I think the lecture of Columbia university chair was unmannerly and shamefully.- he named Ahmadinejad as a dictator. my question is why the Iran old king (Shah) that fall with the Iranian will and have a lot of prisons in Iran was the friend of USA, but Dr. Ahmadinejad that selected in a democratic election and is very popular in Iran is a dictator?- Some people that execution in Iran were some big smugglers and some that kidnap women and daughters and abuse them and people request the police execution them. The question is why in Afghanistan the plant of poppy increased 5 time more after the USA army occupation?- USA Army occupied Iraq. question is why more than 500000 Iraqi people must be killed? How many racemose bombs and 2500 kilograms bombs fell over the Iraqi houses? Aren't the Iraqi peoples angry from the USA? Why USA couldn't present any degree and document from interference of Iran in Iraq? Do USA say reality?1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech? 2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship? 3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people? 4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum? 5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks? 6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? 7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? 8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes? 9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel? 10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?
There's a difference between acceptable and necessary. I think it is acceptable for Ahmadinejad to speak but I could live two or three lifetimes without ever listening to this guy or George W. Bush say a word.
Hi Pollsbsters.... Here is an email the President of Columbia sent to all the students this morning. Dear fellow members of the Columbia community:I would like to share a few thoughts about today’s appearance ofPresident Ahmadinejad at our World Leaders Forum. I know this is amatter of deep concern for many in our University community andbeyond. I want to say first and foremost how proud I am ofColumbia, especially our students, as we discuss, debate and planfor this highly visible event.I ask that each of us make special efforts to respect the differentviews people have about the event and to recognize the differentways it affects members of our community. For many reasons, thiswill demand the best of each of us to live up to the best ofColumbia's traditions.For the School of International and Public Affairs, which developedthe idea for this forum as the commencement to a year-longexamination of 30 years of the Islamic Republic in Iran, this is animportant educational experience for training future leaders toconfront the world as it is -- a world that includes far too manybrutal, anti-democratic and repressive regimes. For the rest of us,this occasion is not only about the speaker but quite centrallyabout us -- about who we are as a nation and what universities canbe in our society.I would like just to repeat what I have said earlier: It is vitallyimportant for a university to protect the right of our schools, ourdeans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes.Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact withbeliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and evenodious.But it should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas wedeplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or theweakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté aboutthe very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a criticalpremise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorablewhen we open the public forum to their voices.The great majority of student leaders with whom I met last weekaffirmed their belief that this event, however controversial, isconsistent with the values of academic freedom we share at thecenter of university life. I fully support, indeed I celebrate, theright to peacefully demonstrate and engage in a dialogue about thisevent and this speaker, as I understand a wide coalition of ourstudent groups are planning for today. That such a forum and suchpublic criticism of President Ahmadinejad’s statements and policiescould not safely take place on a university campus in Iran todaysharpens the point of what we do here. The kind of freedom thatwill be on display at Columbia has always been and remains todayour nation’s most potent weapon against repressive regimeseverywhere in the world. This is the power and example of Americaat its best.Sincerely,Lee C. Bollinger
As an American I think we have to let him speak because that is what America is about. I think a better third choice would be "He can speak, but I don't have to listen".
I agree with that.
I think the lecture of Columbia university chair was unmannerly and shamefully.- he named Ahmadinejad as a dictator. my question is why the Iran old king (Shah) that fall with the Iranian will and have a lot of prisons in Iran was the friend of USA, but Dr. Ahmadinejad that selected in a democratic election and is very popular in Iran is a dictator?- Some people that execution in Iran were some big smugglers and some that kidnap women and daughters and abuse them and people request the police execution them. The question is why in Afghanistan the plant of poppy increased 5 time more after the USA army occupation?- USA Army occupied Iraq. question is why more than 500000 Iraqi people must be killed? How many racemose bombs and 2500 kilograms bombs fell over the Iraqi houses? Aren't the Iraqi peoples angry from the USA? Why USA couldn't present any degree and document from interference of Iran in Iraq? Do USA say reality?1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech? 2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship? 3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people? 4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum? 5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks? 6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? 7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? 8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes? 9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel? 10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?
There's a difference between acceptable and necessary. I think it is acceptable for Ahmadinejad to speak but I could live two or three lifetimes without ever listening to this guy or George W. Bush say a word.
Hi Pollsbsters.... Here is an email the President of Columbia sent to all the students this morning. Dear fellow members of the Columbia community:I would like to share a few thoughts about today’s appearance ofPresident Ahmadinejad at our World Leaders Forum. I know this is amatter of deep concern for many in our University community andbeyond. I want to say first and foremost how proud I am ofColumbia, especially our students, as we discuss, debate and planfor this highly visible event.I ask that each of us make special efforts to respect the differentviews people have about the event and to recognize the differentways it affects members of our community. For many reasons, thiswill demand the best of each of us to live up to the best ofColumbia's traditions.For the School of International and Public Affairs, which developedthe idea for this forum as the commencement to a year-longexamination of 30 years of the Islamic Republic in Iran, this is animportant educational experience for training future leaders toconfront the world as it is -- a world that includes far too manybrutal, anti-democratic and repressive regimes. For the rest of us,this occasion is not only about the speaker but quite centrallyabout us -- about who we are as a nation and what universities canbe in our society.I would like just to repeat what I have said earlier: It is vitallyimportant for a university to protect the right of our schools, ourdeans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes.Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact withbeliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and evenodious.But it should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas wedeplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or theweakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté aboutthe very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a criticalpremise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorablewhen we open the public forum to their voices.The great majority of student leaders with whom I met last weekaffirmed their belief that this event, however controversial, isconsistent with the values of academic freedom we share at thecenter of university life. I fully support, indeed I celebrate, theright to peacefully demonstrate and engage in a dialogue about thisevent and this speaker, as I understand a wide coalition of ourstudent groups are planning for today. That such a forum and suchpublic criticism of President Ahmadinejad’s statements and policiescould not safely take place on a university campus in Iran todaysharpens the point of what we do here. The kind of freedom thatwill be on display at Columbia has always been and remains todayour nation’s most potent weapon against repressive regimeseverywhere in the world. This is the power and example of Americaat its best.Sincerely,Lee C. Bollinger
IT is much better to have him speak and even to listen to what he has to say. I honestly believe that it is better than war.
As an American I think we have to let him speak because that is what America is about. I think a better third choice would be "He can speak, but I don't have to listen".
I put freedom of speech 1st
he's already speaking quite a bit