quaist

Link

It sounds ridiculous, but I would find it interesting...

Lexis

It couldn't happen but it would be interesting to see these two men get into it. Right now things seem so static (from the outside looking in of course)

TheAngel

I'd love to see something like that happen. It would be very, very interesting. Sadly, it won't, but perhaps if we had a president that had more visual international relations then people could get the whole picture of what was going on.

ceilirose

I've always appreciated seeing Blair and before him Major and Thatcher in their weekly (?) sessions before the British Parliament. Maybe it's old stuff to the British but to me it's always interesting to watch. I'd love to see something like that happen here or even an American President go at it with the British Parliament. As for Bush debating with anyone..that's not going to happen anytime soon. His forte is staged, scripted speeches and not off the cuff remarks.

Lexis

I adore Prime Minister's Questions as I think it ensures that our PM can go round in his own little bubble. He gets criticsed and mocked loudly by all comers (sometimes people from his own party!). Like when he walked into Parliament after the G8 microphone gaff, a few members of the Tories yelled out "Yo Blair!".

I hate to say it but I think Bush would get eaten by our MP's if he tried to debate them. I think a lot of US politicans would, not because they are stupid but because its such a diffirent system.

ceilirose

Oh he definitely would get eaten alive but Clinton and Reagan could have pulled it off. Both could react spontaneously and wouldn't get flustered and they both were quick witted..at least Reagan was in his prime.

sum1

This is an attempt at distraction. The world isn't taking the Iran nuclear threat seriously enough. If Iran gets nukes the rest of the middle east will follow. And it won't be like North Korea, the middle east may well start USING the nukes. But people pussyfoot over putting sanctions on Iran, never mind that sanctions will be entirely inadequate.

Moderate Bill

Problem is, I'm not sure it's ok for one country to tell another what it can and cannot do/buil/research because country 1 is the good guy, and country 2 is evil. Am I afraid that Iran will use any warheads it develops? How could one not be, after the whole "Wipe Israel off the map" remark? It's friggin' scary!

But let's look at it from the Iranian perspective. What if you were on the tail end of a few American "adventures"? Wouldn't they look pretty evil in your eyes, especially since they have supremely powerful weapons that you don't have and have made strikes against some of your allies? How can one side justly say who's more dangerous?

The UN should have a clear policy for nuclear development based on need for fuel, sustainable and secure government, and government policy (extremism= no nukes for you!). Even then, all nuclear-capable nations should have to undergo frequent and un-announced inspections, with very real sanctions if the conditions are breached.

Alas and alack, this would require a more effective UN than the one that currently. Oh well, a man can dream, right?

quaist

Haven't you heard about the stealing of atomic waste, yet?

Well, President Bush seems to think he needs to play world police. Or he's just afraid...

quaist

Sorry for double-posting, but I think there's something you may find interesting:

Bush vs. Ahmadinejad: A TV Debate We'll Never See

When Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invited President Bush to engage in a "direct television debate" a few days ago, the White House predictably responded by calling the offer "a diversion." But even though this debate will never happen, it's worth contemplating.

Both presidents are propaganda junkies - or, more precisely, propaganda pushers - so any such debate would overdose the audience with self-righteous arrogance. The two presidents are too much alike.

Each man, in his own way, is a fundamentalist: so sure of his own moral superiority that he's willing to push his country into a military confrontation. This assessment may be a bit unfair to Ahmadinejad, who hasn't yet lied his nation into war; the American president is far more experienced in that department.

By saying that it's an open question whether Nazi Germany really perpetrated a Holocaust, the Iranian president has left no doubt that he is dangerously ignorant of history. Bush's ignorance of history is decidedly more subtle - though, judging from his five and a half years in the Oval Office, hardly less dangerous.

Ahmadinejad questions whether a huge historical event actually occurred. Bush doesn't bother to question key historical facts. He just ignores them - on the apparently safe assumption that few in the US news media will object very strenuously.

Overall, American journalists pay only selective attention to history. Often they're too busy helping to lay groundwork for the USA's next war effort.

So, we hear little about the direct CIA role in organizing the coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. Or about the torture and murder inflicted on Iranian dissenters by the secret police of the US-installed Shah for the next quarter of a century, until his overthrow in 1979.

When I was in Tehran last year, during the presidential election campaign that ended with Ahmadinejad's victory, the ghosts of the coup that destroyed Iranian democracy were everywhere. The nightmare of the Shah has been replaced by the nightmare of the Islamic Republic - both made possible by the coup that Washington hatched.

But the US president copes with such unpleasant history by simply - and simplemindedly - refusing to acknowledge it. And American news media routinely go along for the detour. The avoidance makes Iranian hostility toward the US government seem totally irrational.

Meanwhile, the commentaries from major media keep echoing unsubstantiated claims from Washington as if they were facts. Even mainstream outlets inclined to urge restraint give enormous ground to the war planners.

On August 25, while ostensibly sounding a note of sobriety about Capitol Hill bombast, a New York Times editorial flatly declared: "Iran's fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States." The newspaper added: "It's obvious that Iran wants nuclear weapons, has lied about its program and views America as an enemy." But it should be no less obvious that the United States and its ally Israel - both with a record of lying about their own military intentions - have nuclear arsenals and view Iran as an enemy.

More hawkish than the Times, the Washington Post printed an editorial on August 24 warning Russia and China that they "should not undercut Western efforts to defuse the Iran crisis by peaceful means." With an oddly menacing twist, the editorial proclaimed: "No responsible power has anything to gain from further tension in the Middle East, still less an eventual war over Iran's nuclear ambitions."

We should remember how the same newspaper wielded its editorial cudgel the last time the White House was laying groundwork for a military attack. On February 6, 2003, the Post - under the headline "Irrefutable" - told readers in no uncertain terms: "After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Such limited imagination continues to infuse the Post's editorial outlook - and, for that matter, the world views of most US media outlets. The fantasy of a debate between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush might be strange, but the reality of American journalism is grotesque as Washington escalates its extremely dangerous confrontation with Tehran.

Source

chicah

I find it extremely weird that the president never engage in any debates or tv-debates. It's just... odd. I think it's quite normal in other countries, so I was surprised when I heard that the president doesn't in the US.
It would be interesting to see though. It's difficult to say who would've won. I doubt Bush is the best debater, but on the other hand most people strongly dislike Ahmadinejad so they would probably listen more to what Bush had to say and label everything Ahmadinejad said terrorism.

sportsfangirl

Well, he does think that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth...

chicah

Still, does that make everything he says terrorism? Isn't it possible that he has some views that's not counted as terrorism?

Personally I think someone should put that guy behind bars for what he's doing to his country. But no matter how much I dislike him I have to respect his opinions.

sportsfangirl

Maybe it doesn't, but I guess we'll never know, and I agree that he should be put behind bars. I mean, usually, whenever we see him on the tele, he's usually saying how he;s going to go through with the nuclear program, or moaning about Israel's existence. So, to sum it up, what he has shown us isn't too good, so I find his views pretty disagreeable.