Hussein vs. Bush: The Debate (Who takes the cake?)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Danospano

Refugee
Joined
Jun 24, 2000
Messages
1,415
Location
Oklahoma
BACKGROUND: Last evening Dan Rather of CBS News interviewed Saddam Hussein and I'm startled to understand that very little publicity was given to the airing of the interview.

I found the exchange of words enlightening and whether or not you as a listener/watcher were persuaded to change your opinion of the man, you couldn't deny the intellegence and seriousness of Saddam's demeanor.

One of the key points of signifigance came toward the end of the interview when Saddam posed an openended question to "President" Bush pretaining to the idea of a televised debate between the two men. The hopes of such a meeting were to bring understanding between the two nations, and hopefully save millions of lives that could be taken by war.

QUESTION: Who would win the debate? Who would lose the most from the debate? What would the consequences be if the United States continues to lambasted Iraq even if Saddam persuades more nations to side with the Germans and French?



Here's the transcript of the issue taken from the interview.

If you want to read the entire transcript you can go to this link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/24/60II/main48284.shtml

...."Translator For Saddam Hussein: If-- the American people-- would like to know the facts for what they are, or as they are, through a direct dialogue, then I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue with the President of the United States, President Bush, on television. I will say whatever I have to say-- about American policy. He will have-- the opportunity to say whatever he has to say about policy of Iraq. And this will be in front of all people, and-- on television, in a direct?uncensored ? hon - honest manner. In front of, as I said, everyone.

And then they will see what the facts are, and where falsehoods are. And I would not object to see this dialogue conducted on-- by-- by Mr. (UNINTEL).

Rather: Are you speaking about a debate?

Rather: This - this is new. You-- you are suggesting, you are saying, that you are willing, you are suggesting, you're urging a debate with President Bush? On television?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Yes. That's my proposal.

Rather: Well, that's an interesting (UNINTEL).

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The American people, as we see on films - are great. On films, we see that the Americans, when they are challenged for a duel, they will not-- decline the - the offer. As the Arabs would - would (UNINTEL). We are not asking for a duel. But? We are proposing that we should (UNINTEL) support the Americans, and - We are asking for a ? a ? a - an opportunity to be seen by the Americans, the Iraqis, and all of the people in the world in a debate that is shown on television, between myself and Mr. Bush, directly, to be watched by?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: This will be - This will be an opportunity for him, if he is committed to-- to war, and if he has decided to-- commit to wage war, this will be an opportunity for him, if he's convinced-- to-- to convince the world. If he's convinced in his own position, this will be an opportunity for him to convince the world that he is right in taking such a dec-- (GLITCH). It could also be an opportunity for us - To - tell the world our own side of the story. And why we want to live in peace, and in security.

I believe that it is the right of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the world, of honor. Which makes it incumbent-- incumbent upon us to say what we have (UNINTEL), so that-- they-- they will be clear about-- our position.

Don't you call for the truth to be released in the United States? This is how we hear. This is? And what we read, from-This is what we read and hear about the American philosophers, and (UNINTEL)--
(OVERTALK)

In their books, and even in their movies?. So, why should we hide from the people? So, why should we discredit ourselves? Why should not we-- why shouldn't we disclose ourselves to the people? We as President - President of the United States, and President of Iraq, in front of our people.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: (UNINTEL) invite? Then we will either go (UNINTEL) to peace, to choose the path of peace, which is what we look for, and hope-- Then we will spare both our people the harm and the loss. Or otherwise, the-- whoever wants to decide anything other than peace, then he will have to convince his own people, with whatever-- avenues--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: This is the-- the gist of my proposal, my idea.

Rather: This is not a joke.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: No, this is something proposed in earnest. This is proposed out of my respect for the public opinion of the United States. And it is out of my respect to the people of the United States. And to the people of Iraq. And in-- out of my respect to mankind in general. Humanity at large. I call for this, because war itself is not a joke. Whoever chooses war as the first choice in his life, then he is not a normal person. I think the - the debates would be an opportunity for us to insure peace and safety. Then, why don't we--
(OVERTALK)

Why don't we - Why don't we choose to talk, in which we will be respecting our people, as two-- as the two highest authorities in our countries. The two needed to take the decisions, on the basis of their own-- you know, decision-making apparatus.

Here in Iraq, we have our own apparatus, for reaching those decisions. And we know that in the United States, you have your own system. But we, as the leaders of the two countries, why don't we use this opportunity in a debate, so that-- we can show our respect to both our peoples, and to humanity. And then each of us can take the decision that h-- h-- he or - decides to take, according to what goes on.

Rather: Mr. President, where would this debate take place, that you imagine-- what would be the venue?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: It will be in a place, as President of the United States, and Saddam Hussein will be in a place as President of Iraq. And then the debate can be conducted through satellite.

Rather: Oh. So, a satellite television debate. Live.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And if Mr. Bush has another proposal, a counterproposal with the same basic idea then we're prepared to listen to such a proposal.

Rather: Would you be prepared to come to the United Nations for this debate?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The basic thing is that as far as debate to be heard in the natural, normal-- in a (UNINTEL) accurate manner. In the United Nations, voices are not heard. Not always. And I do not mean that I go and I make a speech at the United Nations and then that Bush will make his speech at the United Nations. That is not what I mean. What I mean is that we sit-- as we are sitting, you and I, now as-- Here is-- I will address questions to him and he will address questions to me. The position of Iraq and he will - the position of the United States.

He will explain why ? ?I will (UNINTEL) go to war.? I will explain why we are insistent on peace and we want to maintain peace. And we maintain our (UNINTEL).
(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Those people in the United States also - and other people will (UNINTEL).
Without make-up. Without - Without editing. Without ? Without - Without prepared speeches which-- which (UNINTEL) do not listen to. The people like listening to live debates. Live debates between--
(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I believe people listen to psychological (UNINTEL) about people in the United States (UNINTEL). That they like to see live debate amongst people with - proof and counterproof.

Rather: Well, this surprises me. I want to make sure I understand.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That this debate should be-- shown--

Rather: A live international debate via satellite--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That's it. A live, direct debate through satellite.

Rather: How did this-- who-- who would moderate this debate?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Any (UNINTEL) that you can moderate.

Rather: With respect, Mr. President, I have (UNINTEL) other problems. I've got enough problems already. But I--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That's another (UNINTEL PHRASE)?. But--
(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - the responsibility of - The responsibility of displaying the truth as-- as an outstanding man of the media-- to carry out this responsibility is something that is on-- of course you will do that while maintain - when you can play the truth he'll be sparing people many-- a lot of harm. "
 
Saddam is a moron. He has the cleverness of a Middle East dictator; anyone outside of his subjects can see through it. He plays on the ignorance of humanity.

A debate would be interesting, because I think both would be equally unintelligable. :p

Melon
 
I don?t think Bush will agree.

On the other hand, why not? Public debate is common in America.
 
Maybe we could host the debate here on Interference. Bush and Saddam go toe-to-toe by posting in a specially designed thread. Unlimited use of smilies.
 
Bush will never be allowed to debate Hussein, because the bigwigs in the party know that he'll blow it. He's a stupid (and I use this word in the truest form) man who can't prove anything he says. He reads a speech, winks at the camera and expects everyone to believe him.

For anyone who believes Saddam doesn't know anything outside of his realm, as mentioned by Melon, you have to agree if this is true, that Bush is less gifted in the area of public speaking and the art of persuasion.

Saddam would win the debate hands down. Bush knows this, and this is why he will just assume killing millions of Iraqi children as a better option.*

*---Over half the population of Iraq is under the age of 15 years old.

We would be attacking a nation of kids!!!! Does that make ANYONE feel shame?????
 
The Wanderer said:


care to elaborate on that?
yes, please do Dano.

also add a few more insidious and inflamitory comments about our President..

You
are
a
real
work.:up:

Diamond
 
Last edited:
Bush Rejects Debate Offer

by Marc Moran

Loaded: 2/27/2003

(AP) - In what many Beltway insiders have referred to as a no-brainer, President George Bush has officially rejected the offer made by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to debate the upcoming war. The offer, made by Hussein during an interview with CBS anchor Dan Rather, was rejected out of hand by the president's spokesperson Ari Fleisher who offered the following:

"There is no way in hell we are going to allow George to enter into a live debate with anyone. We're not all that keen on having him read scripted speeches with a delay; you think we'd risk an actual two-way with a real person? Please. Besides, we've already received our orders from Tel Aviv. What would the purpose be in holding a debate? Stopping this invasion? I don't think so."

Dan Rather, who seemed taken aback by Hussein's suggestion, responded to the offer to host by saying, "I already have enough troubles. I don't need this." Later that evening he was seen in a small tavern in Antwerp, weeping uncontrollably while two men beat him and repeatedly asked, "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

One reporter from a little independent newspaper was able to get close to the President using the old Jedi mind trick, suggesting to several secret service agents "this is not the reporter you are looking for. You may pass."

Taking the cue, Payton Farquar was able to board the presidential helicopter where following exchange is said to have taken place. "Mr. President?" asked the reporter for the Kentucky War Whoop And Battle Cry Of Freedom, a small shopper's guide printed monthly in Paducah County, "Why won't you debate, Mr. President?"

The President responded groggily that debate was "just a really tough word. Besides, I haven't gone fishin' in years. Besides, not good for 'Merica. Bombs, good, 'batin', not good. Little dark ones comin' through the rye. I see 'em. Know they need lockbox. Vincente Fox. Goo' fren' Fox. Locks. Box." He grew drowsy and slipped off to sleep in his velveteen seat, an afghan tucked up under his bruised chin.

Most Americans agree with the President. According to the latest Zogby poll, nearly 12 out of every 5 people questioned responded in the exact same way. "This is not the time for debate. We must destroy the weapons of mass destruction. They hate our freedom and democracy. We must preserve our freedom and democracy, even if we have to give up our Constitutional rights to do it. Diversity is our greatest strength. We are a nation of immigrants. Israel is our only friend in the Middle East. We care about your business. Please stay on the line and someone will be with you shortly."

"How can you argue with two hundred and twenty seven percent of the American public?" asked a surprisingly candid Praetor Praetorius Tommy Franks, the newly appointed replacement for Saddam Hussein. "We have worked long and hard to dumb down our schools, breed down the best and skew the polls in our favor. Once it became apparent that the average American thought Hitler was responsible for 9/11, we knew that any rational discussion of our plans for world conquest were unnecessary. I mean look at the things I'm saying to you right now. I don't even care if you print it. Most Americans can hardly read, and the ones that can are either employed by us, or in custody of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is f*ing radical! Today Iraq, tomorrow the world!"

Those who have demonstrated their unhappiness with the current administration and its plans for a 'New World Order,' namely France and Germany, have been given fair warning by the State Department.

"They are irrelevant. Once we take down Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan and deliver them to their rightful owners, the Dark Prince has made it quite clear that we may turn our sights on Europa. Nothing will stand in our way!" quipped National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice between mouthfuls of raw squirrel.

Asked if she had an opinion about the debate, her eyes glowed like the coals of a brazier and she dissolved into howls, her red-tipped fingernails curving inward and drawing blood that ran in freshets down her gooseflesh-covered arms.

"The world has been promised to us and it is up to us to crush, kill, destroy! After that, maybe we can take some time to focus on those who have hidden themselves in basements and hollow trees of the Pacific Northwest in a vain attempt to avoid the tattooing of the numbers. Who knows?" she shrugged, regaining composure and flashing a toothy smile. "All I know is that one day, all will bow before Chthulu and bear the mark of the beast."

Perhaps, one day.

Gotta love VNN

And please don't be critical of Dubya, you're making Diamond cry...
 
screw the debate....

when can we see Bush and Saddam in a fist fight to settle the score?... :angry:
 
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Dr. Teeth. you had me going there for a second. Considering the source I can't believe I was fooled.!

I just wanted to add something about how I haven't seen many opinions of this subject. Is it a boycott against my posts, or what? I thought this would make for an interesting discussion. Instead, it seems that most people in this forum want to forget they debate was proposed......a lot like the American media....huh/.:eyebrow:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom