quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer oh fuck off with this 911 bullshit man it is getting too old. Iran or Iraq had nothing to do with it.why the fuck dont you go after Saudi Arabi?you know the ones who actually support terrorism?are you forgetting where those highjackers were mainly from?

Saudi Arabia has the #1 reserve of oil in the world. We already have deals with them for their oil DESPITE the fact that they rule with the authority of Wahabism, and have a RELIGIOUS POLICE FORCE. But Charles is more worried about Iranian women not being able to show their hair in public...

They just won't see the hypocrisy will they?

I am libertarian. My view is a country can do whatever the hell they want inside their territory as long as they don't violate another country's sovereignty. But I guess to neocons, if the country doesn't let their people have western style liberal democracy, they should be invaded.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I am libertarian. My view is a country can do whatever the hell they want inside their territory as long as they don't violate another country's sovereignty. But I guess to neocons, if the country doesn't let their people have western style liberal democracy, they should be invaded.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My view is a country can do whatever the hell they want inside their territory as long as they don't violate another country's sovereignty.

then you need to seriously step back and take a look at just what Iran has done for the last 30 years.

not only do you apologize for their murderous ways you havent the slightest clue that, YES, they have no respect for your "libertarian views", they have no respect for "national soveriegnty" and routinely interfere with "other counties" affairs...violently might add.

the only respect they have for national soveriegnty is not getting caught violating it. and i'm not talking about Iraq...none of this has anything to do with Iraq.

quote:

Aid and Comfort by Any Other Name It is naïve to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. By David J. Feith & Jordan C. Hirsch Since news broke of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s upcoming speech at Columbia University, student groups on campus have been organizing protests to highlight the Iranian regime’s human-rights violations and belligerency. Correct as our peers are to do this, Columbia’s student leaders have wrongly answered the controversy’s central question: What standards should apply to a university’s decision to give an official invitation to a person such as Ahmadinejad? In a joint response to the invitation, a number of prominent student leaders wrote that the Ahmadinejad event “presents an incredible opportunity for the student body to learn about world affairs and to challenge a major controversial figure.” They added that “in a University setting no view is too disreputable to be excluded.” These views echo Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s description of the invitation as an affirmation of academic freedom. Granting that “many, most, or even all of us” find Ahmadinejad “offensive and even odious,” Bollinger wrote this week that to “examine critically all ideas” is “our nation’s most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world.” In Bollinger’s view, “this is America at its best.” But Bollinger is begging the question. Certainly the ideas of a powerful world leader should be studied on American campuses. The true question is whether the university should dignify the Iranian leader by making him an officially invited guest. It is naïve to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. Over the past years, Ahmadinejad’s confrontational rhetoric and policies have resulted in diplomatic isolation and economic hardship for Iran. These developments are unpopular among Iranians. It is beneficial to Ahmadinejad and his regime, then, if he can claim to the Iranian people that his leadership is not hurting their country. If he can demonstrate that he is treated abroad as a respected leader, he will be better able to counter his critics at home. Columbia’s invitation thus gives political assistance to Ahmadinejad. Bollinger has written that “it should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas...implies our endorsement of those ideas.” That is true. But the argument against the official invitation of Ahmadinejad is not an argument against listening to his ideas. It is an argument against bestowing prestige on Ahmadinejad. There are many ways Columbia can engage with his ideas without giving him the politically valuable respectability of an official speaking invitation. Columbia can hold a forum on his views. It can play recordings of his speeches and ask experts to comment on them. It can create courses on the history and ideology of the Iranian Revolution. Indeed, if “listening to ideas” is truly Bollinger’s goal, then bringing to campus Ahmadinejad, a master of deception and propaganda, should be one of his last options. The issue here is not free speech. That is a red herring. We have heard no one argue against free speech. The issue is values: What standards should Columbia use in giving out valuable, prestigious official speaking invitations? Whatever standards apply, they should preclude an invitation to the head of a regime that behaves as Iran’s does and they should in particular preclude an invitation to an individual who promotes hatred and violence as Ahmadinejad does. Ahmadinejad’s regime punishes homosexuality by hanging and stoning gays. Religious minorities — Sunni Muslims, Bahais, Jews, and others — are routinely abused by the Islamic police. Women are publicly flogged for not dressing according to regime edict. Academics and students survive in the academy only so long as the regime decides not to purge them as “infidels.” And Ahmadinejad has made repeated calls for Israel’s destruction, fantasizing about mass murder while developing the weapons necessary for achieving his fantasy. Iran is the world’s leading exporter of terrorism. It founded and supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group which is undermining Lebanon, seeks to destroy Israel, and killed nearly 300 American Marines in 1983. In fact, the American death toll at the hands of Iranian terrorism increases daily, as U.S. troops in Iraq are killed and maimed by Iranian-provided improvised explosive devices. Amazingly, American soldiers may be killed by Iranian bombs at the very moment that Ahmadinejad is being hosted by Columbia — and in the name of American ideals, no less. Columbia properly considers free speech its ultimate value. Universities should not try to shield students from controversial views or be fearful of any ideas. But this is beside the point. By its invitation, Columbia has chosen to give Ahmadinejad a valuable political gift that he does not deserve, and that he will use to further repress his people and threaten his neighbors. It is shameful to receive him here as an official guest. — David J. Feith and Jordan C. Hirsch are undergraduates at Columbia University. They are editors of The Current, a journal of politics, culture and Jewish affairs.

Exactly Q5echo.

As for those talking about how America should be at war with Saudi Arabia rather then Iran, again they're showing their terrorist-loving colors, and ignoring the facts.
The facts are that Osama and his men are wanted in Saudi Arabia, and are enemies of the state. The facts are that the Saudi government doesn't call the US the devil country. The facts are if the US were to go to war with Iran, the Saudis would be more then happy to let the American military use its land as command centers.

The Iranian threat is a big threat not only to America, but to many arab countries as well.

As for Saudi Arabia and women, things are slowly but surely improving. 10 years from now Saudi Arabia is expected to be a different place, much more tolerant towards women. While this may be in part due to the pressure the Saudis receive from western countries, it's also due to growing pressure from Saudi women.

So why hadn't the US just went to war with Iran back in the day when the "revolution" just started? We had a weak president named Jimmy Carter, we just got out of Vietnam a few years earlier so Americans were tired of fighting abroad, and we had a much bigger war which Raegan successfully focused on - the war with the USSR.

in 4 minutes he managed to read Q5 article (Hirsh nonetheless) and write that brilliant evaluation intermixed with a Carter example.. ya'll may want to back off, we have a genius in our midst

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag in 4 minutes he managed to read Q5 article (Hirsh nonetheless) and write that brilliant evaluation intermixed with a Carter example.. ya'll may want to back off, we have a genius in our midst

wtf do you have against Hirsch...that he's Jewish?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wtf do you have against Hirsch...that he's Jewish?

mybad, can't watch football and write



carry on, i'm going back to the game.. my panthers need me

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag my panthers need me

Carolina sucks

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag in 4 minutes he managed to read Q5 article (Hirsh nonetheless) and write that brilliant evaluation intermixed with a Carter example.. ya'll may want to back off, we have a genius in our midst

It took me less then a minute to read that article. You don't have to be a genius to read a few well-written paragraphs. You also don't have to be a genius to write something in response.

I have to admit that I haven't kept up on this news as much as I should. But I also have to admit that I don't think it was the wisest of choices for Columbia U. to give this idiot a voice. His own people can't stand him, let alone the rest of the world. Not that I agree with our Administration's divine ignorance of diplomacy with his country, but giving him a platform at one of our universities is a bit misplaced.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I don't understand how there are hawks in this country who are so quick to pick up arms and go to war. Iran poses no serious security threat to the United States or any of our allies - and don't give me this "they have nukes they'll use on Israel business." Ahmadinejad might be an idiot, but he knows full well his country (and his hold on power) is toast if he even makes a move on Tel Aviv. There are indeed factions within the Iranian government that are as hardline as Cheney or our friend Charles here, but they're increasingly becoming marginalized within their own country. Moderate forms of Islam are emerging across the country, to the point where some regions have completely abandoned the head scarves and have adopted Western reading and listening habits.

Why go to war with an entire nation when your so-called beef is with the words of a select few government officials? There is no confirmed intelligence that Iran is within 10 years of achieving any sort of nuclear capability. And, furthermore, the Europeans have had some success through negotiation with the regime (much of which become mired and stalled each and every time the United States decries Iran as evil). There are way too many people playing with fire these days, and we are most definitely going to get burned. But it's interesting to note that Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran are actually higher than Bush's in... well, anywhere.

___________________