This is your first chance to do a discussion posting. Don't worry if you have nothing to say this time, there will be plenty of chances to come.
I have been given two links from some very nice students, I would like your comments to address both.
The first link has to do with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has requested
to see Ground Zero in New York to pay his respects. Unsurprisingly, he was rejected. However the angry reaction to his request is very interesting. Here is the link. You can approach posting on it any way you want, but if you are stuck, think about this: Do you think the reaction is justified?Secondly, a top U.S. Army General has recently stated that the U.S. and the world could live with a nuclear Iran. The link is here. What do you think about his comments?
I do know that we haven't gone over these issues yet, and that's why I have put it up. I want to see what you guys think going into the class. By the end of the semester it will be interesting to see if your opinions have changed.
As Keyan stated before, "A response that’s thoughtful and astute will be regarded higher than something that’s rushed and out of compulsion. Remember, intelligent debate is an integral component of this course." Be sure to put your full name on the post so we have an accurate count of how many posts people have done.
Also, the slides have been approved and they are up at www.decal.org/iran.
Finally I found this amusing video about Persians from the animated comedy American Dad. Its offensive, but strangely funny. Don't watch it if you are easily offended. And don't worry, you don't have to comment on it. This is the link. Enjoy. - Amir
10 comments:
you think that's offensive, did you see South park where they reenacted the movie "300"? Now to be honest i'm not persian, but i think they went a little far on that one. Funny. but a little far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTN04gqO3sI
it's a little crappy, but hey.
I think Ahmadinejad should be able to visit the site of the WTC attacks because he did not have anything to do with their destruction. If he is "sponsoring terrorism" what have we been doing in Iraq for the past five years when the real terrorists are in Iran? If he is supporting terrorists then why not arrest him or kill him to prevent future attacks? Maybe its because their is no proof that he sponsors terrorism and all that we hear from the media is propoganda from bush and the republicans to encourage another pointless war.
Firstly, I personally think it would not be appropriate for Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero simply because it is much more than just a place, it is a symbol of that day and everything that day has set in motion (including the war on terror and Iran's placement in the "Axis of Evil". One world leader should not expect to visit a country full of people who think he is either insane, anti-American, or dangerous to society. However, I do respect the fact that he asked permission first, a very noble step when in all reality he could have just gone; it is a free country.
Secondly, as for the world being able to live with a Nuclear Iran, I believe it is possible as long as Iran's hostilities towards the US and other countries decrease significantly. It would not be right to have a country that has stated its hatred for your country and others to have the power to annihilate them. Nevertheless, I do not believe the situation with Iran is that bad and I believe it will get better very soon. In addition, the US does seem to have the means to deter Iran from using the nuclear program for weapons, which I do not really believe Iran intends to do. Either way, by the time their nuclear program is developed, I think it will no longer be such a large, polarized issue.
First of all it is important to say that the environment in which President Ahmadinejad spoke was highly inappropriate; the fact that what proceeded his speech was a highly volatile language, which referred to the President as "evil" and assumed immediate conflict with the views of Ahmadinejad. The behavior of that "scholar" was absolutely deplorable; he acted as though the President was not an honored guest. I admire the way the President was able to address these comments.
Moving past the negative environment created by the faculty of Columbia, the President made one key clarification to about what this "interview" was about. On the issue of Nuclear development he continued to cite IAEA reports about how Iran was performing within international specifications and brought up the interesting point that the issue is not a legal one but a political one. I believe this comment, made by the President, sums up this interview with Columbia. Each question was made with highly emotional motivations, not questioning for answers, but rather questing to trap Ahmadinejad into saying something which could be twisted and taken out of context to be used for whatever political ends. This was not a search for truth, this was not a stepping stone towards peace. This was an insult to the intelligence of a smart man, and an insult to each person who did have a question about what benefits could come through improved relations between the US and Iran. I find it repulsing that issues like "what about visiting ground zero" takes precedence over questions about whether current difficulties in the Middle East could be resolved if countries like Iran and Syria were involved in bettering conditions rather than being termed "evil" due to differing perspective. All in all, it seemed like a massive waste of everyones time and a disgusting display of ignorance, and impassioned, yet fruitless, rhetoric.
I do believe that Ahmadinejad should have been able to see Ground Zero because if he is able to go to one of the top universities (Columbia) and talk to students, he should be able to go to the site. He even invited our president to go to one of the top universities in Iran.
Um... i believe i misread the question. I'm not quite sure how to erase my earlier post so i'll just post a different response. It is important that we as American's who make claims about freedoms and rights, restrict the rights of a guest to our country. Ahmadinejad, came as an advocate of education and truth to speak at an American University at the request of its students. If that is indeed the reason for his visit, then as a guest and as an educator he has the right to visit the WTC. Furthermore, he is afforded some respect as the leader of a nation, and to treat him like a common criminal, not allowing him to come and go as he pleases is an insult and a show of bad faith. This creates further tension with Iran and is poor politics in my opinion. Also, Ahmadinejad has said that he only wants to pay his respects to those who have lost their lives to that tragedy. It is not as if he would begin sinisterly laughing and spit on the ashes, it is in poor taste for the American public to condemn him for wanting to visit the WTC to pay his respects, while ignoring entirely the tragedies all over the world.
I think the interactions and reactions between Ahmadinejad and the US regarding his visit to Ground Zero were made in an effort to send messages to people in the US as well as abroad. I believe the President requested a visit to the site as a display of respect and as an extension of an ongoing effort to better Iran’s appearance in the American eyes. Perhaps the President never actually intended to visit the site, knowing he would be rejected; nevertheless the request was a mechanism of maintaining a certain level of grace and consideration between countries. The reaction to Ahmadinejad’s request was also intended to send a message. Had the President been granted permission to visit the site, an uproar would have ensued causing more trouble and controversy that if the President had been rejected. In rejecting Ahmadinejad’s visit and publicizing outrage against the request, Romney, among other US leaders, extend a message to the US that protection and security are their top priorities. Ahmadinejad’s extreme request necessitated an extreme reaction.
When President Ahmadinejad makes public speeches in Iran, he has always given his view strictly on the US administration and not the people of the United States, of which many even agree with his views on the US administration, as we ourselves see with ongoing protests and fluctuating opinion polls. With regard to September 11th, there is no doubt that this is a delicate subject for the American people but as I try to think of something that Ahmadinejad may have said or done to not be granted access in order to pay his respect to the innocent civilians who lost their lives there, nothing comes to mind. In fact, in his speeches, he always condemns terrorist activity, especially against innocent civilians. If anybody in the US, no matter what views they hold, are allowed to pay their respects to the dead and visit Ground Zero, then I think that any visitor, especially the President of another nation ought to be allowed to do so, too. And you may say that it is not that simple but I think that we have been hyped up excessively with negative portrayals of Ahmadinejad in the media so the mere idea of him requesting to visit Ground Zero sets of sirens in a lot of American's heads, which I fully admit, is expected. I feel that if we truly took the time to learn what Ahmadinejad really has to say and if we analyzed his character as a human, we would get to know a completely different person who shares the same values of tolerance and respect that we do as Americans.
Post a Comment