# Should President Bush debate President Ahmadinejad?



## Everness

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday challenged President Bush to a televised debate. 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/30/iranian_calls_for_debate_with_bush/

"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. How did the White House respond? The White House said Ahmadinejad's call for a presidential debate on global concerns was a "diversion." And this time I agree with Washington's opinion. A debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad would be first-class entertainment (diversion: n. Something that distracts the mind and relaxes or entertains.)

I think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is onto something. We should have this type of international debates more often. This is the only preemptive action I would support. World leaders should engage in this type of public and televised discussions before the sh*t hits the fan, and they start bombing the h*ll out of each other.

Ah, President Ahmadinejad will debate Bush under one condition. The debate should be conducted in English, a language that neither party is fluent in. (Please don't ask me where I got this information.) But the West shouldn't worry. W. will prevail. Why? Harlan McCraney will be coaching Bush.

Should President Bush debate President Ahmadinejad? Yes or no, and why?


----------



## djchak

Major waste of time. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already been vocal in his view of the issues, and so has Bush.

Instaed, Bush should (ON AN UNOFFICIAL BASIS) welcome Ex Iranian president Khatami, who was recently granted a travel visa. If he won't, Bill Clinton should, or Colin Powell, or Condi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5298132.stm


----------



## Outsider

I'm not going to waste any brain cells thinking over whether such a debate should happen or not, because I know it never will. If I remember correctly, the U.S. don't even maintain formal diplomatic relations with Iran...


----------



## ireney

Let's say the debate happens. It will actually be two sets of monologues. Then each side will go back claiming to have been "victorious". Ahmadinejad knew very well that Bush would say no. That, in fact, anyone in Bush's place would say no. Now he can claim that he wanted the debate but Bush chickened out.


----------



## beakman

I agree with Outsider that such a debate will never take place.

President Bush should do many things, and first of all, he should keep away of what is no concern of his. Why do Bush, his administration, lobbies  or whoever in the USA have to decide on what Iranian people may have or may not?

Saludos!


----------



## beakman

Everness said:


> " A debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad would be first-class entertainment (diversion: n. Something that distracts the mind and relaxes or entertains.)


 
Everness, I think you read too much fictitious/ mystery literature, your topic reminds me of one of the novels by Dan Brown, "Deception point". If you have read it, you'll understand what I'm referring to.
Regards.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's call them President X and President Why, or Y, for short.

What do they bring to televised entertainment that the World Cup did not?  Neither is much good with his head.  Coordination in achievement of a worthwhile goal is not the strong suit of either.   Neither one is a team player...both remove able individuals from their respective teams for not doing things in an appropriately wooden, stilted way.

Could X or Y score a goal for at least the amusement of humanity?  Not a chance.

Could either one arouse enough enthusiasm among British fans of the sport to get them to do anything but fall asleep after having a few quarts of traditional libation?  Not likely.

By attempting to speak coherently, however, both would provide fodder for conspiracy theorists, who would claim that some international cabal employed both, in pursuit of globalization of the peanut butter and soybean trades, to the eternal detriment of consumers everywhere.


----------



## danielfranco

Ha, that's pretty good, the football analogy. I had images in my mind of W suddenly going "Zidane" on Ahmadinejad!!!
End of debate.


----------



## justjukka

> I think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is onto something. We should have this type of international debates more often. This is the only preemptive action I would support. World leaders should engage in this type of public and televised discussions before the sh*t hits the fan, and they start bombing the h*ll out of each other.


 
It would be a _great_ idea if we had a more articulate president.  I agree, however, that presidential debates _are_ a damn good idea, for the reason stated above.  Also, they could learn from each other, about each other, and our nations would not have to fear each other.  They can snigger about the other's ideas, but learn why and how any ideas come about.

As for the entertainment aspect, I agree with that, too.  It would be interesting to watch.


----------



## .   1

Has anybody ever watched a televised political debate in which anything was said other than 'I'm smarter than you' or 'You're a mug and I'm not'.
It's like watching two kids blue when the adults leave the room.  Tragic.
One of the worst things to happen to the democratic process in Australian was televising Parliament.  Now all we have is a bunch of silver spoon fed ponces spitting vitriol at each other and mugging for the cameras.  Nothing is achieved except the Right Honourable Member for wherever gets expelled for 24 hours because he called the Right Honourable Member for who cares a member and refused to retract the insinuation that the Right Honourable Member is a tool.
Were I running a company and I saw my executives acting in such a manner I would sack the lot of them.

.,,


----------



## Everness

djchak said:


> Major waste of time. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already been vocal in his view of the issues, and so has Bush.
> 
> Instaed, Bush should (ON AN UNOFFICIAL BASIS) welcome Ex Iranian president Khatami, who was recently granted a travel visa. If he won't, Bill Clinton should, or Colin Powell, or Condi.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5298132.stm



Why would a meeting with Khatami be more productive? By the way, W. doesn't like Khatami. He once called him arrogant. And by now we all know that W. doesn't subscribe to the old phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." http://freemasonrywatch.org/khatami.html

I don't see any difference between the past and the current presidents of Iran when it comes to the sensitive issue of nuclear technology.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=564


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Why would a meeting with Khatami be more productive? By the way, W. doesn't like Khatami. He once called him arrogant. And by now we all know that W. doesn't subscribe to the old phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." http://freemasonrywatch.org/khatami.html
> 
> I don't see any difference between the past and the current presidents of Iran when it comes to the sensitive issue of nuclear technology.
> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=564


You should receive an award for the most links posted on threads.
My problem is that the last time (and I do mean last) that I followed one of your links my computer got a virus so I will not risk another few hours of housekeeping.

Do you really thing that a televised debate about nuclear (new clear in Dubya speak) technology would reveal anything other than the deep seated animosity between the two 'men' and I use the term loosely?

.,,


----------



## djchak

Everness said:


> Why would a meeting with Khatami be more productive? By the way, W. doesn't like Khatami. He once called him arrogant. And by now we all know that W. doesn't subscribe to the old phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." http://freemasonrywatch.org/khatami.html
> 
> I don't see any difference between the past and the current presidents of Iran when it comes to the sensitive issue of nuclear technology.
> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=564



becuase we need dialogue, not debate. Bush might think Khatami is arrogant, but at least he seems sane. He is also known as a reformist. That's why he had no problem getting a US visa...


----------



## Everness

. said:


> You should receive an award for the most links posted on threads.
> My problem is that the last time (and I do mean last) that I followed one of your links my computer got a virus so I will not risk another few hours of housekeeping.
> 
> Do you really thing that a televised debate about nuclear (new clear in Dubya speak) technology would reveal anything other than the deep seated animosity between the two 'men' and I use the term loosely?
> 
> .,,



Sorry to hear about the virus. But can't you tell apart a porn site from others?    As you can see, I'm in a good mood thanks to Australians (I just watched TAPFS' (The Australian Pink Floyd Show) concert in Liverpool in 2004. I couldn't tell the difference between them and the original band! Amazing!)

I'm a bit concerned with the cynicism distilled by some of the posts. (Don't forget that there's only one hater of humanity in this forum.) These two assh*les have the innate capacity to bring life on earth closer to the brink of annihilation. Some people counterargue that if human beings so far have failed to self-destruct themselves, it will never happen. I hope they are right. If they are wrong, many or all of us won't be around to point out their mistake. 

The key is to put both Presidents on TV. Why? First, people on both sides of the aisle might finally understand how dangerous they are. Witnessing their dialogue might prompt people to put pressure on their leaders to talk things out before acting out. "Man! These two freakin' clowns are going to kill us all! We need to do something about it." Second, once you talk to someone face to face, your chances to demonize them decrease significantly. But if you keep calling a country "The Great Satan" or part of the "Axis of Evil," there's only one thing to do: to kill them. You don't dialogue with the forces of evil; you carry out God's will by fighting them until you completely destroy them. Who can stop this runaway freight train? It's picking up speed so we better think fast...


----------



## cuchuflete

So glad to hear you had fun watching an Australian concert.
People on both sides of *what* aisle?  That presupposes that "people" buy into one form of idiocy or another.  Some of us
do not.   

Let's think a little slower.  Runaway freight trains may be less dangerours than bandwagons.


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:


> Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday challenged President Bush to a televised debate.


President Ahmadinejad should be quaking in his boots at the very though of debating President Arbusto--a man who has not only read recently Camus' "The Stranger", but also "three Shakespeares": Check out this video. Would you be  brave enough to debate this guy? 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/30/video-bush-explains-his-_n_28367.html


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> I'm a bit concerned with the cynicism distilled by some of the posts. (Don't forget that there's only one hater of humanity in this forum.)



I do forget, remind me please of whom you speak?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I would pay SO much money to see that, I read about it on the news a few days ago and reckon it would be fantastic.
George would be wearing another wire and probably say something stupid, and the Iranian president would totally win!
I totally agree with his statement that the American media absolutely can't filter the debate and add a load to spin on it, as much as that #@$(%($($(%^(%( Bill O'**%(#($#)(($ Reilly would probably do anyway.
Everything is filtered through the American population through different networks, and has enough spin added onto it to propel a political message or campaign. I really like the Iranian president for mentioning this as well.

This is why I love the BBC.. none of that!


----------



## Outsider

. said:


> Has anybody ever watched a televised political debate in which anything was said other than 'I'm smarter than you' or 'You're a mug and I'm not'.


I liked the debates for the last American presidential elections, even though both candidates avoided some of the hottest issues. Then again, they didn't seem to have much of an impact on the outcome of the elections...


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday challenged President Bush to a televised debate.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/30/iranian_calls_for_debate_with_bush/
> 
> "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. How did the White House respond? The White House said Ahmadinejad's call for a presidential debate on global concerns was a "diversion." And this time I agree with Washington's opinion. A debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad would be first-class entertainment (diversion: n. Something that distracts the mind and relaxes or entertains.)
> 
> I think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is onto something. We should have this type of international debates more often. This is the only preemptive action I would support. World leaders should engage in this type of public and televised discussions before the sh*t hits the fan, and they start bombing the h*ll out of each other.
> 
> Ah, President Ahmadinejad will debate Bush under one condition. The debate should be conducted in English, a language that neither party is fluent in. (Please don't ask me where I got this information.) But the West shouldn't worry. W. will prevail. Why? Harlan McCraney will be coaching Bush.
> 
> Should President Bush debate President Ahmadinejad? Yes or no, and why?


Yes, absolutely! Why, for the reasons you stated - and because although neither would 'win', at least they would_ talk to each other _


Alex_Murphy said:


> I would pay SO much money to see that, I read about it on the news a few days ago and reckon it would be fantastic.
> George would be wearing another wire and probably say something stupid, and the Iranian president would totally win!
> I totally agree with his statement that the American media absolutely can't filter the debate and add a load to spin on it, as much as that #@$(%($($(%^(%( Bill O'**%(#($#)(($ Reilly would probably do anyway.
> Everything is filtered through the American population through different networks, and has enough spin added onto it to propel a political message or campaign. I really like the Iranian president for mentioning this as well.
> 
> This is why I love the BBC.. none of that!


Yes, indeed!


----------



## DavyBCN

Everness said:


> Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday challenged President Bush to a televised debate.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/30/iranian_calls_for_debate_with_bush/
> 
> "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. How did the White House respond? The White House said Ahmadinejad's call for a presidential debate on global concerns was a "diversion." And this time I agree with Washington's opinion. A debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad would be first-class entertainment (diversion: n. Something that distracts the mind and relaxes or entertains.)
> 
> I think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is onto something. We should have this type of international debates more often. This is the only preemptive action I would support. World leaders should engage in this type of public and televised discussions before the sh*t hits the fan, and they start bombing the h*ll out of each other.
> 
> Ah, President Ahmadinejad will debate Bush under one condition. The debate should be conducted in English, a language that neither party is fluent in. (Please don't ask me where I got this information.) But the West shouldn't worry. W. will prevail. Why? Harlan McCraney will be coaching Bush.
> 
> Should President Bush debate President Ahmadinejad? Yes or no, and why?


 

While naturally cynical about almost all politicians (who wouldn't be at 58!) there is one way that such a debate could be useful. Both leaders, and their hangers-on in their respective governments, are dangerous men who use the censorship of the media in their respective countries (state censorship in Iran and politico-commercial in the USA)to ensure that opposing views are rarely heard by the majority of people. There must be a chance that such a debate would allow the opposing views to be heard. Which is why it will not happen.


----------



## Alxmrphi

The White House knows Bush could never pull it off, they will probably turn around and say it's "not the democratic American way to handle a tense situation, having a debate, bring on the bombs!"

Ugh!


----------



## maxwels

President X is honest and upright and it appears good if he refrains from probing into affairs where he is'nt welcomed.I hold him in high esteem and so strongly believe that he'll barely stoop to level that draws flak from the public.


----------



## djchak

Alex_Murphy said:


> it's "not the democratic American way to handle a tense situation, having a debate, bring on the bombs!"
> 
> Ugh!





Yes, and i'm sure you are just as "unbiased" as the BBC. No media institution is unbiased...they all report the news, and have analysis...for the most part, the BBC is consistantly left of center.

The Debate would serve no constructive purpose. The Iranian president has stated his purpose to "wipe Isreal off the map". What is there to debate?


----------



## GenJen54

djchak said:
			
		

> The Iranian president has stated his purpose to "wipe Isreal off the map".


Don't forget, he also included the U.S. in that missive!

Actually, I would think the debate, if done with proper facilitation could be interesting, provided that Bushy didn't have any handlers talking in his earpiece. 

In the best scenario, it would:

1) show BOTH leaders to be utterly dillusional idiots incapable of leading any country;

2) hopefully open the world to both sides of the situation.  I'd like to think that we 'Merkins, having what I would think to be better access to information, already have the tools at hand to at least read about views of the "other side" (via foreign press, etc.).   I'm not sure what kind of access Iranis have, and if it is at all restricted as in other countries, such as China, for example.


----------



## Outsider

djchak said:


> The Iranian president has stated his purpose to "wipe Isreal off the map".


_After_ Israeli officials spoke about invading Iran.


----------



## .   1

GenJen54 said:


> 1) show BOTH leaders to be utterly d*i*llusional idiots incapable of leading any country;


Is this your Freudian way of saying they are deluded dills?

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't believe Iran WAS a threat.. America, which I despise sometimes, justs gets too "I rule the world".

If North Korea is happy in its ways, and they don't appear to want to bomb the US (I'm talking about at the beginning, not "now") .. but America basically gave the impression:

"No no,_* I'm*_ the big boy with the best toys and I think I have to regulate every other country if they appear to get bigger toys than I do"

I'm refering totally to the American government and its mentality and what it appears they think of themselves,* I am not having a go at the normal American people.*

I think, if Iran hadn't have mentioned Isreal, and wanting to wipe them off the planet, I would back their right to have a peaceful nuclear program that _JUST MAYBE_ could be for energy creation, then so be it. In the hands of a psycho like Ahmadinejad, I agree it is dangerous.

I truley think the debate would serve a purpose of being able to let Iran have it's voice against oppresive America.

* We all know America wants to start a war, we've seen the way John Bolton and Condi Rice jump little little kids pointing the finger, boasting about how they need to stop Iran from doing something, while we all look on and go "Are you joking?"

* Look at what happened with Iraq. *'nuff said.*

* I think it'd be good for Iran to get a direct challenge to America, so everybody can see in a debate, the points that Iran will make about America's actions, George Walker Bush wouldn't have a clue how to answer, nobody would. Not because Bush is an idiot, but there are no answers to such behaviour

America had its eyes on Iran while in Afghanistan, BEFORE Ahmadinejad became president of Iran.

It's _*all*_ for oil, it's_* all*_ for money, it's _*all*_ for corperations and the longer that "ADMINISTRATION" is in power, they are lowering the standard of what humans can achieve by greed and blatant undeserved ego, I would love for America not to be a superpower.

Why should they decide what happens in another country?? A country has just as many rights to do things as America has in its own country. 

You cannot judge foreign actions through ones own standards, just like we can't critisise Ancient civilisations behaviour. You can't judge past events by modern standards, because it is a different way of living, just like it is in another country.

For anyone, no matter how right they see it, to want to change some foreign culture, because they don't agree with it, without a calling of help, is nobody I could ever respect.

I could go on and on but I would just want to sit in my room and cry with _*anger *_how much I despise that current US administration.

* COME ON HILARY, COME ON THE DEMOCRATS!*


----------



## djchak

Outsider said:


> _After_ Israeli officials spoke about invading Iran.



Really? I've looked a few places, and can't find anything about this. Link please?

Should I mention where he said this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm


----------



## djchak

Alex_Murphy said:


> I don't believe Iran WAS a threat.. America, which I despise sometimes, justs gets too "I rule the world".
> 
> If North Korea is happy in its ways, and they don't appear to want to bomb the US (I'm talking about at the beginning, not "now") .. but America basically gave the impression:
> 
> "No no,_* I'm*_ the big boy with the best toys and I think I have to regulate every other country if they appear to get bigger toys than I do"
> 
> I'm refering totally to the American government and its mentality and what it appears they think of themselves,* I am not having a go at the normal American people.*
> 
> I think, if Iran hadn't have mentioned Isreal, and wanting to wipe them off the planet, I would back their right to have a peaceful nuclear program that _JUST MAYBE_ could be for energy creation, then so be it. In the hands of a psycho like Ahmadinejad, I agree it is dangerous.
> 
> I truley think the debate would serve a purpose of being able to let Iran have it's voice against oppresive America.
> 
> * We all know America wants to start a war, we've seen the way John Bolton and Condi Rice jump little little kids pointing the finger, boasting about how they need to stop Iran from doing something, while we all look on and go "Are you joking?"
> 
> * Look at what happened with Iraq. *'nuff said.*
> 
> * I think it'd be good for Iran to get a direct challenge to America, so everybody can see in a debate, the points that Iran will make about America's actions, George Walker Bush wouldn't have a clue how to answer, nobody would. Not because Bush is an idiot, but there are no answers to such behaviour
> 
> America had its eyes on Iran while in Afghanistan, BEFORE Ahmadinejad became president of Iran.
> 
> It's _*all*_ for oil, it's_* all*_ for money, it's _*all*_ for corperations and the longer that "ADMINISTRATION" is in power, they are lowering the standard of what humans can achieve by greed and blatant undeserved ego, I would love for America not to be a superpower.
> 
> Why should they decide what happens in another country?? A country has just as many rights to do things as America has in its own country.
> 
> You cannot judge foreign actions through ones own standards, just like we can't critisise Ancient civilisations behaviour. You can't judge past events by modern standards, because it is a different way of living, just like it is in another country.
> 
> For anyone, no matter how right they see it, to want to change some foreign culture, because they don't agree with it, without a calling of help, is nobody I could ever respect.
> 
> I could go on and on but I would just want to sit in my room and cry with _*anger *_how much I despise that current US administration.
> 
> * COME ON HILARY, COME ON THE DEMOCRATS!*



Hilary?

She is not going to run for president. Neither will Condi. No one really knows for sure who is going to run at this point.

Besides, this is outside of the subject of a debate between Iran /U.S.A.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Bill has mentioned she is considering it.
As a majority leader the democrats would be stupid not to put her forward as lead candidate, it is by no way out of the question for her too, all she is saying is about concentrating on being re-elected to the Senate.

It is an important part, at least for me, about a debate, even if it is only widened from U.S.A to, their policy to other countries exactly like Iran.
I just believe on a level between these two presidents, the Iranian president will come out on top, and Bush will have be made a fool of, that's why I think he is too scared, or sorry, his puppeteers are too scared to let him think about it.

I would love it if they did debate, but it's never going to happen.


----------



## Outsider

djchak said:


> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _After_ Israeli officials spoke of invading Iran...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I've looked a few places, and can't find anything about this. Link please?
Click to expand...

I posted this a while ago: "Sharon talks of invading Iran" Unfortunately, the link no longer seems to be working.

We all know about Ahmadinejad's remarks against Israel -- we've heard about them over and over and over again. But how much did we hear about Israel's plans to attack Iran, which predated Ahmadinejad's outbursts? Not enough to remember.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Wow! I never knew Sharon talked about invading Israel? Any relavent links to news sites appriciated!


----------



## Victoria32

djchak said:


> Yes, and i'm sure you are just as "unbiased" as the BBC. No media institution is unbiased...they all report the news, and have analysis...for the most part, the BBC is consistantly left of center.
> 
> The Debate would serve no constructive purpose. The Iranian president has stated his purpose to "wipe Isreal off the map". What is there to debate?


So we keep hearing... One thing I read recently, was an open letter from Ahmadinejad to Bush, and A., seemed to be a very reasonable person! Far from the foaming-at-the-mouth loony anti-Semite that he is portrayed as in the Western media. I'll try to find a link...

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=726
Found it!


----------



## Fernando

I do not know why some of you consider Ahmadinejad "reasonable" but, if I were Bush (I am not, luckily both for you and for me) I would ask him just a few questions:

- What in the hell do you need to enrich uranium for?

- You have said several times than Israel should be wiped out. Is this right or the media is misunderstanding you?

- Can I open a new church in Tehran?

- The missils that Hezbollah is launching over Israel are Iran-made. Which is the misterious process how they have arrived there?


----------



## Alxmrphi

mysterious*

Fernando, you do also raise some interesting points worth consideration.


----------



## barkley04

Personally, i think this is the best way to deal with the iranian nuclear issue.


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:


> - The missils that Hezbollah is launching over Israel are Iran-made. Which is the misterious process how they have arrived there?


That would invite the question "Who made the bombs that Israel launched over Lebanon, and the planes with which they were launched?" But we're veering off the topic...


----------



## Victoria32

Fernando said:


> I do not know why some of you consider Ahmadinejad "reasonable" but, if I were Bush (I am not, luckily both for you and for me) I would ask him just a few questions:
> 
> - What in the hell do you need to enrich uranium for?


He would answer you, as he has done all along - "power generation".. 

..........



Fernando said:


> - The missils that Hezbollah is launching over Israel are Iran-made. Which is the misterious process how they have arrived there?


Are you aware thet the missiles were a matter of self-defence? That the Lebanon was being subjected to a terrifying and vicious bombing campaign that killed hundreds of civilians and destroyed homes? In light of that, does their provenance matter?


----------



## cuchuflete

Mod note:  I just deleted 15 posts.  That's not my idea of fun.

Many were highly intelligent comments on topics far removed from the topic of this thread.  Feel free to open new threads, or contribute to existing ones, to discuss other subjects.

Thanks,
cuchuflete


----------



## cuchuflete

For those who have forgotten what this thread is supposed to be about:

_From Post #1: _* Should President Bush debate President Ahmadinejad? Yes or no, and why? *


----------



## moura

Yes he should, though as someone aready said, I think it was Ireney, Ahmadinejad knew before that Bush was not going to accept and thus he was expecting to win one point. 

I also would think Bush would not accept - he only discusses with himself, with Ms. Condoliza and, I strongly suspect, with his sweet and constant wife.
It is a pity! 
I believe and like good debates, and if this one ocurred, without those highly strict rules of American debates (turning them into monologues), perhaps some interesting questions would be raised on each part and it was curious to hear the answers. And we might learn something more, besides the onilateral (one-lateral?) state declarations of each one.


----------



## Cath.S.

Yes, I think that they should debate _but only_ if they both agree to swallow a dose of some truth drug. That would be very interesting.


----------



## Victoria32

egueule said:


> Yes, I think that they should debate _but only_ if they both agree to swallow a dose of some truth drug. That would be very interesting.


It would indeed be!


----------



## maxiogee

Having read through this thread again I have two questions.

One - can anyone tell me what might be the "debate" content of the proposed debate? Would there be a requirement to answer questions raised by the other person?

Two - To whom was Everness referring in stating — unchallenged — that "there's only one hater of humanity in this forum."? That's a shocking thing to say and be allowed away with. But then I've become used here to asking questions which don't get responses from those I ask them of.


----------



## Fernando

No doubt, the hater of humanity is either a martian or a masochist.

On the thread topic, there has not been any debate among presidents. I do not think Ahmadinejad has the importance to break the the record.

The importance of debates is to convince part of the other's fans. I do not foresee Bush convincing any Iranian nor the opposite. 

A hundred of other leaders, from Gadaffi to Kim Jong Il, with Chávez and others would be delighted to have one hour in global TV.

And, for God's sake, do not allow Castro to debate: five-hour speeches are his specialty.


----------



## choppy seas

Victoria32 said:


> Yes, absolutely! Why, for the reasons you stated - and because although neither would 'win', at least they would_ talk to each other _
> 
> Yes, indeed!


The Iranaian leader has already,a day or two ago,had such a debate with some prominent Americans. Therefore I think it pretty academic if it is with Bush or not.


----------

