I'd like to see it, for sure. Maybe (and I stress the MAY, here.) it would help shed some light on some of the "Grey" areas for me, who knows.

Therefore, I voted yes.




Gee's I hope I get this right? I've never attempted a Poll before.
Please bare this in mind, if any oddities should occur .
Cheer's
Bid.

I voted Yes because I’d love to see it, but I doubt very much whether it will happen.

The thing is that if Bush actually quoted any facts, Saddam would dismiss them as CIA propaganda and if Saddam quoted any facts, Bush wouldn’t have clue what he was on about.

If they did have a 1 on 1 live discussion, I’d like to see them dressed up in clown outfits – that way they would look just as silly as all the nonsense that they would both be talking and the whole world would see things for the bullsh!t that it is.

On second thoughts I’d also like to see Blair and Chirac involved – now that would be entertainment!

I agree fully with Steve! He probably won't go though!

I voted yes because I beleive that if they debated, they might develop a better understanding for one-another and perhaps work out their issues. Otherwise, I still think bush is just holding onto a grudge that his father held onto.

I'd like to see it. Better yet I'd like to see them both don 16 oz gloves and duke it out in a boxing ring. Settle things once and for all!

Definitely yes, id like to hear what those two say while under some pressure. Although, no matter what happens, you know good old american president George Bush will still go to war, and he'll have us, the two lackeys, Australia and England backing him.
John Howard, when will you not do everything Americans (presidents) do?
I pretty much agree with what everyone says here.

[SIZE=2]<span style="font-family:arial">My vote is a definite yes here-if anything can be done to prevent a war it should be considered.As for Dubya's "cajones",Susan,I think he thinks them to be "the size of grapefruits" (to quote old Vince McMahon WWF/WWE lines),which is why they seem so gung-ho to go to have it out on the battlefield.I can't see this meeting hapening anytime soon either.</span>[/SIZE]

1 vote for yes here. I think it would be worth paying for on pay-per-view just to see them in the same room together.

Incompetence, embarrassment and ignorance for all the world to see, would be several good reason for it not to happen.

Yesterday Tony Blair invited 6 members of the public of varying ages and cultures that had participated in the 1 million strong anti-war protest in London for a sit down and a Q & A session. These people were not some soap averse tree huggers, they were people that had never been on a protest march before .The whole thing was live recorded and I was particularly pleased that the teenager of the group was able to make statements like ‘no matter what the public opinion, you don’t seem to give a stuff, you’ve already made your mind up that we’re going to war’ and actually get a response.

No notes, no spin doctors, just Tony Blair in a room with members of the public giving him sh!t.

‘Joe public’ were able to launch questions at him and he was able to respond. Ok, so the answers he gave were somewhat generic and political, but at least the guy earned some respect for putting himself in that sort of situation in the first place.

Telling the leader of the country that "he didn't give a stuff" and then still getting a response was classic!

Somehow I doubt we’ll see Saddam or Bush in an unedited sit down with half a dozen people who oppose his actions / views and respond to all manner of criticism on his own with no notes.

At least Blair has done something right for a change!!!!

I think there is nothing to talk about. If Bush would send a hiped you redneck over there to KILL taht son of bi&%h we would not have any more porblems out of them. That is just me thow :P

Nice – I’m sure all of Saddam’s lackeys would instantly bow down to all demands if that happened. I can’t see that being a trigger for countless terrorist activities and reprisals from the indoctrinated at all. Saddam doesn’t have a large and extended family, or people just as nutty as him in command at all. I’m sure Saddam wouldn’t be made a martyr if that happened.

Now why didn’t the rest of the world think of that?

If such actions are so simple, why hasn’t ‘Bush’ put a bullet in Osama Bin Laden’s head?

Oh yeah, things aren’t that simply are they?

I can't see why Jerry Springer wouldn't host it, he is a political correspondent after all.

I would be an interesting debate to see and I think he should accept, But how will anyone ever know who is telling the truth and who will be the one not. I believe they would both have an element of truth to there arguments and it would be great to hear Bushes reasons for launching war on Iraq.

The fact still remains though, Bush is going to war regardless of the debate or not and I don't think much is going to change his opinion or stop it.

:lol:
Hi, of course I've said YES to the dialog, because it's talking about the problems and differences we can understand each other.
About the big idea of Bush to go to Iraq, I think he don't have the right to do it, even if there is terrorist camps in, because the Iraqi people doesn't have ask anything, they say they're happy with him, so stay with him...
I've said...

I say no. The entire debate idea is just a ploy to divert time and energy away from the issue(s) at hand. Besides, what issues need to be debated? Iraq is currently not abiding with the agreements they have made with the U.N. It seems obvious that they are expending great amounts of energy to continue to violate their agreements and to keep the U.N. "factfinders" from discovering their activities. What good could possibly come from a debate? The plan of action should be quite clear, but the bureaucracy of the U.N. is a weapon against itself, as the Iraquis know quite well, and many of the deluded and confused crave surety. It's that desire for surety that keeps the fires of debate burning in the U.N., and enables the Iraqui regime to sustain their stall tactics. (IMO) The time for debate and conversation is over, sh!t or get off the pot!

Great idea FC, gunboat diplomacy at it's best. If you don't get what you want hit the other person until you get it. Didn't realise we were all still in play school (that's kindergarten for the American viewers) here kiddies.

Now let's look at the reality of the situation.

Good ol' Bush wants to kill Saddam because pops didn't manage it the first time round. Why didn't daddy manage it?

First problem, you've got to find him, get access to him, ensure it's the real Saddam and not another of his body doubles (highly dangerous but ultimately lucrative job opportunities in the offing there for anyone willing to under go the plastic surgery required) and then you've got to kill him in a way that doesn't link it back to you. Cause if they do link it back to you then you've achieved nothing apart from putting another of his flunkies in charge.

Second problem, if Saddam is to be assasinated it must look like it came from the will of the Iraqi people themselves, was carried out by the Iraqi people and all his flunkies need to be got at the same time.

Does anyone here think that this is possible for any government intelligence agency in the world? It's not, otherwise it would have been done already. The CIA couldn't even kill Castro and god knows they've tried, MI6 (not really called that but it's what we all know it as) is too busy recruiting drunks from Cambridge or selling out it's informants (anyone remember Daniel Smout (name changed to protect the innocent), our man in Bagdad, a Britsh businessman with intelligence service links who lingers in a jail in Bagdad unrecognised to this day), the French are too busy blowing up soap dodging, tree hugging dolphin swimmwers (knew there was a reason to like the French for some small thing ) to get anything organised. I could keep going like this all day but I think you get the picture. IT CAN'T BE DONE.

The days of my stick is bigger than yours have been truely numbered for several decades, blowing up half the world to prove a point or to get your way is no longer a viable option. Look what happened to us Brits and Hong Kong. We forced the Chinese to let us have it by sailing a gunboat up a river and threatening the Emporer (hence the term gunboat diplomacy). Even then we couldn't just take the place over, we had to agree lease terms. Those terms came up in 1999 and the Chinese slapped us in the face and told us to pi$$ off, we weren't keeping it anymore. What could we do about it, nothing. We just came home tail between legs and got on with life.


So yes I'm all for discussion between Bush and Saddam, but wouldn't it be whole lot more fun to put them in a ring and let them thrash out their differences celebrity boxing style. Got to be the biggest pay per view event in history in the making there I think.

I would say yes that he should. But then again I'm not the one that is going to have to go over there, Bush is. It would so suck to be him right now. I mean, Saddam is a loonatic, there is no telling, really, what he is capable of.

Me, personally, I wouldn't go.

They just started destroying missiles.What more do you want.