NationStates Jolt Archive

Please Please Please Please let this happen!
If we all pray together it might!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.nuclear/index.html


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."

Please Please Please Please let this happen!
If we all pray together it might!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.nuclear/index.html


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."

Gee, did we censor the Presidential debates?

This is a win-win situation for Ahmadinejad. If Bush refuses, he'll look like he's admitting he would lose. If he accepts, well he's not exactly the best public speaker in the world, now is he?

It would never happen, still I would love to see it if it would :D

A TV debate with Bush? He should ask for something more fair to Bush, like a foot race around the world.

This is a win-win situation for Ahmadinejad. If Bush refuses, he'll look like he's admitting he would lose. If he accepts, well he's not exactly the best public speaker in the world, now is he?

More opportunity for Ahmadinejad to say something about wiping out the Jews.

It's a circus act, not a real debate. It's like having Galloway and Hitchens debate - you're not going to hear anything except vitriol and bullshit.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.


Yeah, cuz debates here are routinely censored. :rolleyes:

Oh wait...do they even have debates in Iran? Didn't think so.

Beating Bush in a debate isn't exactly that big a challange. Yes this will never happen but it sure would be fun to watch!

More opportunity for Ahmadinejad to say something about wiping out the Jews.

It's a circus act, not a real debate. It's like having Galloway and Hitchens debate - you're not going to hear anything except vitriol and bullshit.

but if they will do this debate in germany, it will provide enough reasons for jail ahmedinigad (their laws against holocust denial are enough in this case).

Gee, did we censor the Presidential debates?

No need to get sarcy! It will never happen just a bit of fun:)

More opportunity for Ahmadinejad to say something about wiping out the Jews.

It's a circus act, not a real debate. It's like having Galloway and Hitchens debate - you're not going to hear anything except vitriol and bullshit.

It would be fun to watch though.

I'd rather see them in a knife fight to the death. Whoever loses the world, and more importantly the USA, wins.

I could only watch that after enjoying several large bottles of tasty, well made beer. Watching that debate sober would undoubtedly destroy more brain cells than any amount of alcohol.

I agree with Deep Kimchi. It would be all vitriol and bullshit.

It's a circus act, not a real debate. It's like having Galloway and Hitchens debate - you're not going to hear anything except vitriol and bullshit.

So no different than your average televised political debate?

TV debate, no.

A gun-fight like the old Westerns! Iranian president with his AK and Bush with his M16.

TV debate, no.

A gun-fight like the old Westerns! Iranian president with his AK and Bush with his M16.

Knife fights are more fun.

So no different than your average televised political debate?

Exactly. And not worth watching.

I've heard more intelligent ramblings at Question Time, than on any staged political debate in history.

More opportunity for Ahmadinejad to say something about wiping out the Jews.

It's a circus act, not a real debate. It's like having Galloway and Hitchens debate - you're not going to hear anything except vitriol and bullshit.

Galloway is a genius, Hitchens on the other hand is a jackass. Back on topic I would love to this debate. Bush would lose, and lose bad.

Knife fights are more fun.

Considering that Bush is a gun owner (he sleeps with his personal Glock on the bedside table), and probably has shot far more than Ahmadinejad, I would put money on Bush winning any gunfight.

Of course, with Cheney as his second... Cheney won't miss.

Considering that Bush is a gun owner (he sleeps with his personal Glock on the bedside table), and probably has shot far more than Ahmadinejad, I would put money on Bush winning any gunfight.

Of course, with Cheney as his second... Cheney won't miss.

Well actually didn't his aim go amiss the last time he shot a gun? Or maybe he was really aiming for his lawyer!

Considering that Bush is a gun owner (he sleeps with his personal Glock on the bedside table), and probably has shot far more than Ahmadinejad, I would put money on Bush winning any gunfight.

Of course, with Cheney as his second... Cheney won't miss.

I stand by my statement. Gunfights, well a couple three rounds center mass and the guy tends to drop. Knife fights often go on until someone bleeds out. More entertainment in a knife fight.

Knife fights are more fun.

I just want to ensure the gun-totting public in Iran and USA feel at home.

Considering that Bush is a gun owner (he sleeps with his personal Glock on the bedside table), and probably has shot far more than Ahmadinejad, I would put money on Bush winning any gunfight.

Of course, with Cheney as his second... Cheney won't miss.

Is it actually his, or is it issued because he's the president?

That's an idea, all the American Secretaries have a gun fight with their Iranian counterparts.

Is it actually his, or is it issued because he's the president?

That's an idea, all the American Secretaries have a gun fight with their Iranian counterparts.

It's his own pistol.

Exactly. And not worth watching.

I've heard more intelligent ramblings at Question Time, than on any staged political debate in history.

You would not learn anything, still it would be worth watching...

Yeah, cuz debates here are routinely censored. :rolleyes:

Oh wait...do they even have debates in Iran? Didn't think so.

I think when that Iranian asshole says not censored-"especially" in the US, he means the usual degree of censorship will be allowed in Iran.

They have debates in Iran sometimes. They just have the guy's wife off stage with a gun to her head in case he misses his cues.

I stand by my statement. Gunfights, well a couple three rounds center mass and the guy tends to drop. Knife fights often go on until someone bleeds out. More entertainment in a knife fight.

I have an idea.

We get a limo, and black out the windows.

We tie their left wrists together.

Put them in the limo, and throw a knife in through the sunroof. The driver then takes off, and drives around The Ellipse.

Of course, video of the interior is played on national television. It's dark inside the limo, but we're using thermal imaging to get a picture of the struggle in the dark.

I think when that Iranian asshole says not censored-"especially" in the US, he means the usual degree of censorship will be allowed in Iran.

They have debates in Iran sometimes. They just have the guy's wife off stage with a gun to her head in case he misses his cues.

Have they ever picked someone to debate who was considering getting a divorce anyway?

I stand by my statement. Gunfights, well a couple three rounds center mass and the guy tends to drop. Knife fights often go on until someone bleeds out. More entertainment in a knife fight.

Like the one in Michael Jackson's "Beat It" video? :p

I still think all international incidents should be solved with a boxing match...

Churchill vs Hitler would have been so entertaining

Knife fights are more fun.
They should face off like Kirk and Spock did in that Star Trek episode, with the weird clubby thing.

Oh, and have that trippy music playing.

This one:
http://kirkvsspock.ytmnd.com/

I have an idea.

We get a limo, and black out the windows.

We tie their left wrists together.

Put them in the limo, and throw a knife in through the sunroof. The driver then takes off, and drives around The Ellipse.

Of course, video of the interior is played on national television. It's dark inside the limo, but we're using thermal imaging to get a picture of the struggle in the dark.

In Don Draeger's The Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia he mentions a kind of duel or trial by combat in one Indonesian village where the two guys would be wrapped in one sarong and would stab each other. The winner was the one who died last. That might be Pay Per View worthy.

They should face off like Kirk and Spock did in that Star Trek episode, with the weird clubby thing.

Oh, and have that trippy music playing.

This one:
http://kirkvsspock.ytmnd.com/

And the winner gets the freaky looking babe who rejects him.

Galloway is a genius, Hitchens on the other hand is a jackass. Back on topic I would love to this debate. Bush would lose, and lose bad.

Lose what ? Do you really expect Amendijablowjob would reveal some startling fact we didnt know? Would some terrible dark secret be challenged?

No- he would be the usual chattering, jabbering batshit loon, spouting the shit people that hate us love to hear, however meaningless and false it is, with a few "Kill Israels" thrown in every here and there.

I still think all international incidents should be solved with a boxing match...

Churchill vs Hitler would have been so entertaining

I can just see Chuck Norris training GW Bush for the big event ... :p

Bush would crush Ahmadinejad....this wouldn't even be a contest.

Ahmadinejad just wants to do it for some popularity points, all it would actually lead to do is show how retarded he is.

But by all means, let's go Bush. This is his chance to score some popularity points as well.

but if they will do this debate in germany, it will provide enough reasons for jail ahmedinigad (their laws against holocust denial are enough in this case).

Probably not for a foreign head of state.

You have to remember that Mr. Ahmadinejad believes the solution to all of the worlds problems is if everyone converts to Islam, and follows his glorious leadership.

Have they ever picked someone to debate who was considering getting a divorce anyway?

Never-that wouldnt be fair.

but if they will do this debate in germany, it will provide enough reasons for jail ahmedinigad (their laws against holocust denial are enough in this case).

Why do i keep reading this sentiment over and over and over again on these boards? Ill say this for about the 20th time now. sorry for the capital letters but in this case it needs to be seen....HEADS OF STATE AS WELL AS THIER DIPLOMATIC ENTORAGE HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY THAT MAKES THEM EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION FROM OTHER COUNTRIES LAWS. Thank you carry on.

You have to remember that Mr. Ahmadinejad believes the solution to all of the worlds problems is if everyone converts to Islam, and follows his glorious leadership.

Thats a solid plan. :rolleyes:

We should agree he cant debate President Bush directly first- he has to first warm up, debating Ross Perot.:p

I can just see Chuck Norris training GW Bush for the big event ... :p

LOL! I think he (Bush) would send Chuck Norris disguised in his place!

LOL! I think he (Bush) would send Chuck Norris disguised in his place!

Chuck Norris would shave that beard of his? :p

Please Please Please Please let this happen!
If we all pray together it might!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.nuclear/index.html


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."


He says that he wants it to be a fair debate, but I'll bet he wants it to be in Arabic, English, or some other language that Dubya doesn't speak.

You have to remember that Mr. Ahmadinejad believes the solution to all of the worlds problems is if everyone converts to Islam, and follows his glorious leadership.

That is a problem. How would we know which one was President Bush and which one was Ahmadinejad?

What, is he getting lazy and starting to borrow pages from Saddam's playbook?

Please Please Please Please let this happen!
If we all pray together it might!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.nuclear/index.html


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."Meh, Bush should (as I hear he is doing) treat him like the German parties treat the holocaust deniers of our area. Walk away in unison and not bother debating with them.

I would pay good money to see that debate! Is the Iranian fluent in English?

lol.

It would be so funny if Bush did the debate. He might be crying by the end.

It's like having Galloway and Hitchens debate - you're not going to hear anything except vitriol and bullshit.

That's what made that particular debate so awesome. I think I still have it saved somewhere.

I still think all international incidents should be solved with a boxing match...

Churchill vs Hitler would have been so entertaining
What about Stalin vs Hitler (http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/69.html)?

But seriously, that would be a bad idea. Think of what a mess the world would have been during Reagan's reign (http://www.superdickery.com/oneshot/44.html) if that's how they did things...

It will probaly not happen, but still I will look forward for it.

Someone probaly already said it, but it is a win win situation for the President of Iran. He gets to express his views and if Bush doesn't go then he will look like a coward.

It will probaly not happen, but still I will look forward for it.

Someone probaly already said it, but it is a win win situation for the President of Iran. He gets to express his views and if Bush doesn't go then he will look like a coward.Which is why walking away and ignoring people like you and Mahmud is what proper politicians do :)

No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities.
QFT.

Someone probaly already said it, but it is a win win situation for the President of Iran. He gets to express his views and if Bush doesn't go then he will look like a coward.

He won't go. But he'll have an army of cheerleaders who'll be quick to vociferously naysay any claims of cowardice uttered in public.

How about Ahmadinejad debating with political dissernters, Human rights and Women rights advocates etc of IRAN first ?

How about Ahmadinejad debating with political dissernters, Human rights and Women rights advocates etc of IRAN first ?They couldn't do that because he'd have to break the censoring rule to make himself look good.

How about Ahmadinejad debating with political dissernters, Human rights and Women rights advocates etc of IRAN first ?
Because this issue is about nuclear technology, not human rights.

Exactly. And not worth watching.

I've heard more intelligent ramblings at Question Time, than on any staged political debate in history.

The BBC show?

It's great.


Or did you mean PMQs?

Because this issue is about nuclear technology, not human rights.

This is really an issue of blaming others (US, Israel, joos etc) and diverting focus on one's own failures (the mullah regime which promised utopia after revolution...).

What about Stalin vs Hitler (http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/69.html)?

But seriously, that would be a bad idea. Think of what a mess the world would have been during Reagan's reign (http://www.superdickery.com/oneshot/44.html) if that's how they did things...

President Reagan made scumbags around the world wet their pants.

This is really an issue of blaming others (US, Israel, joos etc) and diverting focus on one's own failures (the mullah regime which promised utopia after revolution...).
No it's not, it's about Iran protesting what they see as unfair potential sanctions placed on them for pursueing nuclear technology, all that other stuff is irrelevant. It's about the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, and the attempt through the UN and other diplomacy by Washington to deny the Iranian republic of it's sovereign rights as an independent state.

No it's not, it's about Iran protesting what they see as unfair potential sanctions placed on them for pursueing nuclear technology, all that other stuff is irrelevant. It's about the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, and the attempt through the UN and other diplomacy by Washington to deny the Iranian republic of it's sovereign rights as an independent state.Now if Iran were a country that could be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons if it had the chance, you'd have a point.

Now if Iran were a country that could be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons if it had the chance, you'd have a point.
Your missing the point of the other side of the arguement, not that I fully agree though. It is basically that the US seems to be acting like it alone has the right to decide what independent sovereign states can do and what they can't do, it maybe naive but it boils down too the US trying to stop proliferation when they themselves are the largest catalyst of it worldwide.

President Reagan made scumbags around the world wet their pants.
With joy?

Clearly Iran seeks to twist everything worse then the media does about when something embrassing something happens to a famous person. So if I were the president, for the sake of your freedom you better hope I never become of this will become one nation under me, I would make a logical arugment against going.

Your missing the point of the other side of the arguement, not that I fully agree though. It is basically that the US seems to be acting like it alone has the right to decide what independent sovereign states can do and what they can't do, it maybe naive but it boils down too the US trying to stop proliferation when they themselves are the largest catalyst of it worldwide.Wrong. Germany and the other P5 agree, and apparently, there isn't many other countries around that trust Iran with an unmonitored and unrestricted nuclear program, even if only for peaceful purposes. Or how many votes were against the resolution in the SC?

I seem to recall Saddam wanting to debate with Bush, shortly before Iraq was invaded.
During an interview with Dan Rather, If I recall correctly.

I have a better idea: Thunderdome. :)

I have a better idea: Thunderdome. :)Celebrity Deathmatch! :D

I have a better idea: Thunderdome. :)

Who runs Bartertown?!

Who runs Bartertown?!

Ike Turner! :eek:

http://www.sheilaburnett-photography.com/images/ike_turner_lg.jpg

[QUOTE=Lunatic Goofballs;11616549]Ike Turner! :eek:




Okay...

Now THAT was feckin' hilarious!

Oh god.....laughing.....hurts......

Thanks for that one!

Okay...

Now THAT was feckin' hilarious!

Oh god.....laughing.....hurts......

Thanks for that one!

Glad I could help. :)

Finally a good idea!

Why don't they do it, there isn't any use in being distrustful all the time.

As long as they aren't together otherwise they'll strangle eachother. :mp5:

The stupidest idea ever put forth on the planet. Iran needs to be curb stomped .

Reminds me of Hitlers challenge to the west and his speech to the reichstag when he ridiculed Roosevelt....this guy must have some copies of mein kampf and some other hitler scripts under his bed ...:D :D


Cyrus the waste needs a spanking .

No it's not, it's about Iran protesting what they see as unfair potential sanctions placed on them for pursueing nuclear technology, all that other stuff is irrelevant. It's about the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, and the attempt through the UN and other diplomacy by Washington to deny the Iranian republic of it's sovereign rights as an independent state.

Iran has a right to blackmail the world by threatening nuclear attacks?

Your missing the point of the other side of the arguement, not that I fully agree though. It is basically that the US seems to be acting like it alone has the right to decide what independent sovereign states can do and what they can't do, it maybe naive but it boils down too the US trying to stop proliferation when they themselves are the largest catalyst of it worldwide.

Relations between nations have nothing to do with rights or fairness. The USA doesn't want to see a nation who's committed acts of war against us on Saudi territory among other places get access to nuclear weapons. The US will not allow it. If Iran persists in trying it will find itself turned into a huge bombing range.

Iran has a right to blackmail the world by threatening nuclear attacks?

:confused: Was I asleep for a decade?!? I seem to have missed the part where there was even conccrete evidence that they were actually developing nuclear weapons, nevermind creating one, testing one and mounting one on a delivery sytem that could reach any nation of importance.

I take one little nap...

I still think all international incidents should be solved with a boxing match...

Churchill vs Hitler would have been so entertaining

I kinda wish that there had been a Churchill vs Hitler Radio Debate... Would have been so cool.


I dunno know who would have won...

**Nice.. THAT was my 400th post...**

:confused: Was I asleep for a decade?!? I seem to have missed the part where there was even conccrete evidence that they were actually developing nuclear weapons, nevermind creating one, testing one and mounting one on a delivery sytem that could reach any nation of importance.

I take one little nap...

No, they haven't developed one yet, but there is evidence that they want to develop a nuclear weapon, and most nations aren't ok with that. They get a nuke and they'll use it for political leverage. Iran is one nation that shouldn't get it's way in anything.

No, they haven't developed one yet, but there is evidence that they want to develop a nuclear weapon, and most nations aren't ok with that. They get a nuke and they'll use it for political leverage.

I have a more likely scenario: Perhaps after decades of relying on cheap foreign oil for power, the western countries, particularly the United States are concerned that if Iran switches over to nuclear power in abundance and without the excessive restrictions and red tape, that we may continue to be reliant on the middle east for our power needs. So we are using the pretext of nuclear weapons to be certain that Iran cannot develop nuclear power, or at the very least, are dependent on western nation to supply them with the fuel, parts and technical expertse to keep them running.

Then again, I am the crazy one here. :p

I have a more likely scenario: Perhaps after decades of relying on cheap foreign oil for power, the western countries, particularly the United States are concerned that if Iran switches over to nuclear power in abundance and without the excessive restrictions and red tape, that we may continue to be reliant on the middle east for our power needs. So we are using the pretext of nuclear weapons to be certain that Iran cannot develop nuclear power, or at the very least, are dependent on western nation to supply them with the fuel, parts and technical expertse to keep them running.

Then again, I am the crazy one here. :p
Wait, why would we rely on an Iranian nuclear plant for our power needs? Isn't it a bitch to string power lines that far? Can't we build our own plants? It's not like we're running out of pitchblende any time soon, and if we start building thorium fueled plants that triples our total stockpile of nuclear fuel.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.



Now, kids...that's what we call an unrealistic expectation.
Of course they're going to censor it. It's their own special way of brainwashing the public. I can see it now.

Iranian president: We are going to [overdubbed American voice] Kill the American infidel dogs!
Moderator: And why do you want to [overdub] kill the American infidel dogs?

Wait, why would we rely on an Iranian nuclear plant for our power needs? Isn't it a bitch to string power lines that far? Can't we build our own plants? It's not like we're running out of pitchblende any time soon, and if we start building thorium fueled plants that triples our total stockpile of nuclear fuel.

Disposable income. The middle east has the cash and the incentive to pull ahead in the technological fields of power generation, if we allow it. I just can't help but notice how much concern we seem to show for nations that we think are developing nuclear weapons, and how little we show for countries that we know are. Like North Korea. Or countries that already have them like India and Pakistan.

Now, kids...that's what we call an unrealistic expectation.
Of course they're going to censor it. It's their own special way of brainwashing the public. I can see it now.

Iranian president: We are going to [overdubbed American voice] Kill the American infidel dogs!
Moderator: And why do you want to [overdub] kill the American infidel dogs?

Uh... I got nothing. ;)

http://ahmadinejadbushpoll.ytmnd.com/

Disposable income. The middle east has the cash and the incentive to pull ahead in the technological fields of power generation, if we allow it. I just can't help but notice how much concern we seem to show for nations that we think are developing nuclear weapons, and how little we show for countries that we know are. Like North Korea. Or countries that already have them like India and Pakistan.

North Korea already has them. Can't put that genie back in the bottle. Still, N. Korea hasn't sent it's version of the Qods forces to attack US troops in Saudi Arabia. Personally I'd love to disarm Pakistan and North Korea, but I'll settle for denying Iran nuclear weapons.