Ahmadinejad In ROTC Out

[satellite66]

Here we have a shining example of liberal hypocrisy and lies. This guy Bollinger is a scumbag and should be fired.


President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University is a very open-minded guy, in his own opinion. In inviting the Iranian prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, he issued this statement. "Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas...Necessarily on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs that many, most of even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialog and reason."

So why won't Bollinger allow the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) to recruit on the Columbia campus? ROTC was expelled from Columbia in the late sixties. In 2003 a majority of students said they wanted ROTC back, to give students the choice to serve their country in this way. The Columbia faculty opposed the measure, however, and Bollinger sided with them against the students.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reaches into his briefcase before speaking to the media as he leaves Tehran's Mehrabad airport bound for the United Nations in New York September 23, 2007. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi (IRAN)

What is the problem with ROTC as far as Columbia University is concerned? Apparently Bollinger and other left-wingers on the faculty can't stand the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning homosexuals. Yet this policy, devised and introduced by the Clinton administration, respects the privacy of homosexual soldiers on the condition that they aren't open or flagrant about being gay. The objective of the policy is to maintain morale in the barracks.

Even if you disagree with the military, Bollinger himself says that Columbia is open to allowing ideas that are "offensive and even odious." This is the whole point of tolerance. Tolerance means, “I disagree strongly, but I will put up with you.” If I agreed with what you have to say then there is no question of tolerance. Whatever Bollinger’s ideological disagreement with ROTC, surely students are capable of hearing his concerns and then making up their own minds about whether to enroll.

Meanwhile, Iran's policies toward homosexuals are--shall we say--somewhat more stringent than those of the U.S. military. I visited the website of Human Rights Watch where the country's sorry record is pretty well laid out. A few months ago, to take a random example, the Iranian police raided a home where men were allegedly dressed up as women. The men were accused of homosexuality, detained without a lawyer, and beaten. Perhaps they should consider themselves lucky: in the past Iran has not hesitated to execute homosexuals. Last November two men were strung up in northern Iran for engaging in homosexual acts. (Lesbianism is apparently punished not by death but by public whipping.)

It's interesting to see that Columbia has such wide parameters when it comes to giving Islamic radicals like Ahmadinejad a forum on campus. Actually I don't agree with conservatives who say that the man should be prevented from speaking. Let him come and let him talk. If Ahmadinejad blames America and Israel for terrorism and calls for both to be wiped off the map, he would be doing no more than echoing what many leftists at Columbia have been saying for years. If he takes the more interesting approach of defending Muslim holy law regarding women and gays, he will show the left what it’s in for if Islamic radicalism triumphs in the Middle East.

But if Columbia can make room for Ahmadinejad, Columbia can make room for ROTC on campus. This absurd double standard of kowtowing even to the enemies of America, while blocking the military and other politically incorrect institutions, has got to stop and stop now. Columbia and other universities should be just as open to ideas from the right as they are to ideas from the left and from the Islamic radicals. Isn't it time Bollinger and his thick-headed colleagues realized that free speech and diversity should be valued across the political spectrum? Send me your thoughts at dineshjdsouza@aol.com.

Link

[quicksilverdon]

I saw that all the Bushies were upset - so much for free speech.
It's supposed to be a question & answer session - I suspect he'll get some good questions that he'll squirm to answer and likely get booed, which I'm sure he's not used to.
As to ROTC, you quote "ROTC was expelled from Columbia in the late sixties"...
Hmmm, late 60s....I'm sure some of the professors recall that other never-ending war. Besides, why can't Columbia be inconsistent? "spreading democracy in Iraq" while undermining it in the US.
Bush is the "decider" BUT he picks generals that play his tune, then hides behind them saying they're calling the shots...

Bush & Cheney are beating the war drums for Iran - because Iran has oil. The fact is, Pakistan is more of a real threat, but isn't sitting on oil.

[satellite66]

Don come in from Red Square. Read the article again and get your facts right. This is not about free speech. This is about aiding our enemies and indoctrination. Clearly you are a product of that indoctrination. They wanted to bring back ROTC in 2003 and it has been denied by the same guy who is embracing a guy who is sponsoring the killing of our soldiers.
This is wrong but because you are consumed with hatred for Bush you are willing like them to give cover to a monster. Your never ending war was started by democrats and ended by a republican. The only things dems did was allow millions to be killed after Vietnam ended. What a legacy that is.

[Hooligan]

Someone's burning!!! Please no insults.

[satellite66]

The only insult here is the insult to our troops by those who embrace our enemies under the mantel of free speech.

[Hooligan]

"mantle"

[satellite66]

Thank you.

[quicksilverdon]

Originally Posted by satellite66

This is wrong but because you are consumed with hatred for Bush you are willing like them to give cover to a monster. Your never ending war was started by democrats and ended by a republican. The only things dems did was allow millions to be killed after Vietnam ended. What a legacy that is.

I feel sorry for you. Do you still believe in Santa Claus?
The republicans have had a scandal a week. Chicken Hawks.
I am sick of the 2 party system. The republicans say something is white, the democrats say it's black. I read that recently there are more independents than either republicans or democrats, so I know I'm not alone, but you continue to hang onto the elephant's tail - which republican party are you for - what they say they stand for - smaller government, family values, fiscal responsibility - or the republican party that has run up the largest deficit in history, has more affairs and drag queens than a Club Med cruise, and created the largest, most incompetent bureaucracy of all, Homeland Security?

Vietnam ended by a republican - you mean cut and run, right? Peace with honor, right?
AND stop the bull about millions killed after Vietnam ended - that was in CAMBODIA. George wasn't too good with geography, either. And I don't follow your logic - republicans (sicky Dicky) ended the war, but killings were caused by democrats??? And, Bush's been right on with every prediction about Iraq so of course he knows, right? By the way, know who stopped the killing in Cambodia? The red Vietnamese army.
Yes, I feel disgust for Bush. He has aided Al Qaeda far more than Ahmadinejad.
Have you read about Greenspan - a lifelong republican, former head of the Fed Reserve, a brilliant guy, who said Iraq "is largely about oil". I'm not as smart as he is, but even I figured that out.
We're after Iran because they're sitting on oil, and Ahmadinejad knows it. I suspect Ahmadinejad is responsible for fewer deaths than Bush is.
Meanwhile, Bin Laden puts out more tapes than the Rocky series.
Heck of a job, George.
By the way, since everything is Clinton's fault, I haven't heard the spin on how Clinton caused the Katrina response disaster.

One thing I think we can agree on - Hillary would be terrible for the US. Lobbyists would just change who they make the checks out to.
I like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or Joe Biden.
The biggest joke is Fred Thompson - nearly 20 years as a DC lobbyist - yeah, THAT's what the country needs....

[satellite66]

Don I don't need your sympathy and you are delusional if you think your independent. I think what you are is to obsessed with hatred to see anything clearly.
This topic was about supporting a guy who wants to give a forum to someone who supplies weapons to be used against
our soldiers and then denies our own military access. For you to even voice any support for this is sick.
I love how when your cornered you change the subject and start spouting DNC talking points.

[SR-PT4]

The war in Iraq is about oil? Really now, you don't say. Is anyone really all that shocked about this? Saddam has been after control of middle east oil for years and would do anything he could to gain that control, including the attempted take over of Iran and Kuwait. The entire free western world's collective economies depend on the flow of oil from the middle east, like it or not. Should we be seeking alternative sources of energy, or even alternative sources of oil? Hell yes we should, but either nobody is doing it or nobody is allowed to do it. We can't open up all sorts of domestic or near domestic oil fields because we'll kill a few animals, yet the Alaska pipeline has proven that wrong. Democrats and Republicans alike have killed all manner of alternatives in so many different ways for so many different reasons, and all either of them wants to do is blame the other.

You can call it a war for oil, but that does not take into account the big picture. Turn off the spigots, or slow the flow enough to bring gas prices to $6/gallon and what happens to the price of goods and services here and elsewhere? I wasn't around during the 1930's but I hear it wasn't a ton of fun.