PDA

View Full Version : Iran wants to debate Bush (US)



Gan
08-29-2006, 09:10 AM
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."
His comments came during a news conference, currently taking place in Tehran, during which he is expected to respond to a United Nations ultimatum to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions.
Although he has yet to directly address the U.N. deadline, Ahmadinejad said '"nobody can prevent" Iran from its right to a "peaceful, nuclear program."
"I think the time has passed to speak of the Security Council and the tools they can use to force a country to do certain things," he said.
The Islamic republic has until Thursday to comply to a Security Council resolution to halt the enrichment program, which Iran maintains is part of a civilian nuclear program.
Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to master technology to produce nuclear weapons.
"We expect no change in the Iranian position," said CNN's Aneesh Raman.
Iranian officials have insisted that their nuclear program is solely for peaceful generation of power and that they have no ambitions to build nuclear weapons.
On July 31, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution giving Iran until the end of next week to agree to suspend its uranium enrichment program, which would pave the way for the Tehran regime to receive financial incentives.
The United States has also held out the possibility of resuming direct contacts with Iran, more than 25 years after the two countries broke off diplomatic relations.
However, if the Iranians do not accept the offer, then the Security Council will discuss a resolution proposing economic sanctions on Iran.
While such a move is backed by three of the council's permanent members -- the United States, Britain and France -- the two others, Russia and China, have been cool to the idea and could use their veto to block a sanctions resolution.

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

Intrestingly enough, I'm disturbed by the fact that the UN is offering financial incentives for Iran to stop its enrichment program. In essence we're bribing them NOT to develop nuclear weapons, much like we bribed North Korea, and they're doing it anyway.

I'm conflicted with the idea of one country telling another country what to do. Even in plural when more than one country is involved. HOWEVER, I'm more disturbed by the fact of a country's leader calling for the total anniahlation of another country and then posturing to develop the tools and means with which to do it.

If the UN is not going to man-up to this issue, then someone else is going to have to do it.

Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 09:23 AM
Oh just give him Iraq or Chezkoslovakia. He'll be happy after that.

Let's hug!

Wezas
08-29-2006, 09:31 AM
Iranian President wants to debate Bush?

Christ, why not challenge Superman to a kryptonite eating contest.

Sean
08-29-2006, 10:13 AM
I think this forum really needs a fishing icon/smiley.

Gan
08-29-2006, 10:34 AM
I think this forum really needs a fishing icon/smiley.

Or a picture of a troll, so you can save the effort of typing.

Edited for your viewing pleasure... :fish:

Skirmisher
08-29-2006, 10:43 AM
They've found our weak point and unfortunately he's our leader.

:unclesam:

Sean
08-29-2006, 10:56 AM
Or a picture of a troll, so you can save the effort of typing.

Yea, thats it I constantly board troll, I mean I guess I could follow people around calling them hypocrits and just replying to posts with tin foil hat references...

Anyway, I actually agreed with your inital point and mostly with your second point. You just lost me with your backlash like fishing expedition of a closing.

Landrion
08-29-2006, 10:58 AM
Iranian President wants to debate Bush?

Christ, why not challenge Superman to a kryptonite eating contest.

No joke! I was thinking, couldnt we send someone a little better at it for debate purposes?

ElanthianSiren
08-29-2006, 11:00 AM
Don't worry -- I'm sure his translation device will break again, and he will nod and smile like the situation with the French. Then, there will be a random talking point, and it will all be handed over to diplomats. I still think Iran is betting on 1. lack of resources from the country that spends the most on defense in the world, 2. exacorbated by the fact that they have a few (not many) UN countries that they are friendly with, 3. intensified by the fact that the American people, as a whole, are fed up with Bush's wars. Being a country by the people and so on, the quagmire we already have ourselves in in the Middle East has offered Iran the opportunity to thumb their nose at our president (aka "challenge to a debate"); it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

-M

Tromp
08-29-2006, 11:01 AM
I do think China will veto since they buy so much of Iran's oil.

I'm curious if the debate will happen with out the little ear pieces. I'd love for these two to go at it solo without someone whispering commentary to them. Imagine the amount of viewing this would get. Then again with W on our side we may be at a disadvantage.

The debate will never happen IMO.

Wezas
08-29-2006, 11:06 AM
Check for a bulge in the small of his back.

Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 11:27 AM
Don't worry -- I'm sure his translation device will break again, and he will nod and smile like the situation with the French. Then, there will be a random talking point, and it will all be handed over to diplomats. I still think Iran is betting on 1. lack of resources from the country that spends the most on defense in the world, 2. exacorbated by the fact that they have a few (not many) UN countries that they are friendly with, 3. intensified by the fact that the American people, as a whole, are fed up with Bush's wars. Being a country by the people and so on, the quagmire we already have ourselves in in the Middle East has offered Iran the opportunity to thumb their nose at our president (aka "challenge to a debate"); it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

-M

Actually, he's betting on the Democrats taking over the House, Senate and White House.. then he can do whatever he wants. He's just stalling.

Gan
08-29-2006, 11:32 AM
I wonder what a democrat president response would be if the day after inaugaration Israel pre-emptively decides to turn Iran into a glass parking lot.

Skirmisher
08-29-2006, 11:34 AM
To send Windex?

Tromp
08-29-2006, 11:43 AM
Actually, he's betting on the Democrats taking over the House, Senate and White House.. then he can do whatever he wants. He's just stalling.


The Republicans are doing a real good job now in preventing him from doing whatever he wants, right?

WTF does he want? Nuclear Energ isn't such a bad thing unless there is a meltdown.

ElanthianSiren
08-29-2006, 11:45 AM
I doubt Iran plans to stall until 2008. Also, I doubt Iran would be as easy to conquer as one strike done. Iraq wasn't either, need I remind you? I think a good democrat would probably remind people of the disasters inherent in underestimating an opponent (perhaps they could use recent examples). Sadly, we can't ask FDR (WW2), Johnson (Vietnam), Truman (WW2), Wilson (WW1), or JFK (Vietnam CMC) what they'd do.

-M

Gan
08-29-2006, 11:52 AM
Its really a pandora's box. The world will probably have to take a retroactive approach and see if Iran does develop enriched fuel, does weaponize it, and does deploy it (directly or indirectly) through their own military or through their sponsorship of terrorist organizations.

Since the isotope signature is pretty distinct, it would not be difficult to trace where it came from, upon its detonation. However, I dont want to be the victim of said detonation in order for the rest of the world to react (retroactively) to their supposed/ambiguous/predicted intentions.

Tromp
08-29-2006, 12:08 PM
Just throwing an idea out there...

If a country has the $ to build a nuclear power reactor,why wouldn't the UN come up with a UN Developed/Sanctioned/Managed program where the UN provides the plant and maintains ownership but the country (i.e. Iran) gets the benefit from the power? Thus keeping the plant strictly under scrutinization.

Iran wouldn't be running the plant themselves anyhow. They'd probably higher a nuclear power company to build and operate it.

M2C's.

sst
08-29-2006, 12:55 PM
That was offered Tromp, but Iran said no, they dont want a reactor that can not double as a base for research, and to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran and Syria have their hands in a lot of what is going on in iraq right now.
A quick air war would help to make them think twice, though its unlikely

Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 01:02 PM
The Republicans are doing a real good job now in preventing him from doing whatever he wants, right?

WTF does he want? Nuclear Energ isn't such a bad thing unless there is a meltdown.


You are an ignorant little man if you believe that all he wants is nuclear energy.

And Hitler just wanted some oceanfront property too.

Tromp
08-29-2006, 01:59 PM
You are an ignorant little man if you believe that all he wants is nuclear energy.

And Hitler just wanted some oceanfront property too.

Hey I'm not the one with the real intelligent looking bitter dwarf icon. I'd say you being the first to hurl insults definately stakes claim to ignorance.

Good analogy BTW. If the UN offered Iran a sanctioned power plant and it was refused, then F'em in the ear. That crack pot should be no where near a nuclear weapon.

Sean of the Thread
08-29-2006, 03:39 PM
World leaders don't "debate". They make policy.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/IranNutBag.jpg

TheEschaton
08-29-2006, 10:39 PM
1) I can imagine that no country would want a UN owned and monitored plant in their country, for fear of it becoming a center for UN "operations" in the country, especially if said country believed that the UN was disproportionately controlled by certain member countries. Which leads me to believe..

2) I agree, veto powers suck. There are so many resolutions that never made it on the books condemning Israel for their actions over the past 30 years, because of an American veto, which otherwise passed unanimously.

-TheE-