world

Iran's Ahmadinejad wants to debate Obama at U.N.

59 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments
Login to comment

I can't wait for Immadinjihad to make up with Obama and the world will live in peace. Obama can do it if anyone can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Forget the UN, what about the WWE in a steel cage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That "debate" would be something to look forward to.

Ahmedinejad lambasting the Jews and the hated Zionist Entity, and Obama sitting through it and then apologizing for the evils the West and praising Islam....

a love fest the likes we have never seen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama will accept. Recall his reply in the presidential debates of last summer about meeting "without preconditions" the leader of Iran.

I mean, it's not like he was just out to score points with the Far Left or anything, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least now the US stands a chance in hell of winning such a debate. If it were that complete and useless moron GWB (whom I believe was too chicken to accept such a debate) the US would have been even more of a laughing stock under said 'leader's' regime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We should have sent Chretien. He was a good poodle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: "We should have sent Chretien."

You mean instead of bush when bush chickened out? Agreed. Despite the speech impediment, the man could outspeak your former president in more than one language, any day of the week. Well, to be fair, aside from the bilingual part that's not really saying much. A monkey could outspeak GWB.

As for Obama debating, like I said, the US now stands a chance in hell of looking good in a debate with this man, if Obama were to accept.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

" As for Obama debating, like I said, the US now stands a chance in hell of looking good in a debate with this man, if Obama were to accept. "

Yes, what chance would Obama have in a debate against an intellectual giant like Mahmood Ahmedinejad.

You might have a point, but it is still kind of surprising to see the level of confidence that Obama voters have in their hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agreeing to debate a thug like A'jad only legitimizes rule of a regime that tortures female Canadian journalists to death, not that this matters to America-obsessed Lefties, if such debates hold even the possibility of a perceived American "defeat."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So when Ahmadinejad wins the debate, will we stop our bias reporting about Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: "Yes, what chance would Obama have in a debate against an intellectual giant like Mahmood Ahmedinejad."

Interesting that you take my 'the US now has a chance, whereas before they didn't' to mean no confidence in Obama. I say 'interesting', not 'surprising', because logical deduction has never been your forte. Nor has twisting words... you're so see-through you give "transparent" a new level of opaqueness.

Try again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Den_Den: "So when Ahmadinejad wins the debate, will we stop our bias reporting about Iran?"

The problem is if the US accepted the challenge you would have two highly intelligent people debating, but people obviously very different in terms of what they support/believe in (and rightly so, in the case of Obama). They could come off both presenting very different points of view, with some strong arguments, and regardless of the fact that Iran's stance on things like the holocaust are completely bogus in the minds of most (or anyone in their right mind), they're still likely to think they won the debate because they refuse to believe in anything else.

My point, and I know you're not arguing it, was simply that with Obama at least Iran can't make the US look like inbred fools like he could with Obama's predecessor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And of course by 'he' in the last part of the last post I meant 'Mahmood Ahmedinejad'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So when Ahmadinejad wins the debate, will we stop our bias reporting about Iran?

When Ahmadinejad wins the debate, the world (and those people who, you know, control the media and stuff), will recognize how terribly unfair they have been to the uh, democratically appointed (winky-winky) leader of theocratic Iran, and then people like you can finally leave horrible, capitalist Japan for his Middle Eastern paradise, where social justice is the guiding principle. Just think, no more oppression from the many agents of American hegemony in Japan. And no more McDonalds! Surely you have friends who defended Cuba by actually moving there, yeah?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i can see it now Ahmadinejad facing off against Obama and his array of teleprompters. Obama isn't smart enough to out wit this guy even with a lot of electronic assistance its best that he ducks this challenge for the sake of preserving the comical smartest man in the white house label.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: So if Obama doesn't accept you're saying that he's a chicken?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "i can see it now Ahmadinejad facing off against Obama and his array of teleprompters. Obama isn't smart enough to out wit this guy even with a lot of electronic assistance its best that he ducks this challenge for the sake of preserving the comical smartest man in the white house label."

This from a guy who claimed his hero didn't start the war in Iraq, and could only clarify himself a few months later! Anyway, if Obama's that dumb, your hero -- his predecessor -- can only be as smart as a half bowl of chestnuts, or a sturdy sign post, perhaps.

SuperLib: "smith: So if Obama doesn't accept you're saying that he's a chicken?"

Depends on the timing and the reasoning, but if there's nothing good, as there was nothing good with bush, then I'll say yes, as bush was a chicken. That make you happy enough? Glad you can admit his predecessor was of the fowl family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed on Monday a face-to-face debate with U.S. President Barack Obama

I don't see Bush anywhere in the article meself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: So if Obama doesn't accept you're saying that he's a chicken?

Of course he will say that, and if Obama accepts he will become another Palin parrot and say he is "legitimizing a terrorist regime" Don't expect anything from right wing whackos except a lot of shrill whistling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: Depends on the timing and the reasoning, but if there's nothing good, as there was nothing good with bush, then I'll say yes, as bush was a chicken. That make you happy enough? Glad you can admit his predecessor was of the fowl family.

Just wanted to make sure I understood that your position is that if any US President doesn't debate with Ahmadinejad then they're officially a "chicken."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind: I don't see Bush anywhere in the article meself.

smithinjapan mentioned Bush in 4 separate posts so that kinda counts as being in the article, I guess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That "debate" would be something to look forward to.

Another interesting illustration in how the debate in both the US and in Iran shows the similarity in outlook of the hardline conservatives on both sides. We actually appear to have US conservatives wishing for a victory by the ultra-conservative Ahmadinejad in the upcoming Iranian elections. And, as with the Iranian conservatives, they long for a debate in which the US president will be humiliated in the eyes of the world. (Believe it: nothing would please them more, especially if it enables their Republican -Guard- Party to gain a few notches in public opinion.)

Meanwhile, the reformers and change agents in both nations -- represented by President Obama in the US, and people like Khatami and Moussavi in Iran -- look forward to an easing of tensions and better relations. Liberals in the US openly state the sincere hope that Ahmadinejad will not be around in a few months to debate anybody but himself.

Should Ahmadinejad come out ahead, and the stage for such a debate approved, I would want President Obama to clean Mahmood's clock.

What no US conservative appears to want to admit is that Ahmadinejad has, in fact, capitulated in the very offering of this "debate" to the pressures put on them to open up by President Obama. Liberals understand how a conservative can accuse someone who suspends a nuclear enrichment program as an appeaser who "humiliates" the country, the way Ahmadinejad has accused Khatami -- the same way these conservatives want Obama to be humiliated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - we face A'jad preciselt because the "liberal" Carter was too coward to stand up to Khomeni.

The late Ayatollah's own son admitted as much.

You funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we face A'jad preciselt because the "liberal" Carter was too coward to stand up to Khomeni.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected and became president of Iran in August of 2005. This is quite a few years after President Carter left office. (Was Carter also responsible for the reformer, Khatami, and his suspension of Iran's nuclear weapons program? Maybe so, only as citizen-Carter through the peace center.)

What makes you funny is your apparent belief that Iranian history began with Jimmy Carter. If one goes back a bit farther, they will find that, through the 50s and 60s, the conservative Shah built up the power and influence of the very conservative clerics as a way to counteract the influence of liberal reformers against his regime.

This is pretty much what American conservatives wanted to happen. After all, they helped overthrow a democratically-elected, nationalist government in Iran and installed the Shah in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The late Ayatollah's own son admitted as much.

It stands to reason that some US conservatives will buy -- lock, stock and barrel -- what Iranian conservatives will say when it comes to undermining a US president who isn't of their party. Both sides will place loyalty to party ideology and love of their own power over the best interests of their nation.

Thank you for making my point yet again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected and became president of Iran in August of 2005.

Candidates are hand-picked by the mullahs.Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the guy who rules. It's a Potemkin election.

You just make me laugh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

" Meanwhile, the reformers and change agents in both nations -- represented by President Obama in the US, and people like Khatami and Moussavi in Iran -- look forward to an easing of tensions and better relations. "

Surely you are not that naive? In the Islamic republic of Iran, every candidate is vetted by the mullahs, so the difference between "reformers" and "hardliners" is one of style, not of substance. All of them believe in the divine task of working towards the world-wide rule of islam; any candidate who does not share that vision never gets a chance.

And you can thank the late President Carter for this mess -- he is the one who did his best to bring down the secular Shah and give power to the "holy man" Khomeini.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surely you are not that naive? In the Islamic republic of Iran, every candidate is vetted by the mullahs, so the difference between "reformers" and "hardliners" is one of style, not of substance.

Surely you can't be that ignorant. (No need to answer that.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, the irony in WilliB's statement is that, to hardline Iranian conservatives, the only difference between the reformer Obama and hardliner Bush is one of style and not of substance.

I mention the former president because it is very clear that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Iran's version of George W. Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But he balanced the offer

How is an opportunistic proposal to dress down a popular president an "offer"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama will accept. Recall his reply in the presidential debates of last summer about meeting "without preconditions" the leader of Iran.

Yes, without preconditions. Ahmadinejad has made the precondition of not talking about nukes, so Obama has no obligation to accept.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter at 07:38 PM JST - 26th May yabits - we face A'jad preciselt because the "liberal" Carter was too coward to stand up to Khomeni. The late Ayatollah's own son admitted as much. You funny.

Hell you forgot to mention that if not for the Reagan administration the Iranians would have soundly lost the Iran-Iraq war.

Instead of taking on the Iranians the Reagan administration aided them...

President Reagan ordered a covert operation to run in where we (the United States) supplied arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras. All this was highly illegal and could almost be considered a traitorous act committed by the Republicans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra

The Iraq Iran war was from 1980 until 1988.....

Now why would you hide this fact?LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Iraq Iran war was from 1980 until 1988.....

Sorry, what we did in the Cold War is a whole different story.

I'm glad we won.

You?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All I can see comming out of any sort of debate between these two is several hours of hollow one liners that will be featured in each coutries media distribution centers for months with no actual results to show for it. Overall a good tactic for both, Obama looks like he's being tough on Iran to appease conservatives and Ahmadinejad (pending he winst the election) reinforces the idea that he is the pillar of Islamic fundementalism staring down the evil west. All while maintaining the status quo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hell you forgot to mention that if not for the Reagan administration the Iranians would have soundly lost the Iran-Iraq war.

WHAT? I thought we supported Saddam as our buddy then, I'm confused.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabit:

" Of course, the irony in WilliB's statement is that, to hardline Iranian conservatives, the only difference between the reformer Obama and hardliner Bush is one of style and not of substance. "

Sure. And also for your imaginary Iranian liberals. And the "Zionist entity" is the source of all evil (although it is thousands of km away), and islam is freedom, and Western democracy is oppression, and Sharia is the perfect law, there are no homosexuals in Iran.

You got a preview of a "debate" with an Iranian mullah candidate when Ahmedinejad was at Columbia University, if you paid attention.

So what is your point in laying out the Iranian islamic position again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So what is your point in laying out the Iranian islamic position again?"

You're talking about Ahmedinejad's position, not Iran's. The whole middle east hates Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure. And also for your imaginary Iranian liberals.

WilliB wants to believe that there are no liberals in Iran. (Much the same way that his ideological soulmate, Ahmadinejad, would have us believe there are no gays there either.)

That way, folks like WilliB can stereotype and dehumanize everyone in Iran into an "Islamic entity" worthy of destruction. Much the same as WilliB's hardline counterparts in Iran deem for Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You got a preview of a "debate" with an Iranian mullah candidate when Ahmedinejad was at Columbia University, if you paid attention.

Actually, we get a preview of a debate with a hardline Iranian every time a conservative responds to a political topic on JT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a debate, how would any rational world leader, Iranian (not including the current president) or otherwise respond? Maybe like this: "Well, President Obama is good to express his regrets, but we who observe the US can't help but note how the policies of the US are often two-faced and lacking integrity, if not completely schizoid. You seem to have one faction amongst you who says and does violent and evil things, and then the other rational side which comes out and expresses regret for those things much later. We are amazed at your seemingly endless ability to create new enemies in this manner. Such an approach to the world only appears to benefit your defense industries."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "Just wanted to make sure I understood that your position is that if any US President doesn't debate with Ahmadinejad then they're officially a "chicken.""

As usual, your genius reading skills have led you to bizarre conclusions. I said 'depending on the reasons'. In some cases, yes. In others, no. Now, what were bush's reasons for saying no again?

Oh, and go ahead and count the number of times I mentioned bush again... then do go once more and count the surrounding posts to see how many times they were in reply to others touching on him and/or my responses being in reply. Or wait..... are one of those people who thinks that history doesn't exist and you can no longer mention the PEOPLE in history because it's inconvenient to your 'argument'.

SuperLib, I used to respect your posts until the election and you went haywire. They've gotten a BIT better since the mods gave you a thrashing a few weeks back and you changed your tone. But you're lowering the level of your posts again by taking what one person says and simply drawing off the ball conclusions again. Make note... of the four posts (I guess five now) that I mentioned bush, at least three were in replies to your own posts.

Try to up the level of your posts, my friend. The things I said about your former president all completely true. Sailwind has a history of blaming past presidents during bush's reign and his wrongs, and in the past few months of Obama's presidency saying you can no longer say the name 'bush' or 'cheney' (despite the topics being bush and cheney), so you trying to take up on his 'bush isn't the subject' cries doesn't really reflect too well if you defend them. It's usually a sign that he cannot debate a thing you say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "...Such an approach to the world only appears to benefit your defense industries."

You forgot 'weapons industries'. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm glad that it's Obama that has a chance to debate this guy in Iran. If he decides the US should not debate, I'll be more than keen to hear the reasoning. If it's not good, than, I'll call Obama a chicken (and even go back in history until the US helped set up the Shah in the first of many failed regime changes and call those presidents chickens).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: As usual, your genius reading skills have led you to bizarre conclusions. I said 'depending on the reasons'. In some cases, yes. In others, no. Now, what were bush's reasons for saying no again?

Well I think it had something to do with the popular opinion that it would be nothing but a farce. And I suspect Obama's reasons follow the same line of thinking. But apparently you're able to somehow measure the level of fear in Bush and Obama to make your decision. Bravo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "Well I think it had something to do with the popular opinion that it would be nothing but a farce."

Well then what on earth are we 'debating' about?

"And I suspect Obama's reasons follow the same line of thinking."

Me too. Said as much if you go back a few posts -- Iran will believe whatever it wants, and if a debate goes through, they'll think the won even if they may not.

"But apparently you're able to somehow measure the level of fear in Bush and Obama to make your decision."

Not sure about that. All I know is I was comparing the possibility of a GOOD debate as opposed to a bad one (Obama as opposed to bush). Some just took a moment to take the monkey-smarter-than-bush comments a little too seriously. There was NO possibility of any debate under the past president, but the current I have no doubt could at least hold my own. That was my argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"but the current I have no doubt could at least hold my own"

DAMN! meant HIS own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: There was NO possibility of any debate under the past president, but the current I have no doubt could at least hold my own. That was my argument.

The the only question left is who you're debating with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US edition (June 1) of Newsweek magazine -- the latest one -- has a major section on Iran and the cover is titled: "Everything You Think You Know About Iran Is Wrong." Main points:

Iran indeed may NOT want nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Khomeini declared them to be "un-Islamic." The current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei in 2004 issued a fatwa describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral, and that the "development, producing, or stockpiling of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam."

Iranians are not suicidal.

Iran is not a dictatorship.

Iran may be ready to deal.

Former president (and leading reformer) Mohammed Khatami had this interesting reply, when asked what he thought about President Obama and his policies: "I think Mr. Obama wants real change, both inside America and in terms of America's relations with the rest of the world. The question is whether these reforms will be cosmetic changes or substantial ones. I'm sure he will face many obstacles, the same way we reformists have problems in Iran."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The nuclear issue “is closed,” he told a news conference.

This issue needs to be reopened, but the only way to do this is through disarmament. But to do this all nations who hold nukes in the region need to give them up. Now the next thing will they?

Iran's Ahmadinejad wants to debate Obama at U.N.

He is grand standing for his political base. Classic politics especially during and election year.

teleprompter at 10:27 PM JST - 26th May The Iraq Iran war was from 1980 until 1988..... Sorry, what we did in the Cold War is a whole different story. I'm glad we won. You?

No "sorry" about it, we all know it was "illegal" and "aiding the enemy".

Many mistakes were made during that time, I just hope that those mistakes will never happen again......We are better than that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabit:

" WilliB wants to believe that there are no liberals in Iran. "

Please work on your reading comprehension. Of course there are liberals in Iran. They are in jails, in graves, or in hiding. They sure as hell are not in any of the mullah-supervised elections.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

"

Iranians are not suicidal.

Iran is not a dictatorship.

Iran may be ready to deal. "

Reality check:

Killing and getting killed for god is the highest aim of the ruling religion. Iran has 50,000 revolutionary guard shahid suicide bombers, and that is just the official, uniformed contingent.

Iran is a dictatorship.

Iran is perfectly ready to deal, as long as the deal means the mullahs get what they want.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like the article says, WilliB, everything you think you know about Iran is wrong.

Simple as that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[ I say 'interesting', not 'surprising', because logical deduction has never been your forte. Nor has twisting words... you're so see-through you give "transparent" a new level of opaqueness.]

Yeah yeah GW. A true master of twisting words you are. So what exactly does Bush have to do with this story?

Moderator: Readers, no further mention of George W Bush on this thread please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like the article says, WilliB, everything you think you know about Iran is wrong.

But the author is not Iranian.

Fareed Zakaria is an Indian Muslim who became an American citizen.

Author of "The Post-American World"...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

" everything you think you know about Iran is wrong. Simple as that. "

It rather seems everything that you know about Iran is from Fareed Zakaria.

How about reading up on Shiite Islam, Ayathollah, and the history of the Islamic Republic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fareed Zakaria is an Indian Muslim who became an American citizen. Author of "The Post-American World"...

If Ahmadinejad and Obama debate at the UN, there will be no better commentator and forum host than Zakaria. He is FAR more intelligent and insightful than the average American citizen about Ahmadinejad and Iran.

If we was Iranian, you'd find some other reason to dismiss him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about reading up on Shiite Islam, Ayathollah, and the history of the Islamic Republic.

I've read quite a bit. Prior to the debate, what do you recommend?

Moderator: Stay on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debate won't happen because certain interested parties don't want us to hear what Ahmadinejad is really saying. These wild quotes, like that he is a holocaust denier(which most of you seem to believe), when in fact he is merely questioning the figures. (most academics agree with him on this one). "wiping Israel off the map", also a load of spin. He was referring to the fact that Israel occupies Palestine. Let the debate commence, and lets hear the other side. Without spin!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the US (and the UK) had never conspired to replace Mossadegh with the Shah , we would never be experiencing this situation now.

America made its own bed, now it has to lie in it, that is cosmic justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites