then Americans should be begging for the forgiveness from the NATIVE red indian People.culture, nurtured land and peaceful traditions, just to borrow another quote from YOU.Ozarks.Hypocritical, murdering puke, in the name of his God. yah yah we all hear you next please.


I've read this 3 times and I still have no idea what your talking about, sorry

[Ozarks]

throws the invitation of an elected head of a state, in the states face,


He was not "elected" he was "placed" on the ballot by a the "supreme council" a group of mullahs (dictators) who run the country.

If you're not a sock puppet for the mullahs you don't get "Placed" on the ballot so the people can "elect" you.

[iasscarra]

Sorry mate he was not placed on ballot by supreme council. The supreme council have no weight in this regard, but maybe you are getting mixed up with the fact that supreme council DID elect him ........ a bit familiar maybe there is a hint of United States Electoral College voting....... what is the difference with the US voting system ?....... also the term Mullahs means literially a muslim teacher as oppse to your take on mullahs
I am also sorry that you read my post three times and "still have no idea what your talking about" prehaps I should have mentioned that the first two lines on post was a quote from your-good-self, maybe that helps if not please let me know I feel the point was made lucidly, howsoever thanks for the reply Ozarks and regards

[Ozarks]

Sorry mate he was not placed on ballot by supreme council. The supreme council have no weight in this regard, but maybe you are getting mixed up with the fact that supreme council DID elect him ........ a bit familiar maybe there is a hint of United States Electoral College voting....... what is the difference with the US voting system ?....... also the term Mullahs means literially a muslim teacher as oppse to your take on mullahs


Sorry back but he was placed on the ballot, the supreme council decides who is acceptable to be placed on the ballot



The Guardian Council of the Constitution (Persian: شورای نگهبان قانون اساسی) is a high office within the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has the authority to interpret the constitution and to determine if the laws passed by the Mails (parliament) are constitutional. As such, the Council itself is not a legislative body, but it has veto power over the Iranian parliament. Its members are composed of Islamic clerics and lawyers. In function it is similar to a Constitutional Court.

Six members of the Council are clerics selected by the Supreme Leader, who serves as Iran's Head of State. The other six members are lawyers proposed by Iran's head of judicial branch (selected in turn by the Supreme Leader), and voted in by the Mails. Members are elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership changes every three years.

As mentioned, the council also holds veto power over all legislation approved by the Mails. It can drop a law based on two accounts: being against Islamic laws, or being against the constitution. While all the members vote on the laws being compatible with the constitution, only the six clerics vote on them being compatible with Islam.

If any law is rejected, it will be passed back to the Mails for correction. If the Mails and the Council of Guardians cannot decide on a case, it is passed up to the Expediency Council for a final decision.

All candidates of parliamentary or presidency elections, as well as candidates for the Assembly of Experts, have to be qualified by the Guardian Council in order to run in the election. This is based on a controversial interpretation of the constitution and has led to numerous bitter political debates in Iran.



I don't have the "facts" mixed up at all, to compare these 12 Muslim thugs to the US electoral collage is way way way out there.

[graymatter]

Please...Just Cause Dr. savage wouldnt be saying what YOU want to hear...doesnt mean he couldnt hand him his ass.

Gray....Do you believe the Hollocust happened?

Do you Believe that Isreal Has the right to exsist?


VVVVVVVVVVVVHEAR IS YOUR BOY, grayYVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV


see him on the right there...hes your BOY.....Moron.

1. Yes, the Hollocost was real. Only a derranged and delusional mind could rationalize away those events

2. Yes, Israel has a right to exist, but I'm not a Zionist in any way shape or form.

And again, I'm telling you that loud mouth would lose a debate with the
lunatic from Iran.... Moron? What the fuck is that about?

[Spiritual]

Bush shouldn't debate him for the same reason that FDR & Churchill didn't debate Hitler, What could be more irresponsible than legitimizing a murdering psychopath ?


Hypocritical, murdering puke, in the name of his God.

How would it be "legitimizing a murdering psychopath"? I don't recall Hitler offering to debate his views on world issues with FDR and Churchill, but i could be wrong. You know we have a problem when the leader of the free world is afraid to debate some loony-bin dictator.


Doesn't Bush claim that God speaks to him? He also thinks that we're on the verge of a "Third Awakening".

They're both lunatics in my book.

[Ozarks]

How would it be "legitimizing a murdering psychopath"?
Because, murdering anyone you disagree with in the "name of your God" is not a "legitimate" position.



I don't recall Hitler offering to debate his views on world issues with FDR and Churchill, but i could be wrong.
What was Hitler going to say, "we're the master race?"




You know we have a problem when the leader of the free world is afraid to debate some loony-bin dictator.

Fear has nothing to do with it.




Doesn't Bush claim that God speaks to him? He also thinks that we're on the verge of a "Third Awakening".
Actually Bush says he has a "relationship" with Jesus, he has never claimed
that God "speaks" to him.



They're both lunatics in my book.

That's part of the problem, in my book.

[graymatter]

Actually Bush says he has a "relationship" with Jesus, he has never claimed
that God "speaks" to him.


He [dubya] subscribes to Christian Zionism. The "realtionship with Jesus" is code for the notion that Jesus will literally set-up his throne in Jerusalem.

What's the difference?