<p>What do you think? Is the administration at Columbia University out of line for extending an invitation to Ahmadinejad and then agreeing to host him? Or are they making a point about free exchange of ideas and free debate, no matter who it is?</p>
<p>He is a head of state, the very notion that it could be out of line could be out of line. It’s not the job of the university to censor controversial heads of state but to enable its students to discern what such a figure says is bs or not. This isn’t some grand stage…sure it’s “columbia omg ivy11!1!!!” but its a place of learning and opinion and you don’t have to agree with every speaker. If he wasn’t a head of state then it might be inappropriate but it might be worth it just to see what he has to say. If it’s all rhetoric and bs then I’m sure people will tire of him.</p>
<p>If you read Ahmadinejad’s interview in time, he actually seems quite cosmopolitan. I assume he only bashes other groups to reinvigorate Iran. But hey, don’t we do the same? Who hasn’t heard of all the pro-war, anti-Germany propaganda during World War II? Then the enemy changed to communists, and now they are terrorists. This strategy seems to work pretty well, because it gives politicians support against a common enemy, and can appeal to special interest groups</p>
<p>I think it’s a great thing that he’s speaking at an American college. You know, he will get grilled to death from students for things like human rights violations, his nuclear program, the use of torture, and such, on the day.</p>
<p>Lollybo, I understand the intent of your comparison, but wow. Uh, no, not even the ole Bush Administration says things like, in reference to the Holocaust, “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, apparently he was shrewd enough to not come off like a total nutjob in an interview with an American publication that many people will read. Unfortunately, it looks like he succeeded. I’m told many Nazis were well-spoken and knowledgeable (or “cosmopolitan”), but opps, they were still Nazis.</p>
<p>He’s not a good guy, okay? As much as people dislike many facets of the American government, no, they are not the “same” as Mahmoud “I banned Western music in Iran” Ahmadinejad.</p>
<p>The only “Nazis” who are respected in Academia are Schmitt, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. However, they were all independent existentialist philosophers whom Hitler had manipulated for his own evil purposes (Just like Christian fundamentalists can manipulate the Bible to go to war).</p>
<p>I’m not saying Ahmadinejad is a nice person. I’m just saying that the Western media likes to marginalize people who conflict with their interests. Some people I agree at totally insane and unstable (Kim Jong Il for example), but Iran is quite modernized and cosmopolitan for a middle eastern country. The fact is, many Iranians are turning to religion in an attempt to preserve their identity in the face of Globalization and Western cultural imperialism, just like many Americans are turning to Christian fundamentalism.</p>
<p>To place it into perspective, I’m sure many countries would disagree with Bush coming to their universities to speak.</p>
<p>As a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust, I’m ASHAMED that people would use his Holocaust denial (which is probably solely propaganda anyway) as a reason to boycott him from speaking. I would give a kidney to be in that auditorium at Columbia. He doesn’t come off as a nutjob at ALL to me, just a man working the angles of his regime to mold the people to think what the regime wants. Although I disagree with his professed beliefs, it would be fascinating to hear him speak.</p>
<p>The fact that you use the word “regime” to describe Iran to begin with is pretty telling, actually. I also like how you describe someone who “molds the people” to think what the “regime” wants them to think is, you know, “just a man.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s true. But is that supposed to justify something or explain something to me? I understand that Ahmadinejad is more well-spoken and “cosmopolitan” than your run-of-the-mill dictator, it still doesn’t excuse what he’s said and done. Your argument that Iran is a comparatively modernized and “cosmopolitan” country doesn’t mean much, either. To “place it in perspective,” as you said, America is the wealthiest country in the world and some people think its leader is crazed anyway. I understand that you’re trying to stress that USA doesn’t equal all good and Iran/Ahmadinejad doesn’t equal all bad. But they’re not the same, either.</p>
<p>Look at Iran’s history. First, we helped support their old corrupt regime because they let us have oil. And when another regime that we didn’t want sprang up to power, we sided with Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on innocent Iranian, all while our president sold arms to insurgents. And now, because of internal politics, we have decided to completely reverse our position on Iraq. Do we seem fair at all? Of course Iran would feel scared and backed into a corner, hence they vote for people like Ahmadinejad who restore national pride and unity.</p>
<p>Ahmadinejad does say some cruel things which I disagree with, but what has he specifically “done”? If we look at it objectively, the US has “done” far worse things. We have committed massacres against civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, and countless other military interventions, we have armed guerillas only to have them turn their backs on us, our corrupt elite draws us into unneeded wars, we are responsible for international fiascos like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib, and we have not signed many treaties that other industrialized countries have (landmines, CEDAW, Kyoto treaty), and we have not abolished the death penalty.</p>
<p>Marge, would you be opposed to Castro speaking at a college? Or hell, what about Putin? </p>
<p>I hold a great deal of interest for people who are successful communicators- even if I find much of what happens in the wake despicable. Castro, Ahmadinejad, Evo Morales, Chavez- hell, even Bush after 9/11. Just because what they say is wrong doesn’t mean what they say can’t be useful and educational- be it what they say or how they say it. I stand by my opinion.</p>
<p>Yes, I believe the point that the US is not all that great has been repeatedly made. I believe no one as stated that the US is indeed perfect. But as I asked before, does that somehow justify Ahmadinejad’s words and actions? Does it make him seem oh, not so bad (after all, he is quite “cosmopolitan”)?</p>
<p>It’s like two little kids in a fight. One of them kicks the other, and that one punches the other. You can argue either way if the kick or the punch was “worse” or “more wrong,” but it still doesn’t mean that either was in the right to begin with. </p>
<p>And please don’t bring up the death penalty as an American boo-boo when the two countries being compared are America and the Islamic Republic of “Homosexuality is punishable by death” Iran. As much as some fundamentalists in America have reacted harshly towards homosexuality, even “dictator” Bush hasn’t stated that under American law they should be flogged or executed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silver_Clover, I actually haven’t stated that I would be opposed to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia. Could you point that out anywhere? What I was initially responding to was lollybo’s comments about Ahmadinejad, Iran and America. </p>
<p>I can understand your belief that Ahmadinejad is valuable educationally. I understand how you can feel that “Just because what they say is wrong doesn’t mean what they say can’t be useful and educational” because at least you get the point that Ahmadinejad has been saying wrong things (if not actually doing wrong things).</p>
<p>What I don’t quite understand, and so far disagree with, is lollybo.</p>