Support NeoGAF

[FightyF]

Of course he has to make his comments about gays not existing in Iran, and we'll probably see the media latching onto that one comment obscuring the rest of his speech.

Heheh, already happened on this forum: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193316

His speech was consistent with his previous remarks, even made to his own people. Anyone claiming that it's a facade, hasn't done their research.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Watched it. Very interesting.

I repeat, amazing all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread.

I'm more upset with the double standard here. The ROTC can't be on campus, and the minuteman guy can't speak on campus...but a known supporter of terrorism can. That's interesting

Overall I thought his performance was poor, as was the university's. I saw one college Democrat from the school on Hardball saying they asked hard questions, but all I heard was rambling and more rambling. He dodged nearly every substantial question. If this was the hard hitting intellectual power of Colombia University, I must say I was most underwhelmed.

 

[goomba]

I'm more upset with the double standard here. The ROTC can't be on campus, and the minuteman guy can't speak on campus...but a known supporter of terrorism can
.

:rolleyes

 

[Primordial]

hey did anyone read this new york times book review of
"Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
by Trita Parsi"

some interesting tid bits--

Broadly speaking, states want nuclear weapons for two reasons: security and prestige. Under the Shah, Iran had a nuclear program but Khomeini disbanded it after the revolution on the grounds that nuclear weapons were un-Islamic. When the program resumed covertly in the mid-1980s, Iran's primary security concern was Iraq. At that time, Iraq had its own covert nuclear program; more immediately, it had threatened Iran with chemical weapons attacks on its cities. An Iranian nuclear weapon could serve as a deterrent to both Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons.

In 2003, as Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance shows, there was enough common ground for a deal. In May 2003, the Iranian authorities sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, for negotiations on a package deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for an end to US hostility. The Iranian paper offered "full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD [and] full cooperation with the IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments." The Iranians also offered support for "the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government" in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including "above all, al-Qaeda"); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups like Hamas. In return, the Iranians asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the "axis of evil"; that all sanctions end; that the US support Iran's claims for reparations for the Iran–Iraq War as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that the US pursue anti-Iranian terrorists, including "above all" the MEK. MEK members should, the Iranians said, be repatriated to Iran.

Basking in the glory of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed the Iranian offer and criticized Guldimann for even presenting it. Several years later, the Bush administration's abrupt rejection of the Iranian offer began to look blatantly foolish and the administration moved to suppress the story. Flynt Leverett, who had handled Iran in 2003 for the National Security Council, tried to write about it in The New York Times and found his Op-Ed crudely censored by the NSC, which had to clear it. Guldi-mann, however, had given the Iranian paper to Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney, now remembered both for renaming House cafeteria food and for larceny. (As chairman of the House Administration Committee he renamed French fries "freedom fries" and is now in federal prison for bribery.) I was surprised to learn that Ney had a serious side. He had lived in Iran before the revolution, spoke Farsi, and wanted better relations between the two countries. Trita Parsi, Ney's staffer in 2003, describes in detail the Iranian offer and the Bush administration's high-handed rejection of it in his wonderfully informative account of the triangular relationship among the US, Iran, and Israel, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States.

Four years later, Iran holds a much stronger hand while the mismanagement of the Iraq occupation has made the US position incomparably weaker. While the 2003 proposal could not have been presented without support from the clerics who really run Iran, Iran's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made uranium enrichment the centerpiece of his administration and the embodiment of Iranian nationalism. Even though Ahmadinejad does not make decisions about Iran's nuclear program (and his finger would never be on the button if Iran had a bomb), he has made it politically very difficult for the clerics to come back to the 2003 paper.

----------
little bit about the author---
Trita Parsi
Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007.) He wrote his Doctoral thesis on Israeli-Iranian relations under Professor Francis Fukuyama (and Drs. Zbigniew Brzezinski, R. K. Ramazani, Jakub Grygiel, Charles Doran) at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in 2006.

He is a frequent commentator on US-Iranian relations and Middle Eastern affairs, and has appeared on BBC World News, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN (Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, Anderson Cooper 360°), CNN International (Your World Today), Al Jazeera, C-Span, NPR, MSNBC, Voice of America and British Channel 4.

He has served as an advisor to Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH18) on Middle East issues and is a co-founder and current President of the National Iranian American Council (www.niacouncil.org), a non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting Iranian-American participation in American civic life.

 

[Futureman]

Fixed for reality-based community.

So you're saying that everything Ahmadinejad says is just a hollow front. I brought that possibility up in my post by stating that the integrity of what he's saying is in doubt. So no need to quote me and then change what I said.

As far as Iran using troops, weapons, and money to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, what is everyone's thoughts on this issue? I've seen MANY times in the past few days where people have been claiming with absolute certainty that this is currently happening.

and Iran's treatment of gays, any links discussing this (not saying this is in doubt, just haven't read much about Iran)?

 

[radioheadrule83]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html

The full text for anyone who still hasn't read it.

I'm more certain than ever that this was a positive event. Theatrics or not.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Whatever the case, Iran has gotten rid of it's worst and most direct enemy thanks to the US; Iraq. People often say "Oh the US got rid of Saddam for Israel and the oil", but the fact is both the US and Israel knew how week Iraq was. Sure it was better to remove him from their point of view, but Iran is the nation that made the most out of this situation. Their only problem now is that they have the US army next door. But already we can see how Iran is able to use the instability in Iraq to its advantage since the less stable the country is the more justifications they have for approaching the Iraqi government to make deals with them and the more receptive the Iraqi government becomes due to its precariousness.

And now, even when the US realizes that this is getting too costly and has brought none of what it desired, the US must spend even more money and resources to make sure they can implement themselves in Iraq, otherwise if they leave Iran will come out as the big winner in all of this. A winner made in the USA, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

No, I don't think there is any turning back at this point

EDIT: And with the recent Syria/NK link having been established, you can imagine how important it now is to keep an eye and an arm in the region.

 

[Macam]

Apparently so. I'm disgusted that Americans are protesting against STUDENTS (just saw it on TV) who want to go and listen to the man! For a country that has freedom of speech as one of its founding principles - we've fallen a long way. I mean shit wouldn't you want to be able to hear for yourself what this man really believes and question him instead of getting his message filtered into CNN soundbytes? I mean fuck - what the hell is happening to this country.

People like this are in office:

Earlier today, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said in a statement that if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger “follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of Federal Funding to Columbia University.”

Introduced as a “petty and cruel dictator” by Bollinger, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did indeed speak at the Ivy League university, where he outlandishly claimed that there are no gay men or women in Iran.

Appearing on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto after the speech, Hunter said that he plans to follow through on his threat and will now “initiate legislation, and try to get as many people as can see it my way, to cut off funds to Columbia University.”

Hunter is not the only lawmaker looking to punish Columbia and Bollinger for hosting a speaker whom they dislike. The New York Sun reports today that state and city lawmakers in New York are considering punitively withholding public funds from the school as well.

In case anyone actually wants to do something about these brain dead politicians, here you go. Cornyn's office already got an earful last week for wasting everyone's time on the Petraeus ad.

As for Ahmadinejad's speech, I haven't gotten around to reading or watching it yet, so I'll have to dig around for some links when I get the time. So far, it sounds largely like par for the course.

 

[VanMardigan]

I think it was highly disrespectful to invite a head of state of an independent nation to speak at your campus, then rip him before he even has a chance to speak. It shouldn't be done. He was a guest of the University at that point and they showed a total lack of class that reflects badly on them when they're trying to drive home the point that HE is the classless one.

 

[140.85]

Columbia's law dean sums it up perfectly:

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

 

[Kak.efes]

I think it was highly disrespectful to invite a head of state of an independent nation to speak at your campus, then rip him before he even has a chance to speak. It shouldn't be done. He was a guest of the University at that point and they showed a total lack of class that reflects badly on them when they're trying to drive home the point that HE is the classless one.

Agreed, it was boorish, and crass- that introduction will only serve to strengthen his standing in Iran. He's not a dictator- as Bollinger eluded to, he's a publicly elected offcial, it's a slap in the face to all Iranians.

 

[APF]

His speech was consistent with his previous remarks, even made to his own people. Anyone claiming that it's a facade, hasn't done their research.

Whether or not his words were consistent with previous remarks has little to do--or in fact simply supports--what I'm saying about a Potemkin Village facade. I don't think you understood what I was saying, and simply rushed blindly to attack. The point is, the script is something that sounds reasonable, then careens into something that makes you realize he's completely delusional--or when you really think about the connotations of what he's suggesting, pretty fucking evil. But I'm sure you'll the gays in Iran are being removed from the pages of history of their own accord, or because the homosexual regime outspent itself...

I think it was highly disrespectful to invite a head of state of an independent nation to speak at your campus, then rip him before he even has a chance to speak.

I thought he was invited on campus for the express reason of being challenged, and these conditions were expressly mentioned before the event?

 

[evilromero]

I want to see a transcript of this. Any good sources?

 

[Phoenix]

People like this are in office:



In case anyone actually wants to do something about these brain dead politicians, here you go. Cornyn's office already got an earful last week for wasting everyone's time on the Petraeus ad.

As for Ahmadinejad's speech, I haven't gotten around to reading or watching it yet, so I'll have to dig around for some links when I get the time. So far, it sounds largely like par for the course.

Stop the world, I'm ready to get off.

 

[Y2Kev]

the viewing party!

 

[Futureman]

I was just thinking about this today, Pittsburgh is pretty boring. Stuff like this happening in New York makes me want to move.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Columbia's law dean sums it up perfectly:

Hmmm, good point. On the other hand, we don't stop people from lying to the public repeatedly, we grant them that right and then demolish their statements and arguments. I'm thinking of creation "scientists" and the like.

However on the other, other hand, creation scientists aren't invited to speak in prestigious universities.

That said, on the other, other, other hand, the guy is the president of Iran, and learning what his opinions really are directly from him is a precious opportunity, even if he is intellectually dishonest.


I'm not sure what to think.

 

[Tarazet]

That said, on the other, other, other hand, the guy is the president of Iran, and learning what his opinions really are directly from him is a precious opportunity, even if he is intellectually dishonest.

It's also politically subversive, not to mention dangerous, for an institution like this to try and engage in diplomacy. I'm not saying right or wrong, but it was dangerous. We probably wouldn't be seeing the same backlash if Columbia invited his speech writer or a member of his cabinet.

 

[VanMardigan]

I thought he was invited on campus for the express reason of being challenged, and these conditions were expressly mentioned before the event?

Well, it's one thing to challenge a guy academically, and quite another to personally disrespect him before he even takes the podium. I don't think the timing and the conditions warranted that sort of introduction. The students themselves made their feelings known, and that was direct feedback to what he said. I think that was sufficient, and better represents an exchange than the pretentious rant the pres gave at the outset.

 

[APF]

Well, it's one thing to challenge a guy academically, and quite another to personally disrespect him

What you call "personal disrespect" I call, speaking truth to power. When the entire purpose of Ahmadinejad's visit was to challenge him directly (so claimed many in this thread), how is it not appropriate to challenge him directly? How is it not appropriate for a University President to challenge a head-of-state on his oppression of students and scholars? on his attempts to legitimatize a grotesque denial of modern history? It's absolutely appropriate, head-of-state or not.

 

[VanMardigan]

So you don't think it was possible to challenge him without insulting him?

 

[Y2Kev]

Students here kind of agree. A lot feel it was brash and boorish, and it was manufactured by Bollinger because of the pressure he was under after extending the invitation.

A lot of people think it gave Ahmadinejad a way to escape from answering questions while still saving face, that is, "Oh you insulted me why should I cooperate?"

bwah bwah

No one thinks he is a good guy...at least not most sane people. But to come out and so plainly state it was really just redundant.

 

[APF]

So you don't think it was possible to challenge him without insulting him?

Isn't that what diplomacy is for? While I get your point, you also have admit, being invited to speak while being told, "I'm going to directly and frankly voice my grievances," pretty much sets you up to know what you're in for.

 

[bob_arctor]

Isn't that what diplomacy is for? While I get your point, you also have admit, being invited to speak while being told, "I'm going to directly and frankly voice my grievances," pretty much sets you up to know what you're in for.

How refreshing it would be to see Bush submit himself to such a forum. In his own country no less.

 

[APF]

How refreshing it would be to see Bush submit himself to such a forum. In his own country no less.

Similar but not the same would be the NAACP events where he's spoken.