Is Bush afraid of him? Or he is afraid that he can't America's action? Give your thoughtful opionions.
2006-09-19 09:26:59 · 19 answers · asked by R 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Most of the people who say that the Iranian president is a retard, isn't worth our time, etc. don't know much about politics. You people rather not talk but wage a war which you cushy butts will never fight, yes leave it to our soldiers. What a sorry bunch, you talk tough to hide lack of courage or lack of knowledge.
Here's the situation, the current Administration policies to foreign countries we don't like is, YOU DO WHAT WE SAY FIRST AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS WEATHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. The US is acting like the most popular guy at school, he won't involve himself with lowly people unless they do what he says and then he will condescending talk to them and tell them why they were wrong and he was right. If you're American this isn't bad but if you belong to any other country, this attitude doesn't exactly make you want to even associate with such arrogance. Then war happens and the Administration can claim they were correct in the first place and never even realize what lead to war.
2006-09-19 09:45:47 · answer #1 · answered by choyryu 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe he's too scared to do it! That's the same way Bush did when Saddam challenged him to a debate prior to the start of the illegal war in Iraq. Incompetency? I think that's the cause of him not debating the Iranian leader!
2006-09-19 16:36:20 · answer #2 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Bush were to debate the president of Iran the average american might learn that he is not a bad guy. They might learn that he is not the evil monster our country makes him out to be. Lastly Bush couldnt debate him, he lost the debates against Kerry, The president of Iran is one of that countrys top scientists, which is saying alot. He couldnt win the debate, he couldnt control americas reaction to the debate either.
2006-09-19 16:31:33 · answer #3 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no real common ground for the debate. Bush would have been verbally attacked by Mr. Ahmadinejad and Bush would defend himself, again. We would have heard the same thing, both sides have been saying for months.
2006-09-19 16:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by atothek96 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Ahmadinejad would have wiped the stage with him. Ahmadinejad would have focused on Islam, and Bush knows nothing about Islam. Bush would focus on terrorism, but Ahmadinejad knows about terrorism too and would have at least drawn even. The UN crowd is pretty solidly anti-Bush too. Net win to Ahmadinejad.
2006-09-19 16:40:19 · answer #5 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not very good at thinking on the fly. His speeches are pre-prepared and he messes those up very badly. The world thinks we have an idiot for a president. Why do a debate and confirm that.
2006-09-19 16:30:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush considers that it would be a waste of time, and I agree. A debate is useful when there are issues that can be resolved by unearthing appropriate factual data. That is not the case here: either Iran wants nuclear power, in which case inspections would not be a problem, or it wants nuclear weapons.
2006-09-19 16:30:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Bush debated him it would give the Iranian tin horn dictator more of a platform and recognition than he deserves.
2006-09-19 16:42:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's an old Bible verse about arguing with a fool and the Iranian president is the fool. So why even engage him in conversation when we should just off him in the streets of NYC.
2006-09-19 16:32:01 · answer #9 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Is Bush afraid of him, LOL..Our President doesn't have friendly chats with terrorists hell bent on destroying America.How about a friendly sit down with Osama too while he's at it?.. Silly Liberals...
2006-09-19 16:57:25 · answer #10 · answered by itsallover 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋