generalvaklu321 Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Okay, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited George W. Bush to have a debate over Iran's nuclear program and other topics. The question isn't who you agree with, or who is right, but who do you think would win?
Emperor Devon Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 As long as they halt their nuclear weapons program, I don't care who wins the debate.
coupes. Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Would they be allowed to have a suspicious square hump on their back ?
MrWally Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 I'm not one for politics on a whole.. but... As long as they halt their nuclear weapons program, I don't care who wins the debate. QFE
RoxStar Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Depends, Ahmadinejad speaks better english than Bush, so I'd go with the former.
Jae Onasi Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 It doesn't matter who wins the debate, because both men are going to continue doing exactly what they want to do anyway. I hate it when world leaders decide to 'play chicken' with nuclear weapons. [/cynic]
dtriniman Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Ahmadinejad Simply because he will make the same point any nation without nuclear weapons will make and I agree with, if you have I gotta have it to. You are in no position to tell me whether I should or shouldn't go nuclear because of what I MIGHT do since to this day you are the only one who HAS used them. So in the event you decide to them again on us, if I have some of my own you WILL think twice.
generalvaklu321 Posted September 25, 2006 Author Posted September 25, 2006 Depends, Ahmadinejad speaks better english than Bush, so I'd go with the former. ^^^^haha^^^^ QFE
Samnmax221 Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 Not even Bush could **** up a debate with that whacko.
TK-8252 Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 Bush would lose to Ahmadinejad. Send Cheney or Rove instead.
MrWally Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 Ahmadinejad Simply because he will make the same point any nation without nuclear weapons will make and I agree with, if you have I gotta have it to. You are in no position to tell me whether I should or shouldn't go nuclear because of what I MIGHT do since to this day you are the only one who HAS used them. So in the event you decide to them again on us, if I have some of my own you WILL think twice. I'd have to agree dtriniman. Man, we're such hypocrites here in America.
Halo_92 Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 For some reason, every time I come to the SC I want to move to Canada even more.
Dagobahn Eagle Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 Would they be allowed to have a suspicious square hump on their back? I don't really care who wins. It'll change nothing.
Prime Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 It would be a tie since both are equally awesome. Or, failing that, send Jon Stewart.
Mace MacLeod Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Nutball bigot vs. nutball bigot. Gee, can't wait. You know, some of the best political discussions I ever had were back in BC in my home pub with a couple of casual drinking buddies. One was an Israeli student, the other was an Iranian immigrant. It really made me understand that people are people the world over. I think this Mahmoud Ahmadinejad guy reminds me far too much of Bush himself. I really think these two are serious threats to everyone, not just Iranians or Americans. Crazy, crazy sh!t.
Windu Chi Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 As long as they halt their nuclear weapons program, I don't care who wins the debate. Hell will become a vacation choice when that happen. I don't think they will stop their nuclear weapons program. If that asshole never invaded Iraq the U.S. will probably be in a position to handle Iran. Iran will become, with a high probability a new nuclear power. Religion with a weapon of Armageddon. Go figure!
Emperor Devon Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Hell will become a vacation choice when that happen. And what do you mean by that? That Earth will be Hell without nuclear weapons, or Hell if Bush doesn't win the debate?
Windu Chi Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 And what do you mean by that? That Earth will be Hell without nuclear weapons, or Hell if Bush doesn't win the debate?No, neither one! I was saying "Hell", the place of unfair torture if that place exist, of course. I was saying, I don't believe Iran will never stop their nuclear program. It doesn't matter if the debate happen, Iran won't stop their nuclear program. The jury is still out, if Earth will be a burning hellhole if the world get rid of nuclear weapons.
Dagobahn Eagle Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 The jury if still out, if Earth will be a burning hellhole if the world get rid of nuclear weapons.What exactly do you mean here, that disarming nukes could possibly turn the Earth into a Hell-hole? How on Earth would that be? Or am I misunderstanding completely?
Windu Chi Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 What exactly do you mean here, that disarming nukes could possibly turn the Earth into a Hell-hole? How on Earth would that be? Or am I misunderstanding completely? Well, Dagobahn you know that I am the UFO nut on the forums. So, I believe we might need those weapons or other defences in the future, if any aliens become hostile to Earth. Unless the secret governments of this planet have any other safer and better defences, that are less dangerous. You probably already knew I was going say that. Go right ahead and laugh and laugh again.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.