How do you feel about Columbia letting Ahmadinejad speak there?

Question

simbha_07: Have you read how elections work in Iran?

Answer 1

I wouldn't send a student of mine there. It was akin to letting Hitler come speak in Israel, if such a thing were possible.

This man and his entire government should have been taken out in 1980, when they ousted the Shah.

Now they are a prime force for destabilizing the entire region.

Answer 2

Honestly, I think it was in poor taste for the president of Columbia to chide him the way he did. Regardless of what accusations are out there by the American propaganda machine, I refuse to judge a man without proof of such allegations. Indeed, I believe that to be a cornerstone of our civilization.

Some (often overlooked and relatively non-controversial) facts about the president of Iran:
He is a sitting head of state.
He was democratically elected by the people of his country. No serious allegations have been made regarding election fraud in this regard.
He wields a great deal of influence in a region of the world that has significant strategic influence on the world's major participants.
He is NOT unintelligent, despite what uninformed people might say to the contrary; he holds both a masters in civil engineering and a PhD in transporation engineering. That's more formal education than most people can claim.
He was not the president of Iran during on September 11, 2001.
He was not the president of Iran when the US first invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's regime.
He has made several attempts to loosen strict Islamic traditions regarding the treatment of women in society and the enforcement of Islamic dress codes; these efforts have failed largely because of vetoes by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is, in fact, the supreme leader of Iran.

I do NOT agree with his policies and I believe that some of his economic policies have been hurtful to his people. Additionally, he *might* be complacent or even encouraging of state-sponsored terrorism; like I said above, though, I consider him "innocent until proven guilty."

All this boils down to: I was encouraged when the president of Columbia stepped out of the box of the masses and invited him; due to pressures by others, however, he treated the president of Iran with derision and disrespect. (That's not the same thing as asking hard questions - I'm all for *that*.) In the end, though, it comes down to the fact that this man is a sitting head of state, democratically elected by his own people in presumably fair elections, and we put him down. Yup, that's the way to encourage democracy elsewhere.

Some people...

Answer 3

It grow to be incorrect only like it could have been incorrect to have Hitler communicate at an American college in the time of WWII. it's going to be shown to the human beings in Iran and different places to make Ahmadinejad seem as though he's excepted in the worldwide. That the unfastened worldwide would not care how he treats his human beings. That he can kill, suppress women, gay and different religions and nonetheless be excepted in the unfastened worldwide.

Answer 4

This creep should not have been allowed to step foot on sovereign US soil (he can speak at the UN without ever doing so). All this proves is the extent that Columbia University (and most of American academia) had become a moral cesspool.

Answer 5

Great! i mean the US still has a democracy and not a junta and all opinions are respected, right? And if you're going to reject Ahmadinejad you should at least know what he's about.

Answer 6

Frankly, I'm frightened that we're discussing whether or not we should let someone speak. Good for Columbia.

Answer 7

real purpose was to tell him face to face what a rat he realy is. and i think he proved it. i think the ahmadinejad speach was a total wash out. every thing he said just proved what the prof. told him face to face. altho a few students may disagree with me. so might some of you. but this is america and im glad i got to hear the progam. at cu. freedom of speach is to me the highes form of liberty.

Answer 8

I think it shows a lot of intestinal fortitude for them to invite him. We are a country of open expression, and that was an extreme example. It doesn't mean we have to agree with the ranting idiot and I think the Dean that introduced him demonstrated that when he called him "shockingly uneducated".

Answer 9

I was rather surprised he actually came here - though I think he wanted more to go to Ground Zero than to speak on the university. I think he wanted the opportunity to mock us while standing on our own soil.

Answer 10

This is a free society. If we were to bar him from speaking here because we don't agree with what he has to say, we would be no better than he is.