I'm sure many of you have been following the story of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. He was given the opportunity to speak at Columbia University (although he was slammed pretty hard when he was introduced by Columbia's President) and initially he was planning on visiting the Ground Zero site. This suggestion (that he'd visit the World Trade Center site) caused quite a stir. Should we allow him to visit the site?
If you don't know much about Ahmadinejad, he is an outspoken, vocal critic of US policy and the non-Islamic West in general. He is a holocaust denier as well. There's lots of reasons to not like this guy.
Fortunately, he backed down and decided not to visit the site... but what if he hadn't? That's the question I'm after: what should we have done if had pushed it and wanted to see the site? What's your call? Say you are the mayor of NYC or some other position that could make a power play on this decision. If he wanted to visit the site (as thousands of people do all the time -- I've been there three different times), should we allow him to?
This is a tough one. We've been debating it here in the philosophy department all week and we are rather split on it. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Presently, no, we should not let him visit ground zero. As little sympathy as he showed the US after the terrorist attacks, his visit would do nothing but further hurt East-West (Christian-Muslim, etc.) relations. I don't think we should ban him indefinitely though. People can change, though not often, and we must accept them how they are now and not how they used to be. Should Ahmadinejad adopt an attitude of remorse and empathy, we should let him visit the shrine. However, until that time comes, I don't think visiting the shrine against terrorism would do much for us or him.
A man I knew used to house train his dog by grabbing the dogs head and holding it right up to the s*** he had caused. Now, I know Ahmeadinejad didn't orchestrate anything, but he may very well support it. By all means let the man go to Ground Zero. There is no reason he should not be allowed to go other than "to honor those that died." All those that died have family that still live here and would much rather see us make an attempt at progress, even if it is debatable, than be stubborn in their name. Does anyone have a reason other than the one I listed above? It all relates to America's relative silence on what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world.I know America's current stand on recognizing Iran and talking to nationheads that don't exactly enforce human rights but we are in the right here! If we are going to be the "world police" and act on behalf of a greater good then we need to be vocal, far more vocal then we currently are. President should meet with Ahmadinejad and tell him what are aims are in Iraq, tell him who we are as Americans and what we believe. President Bush should go to countries like France, Germany, Britain and any other country that will have him and explain our position, assert our claims and defend our cause and heaven forbid he should show a little passion and raise his voice at times when doing so. If we are truely "in the right" this can only help us. In order to be effective he must do so in the "common man's" language that is not full of technical terminology and advanced jargon. The world will never support us if there is no one to explain us and ask for there support. A tangent I know, but I believe an important one.
Post a Comment