Will Bush accept open, public debate with Ahmadinejad? Do you think he should?

Question

It seems to me like this guy wants to cut out the middle-man media and speak openly to the world rather than beurocrats, diplomats, politicians and journalists. I want to hear what he has to say. I want to see what Bush has to say to him. I want to see it all live and unadulturated on my television.

You people act as if the information you get off the TV and radio news is the truth and there is no other. What I keep hearing him say about nukes is he wants nuclear power program, I've never heard him say anything about nuclear weapons. Uranium enrichment is necessary for efficient nuclear reaction, not just weapons. I didn't hear him say death to america, but I did hear him say he wanted Israelis out of his country (not killed). This is a racial matter, he and his people were raised to hate jews, thats how that works, so you can see why he wants them out. As for america? If you will read his own written word he's talking about our government, not the people. Its american diplomats and politicians that are pissing him off. This all just seems too one sided for the man to want to talk openly and publicly. Why would he if his intentions were so obviously horrible to everyone? I think he wants a fair chance to defend himself and he should have it. Everyone should.

Answer 1

the truth is that ahmadinejad wants to talk but bush says Iran must stop enriching uranium first! somebody should tell that idiot that is the very subject you're supposed to talk about!

Answer 2

Indeed. Bush is incapable of debating in a civilized manner. He simply allows his public relations team to write him a script full of blatant propaganda to be gobbled up by the ignorant. We all know that the only reason Iran is attempting to acquire nukes is because they need a defense against an imminent US invasion -- Iraq didn't even have WMDs, and the US invaded them nonetheless. Obviously, Bush wants to invade Iran whether they have nukes or not. Bush would be torn apart in a live debate against a college professor whose IQ is most likely 1 1/2 times what Bush's is. He's taking the smart route out by refusing to acknowledge the invitation.

Answer 3

There is an old Peter Sellars movie called "The Mouse that Roared" about a tiny, impoverished country that declares war on the United States.

Their rationale is that they are so small and weak, that the U.S. will not take them seriously. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will be so impressed with their courage for taking on the big, powerful Americans that they will rush to their aid.

Although it was a 1959 comedy, the movie serves as a blueprint for the next half-century of global politics. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviets would not hesitate to throw money and arms at any third-world nation that openly opposed the other. Now, as the sole Superpower, ambitious nations like Iran, N.Korea and Venezuela polish their images by sniping at the U.S.

Like "The Mouse that Roared," they figure it is a no-lose situation. If the U.S. negotiates with them directly, they gain immediate legitimacy. If the U.S. does not, they are just another victim of American arrogance. All you have to do is read this board to know that this political game is very effective.

The fact is, the U.S. has a global responsibility not to negotiate directly with "rouge" nations. We could be like France or Spain and ensure a great deal of security for our own people by cutting deals with nations like Iran and North Korea, but by doing so we would subvert the global diplomatic structure that so many already accuse us of ignoring.

Look at Iraq as an example. The U.S. is routinely condemned for supporting UN sanctions aimed at reforming the Hussein regime. Meanwhile, other nations cut side deals with Saddam, helping him maintain the military infrastructure that kept him in power while his people suffered.

The U.S. can not legitimize regimes that threaten our allies and promote global disorder. These nations must prove that they are willing to negotiate in an international forum before we can recoginze them individually. To do otherwise would be the height of American arrogance

Answer 4

The only thing Bush could come up with in a debate would be do what we tell you to or else. That is not a debate that is a bully.

As long as Bush keeps up the "take the cookie and do what I say or I'm going to bash your head in with a sledge hammer" diplomacy we will never have any credibility other than an evil empire.

Answer 5

In true diplomacy, we negotiate with our enemies...not our friends. I would love to see this too. But it will never happen solely because Bush only speaks to "catered" audiences that agree with his views and don't dissent him. If he was a "true" leader he would step up and show the world, and Americans, that he can stand on his own 2 feet without a script or bullet points. But like I said....it will never happen. I can already hear Fox News preparing bullet points of why this should not happen.

Answer 6

This Islamic religious conservative has a populist view and should be judged in the context of his own country rather than the slanted views of George Bush that have brought us to hell in Iraq and Afghanistan. His anti-Israeli Pro nuclear stances may not be popular in the West but they are in IRAN.

Answer 7

they need interpreter...they should hire interpreter to debate with their sides...

anyway, everyone has a right to build a nuke for the defense of their country...why others do nuclear prolifiration?like US, Israel and other ally of the US...why they are keeping to interfer the other who do just like the others do...that is the point...

if they shouldn't go to build nukes, i think, bush will eradicate Iran, because they longing for it, as they did to Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and Germany...

Answer 8

What would be the point? How about the Iranians quit building nuclear weapons?

Maybe that would be effective.

Maybe Algore should run over there and tell them how nuclear weapons will hurt the environment. Maybe that will work.

Answer 9

We have heard what this guy has to say --- he wants to wipe Israel off the map and death to America. Bush shouldn't give this lunatic the time of day, he's a terrorist but has great PR, this is nothing but a publicity stunt to give the impression he wants to talk but he knows Bush isn't going to do it so he can use the opportunity to try and convince the world the US has no diplomatic intentions. Anyone can see right through this facade.

Answer 10

Ahmadinejad refused to answer questions or debate 60 mintues so it's doubtful he really will actually do any debating on any real issues.

Bush would be nuts to debate him publicly, and even privately, it would be a waste of time. Reason being that when things are done in public it's 100% of the time for one reason only: Grandstanding, posturing and self aggrandizement.

tom

tom