a live, uncensored debate so american people can hear some truth , i love this dude...bush would get fuckin owned, his dumbness is...WHOO Ahmadinejad challenges Bush to TV debate Reuters | August 29, 2006 By Parisa Hafezi TEHRAN - 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 a televised debate. "Peaceful nuclear energy is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen that based upon international regulations, it wants to use it and no one can stop it," he told a news conference. The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend uranium enrichment -- a process which can produce fuel for civilian reactors or explosive material for warheads -- and has threatened sanctions unless it does so. Ahmadinejad said Iran had laid out a framework for talks in its reply to an offer by six world powers of incentives in exchange for a suspension of enrichment. That framework provided an "exceptional opportunity" to solve the nuclear dispute. Asked specifically if Iran would halt enrichment, even for a short period, he replied: "In that (Iran's response to the six-nation offer) we announced that any kind of dialogue should be based upon the certain rights of the Iranian nation." He did not elaborate. Ahmadinejad condemned the U.S. and British roles in the world since World War Two. "We think the special privileges that America and Britain are taking advantage of today are the origin of all disturbances in the world," he said. "Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" "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. "The debate should be go uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth." He brushed off calls by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John ••••on, for sanctions if Tehran ignores the deadline. "••••on is free to say whatever he wants ... our nation is a strong nation. A nation that has been able to attain the nuclear fuel cycle with its bare hands can solve any other problems." MAJOR POWERS DIVIDED Washington has called for a swift response if Iran does not meet the deadline. But analysts say divisions at the United Nations about how to handle Iran's file could delay such a move. Iran has shown no sign it will halt enrichment. The world's fourth largest oil exporter has shrugged off the threat of sanctions and said such a move would simply push oil prices up to intolerable levels for industrialized economies. "If the Western countries have the intention to have comprehensive, long-term cooperation with Iran then they should not pursue imposing sanctions on Iran," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said on state TV late on Monday. Before Ahmadinejad spoke on Tuesday, oil was holding above $70 a barrel as worries about Iran helped to brake a steep sell-off. Larijani said Iran's effort to master the nuclear fuel cycle was "irreversible" -- echoing earlier comments by the president and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran has said it is ready for immediate talks on its atomic plans but has refused to suspend enrichment before negotiations start, which was proposed in the package of incentives offered by the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany. Russia and China, big trading partners of Iran who have veto powers in the U.N. Security Council, may oppose sanctions moves. Washington, which already imposes unilateral sanctions on Iran, has suggested it could consider action outside the Security Council with other like-minded countries.
Of coarse he rejected it, what would he have to gain? People who don't do stupid things with no gain for their side or position are not cowards that is a smart call. If you think that Iran's President is so damned smart why aren't you there fighting for him and living in Iran. I will tell you why because it is a backwards fucked up country. You don't debate people bent on destroying you, you destroy them first. I am just happy that we have a President with some balls because if some of you were president you would just bend over and say stick it in. Smart. All I have to say is look at America then look at Iran and you tell me who is owned.
Bush rejected the request, because he can't perform in that sort of situation. Says a lot about our commander in chief doesn't it? What does Bush seek to gain by creating another war zone or inflicting sanctions? Ahmadinejad spoke openly and candidly on 60 minutes, when was the last time Bush did that. Maybe his interview in New Orleans...but that didn't come off that well did it?I doubt his handlers will let him do that again.
Except that he is the President and has an obligation to prove to the people of the world that his actions are justified before he takes steps toward war. If he were right then debating would be beneficial to him cause he could win the backing of those countries who currently doubt him. But, you know, he'll just do whatever he wants to regardless of what anyone thinks. Always has.
First off, Bush would lose in a debate, in any debate with anyone outside of the States, he would probably even lose to Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed ( Pres of Somalia ). Second, America is a pretty unstable country itself, when was the last time you saw the unemployment rate? Or the GDP Per Capita ( keeping in mind the billionaires ). America for a 1st World Nation is pretty damn weak, if it weren't for all those nukes and groundwork in Europe the U.S. did after WWII, it probably would be worse than Iran.
apparently you didnt watch the interview, it was almost stopped a couple of times because he wouldnt answer simple questions.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14546.htm heres the interview .
bush doesnt come across as a good debator and american politics I think works on sound bites, these days . I think some american presidents in the past would have put up a great debate tony blair might do ok in a debate with the iranian president and Im sure that there are other people apart from bush on the bush team that might do well .
Who elected Ahmadinejad ? The people of Iran are mostly decent reasonable people. They deserve better than this totalirian creep. Why should bush soil himself by appearing on the same platform with this guy ? Isn't Ahmadinejad openly threatening to attack Isreial ?
A lot of people think the same way about Bush. Those two have many of the same attributes but are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. .
