Does anybody have an opinion about Ahmadinejad being invited to speak at Columbia University?

Anybody in favor of it? Anyone have an opinion about why Columbia should or should not invite him?

I wouldn't invite him because he supports terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons so he can continue to support terrorism with impunity. Just my opinion of course. What's yours?

I don't think he should be allowed off the U.N. Grounds. He should make his speach to the U. N. and then be escourted back to a plane that will take him home.

The fall of Soviet Union and communism in europe was not by done by military means but instead of being on cautiously defensive and being open to diplomacy. Heck Regan call the communism the Evil Empire but both he and then leader of USSR both talked to ease cold war intensions. When Regan visted the Soviet Union his view of the "Evil Empire" changed.

I'm not saying that Mr. Ahmadinejad is looking to extend an olive branch but he may be instend looking if America is reasonable in negotications. He was of course elected into office because his constituants feared an invasion. In other words because he appeared strong in his stance of "Nation Defense" of his nation he was elected.

In any case the appearence is questions and answers. It gives us an opportunity to see if he is really out for war or if he's just bluffing.

Your first paragraph made sense fitness. Diplomacy is a good thing. I do not believe Ahmadinejad can be negotiated with, but aside from that diplomacy is good.

Your second paragraph, he is not extending any olive branches, that much is true. He was actually elected as a moderate based upon the fact that people were wanting social reforms. Unfortunately he has his own ideas of reform and mostly they were hard-line muslim extremism, which he proceeded to shove down the people's throats. So mostly you missed on that one.

Some are saying that having him speak is giving him a platform which will make him look good in the eyes of other extremists, as if he has some extra power for being accepted as a speaker after sticking his thumb in the eye of the United States. I think that is largely true. Because he is in the habit of telling some outrageous lies, such as claiming there was no holocaust, and making threats, such as saying Israel should be wiped off the earth, I would not give him a venue.

I would look for legal means to arrest him though. How about if the United States attacked Iran while he was here and declared the Iranian government to be canceled, and then since he was no longer a representative of his country his diplomatic status would be canceled as well and he could be arrested and tried for terrorism. Howzat?

I bet a lot of people didn't like that comment. But oh well. I was mostly kidding anyway. Where is your sense of humor anyway?

I'm thinking if I should give you all a perspective from my inside track to the Iranian mind. The views I am hearing from actual Iranians is so weird you would all be amazed. I'll give you a hint. Well, no I won't. It would take way too much typing and I want to get some politically-incorrect, illegal-alien, Mexican food. Yum Yum. When I have more time.

I like your comments fitnessfanatic, I hope one day people from every nation can all be open to negotiations and diplomacy, and no longer wish to destroy a particular group of people.

I originally come from Europe and I am troubled by what is happening over there.

I would rather they could stay on UN grounds, but what will happen will at this point.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

This was quoted from Al Jazeera.net


At this point in history it seems all we can do is be cautiously defensive, and get through it.

I used to wonder why people in Europe did not realize what was happening in Germany before the war and try to prevent it. Negotiation did not work then, sometimes it can, sometimes not. At this moment in time all I know is there are no easy answers, I pray for the best, but fear the worst.

Philly you a CONSERVATE so I'd expected a such a response from you. The reason I brought up the history lesson is the fact people and their views CHANGE.

He has said some outragous things but of course his audience may not have been the world but to the hard line CONSERVATES that back him in his nation.

The fact of the matter it takes LIBERALS for CHANGE to happen.

Philly I'd like to recommend TexMex if your looking for Mexican food. But don't look for mexicans there, it's owned by Chinese immigrants who took Asian hard work, American business know how, and Mexican food into a successful business enterpise.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Threats and economic sanctions will not stop Iran's technological progress, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Saturday at a large parade of missiles and other weapons aimed at showing off the country's military might.

The parade outside the capital Tehran marked the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran that sparked the bloody 1980-88 war. It comes as the U.S. and its European allies continue discussing a third round of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. It also comes days before the hard-line Iranian president is to address the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

"Those (countries) who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran's fast drive toward progress are mistaken," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran launched an arms development program during its war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own jet fighters, torpedoes, radar-avoiding missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers. Many such weapons were on display at the parade.


Some of the trucks carrying Iranian missiles were painted at the back with popular slogans such as "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel." The parade also featured flights by two of Iran's new domestically manufactured fighter jets, known as the Saegheh, which means lightning in Farsi.

"Those who prevented Iran, at the height of the (Iran-Iraq) war from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brains of experts at Iran's armed forces," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohmmad Najjar said the weapons and equipment shown in the parade were just a "small part of our capabilities."

"With the production of various equipment, sanctions have become ineffective. We don't need foreigners," state TV quoted Najjar as saying Saturday.


Ahmadinejad, who is to appear at a forum at Columbia University in New York on Monday and address the General Assembly on Tuesday, also repeated his call for foreign forces to leave the region and urged the United States to acknowledge it has failed in Iraq.

"Nations throughout the region do not need the presence of the foreigners to manage their own needs. Foreign presence is the root cause of all instability, differences and threats," he said.

The U.S. has accused Iran of sending arms and fighters to help Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops, and both British and American commanders have called the fight in parts of Iraq a "proxy war" by Iran. Tehran denies the accusations.

The U.S. also is calling for more economic sanctions against Iran after two sets were imposed by the U.N. Security Council for Iran's decision not to stop uranium enrichment.

Washington accuses Tehran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, including generating electricity.

Iran has said it has managed to weather a broad U.S. embargo for 28 years, and while many Iranians acknowledge some hardships, they credit the embargo with making them more self-reliant.


"Learn lessons from your past mistakes. Don't repeat your mistakes," Ahmadinejad said in a warning to the U.S. over its push to impose more sanctions.

Whats he going to do?

Lay a wreath, a sign of compassion and respect for the dead, at the site!

Hes not going to carry a nuke there and set it off!

Are we suppossed to believe that Iran is responsible for 9-11 now. Where does it stop?

Have we become that paranoid?????

Paranoid isn't in it. People don't like him for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. They don't like him for swearing to destroy Israel. They don't like him for harboring Alqaeda. They don't like him for persecuting his own people. They don't like him for fomenting anarchy in South America with the help of Chavez. They don't like him for pursuing nuclear weapons. They don't like him for standing in front of a Death to America poster for a photo op before coming to America.

People don't like him for what he does and for what he says. They don't want him at the site of the twin towers. They don't want him in the United States at all. They don't want him at the United Nations, and they don't need him to speak to a university here.

That is pretty simple. Can you understand that?

Sounds like Bush!!!!

So if people dont like ya, you cant go to ground Zero????

98% of Europeans think Bush is a war-monger and dont like him.

Does that mean he cant go to the Eiffel tower?

our opinions are based on our fair & balanced media?....give me
a break...when are they gonna paint the little hitler mustache
on the guy...

yes...be afraid of him...be very afraid....

WHY is he even being allowed in the UNITED STATES??!! I say not even let him at the UN for his speech.

Now that amerika Has Become The Evil Empire, To not let this man that supports FREEDOME SPEAK
would be as big a Travisty of Justice as BOMBING IRAN FOR NO GOOD REASON...

Just as bushco had NO GOOD REASON TO ATTACK IRAQ, bushco has NO GOOD REASON TO NUKE IRAN!!!

Unless you think wiping out 100% of Israels potential enemies is wise and prudent,in view of the fact that Nuking Iran will garantee that CHINA will respond in kind tward The USA...

You people have to face The Reality that WE THE USA, under the guiding hand of the bush hunta have become the greatest threat to humanity that the world has ever seen...

So Why not let the Condemed man speak for his Condemed Country, It's more that Sadam was allowed, without neo-con sensor...

Well. I just don't want the guy here. I think he represents despotism, tyranny, communism, terrorism, religious extremism and hate.

Fanta, on the other hand, would just as soon let the guy have nukes. I was thinking of maybe making a topic about that possibility, but then I would probably look disingenuous since I have already come out against it. Perhaps you would like to start the topic. After all, if we just give him a couple nukes to play with, maybe he will be satisfied and stop developing his military and supporting anarchy all over the middle east. Any takers on that topic?

U.S. military chief foresees 'no war' with Iran
Commander of Mideast forces urges emphasis on dialogue, diplomacy
Updated: 7:44 a.m. ET Sept 23, 2007
BAGHDAD - The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East does not believe current tensions with Iran will lead to war and urges for greater emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy.

“This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Adm. William Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.

Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, wraps up a seven-nation tour of the region on Tuesday that included stops in Persian Gulf countries, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Many of the talks with military and political leaders were dominated by worries about expanding Iranian influence and U.S. accusations that Iran is supplying arms and training to Shiite militiamen in Iraq.

“I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for,” said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar. “We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all .... It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.”

Al-Jazeera was expected to broadcast the complete interview later this week.

Fallon — who leads U.S. forces in Central Asia, the Middle East and the Horn of Africa — was in Iraq on Sunday for a second day of meetings.

At the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Saturday that the world body plans to open a new office in Baghdad to encourage cooperation between Iraq and its neighbors, calling Iraq’s stability “a common concern.” The U.N. greatly scaled back its presence in Iraq since a 2003 bombing at its Baghdad headquarters that killed 22 people.

Interview: A Nuclear 'Litmus Test'
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran is not a 'clear and present danger.' But his patience is limited.

Jean-Christophe Verhaegen / AFP-Getty Images
Guarded Optimism: ElBaradei in Vienna

By Christopher ****ey
Newsweek
Oct. 1, 2007 issue - As rumors of war gather around Iran, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, are determined to head off any rash action. Last month ElBaradei announced a "work plan" with Iran to resolve outstanding questions about parts of its nuclear program that Tehran had kept hidden for almost 20 years. Yet Iran, claiming its intent is peaceful, continues to enrich uranium and master technology that could eventually produce the raw material for atomic bombs. ElBaradei spoke to NEWSWEEK's Christopher ****ey. Excerpts:

****EY: The Israeli airstrike on Syria may have targeted a nuclear facility supplied by North Korea. What do you have on that?
ELBARADEI: We have zilch on that. We would be happy to investigate it if anybody has any information that is nuclear related, but today we have nothing.

Is the speculation about impending military action against Iran hurting or helping efforts at a negotiated settlement?
We still have issues that we need to clarify in Iran. But I don't see Iran, today, to be a clear and present danger. And our conclusion here is supported by every intelligence assessment I've seen that even if Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons [which it denies], it's still three to eight years away from that. We need to continue to do robust verification. But we do not need to hype the issue. What we need right now is to encourage the moderates in Iran.

Earlier this month French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner raised the possibility of war as a last resort if negotiations fail.
I am very happy to see that Foreign Minister Kouchner now says he is for dialogue and he is supporting our work plan.

When the plan was announced, critics said it could undermine the Security Council's efforts to pressure the Tehran government.
There was a lot of commotion and misunderstanding about this plan. It's a litmus test for Iran. In two or three months we'll know if Iran is serious about coming clean. If they do, that obviously will create better conditions for negotiations. If they [don't], then of course we will be in a different ball game altogether.

Yet the Iranians refuse to suspend their efforts to enrich uranium, despite U.N. Security Council pressure.
We never said that this plan is the be-all and end-all. Iran did not want to suspend. This is obviously a matter between Iran and the Security Council.

Why do they need three more months? If they want to come clean, let them come clean.
What option do we have other than to continue? As long as Iran is ready to cooperate, well, I have to accept yes for an answer. Unless we get the parties to the negotiating table we will never find a durable solution. You can delay a program [with military action], you can disrupt a program, but if you really want a comprehensive solution it has to be negotiated.

What if in three months Iran hasn't delivered? If this diplomacy isn't backed by a credible threat of force, the Iranians can stall and keep enriching and eventually they will have the material that could go into a bomb.
If Iran were to prove that it was using this period for delaying tactics and it was not really acting in good faith, then, obviously, nobody—nobody—will come to its support when people call for more sanctions or for punitive measures. That is a point that has been made very clear to them by everybody, including myself. If we come [back] with a negative report after three months, I don't see that anybody will come and say, well, give them another chance.

Philosopher, you asked,

Does anybody have an opinion about Ahmadinejad being invited to speak at Columbia University?

I gave my opinion and you went into a tirade about my opinion, so now I'm going to give you mine about yours!

I think if it weren't for war-mongering people like you we would not have to worry about everyone pointing nukes at us!

I think your opinion about rushing to war around the globe is based on a juvenile spite trip.

You seem eager to throw young men to the dogs of war, and Id bet you've never served a single day in uniform!

Your knowledge of world affairs, especially those of the ME are very limited, naive, and very paranoid.

Your ability to accept opinions that are different than your own does not exist at all.

I have never said I want anyone to have nukes, but it is inevitable.

Countries want nukes for one reason: To protect themselves from the nuke em all, we'll take yours attitude of people just like you!

If you want war with Iran, if they want war with anyone, then start the draft, take people like you give them an M-16 and go to war the old fashioned way.

Face to face, Mano-e-Mano, its more personal that way, and instead of someone sitting on the edge of a desk, with a superior attitude playing arm chair general, everyone is involved.

We dont need nukes to defeat Iran, We have you!!!!

well we dont have to worry about him. we will be in another war wether anyone likes it or not. wether a dem is in office or a republican. they will start it and israel, U.S., France, England, and many arab countries, will come together to stop the bastard. i just hope that it is done better than iraq. history does repeat itself and we will not be able to avoid the coming conflict. world war 3 yes! we will see rogue nations stand against the already created coalition. if you think that there is not a coalition of forces you are gravely mistaken. we are ready to pounce. just let them flinch once. we will take them out! so far as him speaking....let him! it wont change anything!