Home > Iran TV debate challenge to Bush

Iran TV debate challenge to Bush

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 29 August 2006
2 comments

Nuclear International Governments USA

Iran’s president has challenged US President George W Bush to a live TV debate on world affairs.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the US and UK of abusing their "special privileges" and said a debate would let both sides air their views uncensored.

The White House called his suggestion a "diversion" from global concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking two days before a UN deadline for Iran to halt work on its nuclear programme.

He said Tehran had proposed a framework for further talks but said no-one could stop Iran having a peaceful programme.

"Peaceful nuclear energy is the right of the Iranian nation," he told a news conference.

"The Iranian nation has chosen that [course] based upon international regulations, it wants to use it and no-one can stop it."

He said Iran’s response to an incentives package, offered by six nations in exchange for a halt to its nuclear programme, was an "exceptional opportunity" to resolve the dispute.

When asked if Iran would halt enrichment, he said any kind of dialogue "should be based upon the certain rights of the Iranian nation".

UN veto

"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr George W Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," Mr Ahmadinejad told reporters.

"The debate should be 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."

Iran and many other nations "are against America’s practices in managing the world", he said, calling such practices unjust.

He accused both the US and UK of taking advantage of their "special privileges", saying he thought they were the "the origin of all disturbances in the world".

And he also questioned their right to a veto in the UN Security Council. "Isn’t it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" he went on.

But he did not rule out talks with the US in future, if certain conditions were met.

Mr Ahmadinejad’s challenge to President Bush was dismissed by the White House.

"Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran’s behaviour," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Sanctions

Iran has been given until 31 August to halt uranium enrichment - a possible route to nuclear weapons.

Earlier this week, Tehran had offered "serious talks" in response to a package of incentives put forward by the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany.

Washington has proposed implementing sanctions if Iran fails to meet the deadline, while Russia has said such a move would be premature.

Mr Ahmadinejad said it was "unlikely" the Security Council would take action against Iran, and said "sanctions are not an issue".

"We have said everything in our response. I think the time to use the instrument of the Security Council has expired," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5295550.stm

Forum posts

  • Unfortunately Bush would not be able to do a debate without an ear piece. The ear piece would be used for the "real ruler(s)" of the US to feed him the words (lies) to counter attack President Ahmadinejad. Bush would also need to find some really hot and juicy smut on the President of Iran. This is a signature of how Bush works, an example of this is what Bush did with Ann Richards calling her a lesbian and John McCain saying he fathered a black child. Not that these matter, but it makes good smut during a debate. One really bad thing about Bush is that he has no class when he talks to reporters and when he makes presidential speaches. It’s like watching white trash in politics. Kind of like when Bush ate the dinner roll like a family from white trailer trash in front of the worlds top nationals.

    Several American’s that are able to talk in a prestigous way to other international delegates based on class and education, (Al Gore) would be able to tackle talking to another national delegate with ease. Bush on the other hand, would have a dinner roll in his mouth and counter attack President Ahmadinejad with some sort of garbage that only a white trash American would say, " yeah, let’s Iran’s ass". When in fact there is no way Bush would ever win when it comes to intelligence, achievements, honesty, international likeness (meaning other countries respect Iran, not many countries respect the US) this includes world national delegates as well as the general world population. While Bush continues to lie about anything and everything that comes from his mouth, he would only be able to achieve lying about anything with President Ahmadinejad. President Ahmadinejad has more class, higher education (PHD), and has God and not the devil on his side, like Bush the devil worshipper.

    I think Bush would be a cocky-wised assed jerk, vs. Ahmadinejad bringing the peak of intelligence to the table.

    There might be a larger problem, though, if Bush were to wear an ear piece, it might fall off his ear and he would make a much more specticle of himself than ever before. Cheney might have to pick up the ear piece that he is trying to talk through for Bush to hear and we then would know who is really running the show.

  • I don’t think the US should be allowed to attack a country unless bush can pronounce the name of the leader of that country.
    That would render the rest of the world safe from us.