Post 3: Earlier this week Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, landed in New York on Sunday. The next day he would address other representatives of various countries at the United Nations conference. All the controversial issues surrounding his visit are ridiculous because, to me, the answers to the following issues are very clear. Issue number one: should the President of Iran even be allowed to visit the U.S. The answer is no! This man is an extremist who has openly spoke against the United States and has made comments that he looks forward to a world without the United States. He continues to develop his countries nuclear programs and it is a known fact that there are Iranian insurgents from Iran that cross the border into Iraq to kill American troops. This man should not be allowed to set foot on our soil. I believe we should tell him to buzz off and to not bother even trying to speak at the conference. Still, he spoke at the conference on Monday and he said everything that would be expected of such a demagogue. He continued to explain how his nuclear program would continue and that he looked forward to the day that all the arrogant powers were put to an end. This is unbelievable. I understand that he was allowed to speak due to the U.S. welcoming the views of all nations at the conference, but I was appalled that instead of attempting to make peace with the U.S. and other powers against Iran’s nuke program, Ahmadinejad continued to show his arrogance. For those who are going to read this post and assure me that it is really just the U.S. that is bothered by Iran’s nuke programs, you are wrong. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy firmly stressed the point that if Iran’s nuke program continues that France would be willing to unite with the other powers of the world to put their program to an end. Finally, real briefly, another issue that was controversial was Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University. I was completely against this visit as well, pretty much for the same reasons that I have just mentioned. Thanks and I hope my right-wing, conservative ideals tick you off because it just makes all this blogging that much more fun.
10 comments:
I can see how this angers you, but i think that it is important that he speaks, so it is clear to everyone abroad the real feelings of Iran to not only the united states, but most democratic countries. I see this becoming an international issue in the future, and the support of france and the EU will be key. And sorry Austin your super awesome right wing political views have not ticked me off.
peace out
Evan Molenda
I think that everyword that out of his mouth was fairly absurd, but i also think that he should be given the oppurtunity to speak. We always emphasize that we have a free country and if we do not allow the president of a country to voice his opinions than we do not accomplish anything. If nothing else, his visit gave out country some insight into his beliefs, no matter how strange they are.
Hey Austin! How you doing?
I completely agree with you that it is ridiculous to allow Ahmadinejad into our country when he has said comments like "he looks forward to a world without the United States". How could someone think this about our country, when we are the people with a free nation and we are constantly trying to help bring peace among other nations as well! It is quite disturbing to think that even at the conference he would say such cruel things about our country. I do believe that it is important to hear what he has to say, but I do not think he needed to visit to America to do this...and especially why would we allow him to visit Columbia University? Is it really smart on our part to allow a man like this to speak and influence the minds of college students? Well whatever the reason was for our government to allow him in our country to hear what he had to say, I guess as daniel said, at least we know what he thinks and believes now
Austin i do believe that Mr. I hate America did not need to speak in our country freely since he is not a citizen of our nation and is so anti american and western ideas that i dont see why he should recieve a western ideal of freedom of speach. Also, why are we letting our enemies on our soil freely, UN or not, to speak agaisnt us in our own nation when if an american or even european were to go to Iran they would be killed for their ideas? I dont know, but i can say that America is getting to soft and touchy feely and wanting to be equal in a world where our enemies refuse to play by the rules.
I think Bill O'Reilly had the best response to this question. He of course took the stance that Ahmadinejad should not have been allowed in this country, BUT, he provided the advocate that the liberals didn't know what to do about the situation. (I am not saying I agree with him, but he was progressive with his reasoning). His coming to America is the perfect response to 'liberal propaganda' as he calls it. Bush is no longer the greatest evil in the world or the tyrant. Instead, we are given a sense of reality as to what we are dealing with in Middle Eastern countries, and how MAYBE Bush was right to go to Iraq (Imagine if Saddam were to come to speak).
So deciding whether or not he should have been here is up to general opinion, but the EFFECTS of him coming are almost undeniable. It put the conservatives in a better position, because it turned the focus off of Bush, and into reality.
hey austin!
First, and feel free to correct me because I could have missed some news, Ahmadinejad is still saying that his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Probably besides the point though, since he won't let anyone inspect it. So hes probably building big bad bombs anyway :( .
Speaking of big bad bombs, we have em! We are also the only country to ever use them, so...yeah.
As for the university talk, the president of columbia said he would have brought hitler if he could. And in no way was he going easy on the Iranian President, he basically called him a sick freak in the intro sentence. Colleges bring current influential speakers, and all morality aside, Iran = pretty current and influential in the news today.
Finally, he wasn't invited to the US to play a round of golf. Theres two ways to solve things, war and talking. To talk, generally people have to have conversations, like the ones that occurred in the last week. I'm not sure why anyone would be against conversation, what's there to lose? Plus it's a refreshing break from, you know, death.
oh, and as alphonse said. it could be very possible that this visit brought a sense of reality to America and in relation Bush rocks. Of course put that previous statement in better words.
As for my previous comment, watch the last paragraph. I said that in a vague sense, obviously were not at war with Iran right now.
A couple of my points were not directed to anything said in particular by you. Your reasoning is laid out clearly and is a fair argument. My only response based on your argument is that talk can't really be bad. Again, put that in better words. I'm tired and going to bed.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but I disagree on one fundamental point. While Ahmadinejad is an impassioned, arrogant demagogue, and that he is clearly at odds with most of the world, we can't simply not allow him to visit America or speak. According to the philosophers upon whose ideals America was founded, everyone has the right to speak their minds on any issues. We don't have to agree, but there you are. A view that is better suited to this situation, though, is that we always have to be willing to talk to the enemy. That's from Chris Matthews.
On one hand, I see how it is outrageous that we give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to speak in the US when he is the kind of leader that suppresses those kinds of rights in his own country. However, I also think that it is important for us to at least listen to what he has to say. Once he does that, we can tell him he is wrong, and why he is wrong.
Post a Comment