Columbia Furor: 'It Is Irrational to Debate the Insanity of

[Neil D]

September 29, 2007

In his Sept. 25 Global View column "Columbia's Conceit," Bret Stephens wrote, "On Saturday John Coatsworth, acting dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark that 'if Hitler were in the United States and . . . if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.' This was by way of defending the university's decision to host a speech yesterday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Dean Coatsworth's imagined invitation to Adolph Hitler in 1939 fails to understand that just debating the subject "Should We or Should We Not Kill All The Jews" would have automatically bestowed a 50% positive to the question at the start. It is irrational to debate the insanity of hate.

Contrary to Columbia's description of the invitation to Ahmadinejad as a "debate," it was nothing more than a one-sided rant. If a debate had been desired, Columbia President Lee Bollinger should have invited a representative of Israel to defend that nation on the same platform. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then failed to appear or walked off, the students and faculty at Columbia would have received a much needed lesson as to which side supported free speech and open debate.

[phkrause]

exactly

pkrause

[Dr. Shane]

I don't understand what all the controversy is about. Universities are to be a place of learning. Allowing one of our enemies to come in and rant for a couple hours is a learning experience. I learned that Iran doesn't have any homosexuals lol

[Neil D]

I think what the article was saying was that when we gave this man a voice, we legitimized his dictatorship. When we gave this man a mike at a university, we gave him the oppertunity to speak on his values [which the US media did not make public]. When our press crucified him and made fun of him, we made him into a martyr in the Islamic press and established him as a leader fighting and standing up to the great Satan, the US.

Politically, our culture blew an opportunity, and instead, we gave credence to this man in the Islamic world. He played us, and we took the bait...hook line and sinker...

[Dr. Shane]

I disagree completely. He came over here and we could have imprisoned him if we so desired. We treated him with the dignity afforded to any head of state visiting the country. The invitation to speak at a leading university was part of that dignified treatment. The western press was fair in its coverage. The Islamic press is going to spin things to be anti-America no matter what anyone in America actually does anyway so they should be the last to be considered.

There was no opportunity to blow. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not come to America to make peace or extend an olive branch. His visit was not meant to accomplish anything productive in terms of peace in the world and it most certainly did not.

[Neil D]

Quote:

He came over here and we could have imprisoned him if we so desired. We treated him with the dignity afforded to any head of state visiting the country.

First off, on what charges are we to imprison him? What crimes has he done against the US?

As for "dignity afforded to any head of state", you know as well as I that we don't treat Russia, England, France, Sweeden, Norway or any other country's head of states to come here and speak only to get blindsighted by both barrels of a political speach. At least, we don't do that sort of thing without warning him...Instead, Columbia University invited the man to speak at thier univeristy. What does that invitation imply? "Your country is worthy of discussion in our country." No, we did not build bridges, instead we crucified him by holding him up, in his presence, as a spectical of what NOT to do. And what was his response??? At least they don't have homosexuals, like us, in his country....That is the only thing that was reported to the country....

Quote:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not come to America to make peace or extend an olive branch. His visit was not meant to accomplish anything productive in terms of peace in the world and it most certainly did not.

Then what was his agenda in coming here? to voice his views? did you hear them on the news? To defend his political record? Who is he to US??? As the University prof said, He's a "petty dictator..." Why was he allowed to come to the US? No, the Islamic world needs bridges to the Western cultures....but this is a crucifiction, Islamic style...And he stood up the the great Satan and answered us, from his own culture... We lost a bridge here....

[Bravus]

BushCo has already decided to fight Iran, which will be a disaster that will make Iran look like a mosquito bite. Now they're just working on getting the pretexts sorted out. I said it on my blog months ago: Iran is next. BushCo are the Nero of the USA.

[Neil D]

this is changing the subject a bit, but I am interested in why you think that, Bravus...

Personally, I dont think so... Maybe it's a hope...maybe it's an irrational thought.

My main reason for this not happening...Our forces..they would not/could not be so stretched...the islamic middle east would not tolerate it as I believe that they would think that they were in a holy war to protect thier religion. Oil would shut off pretty quick and most of us would be stranded with our SUVs..

[Dr. Shane]

I think the only thing that would make the US attack Iran is if Israel was determined to do it and the US couldn't stop them. I think most people agree it would be better for the US to attack Iran than for Israel to do it.

An attack on Iran wouldn't necessarily be an invasion. However an invasion itself may go easier than Iraq did. If we know for sure (and it is hard to believe we do) that Iran is funding the insurgency, then if we take out the Iranian power structure, an insurgency in Iran would not be nearly what it has been in Iraq. However I cannot imagine taking on Iran unless Iraq is stable and I think Iran knows that which is why they are funding the insurgency in Iraq.

It would be best if we could come to a diplomatic solution with Iran but how can we enforce any type of agreement with them? I am not a partisan ideologue at all. That is what I see a lot of in the arena of idea. Everyone seems so polarized in their views of the other side. I don't see things that way. I see that President Bush as some genuine concerns about the issue as do some of the Congressional Democrats.

[Bravus]

I chose the word 'fight' rather than 'invade' fairly carefully: I think the US is much more likely to try for 'surgical strikes' with some bombing and perhaps some limited Special Forces action than a full scale invasion. But that would be declaring war on Iran, which would likely result in an open and dramatic involvement of Iran in Iraq and very likely end up in a land war anyway. BushCo are energetically swatting at a hornet's nest with a stick. The wise course would be to leave it alone.

[GodsOath]

I agree with Bravus. We need to stabilize Iraq but looking at our historical meddling someone worse will be set up as leader benefitting our country in the long run.

[jasd]

QR frame:

The Big One: has it begun and who began it? does it matter?

“...a British newspaper revealed that Iranian bombers are crossing over into Iraq and bombing our soldiers. The defense editor for The Sun stated, "We are at war with Iran in all but name!" (11)”

11. Sun Newspaper, Jun. 26, 2007, by Tom Newton Dunn, London, England, U.K.

So, is the Sun a credible paper? or is it like the NYTimes?

Anyway, can there be either peace or détente with a State that is immersed in the

Mahdaviat [belief in the second coming of the Imam Mahdi] with the attendant “chaos” that

Dar ar-Islam (House of Submission/Islam) vs Dar al-Harb (House of War) implies?

"What Ahmadinejad believes is that we have to create a model state based on ... Islamic democracy – to be given to the world," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society. "The ... government accepts this role for themselves." [ed.jasd]

What is ahead for America? and its defense? What are our common people to do in defending themselves? –whose industrial base, that is, the machinery, tools, and assembly lines are razed or shipped overseas... Moreover, the people with skills needed to read the blueprints and, even were they available, to operate the basic machinery and tools - are now either insufficient or lacking? ... Whose money fails?

Historically and generally, when kings went to war they ‘borrowed’ from the merchants to fund those endeavours. If our money fails – how might we then pay for the raw materials and their delivery, and for the equipment needed for our security and well-being?

It becomes more and readily apparent that the corporate-conglomerates are betraying us.

Yet, there remains the draft, no? Cannon-fodder. Yet it will occur.

"Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!" --Strangelove

[GodsOath]

I thought we were fighting wars "because" of these corporate-conglomerates.

[jasd]

>>I thought we were fighting wars "because" of these corporate-conglomerates.<<

By and large, I have no brief with the above...; however,

I’m not certain as to either intent or context of the above and, relative to what I’ve posted, find it a bit cryptic.

[Bravus]

jasd - The Sun is a tabloid with topless girls on Page 3.

[Woody]

Bravus ... I hope you didn't provide a link.

[jasd]

>>jasd - The Sun is a tabloid with topless girls on Page 3.<<

Thanks, I did ask...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

So, is the Sun a credible paper? or is it like the NYTimes?

So then, with not-so-regrettable exception, it is like the NYTimes – another yellow rag!? ;-)

That said, and without comment upon its pulchritudinous offerings, some of the best literature during the past half-century has emanated from the pages of

Playboy! of all things...

Nevertheless, re Iran vis-à-vis the Sun: “Just the facts, ma’am” Right? ;-)

[Amelia]

I would say thats it's pretty darn close to yellow, if not spot on.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

[jasd]

>>I would say thats it's pretty darn close to yellow, if not spot on.<<

Certainly aspects of yellow! That said,

strangely, or temerously – it breaks more than its fair share of major stories – which brings us full circle.