Alot has to do with Mr. Bush 's comfort level of public speaking.

Bush refuses debate

Even though english is his second language Mr. Ahmadinejad has more perspicacity than Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush has little to gain and a lot to lose by accepting a debate.

Bush may not be the greatest public speaker, be he knows quite clearly what the problems in the Middle East are, and has a clear vision of the solution.

Iran is currently doing it's best to pick a fight with two of the most powerful nations on the planet - the US and Israel. For what reason? Neither have done anything to them, both have the ability to destroy his country, his country has already attacked both, he has no possibility to defeat either. The US can bring to bear about 80% of it's military power within 48 hours in two different directions.

There is a lot of false in that paragraph.

Iran is hardly trying to pick a fight with the US and Israel. Anti-Israeli comments and statements in the media and by the Iranian leadership, while awful to be sure, are no worse now than they have been for any of the last 30 years. And how exactly is Iran 'picking a fight' with the US?

The US can bring approximatively zero % of its military to bear on Iran at the moment. The US cannot even meet its strategic commitments in Iraq. At very short notice, the US could deploy limited air assets against Iran and thats all. To deploy larger air assest, air-naval assets and especially ground troops would take a massive buildup and would result in the abandonment of most positions currently held in Iraq. Also keep in mind troops currently deployed in Iraq are fatigued, well below equipment standards, and short of replacements. The idea that they effectively could turn on Iran within 48 hours is a massive joke.

Let's see, terrorist training camps in Iran, the arming of various terrorist organizations, threatening to destroy nations, threatening genocide, threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, etc. None of those could be considered 'picking a fight' well in some worlds maybe, but I do consider that they are doing just about anything they can to start a war.

Are their statements worse, heck yes. They never, ever threatened Israel, and their aid to the terrorists in both Afghanistan and Iraq have escalated the situation a lot.

As for the military, try again. Not only is it all available but it can be in position in a matter of hours.

If we took out Iran the Iraqis could easily end the threat they are facing without US assistance. To think that we would need to maintain any forces in either country is a huge under estimation of Iran's involvement.

You have no clue on US military, it's soldiers or it's capabilities. They have the equipment, moral and are not anywhere near fatigued. The soldiers themselves belie that statement. If the intent were occupation then you would be correct, regime change though not even in the same ballpark.

Considering the level of repression of people of Iran (over 60% have never know any other regime) the mere act of removal of the Ayatollahs would be a positive by Iranians, the Muslim world and the rest of the world in general.

What could be the outcome of such a debate?

Exactly which terrorist training camps exist in Iran, who and where?

Yes, as I said they have threatened Israel (though never the US), and speak very very poorly of Israel frequently, as they have done for 40 years. Same with half a dozen other nations in the region.

Saying they are 'doing everything they can to start a war' is useless hyperbole. Obviously they are not, just as obviously they have taken NO offensive action whatsoever against the US, nor even talked about it. So please, keep your comments within the realm of the realistic. There are PLENTY of justified reasons to criticise Iran, without needing to invent others.



I'm sorry, did you just say they 'never ever threatened israel' before the current crisis? I just want to be sure that what you actually asserted.

And please provide evidence that the government of Iran has provided aid to terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.



I'm sorry, but re-asserting your original unevidenced assertion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not a terribly effective tactic.



THIS is a new argument. Now you are asserting that ALL the insurgency and attacks going on inside Iraq are the fault of Iran, and that if Iran were not supporting them, there would be no substantive insurgency?

That is a staggering assertion loreng, one I have never heard before from any source. You are going to need to back that massive and counter-factual opinion of yours up if you want it to hold...



I have no clue on the US military? Riiiight.

OK then, all you need to do is support your wild assertions. Challenge my statements oif they are so 'false'. Prove using sources that US divisions are not all below standard troop strength. prove to me that US divisions in Iraq are not missing enormous amounts of basic military equipment from their orders of battle. If all I said is so patently false based on my 'no clue' about the US military, then it should be easy to prove me wrong, right?

We're waiting...

But I'm SURE you are right. Just because in 2003 it took 350,000 coalition troops to invade Iraq, a country with a broken, underequipped and negligable military, I am SURE you are right that the 138,000 US troops in Iraq at the moment, despite being fully deployed in current roles and are in fact unable to meet these operational commitments, I'm sure that in 48 hours they could all be sent against Iran, a nation with a more sophisticated and advanced military than even 1991 Iraq (an invasion which took almost 600,000 troops). Doesn't matter that there are NO US bases near the Iran border, doesn't matter that divisions are well below OOB in AFVs, APCs and soft vehicles. Apparently, I have no clue about the military, so loreng MUST be right that this fatigues underequipped force could be somehow completely redeployed to the Iranian border and attack, and that, even if EVERY US TROOP was pulled out of Iraq, the force of 138,000 would surely be able to bulldoze the massive, fortified and well equipped Iranian military.

yes, I'm sure you are right. After all, apparently I don't have a clue.

(guffaw)



Dear God, its the whole 'we will be greeted as liberators in Iraq' speech from 2002 again, just with 'Iran substituted'. Come on, you cannot seriously believe that trype do you? Certainly polls in Iran seem to disagree with you 100%, so please, as above, evidence and justify your wild assertion that Iranians would see the invasion of their country by the US as a 'positive thing'.

I will not answer all of your charges here, since about half of them you invented. I did not claim that 'ALL the insurgency and attacks going on inside Iraq are the fault of Iran'.

Nor did I state anything even remotely close to the liberator nonsense that you wrote. I might suggest a basic English course you seem to have problems and are creating statements not made.

I stated that it would take a lot less troops to remove the regime than to occupy. I think you are using the wrong example. Afghanistan was overthrown by less than 20,000 forces. Iranians neither support us or most likely even like us, but they also do not like the current regime. Even if some sided with the regime, untrained militia would be a problem for the next regime and add little to nothing in combat capability. Yes the forces present right now, today would be sufficient.

I think that without our presence they would end the attacks in a matter of weeks. There would be a lot of dead Sunnis yes, but they are more than capable of handling their own defense. As for the troops, I will let them speak for themselves, they have out performed the naysayers time and again.

By the way I said Iran has never threatened to attack Israel prior to the current president. That is a fact, if you care to dispute that I want to see your proof.

Terrorists have been captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon and have stated that they were trained, equipped and paid for by Iran

I really can't believe how many here seem to admire Ahmedinejad. With words like gutsy and charismatic, it's almost as if you have forgotten this man said Israel should be wiped off the map and the holocaust was a myth(unless you agree with him on these principals). He also recently stated that liberal and secular professors should be fired and replaced with those who teach in the old fundamentalists ways. If George Bush were to come out and say these things you would want his head on a platter.

He never said that Israel should be taken off the map. That was a mistranslation. He said peace could not be attained with the current regime. Taken over the coarse of the last couple of years this comment is quit a bit more sedate than Mr. Olmert's referring to Syria and several steps below regime change Iraq. So much has been said on the topic I feel it is grossly unnecessary to post the link.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.

"I personally never said that Israel should be wiped off the map," he told CNN. "I always said and backed fair and equal peace in the region."

In a separate interview with USA Today, Khatami said U.S. forces should remain in Iraq for the time being.

Mr Ahmadinejad says he does not threaten anybody, but "the whole universe threatens" Mr Bush.

"The current of life in the universe opposes you, as it opposes tyranny," he said.

``Today, students should protest and shout at the President asking why some liberal and secular professors are still present in the universities,'' he told a gathering of young scientists on Tuesday. ``Our educational system has been under the influence of the secular system for 150 years. Colonialism is seeking the spread of its own secular system.'' While acknowledging it was difficult to change this system, he said: ``Such a change has begun.''

I'm curious why no link and authour was given. One cannot place a context with that snip. The speech was not correct but is what the rest of the world was told. Whether you chose to read from the Guardian, Information Clearing House, or Juan Cole all say, the the regime must go vanish, kapoot, and contest wikipedia's original comments.

So now that one country has openly overthrown another on the failed basis of wmd, then regime change, is it any surprise that this idea would be picked up somewhere else?

I really can't believe how many here seem to admire Ahmedinejad. With words like gutsy and charismatic, it's almost as if you have forgotten this man said Israel should be wiped off the map and the holocaust was a myth(unless you agree with him on these principals). He also recently stated that liberal and secular professors should be fired and replaced with those who teach in the old fundamentalists ways. If George Bush were to come out and say these things you would want his head on a platter.

The idea of debating such a madman if just plain inane and those why say it would be a good idea are just letting their BDS(Bush derangement Syndrome) show.

Or have you fallen for the idea that if someone is disturbed or has committed acts that are illegal or immoral in your view, he is so rotten through and through that he cannot possibly speak the truth or inadvertently do something that may have positive ramifications?

*Chuckle*



It's quite amusing ,but I could say this exact same statement except saying your instead of our and relate it to Bush and apply it to all the BDSers.

My feeling is that people want to do what ever they can to make Bush look bad, and if it means appeasing somebody like Ahmedinejad, then so be it. Sad really.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

The White House dismissed the idea of a debate, describing it as a diversion.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-29-iran_x.htm

Good idea? Bad Idea? Terrible idea?

What could be the outcome of such a debate?

Would we risk validating an international menace? Or could this be a shining moment in international forensics and American foreign policy?