President Ahmadinejad Speaks, at Columbia University and at the United Nations Options

[The Fanatic]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html

The most interesting part of his entire speech is when the president was questioned about the persecution of women and the execution of homosexuals. At first he avoided the question talking about the execution of drug traffickers and people who "broke the law". When he was finally forced to answer, he claimed that Iran did not have "this problem" aka homosexuals in Iran , unlike the united states and other western nations. I laughed out loud when I heard this ridiculous claim. Perhaps homosexuals are not entirely "open" about their lifestyle in Iran because of executions, thus they do not exist and are not a "problem".

He also kept on claiming that the holocaust needs more research/scientific and scholarly criticism, as is true with other fields such as physics. However, he fails to realize or admit that there is actual forensic, eye-witness, and living people who can account for the holocaust, unlike some principals of physics.

Any other thoughts?

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Sep 24 2007, 01:48 PM

[impala454]

I don't see much point in him coming over here. At best it was a publicity stunt to show his country he's not afraid of the Americans. I thought it was pretty stupid of us to give him so much publicity. This man has said on more than one occasion that he believes the holocaust was a made up story, that he wants to "set the west in flames", and wants to obliterate Israel off the map. He doesn't deserve to have a thread on this message board, much less speak in an open forum in an American university. These kinds of people need to be removed from power. Fortunately, it looks as though this particular guy will probably be removed from power by his own people's vote.

[FORSAKENR320]

He doesn't deserve to have a thread on this message board, much less speak in an open forum in an American university. These kinds of people need to be removed from power.

when the world defeated germany in wwI these feelings were pretty much the same. we took and denied so much from germany economically and politically that the only way their country COULD break out of the rut was through war.

i'm not claiming that this person shouldn't be taken from power, but there should be limitations to how much harm we wish to inflict. with sentiments like yours prominant, it would just be a repeat of history.

[Hartmann]

when the world defeated germany in wwI these feelings were pretty much the same. we took and denied so much from germany economically and politically that the only way their country COULD break out of the rut was through war.

i'm not claiming that this person shouldn't be taken from power, but there should be limitations to how much harm we wish to inflict. with sentiments like yours prominant, it would just be a repeat of history.

You are implying that the U.S. was actively trying to cut Germany off, which is exactly opposite of what happened.

We tried to separate ourselves as much as possible from the proceedings of the Versailles Treaty as we wanted to keep our isolationism and have continued trade with Germany.

Germany was in a rut just like the U.S. was but the difference was that Germany used creation of military machines to break themselves out while the U.S. created an industrial state that did not include purely military purposes.

Hitler wanted war simply because he was power hungry. It had nothing to do with trying to break his country out of a rut. If he wanted to get his country out of a rut he would have surrendered as soon as the British burned Cologne to the ground.