Ahmadinejad Repeats Challenge To Debate Bush At U.N.

Iran leader repeats challenge to debate Bush at U.N.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...USA-DEBATE.xml

(Gold9472: What's the matter Bush? Chicken?)

:chknride:

By Parisa Hafezi
Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:40pm

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged U.S. President George W. Bush to a debate on global issues at a U.N. summit in New York, state TV reported on Sunday, repeating a call rejected by Washington last year.

"I had suggested holding a debate. I am saying again that let us discuss global concerns at the (U.N.) General Assembly in front of representatives of other nations," Ahmadinejad told state television.

The White House rejected Ahmadinejad's last year call for a presidential debate, calling it a "diversion".

Ahmadinejad is due to visit New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in September. It will be his third visit since he took office in August 2005.

During his interview with the state television, Ahmadinejad also condemned U.S. policies in the Middle East, including Iraq.

"I am ready to hold talks with Bush on important global issues at the assembly," he said. "Let us hold talks about Iraq and other issues. Then public opinion will judge ... We will offer our global solutions."

The United States severed relations after Tehran's 1979 Islamic revolution which toppled the U.S.-backed Shah.

Washington accuses Shi'ite Muslim Iran of providing funds, arms and training to Iraqi Shi'ite militants and of supporting terrorism across the Middle East. Iran denies the charge and blames the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 for the bloodshed between Iraq's majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs.

Tehran and Washington have held talks in Baghdad to find ways to restore security there but ties are still very strained.

They are also at odds over Tehran's disputed nuclear work. The United States accuses Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear arms under cover of a civilian program. Iran denies this, saying it needs the technology to generate electricity.

Iran has so far refused to halt sensitive nuclear work, despite U.S. threats to ratchet up pressure with new U.N. sanctions. Two rounds of sanctions have already been imposed.

"Of course we will not abandon our right to nuclear technology," Ahmadinejad said. "We have obtained the technology to enrich uranium. We are at industrial level. Why should we abandon our activities?"

Washington is leading a drive for a third sanctions resolution. World powers are set to meet in Washington on September 21 to discuss a new resolution.

Is that Bush 2007, or Bush 1994?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simuvac

Is that Bush 2007, or Bush 1994?

---

That's an interstin video.

There was a thing I heard about where Rove had Bush talk like an idiot to make him more relatible to the average American and more likable.

Here is a question: The US has nuclear weapons and threatens to use them (and remains the only country to have ever used them on someone else). Iran so far does not have nucluear weapons and does not threaten to use them.

So...without any hints, which would you consider to be the more dangerous country?

Australia?

Gold I believe you meant Austria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uber Commandante

Here is a question: The US has nuclear weapons and threatens to use them (and remains the only country to have ever used them on someone else). Iran so far does not have nucluear weapons and does not threaten to use them.

So...without any hints, which would you consider to be the more dangerous country?

---

America has over 10,000 nukes. Iran is 10 years away from having one, at best.

Perhaps more to the point: Why is it okay for Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, etc. to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is it okay for America to enjoy the right to self-determination and self-defense, but not Iran?

There is no answer to these questions, because they are ploys in the propaganda of American exceptionalism. There is no good reason why Iran should not have the right to defend itself.

Maybe even more to the point: Nukes are largely a deterrent. If anyone anywhere were to use nukes, there would be hell to pay everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

That's an interstin video.

There was a thing I heard about where Rove had Bush talk like an idiot to make him more relatible to the average American and more likable.

---

Something tells me it's not an act. I wonder if his deterioration is some kind of dry-drunk syndrome?

Why is Israel allowed to have Nukes, and not be apart of the IAEA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gold9472

Why is Israel allowed to have Nukes, and not be apart of the IAEA?

---

Duh. Because Israel is special, Jon.

:)