Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on April 25, 2007, 04:26:29 PM
-
By The Associated Press
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday proposed holding direct talks with United States President George W. Bush, Iran's state-run Arabic satellite TV channel reported.
The announcement came as a surprise form the leader whose country is at odds with Washington over its disputed nuclear program and involvement in Iraq.
"Last year, I announced readiness for a televised debate over global issues with his Excellency Mr. Bush. And now we announce that I am ready to negotiate with him about bilateral issues as well as regional and international issues," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on the Web site of Al-Alam.
cont...http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851755.html
-
Bush will turn him down again and then accuse Iran of not cooperating. ::)
-
Bush will turn him down again and then accuse Iran of not cooperating. ::)
Should anyone in America believe that Ahmadinejad is genuine when he says he wants to talk? The man is a maniac, and no president should give him the time of day.
-
Should anyone in America believe that Ahmadinejad is genuine when he says he wants to talk? The man is a maniac, and no president should give him the time of day.
hmmm, ya, heads of state who are maniacs, that's a rare concept... not!
-
Despite his growing political influence in the Persian region, his position has next to no actual decision making power. He is little more than a mouthpiece for the upcoming invasion.
-
Should anyone in America believe that Ahmadinejad is genuine when he says he wants to talk? The man is a maniac, and no president should give him the time of day.
I don't get you.
You seem reasonable.
This man controls a lot of the oil we use. He has 70 million people on the border of a nation in which we're at war. He is rich, his nation is rich. They're on the verge of going nuclear.
He's a threat and an opportunity. How would Reagan have handled it? Talks, threats, and action at last resort. This current speil of "I'd rather enter a losing war, spend a trillion dollars and lose 3000 guys, rather than have a fooking conversation" makes no sense to me.
egj13, enlisted men and civilians die because leaders don't talk. It's terrible and senseless. negotiations are used to prevent war. I don't get everyone turned on by bombing another natino.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran
The true leader of Iran is the Supreme leader, not the president. You will not hear that on CNN because unlike Ahmadinejad the supreme leader is not a sensationalistic buffoon.
-
So he's kinda like the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi?
-
I dont know enough about his specific duties to give you meaningful answer, what I can tell you is he does not have the power implied by our mainsteam media.
-
I dont know enough about his specific duties to give you meaningful answer, what I can tell you is he does not have the power implied by our mainsteam media.
Afghanistan's boogeyman = Osama.
Iraq's boogeyman = Saddam.
Iran's boogeyman = Ahmadinejad.
Media needs a personality to sell to convince people the war is cool.
-
By The Associated Press
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday proposed holding direct talks with United States President George W. Bush, Iran's state-run Arabic satellite TV channel reported.
The announcement came as a surprise form the leader whose country is at odds with Washington over its disputed nuclear program and involvement in Iraq.
"Last year, I announced readiness for a televised debate over global issues with his Excellency Mr. Bush. And now we announce that I am ready to negotiate with him about bilateral issues as well as regional and international issues," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on the Web site of Al-Alam.
cont...http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851755.html
Screw him........he's funding and supply the enemy, anyone who thinks Bush should meet with the person who is enabling the enemy to kill our troops should SERIOUSLY have their head examined.........I'm sure Polosi would go, she's another enabler!
-
Screw him........he's funding and supply the enemy, anyone who thinks Bush should meet with the person who is enabling the enemy to kill our troops should SERIOUSLY have their head examined.........I'm sure Polosi would go, she's another enabler!
The same white house speaker that told us "pat tillman died from enemy fire" also told us what ahmadijhad might be part of.
No offense, but I don't believe much of what they say. Been caught in too many lies.
-
Should anyone in America believe that Ahmadinejad is genuine when he says he wants to talk? The man is a maniac, and no president should give him the time of day.
instead we should bomb?
DONT breed..
gawd i hope u dont
-
I don't get you.
You seem reasonable.
This man controls a lot of the oil we use. He has 70 million people on the border of a nation in which we're at war. He is rich, his nation is rich. They're on the verge of going nuclear.
He's a threat and an opportunity. How would Reagan have handled it? Talks, threats, and action at last resort. This current speil of "I'd rather enter a losing war, spend a trillion dollars and lose 3000 guys, rather than have a fooking conversation" makes no sense to me.
egj13, enlisted men and civilians die because leaders don't talk. It's terrible and senseless. negotiations are used to prevent war. I don't get everyone turned on by bombing another natino.
I never said bomb him. I just don't think our pres needs to talk to him. Send some nobody politician and be done with it.
-
So he's kinda like the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi?
I think more like Blair, if the Queen had a little more power to step in and lop heads off.
-
instead we should bomb?
DONT breed..
gawd i hope u dont
I don't know what is up with you guys in this board. Everyone is so uptight. I say don't talk to him and everyone reads "Bomb him". Says alot about the mindset on here.
-
I don't know what is up with you guys in this board. Everyone is so uptight. I say don't talk to him and everyone reads "Bomb him". Says alot about the mindset on here.
I definitely think Bush should meet with Ahmadinejad. They're both on their way out of office, losing power. Both will be replaced soon.
Meeting could be a chance for both of them to redeem themselves, and sort issues out.
Bush shouldn't wait, but just offer Ahmadinejad to come to the White House for negotiations.
It would be a ballsy move.
-Hedge
-
I don't know what is up with you guys in this board. Everyone is so uptight. I say don't talk to him and everyone reads "Bomb him". Says alot about the mindset on here.
Why not? You think something bad will come about from negotiations?
-
Why not? You think something bad will come about from negotiations?
Oh no, I don't think anything will come out of it good or bad for America as a nation. One thing I have to credit the Muslim community with is their knowledge on how to use the media. While my feeling may be somewhat neutral on who wins the presidency, I believe that the Irans and Syrias of the world would like to see a Democrat in office. Ahmadinejad is a smart enough man to realize that if Bush turns down his offer it will add fuel to the fire in America and give the Democrats a topic to bring up during debates. These people are great at using the American media to further their cause.
-
Oh no, I don't think anything will come out of it good or bad for America as a nation. One thing I have to credit the Muslim community with is their knowledge on how to use the media. While my feeling may be somewhat neutral on who wins the presidency, I believe that the Irans and Syrias of the world would like to see a Democrat in office. Ahmadinejad is a smart enough man to realize that if Bush turns down his offer it will add fuel to the fire in America and give the Democrats a topic to bring up during debates. These people are great at using the American media to further their cause.
I disagree.
The tough policy of the Bush Administration forces people in these countries into the arms of Islam, and extrem Islamism.
We have no need for leftist apologists, but the current policy of alienation is simply creating bigger problems in the future.
What we need is a president who is willing to discuss, even with people he loaths. Just like Nixon.
I think Giuliani, Edwards and perhaps Obama could be that person. Clinton? She has Bill Clinton in her corner, you can't take that away from her.
But Giuliani and Edwards are my two top guys now that McCain has become an old grumpy man.
-Hedge
-
now that McCain has become an old grumpy man.
he was recently caught singing a beach Boys song. Pretty youthful of him!
-
WHO IS THE NUT OUT OF THE TWO AGAIN ?
-
WE LOOK extrem TO ALOT OF PEOPLE RIGHT NOW !
-
Should anyone in America believe that Ahmadinejad is genuine when he says he wants to talk? The man is a maniac, and no president should give him the time of day.
I agree. He's a nut. Advocates killing in one breath and "talks" the next.
-
I agree. He's a nut. Advocates killing in one breath and "talks" the next.
But wouldn't you agree that is a dangerous path, not engaging in talks because you deem the guy a nut? Virtually every leader is seen as a nut by the people of other countries. You want nut, whaz up with that Kim Jong il... We're for talks with this nutcase, but against talks with Iran? Hey, how about a little consistency is the BS here :P No wonder Iran got the message that it's in their best interests to build the bomb asap. ::)
-
Why not? You think something bad will come about from negotiations?
Why would you negotiate with someone who is providing the enemy with supplies that are killing our troops and said the Holocaust never happend and wants us and Israel wiped off the face of the map (his words, not mine)?
-
...........oh yeah, and goes against UN sanctions (not that it matters, they're useless anyway).
-
But wouldn't you agree that is a dangerous path, not engaging in talks because you deem the guy a nut? Virtually every leader is seen as a nut by the people of other countries. You want nut, whaz up with that Kim Jong il... We're for talks with this nutcase, but against talks with Iran? Hey, how about a little consistency is the BS here :P No wonder Iran got the message that it's in their best interests to build the bomb asap. ::)
To me the only difference between Jong Il and Mahmoud, is that Jong Il is onlt trying to get economic help for his people. Mahmoud is trying to influence american politics.
-
To me the only difference between Jong Il and Mahmoud, is that Jong Il is onlt trying to get economic help for his people. Mahmoud is trying to influence american politics.
hahahahhahhahahhhahhahhhahhahhahhahahhhahhahhahhahhahhhahhaha.... MM69? is that you?
-
But wouldn't you agree that is a dangerous path, not engaging in talks because you deem the guy a nut? Virtually every leader is seen as a nut by the people of other countries. You want nut, whaz up with that Kim Jong il... We're for talks with this nutcase, but against talks with Iran? Hey, how about a little consistency is the BS here :P No wonder Iran got the message that it's in their best interests to build the bomb asap. ::)
I'm saying I don't believe he is sincere. See Mr. I's comments:
Mr. Intenseone link=topic=144239.msg2033125#msg2033125 date=1177607036]
Why would you negotiate with someone who is providing the enemy with supplies that are killing our troops and said the Holocaust never happend and wants us and Israel wiped off the face of the map (his words, not mine)?
-
hahahahhahhahahhhahhahhhahhahhahhahahhhahhahhahhahhahhhahhaha.... MM69? is that you?
Wow that is twice today. Not MM69, we are both Air Force but that is as far as that goes.
-
I'm saying I don't believe he is sincere. See Mr. I's comments:
You are not in the least bit suspicious of the evidence? If Iran were doing it and they might be, I have a hard time buying they covertly supply an insurgency with weapons that are stamped, "Made in Iran" on the side. Russia supplied our adversaries all the time, we still held talks with them...
-
To me the only difference between Jong Il and Mahmoud, is that Jong Il is onlt trying to get economic help for his people. Mahmoud is trying to influence american politics.
LOL!
Kim jung il fired ICBMs at hawaii on the 4th of July and blew up a nuke.
We're about to pinkmist 70 million Iranians because their leader says mean things about other countries, and they are 5 years away from nuke technology.
If you don't instantly see the hypocracy in caving to NK's demands and ramping up to war with Iran, you never will.
-
Why would you negotiate with someone who is providing the enemy with supplies that are killing our troops and said the Holocaust never happend and wants us and Israel wiped off the face of the map (his words, not mine)?
Keep in mind the source of this "fact" is the same source that told us Tillman died shooting and Lynch emptied both clips.
-
You are not in the least bit suspicious of the evidence? If Iran were doing it and they might be, I have a hard time buying they covertly supply an insurgency with weapons that are stamped, "Made in Iran" on the side. Russia supplied our adversaries all the time, we still held talks with them...
Granted, we have not seen the evidence proving Iran is supplying insurgents. But I look at that allegation together with what has come out of the man's own mouth about Israel and the U.S. This country has taught their people to hate Americans for decades. I remember about 20 or more years ago seeing a clip of Iranian children burning an American flag and chanting "death to America!" That's the kind of mentality we're dealing with.
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk, I'm saying I don't trust him.
-
Granted, we have not seen the evidence proving Iran is supplying insurgents.
::) hellllloooooo.... yes we have, they held up the evidence, weapons and bombs stamped made in Iran on the side ::) What came out of Russia verbally about the US, we still talked to them didn't we! I don't trust any of these idiots either.
-
LOL!
Kim jung il fired ICBMs at hawaii on the 4th of July and blew up a nuke.
We're about to pinkmist 70 million Iranians because their leader says mean things about other countries, and they are 5 years away from nuke technology.
If you don't instantly see the hypocracy in caving to NK's demands and ramping up to war with Iran, you never will.
Again I never proposed war with Iran.
-
Granted, we have not seen the evidence proving Iran is supplying insurgents.
We know what a stickler you are for evidence.
Remember when Alberto Gonzalez made contradictory statements and you refused to admit he had misled us?
I hope you don't make any silly assumptions about Iran until we have IRONCLAD PROOF, the same standard you held with Fredo.
-
We know what a stickler you are for evidence.
Remember when Alberto Gonzalez made contradictory statements and you refused to admit he had misled us?
I hope you don't make any silly assumptions about Iran until we have IRONCLAD PROOF, the same standard you held with Fredo.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376889/
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376889/
Beach Bum, remember when you told everyone you dropped out of high school?
Then, you told us you were a college professor?
Then, you authoratively said that the "M" in "MBA" stood for "mail-order".
Then, you admitted you'd trust Alex Jones over Bush, then lied about it.
You can make fun of me for being a working man who spends time with my fmaily every day, but you lack integrity and honesty. You're a low grade subject.
-
Beach Bum, remember when you told everyone you dropped out of high school?
Then, you told us you were a college professor?
Then, you authoratively said that the "M" in "MBA" stood for "mail-order".
Then, you admitted you'd trust Alex Jones over Bush, then lied about it.
You can make fun of me for being a working man who spends time with my fmaily every day, but you lack integrity and honesty. You're a low grade subject.
Go do your chores Mrs. Doubtfire.
-
Go do your chores Mrs. Doubtfire.
If you had any children, you'd know what a blessing it is to spend time with them.
-
I agree. He's a nut. Advocates killing in one breath and "talks" the next.
I'm lost. :-\ Which nut ...um president were you referring to again? :P
-
I say don't talk to him and everyone reads "Bomb him".
whats soo bad about talking..
you think he'll convince our dumb prez into this way of thinking??
is he THAT gullable?
ok fine..secondly.. ...will it be a waste of time?
well bush has set a record for vacation days...soo he's got the time..i mean wtf..give it a shot right?
is bush THAT concieted that given a chance to save America from a nuclear threat, he refuses to talk out of pride??
do tell?
-
whats soo bad about talking..
you think he'll convince our dumb prez into this way of thinking??
is he THAT gullable?
ok fine..secondly.. ...will it be a waste of time?
well bush has set a record for vacation days...soo he's got the time..i mean wtf..give it a shot right?
is bush THAT concieted that given a chance to save America from a nuclear threat, he refuses to talk out of pride??
do tell?
reading comprehension seems to be lacking here. If you read all my posts in this thread you will see that the only reason I think it is a waste of time to talk to him is that he is insincere and just looking for a political angle to influence the vote in the US.
Now that you have read somewhere in there that I advocate bombing Iran (oh come on I know you think that) I will reitterate that I don't think we should do that. I think (as said before) that Bush should send some no name politician (Rep/Dem) to talk to him, which will make it appear that the US wants to "talk" while at the same time thumbing our nose at him.