Author Topic: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military  (Read 9839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« on: September 22, 2007, 04:15:53 AM »
Columbia University: Ahmadinejad Yes, ROTC No
Lee Bollinger's choice.
by William Kristol
09/20/2007


TWO DAYS AGO, Columbia University announced that next Monday, September 24, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will speak and participate in a question and answer session with university faculty and students at Columbia. According to the university statement, "This opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran came about after Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations initiated contact with Columbia through a member of the faculty, Richard Bulliet, who is a specialist on Iran."

So at the request of the Iranian government, Columbia University will host the president of a terrorist regime which is right now responsible for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Indeed, this distinguished guest, who is so honoring Columbia by his presence, will be introduced by no one less than the president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger.

But not to worry: "President Bollinger will introduce the event by challenging President Ahmadinejad on a number of his controversial statements and his government's policies." Indeed, Bollinger manfully proclaimed in the university statement: "I also wanted to be sure the Iranians understood that I would myself introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges to the President on issues including:

* the Iranian President's denial of the Holocaust;

* his public call for the destruction of the state of Israel;

* his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;

* Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;

* his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and

* his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia's own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh."

One can imagine President Ahmadinejad nervously preparing for President Bollinger's "sharp challenges," and wondering whether those challenges will detract from the propaganda victory Bollinger's invitation has given him. He's undoubtedly concluded it won't be a big problem.

It should go without saying that the appropriate thing to do, when the Iranian ambassador called Columbia, would have been to say: No thanks. Or just, No. But that would be to expect too much of one of today's Ivy League university presidents.

In fact, the introduction with "sharp challenges" by Bollinger makes the situation even more of a disgrace. Now there will be the appearance of real dialogue, of Ahmadinejad answering challenges, which further legitimizes the notion that Holocaust denial, say, is a subject of legitimate and reasonable debate. But if Bollinger had chosen to deny Ahmadinejad's request, or not to dignify Ahmadinejad's appearance by his presence--then Bollinger would have been denied the opportunity to lecture us, in Columbia's press release, to this effect: "It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible. That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here....This is America at its best."

Actually, this is a liberal university president at his stupidest. As Powerline's Scott Johnson put it, "Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing."
 
Meanwhile: As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus.

A perfect synecdoche for too much of American higher education: they are friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military.


Article


« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 04:17:48 AM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2007, 11:18:10 AM »
Let me explain something to you about the purpose of a University, especially a great university like Columbia.  (Bias alert: proud parent of a Columbia alum)

Universities educate.  To educate, an exchange of ideas is often beneficial.  The identical idea recycled endlessly back and forth is not an "exchange" of ideas.  Ahmedinejad has ideas that are at variance with some of the ideas held at Columbia.  He is coming to exchange ideas with people at Columbia.  This is a GOOD thing, get it?  (Oh, sorry, you DON'T get it - - the only people who should participate in exchanges of ideas at Columbia are those whose ideas are pre-approved by sirs or his ilk.  Oh-Kaaaay.  Got it.  That should make for some great university.  Turn out historians like . . .  like . . . .  well, like people who think that Nazi Germany ran France through a German Occupation Government and that the Vichy government did everything the Germans told them to do.)

U.S. Army ROTC is not exactly an educational institution.  It recruits.  It's not there to exchange ideas.  The only idea the U.S. Army is interested in "sharing" is "Lissen up raghead/faggit/etc.  if yew do not start showin me how much yew LOOOOVE democracy, ahm gonna blow yore haid off with this here M16 DOO YEW REED ME?"  In most educational circles, this does not count as an exchange of ideas.  Columbia figures if the Army needs cannon fodder so badly, it should look for anyone dumb or desperate enough to respond in some other place in New York City, not a prestigious educational institution.  It's a big, big city with a lot of rental space available.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 07:22:56 PM by Michael Tee »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2007, 10:53:49 PM »
Bravo Michael, that is exactly the answer.

The ROTC is not an combatant in the world of ideas, It is a trainer of combatants.

It might be patriotic to join the military at this point, but it sure doesn't look like a wise thing to do.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2007, 11:23:45 PM »
Quote
The ROTC is not an combatant in the world of ideas, It is a trainer of combatants.

The ROTC trains leaders.

Perhaps that is why they frighten you so.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2007, 12:25:42 AM »
D'OH      ;)     (touche' Bt)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2007, 10:49:50 AM »
Touch? my arse.

Sirs, you are truly a dimbulb.

There is absolutely no reason why a private university should be harrassed in to training officers. There are plenty of places where they can be trained.

The purpose of a university is to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas. It is not intended to train Amway salesmen, shoe repairmen, vulcanizers, cheesemakers or officers for the war machine unless the directors think it is in the interests of the university.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2007, 11:10:37 AM »
Perhaps BT or sirs can explain why they think anyone should be "frightened" of "leaders" trained by the ROTC.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2007, 01:22:53 PM »
Touch? my arse.

There's not enough money on this globe for that to occur, Xo        :P


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2007, 01:38:58 PM »
Quote
Perhaps BT or sirs can explain why they think anyone should be "frightened" of "leaders" trained by the ROTC.

There has to be a reason for the University and it's supporters to deny students the right to associate as well as enjoy subsidies to the expenses incurred at said institution.

What would the outcry be if Columbia disallowed a Jewish Student Union center?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2007, 01:47:06 PM »
<<There has to be a reason for the University and it's supporters to deny students the right to associate as well as enjoy subsidies to the expenses incurred at said institution.>>

Anybody who's denied a presence on the campus can claim that the students are being deprived of the right to associate.  That's a totally bogus argument.  They can associate off-campus with anyone they choose.  The issue is whether or not the campus of a great educational institution should host an organization whose main purpose is not the advancement of knowledge but the anihilation of human life.

<<What would the outcry be if Columbia disallowed a Jewish Student Union center?>>

I'd be delighted, as long as the other religious organizations were banned as well.  Religion belongs in the churches.  The educational institutions should be secular.  Unfortunately they always cave to pressure groups.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2007, 02:10:53 PM »
Quote
The issue is whether or not the campus of a great educational institution should host an organization whose main purpose is not the advancement of knowledge but the anihilation of human life.

Is that the official definition of the military?

would Castro's army fit that definition?


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
!
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2007, 02:26:39 PM »
Is that the official definition of the military?

would Castro's army fit that definition?
===================================
The Cuban Army has not fit that definition since they left Angola, Ethiopia and Mozambique.

The US Army has been far more active that the Swedish Army, the Swiss Army, the Cuban Army, or even the People's Red Army, with invasions of Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia and Iraq again.

US Soldiers and Marines are trained to shout "Kill!  Kill!  Kill!" I am nit sure that the Swedes, Swiss, Cubans or Chinese do this.


And I meant to write "touch?, my arse", The accent did not print on the screen.

I do not think that touching my arse would be appropriate behavior.

I meant to indicate that despite BT's comment, I do not feel that sirs' dippy comment merited any recognition for cleverness at all, as it was actually rather unclever.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2007, 05:02:23 PM »
<<Is that the official definition of the military?>>

Probably not, if the official definition of the U.S. War Department is the Department of Defense, I'm sure the official definition of the U.S. military would be something at least equally Orwellian.

<<would Castro's army fit that definition?>>

I don't know about official definitions, but I personally would define Castro's army as the Cuban people in arms for the defence of the Revolution.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2007, 05:58:42 PM »
Quote
I don't know about official definitions, but I personally would define Castro's army as the Cuban people in arms for the defence of the Revolution.

So the definition is subjective. So why should i accept your definition?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2007, 07:37:46 PM »
A good point. The US somehow changed the name of the War Department to the DEFENSE Department after WWII, I think.But the US Defense Department actually is on the offense far more often than on the defense. The US has invaded Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Iraq twice. Bosnia was under international auspices.

The Swiss, Swedish and Canadian armies do a lot more defending than offending, on the other hand. The Israelis and the Iraqis under Saddam are the only ones that have recently been more offensive than the US. Iraq started the Iran Iraq War, and invaded Kuwait more or less unilaterally, though not withoutr provocation, as the Kuwaitis were sucking Iraqi Oil from Iraqi deposits by using diagonal drilling.

The Israelis have used preemprive strikes on several occasions, and have colonized captured territory, which is a no-no since WWII.

The Cuban Army is somewhat between these extremes, having sent troopps to Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique, where the rightwing factions posed no threat at all to Cuba.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."