I'm sure that there are quite a few reasons why the administration shouldn't address this challenge. But if you believe in the deliberative process, if you believe that democracy shows its virtues in the speech of its champions, then maybe we should think seriously about this debate.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Bush'll never do it, but it might be interesting to see how both sides play out. If they were in the same room I have a feeling it would probably come to a fist fight before it was all over.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush isn't a great public speaker; I think that even his most ardent supporters would agree with that, right? Given that, it would be a huge mistake for him to engage in a debate like this. It's interesting to think about who on the national scene at the moment would be a good person for the US to field for something like this (thinking entirely of public speaking and debating skills, rather than political position).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This would lend too much credibility to Ahmadinejad. I don't think, frankly, that even Chirac would ever agree to debate him, let alone Bush.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
An open, public debate is not of much use when neither party can be trusted to enact any promises or assurances they may make within that debate.
On the American side at the very least, the President does not have the power alone to do the things Iran would want. This is setting aside any issues of trustworthiness.
On the Iranian side...well, obviously the offer is not honest at all. Not even a whit. You get a glimpse of that when you hear an insistence that there be no censorship, 'particularly' on the American side.
The irony is staggering.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It's interesting to think about who on the national scene at the moment would be a good person for the US to field for something like this (thinking entirely of public speaking and debating skills, rather than political position).
They should get that Motivational Speaker guy who's on late night pay-for tv to do the debate. The Iranians would go nuts?
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chirac might agree to debate him for an hour or two, but then later reconsider and lower that to fifteen minutes or so Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
He is the elected leader of Iran, as much as Bush is the elected leader of the US.
Rakeesh,
quote:An open, public debate is not of much use when neither party can be trusted to enact any promises or assurances they may make within that debate.
It's not about promises or assurances, it's about airing of ideas.
_______
Noeman,
I can't think of a better, clearer spokesman for the Administration than Rumsfeld.
posted
"Elected" is a term that should be used lightly when applied to Iran, in my opinion. I don't think being "elected" in the U.S. is synoymous with being "elected" in Iran.
Does beg the question of the 2000 election, but that's a whole other ball of wax...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is the elected leader of Iran, as much as Bush is the elected leader of the US. ... it's about an airing of ideas.
And while both of these things may be technically true, I would point out that Ahmadinejad isn't about the open airing of ideas. He has imposed strict censorship on his own citizens, particularly the Internet. Bush may push a particular worldview and try to spin the hell out of it, but we are free to watch the Iranian president and visit whatever websites we choose. By imposing that kind of control, Ahmadinejad proves he isn't interested in openly exchanging ideas and really doesn't have a leg to stand on arguing that he does.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush may not be a good public speaker but Ahmadinejad isnt exactly known for saying things that normal people do. His administration keeps saying, "No the president didnt mean it that way" and Ahmadinejad gets on TV and says, "Yes YES I did mean it that way!" It was mildly humerous to watch after his denial of the holocaust.
Still I don't think Bush has anything to gain by this debate. Ahmadinejad would simply spout off a bunch of challenging anti west rhetoric and seem like he is standing up to America all the more. At least in the eyes of Iranians and Shiite Muslims.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's about an airing of ideas to who, Irami? I'm in favor of that, but seriously...I think the returns are much less than you expect while still being positive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I can also just barely tolerate the procedures that go along with a majority ruled democracy.
Above all, I don't like the idea of avoiding the call for debate of a democratically elected leader, especially considering that this is the leader of a country with whom we could, and possibly even should, soon engage in economic or corporal warfare.
If we are worried about legitimizing his anti-American stance, I think that we need to understand that anti-Americanism is already legitimate, and the next question becomes, how ought we to deal with it.
posted
His stance is not merely anti-American. That stance has hundreds of political leaders throughout the world, all more suited morally and practically to discuss that particular stance.
You know the saying, the difference between 'bad' and 'worse' is much more important than the difference between 'good' and 'better'. I'm referring to your equation of Iran and the United States.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about this debate is that we've voiced worry about "legitimizing" his presidency by encouraging it. Which raises the question: why do we consider it illegitimate?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if that makes him illegitimate or not, though "evil" and "wrong" comes to mind, he's obviously the leader of the nation, with widespread support.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an odd enjoyment from reading about Ahmadinejad. You see, from how I view him, he's a brilliant politician.
This debate seems like it's a win for him no matter what we do. If we debate him, his confidence and clean composure would make him seem like the better debater to the common eye. If we deny him, he can go off and talk about how America is filled with hypocrits and that their leader goes against western ideological values. (You know, freedom of expression n'stuff) He can also go on and on about how we fear Iran's power and it's ambition. That they're too much for us.
Brilliant. Scary, yes, but brilliant.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something can be real and potent while still being illegitimate.
Does anyone really believe that questions of his legitimacy actually stem from whether or not he is the leader of Iran? I should say, one of the leaders of Iran.
We don't generally apply questions of actual rule when we label people illegitimate. In the context used by the United States at least, generally it's a moral and ethical issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
