Leaders of different countries should meet in public to debate face to face

[TheNoNamedOne]

Several months ago and more recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged President Bush to a debate so that the world could see who was correct on the issues. Bush dismissed them as a tactic to delay action against Iran's ongoing efforts to obtain nuclear technology/weapons.

Whether or not the above debate should take place is not the point of this thread (though I think Bush should agree to a debate [this point for another thread topic]). This thread's point is that a tradition and obligation for the leaders of different countries to meet once a year to debate their countries' policies in public for the world to have a better undertanding of those policies and for the leaders to be compared side by side with other leaders on rational thought should come about.

I would have preferred to have innitially seen a debate between Bush and Hussein verbally debating before committing young men and women to spill their blood. Always seems that when the old men leaders don't want to get together and talk over differences, that the young men are sent to the front over their failures to come to an understanding and kill each other.

What do you say? A debate Olympics for our leaders once a year or every other year?

Would the pros outweigh the cons?

[dk]

Bush debating anything would be more fitting for comedy central I'd think.

[P_chan]

Bush debating anything would be more fitting for comedy central I'd think.

Unfortunately......your right!

[TheNoNamedOne]

And because of fear of embarrassement at the international level, I think the voting public would really put some weight into a person's speaking ability when they went to the polls. Sure, it may not be the major point, but if they saw some leaders suffer through some embarrassing gafaws on the world stage at the hands of another more adept at speaking, they would give it some thought.

But, I do bet Bush would lose mightily at a debate with another leader on the world stage. I think that would spell the doom to any future Bush family political dynasties.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Bush would do just fine debating on the world stage. He's use the little earbud/transmitter pack he used in debates with Kerry prior to the 2004 election.

[ryukyuboi]

I think countries already do send their representatives to the UN to debate issues. I don't think it is necessary for the actual leader of a particular country to debate another country's leader. The leaders themselves could do that, though.

I think maintaining any dialogue among nations is extremely important. I don't understand why the US government has shunned open talks with nations like Syria, Iran, and Cuba, to name a few. Seems to me that it would be in the security interests of the US to do so.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I don't think it is necessary for the actual leader of a particular country to debate another country's leader.

I think there is value in watching a country's leader poise in stressful situations and to see their thought processes as they reason questions to answers out. It would give us an insight to their personality and let us know if they are rational.

Lower representatives doing that in their stead shield too many leaders for too long from criticisms of their intellect and sanity/or lack of it. At least if Bush were to debate, the world would confirm that he is a sane idiot. As it is now, some view him as insane with his foreign poicies and some view him as an intelligent mastermind.

Public debates with other world leaders could perhaps put some of that to rest.