Bollinger Speech, Columbia Uni

[Rossluck]

This link takes you to a transcript of a speech given on Monday by the President of Columbia University as he introduced the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It's one of histories great and bravest speeches and one you'll never forget.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php

[Wild Dingo]

Ross... sorry to disagree with you mate... but it showed an appalling level of and degree of discourtesy and disrespect to someone that the Uni INVITED to speak... he wasnt asked he didnt ask he was INVITED by the Uni to give a speach... and was insulted abused denigrated and verbally castigated by someone who should have known better... an incident of increadible bad taste.

If you invite someone to give a talk then it behoves you as the representative of that invite to treat the invitee to a degree of respect and dignity that is their due.

That he is the figurehead president of Iran is irrelevent what is relevent is that from the day he landed in the USA he has been treated with total disrespect and shown a total lack of regard for international decorum by the USA

The fact that the Ayotolla runs Iran and he is simply a figurehead leader with little power in his country is as I said irrelevent... he is seen for all intents and purposes as a dignitary or his country and should be shown due respect.

Tell me Ross how would you feel if it was Howard who was invited to the USA and upon landing in New York felt the need to spend some time mourning the losses at ground zero upon arrival you are turned away... for no other reason than hes Australian... no other reason... Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 nothing at all... neither by the way did China Japan the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and a multitude of other countries but their dignitaries their representatives have ALL without fail ALL of them been allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects on behalf of their countries... but the president of Iran is not allowed to? That is insulting demeaning and inflamitory on an international level

Then to cap it off hes... lets again say its Howard... hes invited that is they ASKED him to come and give a speach to the faculty and students and he does... but BEFORE Howard has a chance to say ANYTHING AT ALL the chancellor stands up and verbally abuses castigates denigrates not only Howard the man Howard the PM but also Australia the country

HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU FEEL? Pretty damned shocked Id think then angry as hell

I wonder how bush or the USA would feel if it was Bush who that was done to? not to bloody happy is my bet... but this bloke has to take it on the chin and just walk away??? bloody hell my hats of to him for containing his temper and fury at the insults.

Bollinger should have his ass kicked to high heaven for his comments... not made out to be some sort of demigod of brilliance for insulting a visiting dignitary of another country! Its called respect something that is sadly lacking in most of whats coming out of the states at present... but then its to be expected if the leadership has equally little respect it only follows that it flows down to those other tin gods in positions of "power"

The one who stood out was the president for his quiet spoken respect and dignity especially since it was mere minutes since he and his country was verbally abused by this moron

Good speach? MY ASS... IT WAS APPALLING AND INSULTING!

[Rossluck]

Thanks for the strong response, Dingo. I see where you're coming from. I think though that this isn't just an American response to a Middle Eastern (read oil-controlling) Arab leader. To me it's a lesson in free speech given to a despodic dictator who won't allow free speech in his own nation.

Yes, even though I'm an ardent Leftie, and oppose a lot of John Howard's conservative views, like you I would be horrified and angry if he was treated like that. But to misquote some American Presidential candidate in a debate a few years ago: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ain't no John Howard".

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's a murdering dictator along Saddam Hussein lines. These people rule by terror, by killing off people who say (or are imagined to say) the "wrong thing".

I thought that Bollinger "gave it to him straight" in a way that was beyond the ability of political leaders who have to toe the diplomatic line. His was a heartfelt and frank critique of Ahmadinejad's humanity, stupidity (this idiot denied the Holocaust, called 911 into question, and suggested that there were no homosexuals in Iran), ignorance and agenda.

[Big Shed]

Ding, great response, could not have said it better myself, no.....correction, could not have said it half as well:2tsup:.

[bitingmidge]

Ding is correct.

What has been proven here? NOTHING other than what has been voiced by Ding.

IF the guy is so bad (and I'm not disputing that) WHY was he even allowed into the country? An all round appalling state of affairs I'd say.

Glad we've got Border Patrol watching over us.:2tsup:

P
:cool:

[woodbe]

I heard some of the speech on the radio the other day.

Disgusting display. Why did they even invite him to talk? If they were so hell bent on insulting him, they could have done that from home.

woodbe.

[TermiMonster]

Got to agree with the Dingo on this one
TM

[Waldo]

G'day,

I like everyone else have to and whole heartedly agree with Dingo. I saw the story on SBS news and was appalled by the "speech" given by President of the Uni.

[joe greiner]

I saw the speech on the tube, and part of Ahmadinejad's responses. My first sense was approval of Bollinger, but I'm persuaded that Shane (WD) has a much more enlightened take on it; especially considering that he was invited to be sandbagged.

Even so, CBS' 60 minutes had a more polite interview with him last Sunday, and he seemed utterly incapable of giving a straight answer to anything. Particularly galling was his "gentle" smile while saying, in effect, "You people are all arzoles."

USA doesn't have the prerogative of refusing his entry. He was visiting the UN; I think Iran is still a member.

Joe

[Wild Dingo]

Ross Im sorry but this is quite incorrect

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's a murdering dictator along Saddam Hussein lines. These people rule by terror, by killing off people who say (or are imagined to say) the "wrong thing".


Mahmoud is a figurehead... a mouthpeice of the Ayotolla who RUNS Iran... Ayotolla Kahamini (Gawd I have trouble spelling that blasted name) is the POWER AND RULER of Iran supreme mufti if you will... Mahmoud is a president in name only has no power to enact laws to control people the army or anything else a figurehead of a more acceptable sort to westerners than the hardline Ayotola.

In western society to say President is to invoke in people someone of supreme power and control such as president bush... commander in cheif... we westerners accept that its easier to handle than a religious zealot such as the Ayotolla... thus by having an appearance of acceptable western understood "leadership" Iran has some ability to approach the UN and industry etc to gain what they want or need... if say the Ayotolla or one of the mufti (note I hope Im right with that mufti term here but otherwise meaning another religious leader) were to attempt to do so they would fail automatically due to perceptions and historical events... so they put in place someone like Mahmoud who is acceptable to westerners.

The killings and such that occur in Iran are done under the orders of the Ayotolla who CONTROLS the country... Mahmoud does not control nor have a say in anything of substance in the country.

Iran is not the only country who would like to see an end to Israel... to remove it from the face of the earth... rightly or wrongly many other countries and people believe that it should not exist.

As to comments regarding the halocaust never happening... many a commentator and dignitary has expressed similar thoughts...

If you watch and listen to the comment about homosexuals in Iran you will see the smile as he says it... I believe he was making something called humor?... to lighten the mood of the speech... many speakers do that I personally believe that is what he was doing.

Imagine Ross how angry he must have been how insulted he must have felt... this person who was to introduce him was insulting and abusing him BEFORE he had even stood up and said a single word!!! And they had INVITED HIM!!

I was shocked and appalled that someone in Bollingers position would have the temerity and lack of good grace and common courtesy to do such a thing.

NO MATTER WHAT ELSE... Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an INVITED guest of the USA and an INVITED guest speaker at the University... INVITED... I dont know about you Ross but no one should treat an invited guest in such an underhanded and dispicable manner

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the winner on the day for his good grace and quiet manner in the face of direct insult... and a far better man on the day than Bollinger ever has been or is likely to be given his comments.

Funny you say he called 9/11 into question Ross... funny in that the man WENT TO NEW YORK to where the towers once stood to PAY HIS RESPECTS as a person as a President of a foreign nation as a visiting foreign dignitary AND WAS DENIED ACCESS!!! Not a wonder he questions it!... as I said a great many dignitaries and envoys from many many nations around the world including such countries as Rawanda as Zimbabwe etc have gone there have paid their respects WITHOUT any hinderance or question! Yet now Iran is denied... then insulted and denigrated? good god man wouldnt you be a tad phissed off? Me Id be bloody furious!

But enough... sufficed to say that your saying "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a despodic dictator who won't allow free speech in his own nation" is very incorrect... The Ayotolla RUNS Iran not the President so he hasnt the ability nor power to allow or disallow anything... and this "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's a murdering dictator along Saddam Hussein lines. These people rule by terror, by killing off people who say (or are imagined to say) the "wrong thing". is again wrong... Saddam had SUPREME CONTROL of Iraq... he was the be all and end all he was the end of the line there was no one above him in Iraq... not so in Iran if you were to say "Ayotolla Kahameni (sp?) is a murdering dictator along Saddam Hussein lines. These people rule by terror, by killing off people who say (or are imagined to say) the "wrong thing". You would be correct but not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's he is only a mouthpeice of the Ayotolla and a figurehead of "acceptability and normalisy" for westerners... thats it he has no power has no decree or ability to dictate to anyone that is the role of the SUPREME POWER in Iran the Ayotolla Kahameini (spelling PLEASE!)

Bollinger took the dias and tore strips of a VISITOR a GUEST and then proceeded to do the same for that visitors country!! It seems to me of late that many Americans on all levels seem to take the stand that they can and will say whatever they please to whoever they please and tuff shyte if they dont like it!! typical bully boy tactics of power hungry despots if you ask me... luckily you didnt eh?!

Sorry about this Ross but you are mistaken on several levels... nothing personal mate just wanted to straighten a few points you made... if however you dont believe me I suggest you simply google "Leader of Iran" then "Supreme leader of Iran" this will no doubt clear a few points up for you... and thats not meant to sound condescending either mate!!

Cheers
Shane

[Wild Dingo]

I saw the speech on the tube, and part of Ahmadinejad's responses. My first sense was approval of Bollinger, but I'm persuaded that Shane (WD) has a much more enlightened take on it; especially considering that he was invited to be sandbagged.

Even so, CBS' 60 minutes had a more polite interview with him last Sunday, and he seemed utterly incapable of giving a straight answer to anything. Particularly galling was his "gentle" smile while saying, in effect, "You people are all arzoles."

USA doesn't have the prerogative of refusing his entry. He was visiting the UN; I think Iran is still a member.

Joe

Sorry Joe I didnt see your post... probably cross posted eh? :doh:

I didnt see the 60 minutes report with him... but do you not understand why he would feel like that toward the USA? It amazes me that he actually stayed there at all... As I said I cant comment on the interview simply because I didnt see it.

[Schtoo]

I dunno.

The Iranian President may be powerless, and the words he says and actions he takes may be deemed to be required for him to hold his position, but most people will not repeatedly spout such garbage if they don't agree with at least some of it.

I think he is just as bad as he appears, powerless or not.


On the other hand, what the University clown said was pretty gutless and derogatory, especially toward a head of state.

A greater and braver act would have been this.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad".

And then just walked out of the room.

No nasty words. Just a simple unspoken statement that says "I don't like what you say, and I won't waste my time listening to it".

If the Uniclown is so much better than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why should he stoop to the same, nay lower level of behaviour? :?


No respect for either of them really. :no:

[Honorary Bloke]

Frankly, it is felt in some circles that the uni prez was responding to political pressure. He had been castigated for allowing the bloke to be invited in the first place. So he didn't want to be seen as agreeing with him.

But Shane is right. If you invite him, you've invited him--so shut up. A simple intro as Schtoo mentioned would have been appropriate.

[Rossluck]

I'm not running a pro-American oil/imperialism argument here. I thought that Bollinger was standing up for the silenced and repressed people of Iran. He was saying, in effect, that in the USA we have freedom of speech, and I now want to give you a demo of what that actually means:

Here's what I think of you....

Now you can respond.

[Honorary Bloke]

I'm not running a pro-American oil/imperialism argument here. I thought that Bollinger was standing up for the silenced and repressed people of Iran. He was saying, in effect, that in the USA we have freedom of speech, and I now want to give you a demo of what that actually means:

Here's what I think of you....

Now you can respond.

Actually, of course, we do have freedom of speech. That's how the bloke got invited at all. And from the academic perspective I see nothing wrong with it--uni's are supposed to be bastions of free thinking and entertaining all points of view. I just wish I knew whether he made that speech from his heart or from political considerations. I'll never know.

What he said wasn't polite and I think he could have done it differently, but you are correct that he can say anything he pleases and that is one thing that separates democracies from dictatorships.

[Sebastiaan56]

This whole sordid affair was done for the benefit of the American press and the Iranian Pres's reputation at home. The Uni of Colombia invited him to speak, but to welcome him would have pushed the sensitivities of the American anti Iran posture. But at least they let him speak.

I love the quote in a press conference "there are no homosexuals in Iran", not since they shot them there arent ....

Im glad Im here

[jmk89]

Generally I agree with the free speech and politeness view. One of the problems with Iran (and a number of other nations) is that their political classes do not hold to the same views on these freedoms - look at the irrational reaction of the Iranian republic to the Danish cartoons....

If a political representative of a nation which is a serial abuser of fundamental civil liberties is invited to speak at a university, then it is up to the uni authorities to welcome that person politely and then listen repectfully. If there is a question time, or an opportunity to comment, then free speech rights entitle any person (including a uni officeholder) to put in a restrained way their comments on the subject of the speech or to ask appropriate questions.

Bollinger steppped over the line - Sctoo is right, but if he had something he really wanted to say, he should have said it in reply to the Iranian President or as a question to him.

As has been better said a long time ago - I reject every word you utter, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

[pawnhead]

Well said Ding. He was certainly treated appallingly. I believe there would have been a lot of pressure on Coatsworth after the president had been invited to speak. There was certainly a lot of protest about it. Most thought it best to deny him an audience even though he had some valid points.
if you were to say "Ayotolla Kahameni (sp?) is a murdering dictator along Saddam Hussein lines. These people rule by terror, by killing off people who say (or are imagined to say) the "wrong thing". You would be correct but not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's he is only a mouthpeice of the Ayotolla and a figurehead of "acceptability and normalisy" for westerners... thats it he has no power has no decree or ability to dictate to anyone that is the role of the SUPREME POWER in Iran the Ayotolla Kahameini (spelling PLEASE!)
Âyatollâh Ali Khamenei is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who themselves are elected from a government-screened list of candidates by direct public vote. Whilst not an ideal democratic system from a western point of view, I believe that the leadership of Iran is popular among its peoples.
But they’re different from us, and they have lots of oil, so I suppose that may be a good reason to go and instill some democracy (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-23T183356Z_01_N23231267_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IRAN-CHENEY.xml) on them.
I’d like to quote what I thought were some highlights of President Ahmadinejad’s response:
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability. Operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) anyone?
I couldn’t find any reference to CIA involvement in the terrorist attacks that he was referring to twentysix years past now, however I don’t think there’s any denying that through covert means, the US has supported dictatorships, supplied chemical weapons to Iraq during the gulf war with Iran, and plotted assassinations of heads of state where it may be an advantage to their own ends.
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay the heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years, under the name of the embargo and sanctions, because we are against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext you deny us that technology?
We want to have the right to self-determination towards our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us. If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?A most valid argument.
Of course they may be striving for nuclear weaponry, but rather than start a war over it lets keep up the diplomacy. If they did develop a nuclear weapon and decided to use it, I don’t think there’s any denying that they’d be wiped off the map.
They simply wouldn’t be that stupid.

What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (Applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would be -- would like to hear a clearer answer to that question, that is -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (Cheers, applause.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you where I -- what my position is. (Applause.)
I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no. (Laughter, applause.)
There's a plight of a people.
MR. COATSWORTH: The answer to your question is yes. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation.He answered the question, and he threw the issue back in Mr Coatsworths' face following his retort. And justifiably so. :2tsup:
He asks two very valid questions.
1. Why stifle debate on the Holocaust, and imprison Holocaust researchers/deniers?
2. Given that the Holocaust occurred, why should the Palestinian peoples be expected to pay?

"I don't like what you say, and I won't waste my time listening to it".Unfortunately a lot of people feel the same. They don't want to even attempt to see the issues from another perspective, and they'd prefer to just eat what's fed to them.

It’s the time for diplomacy, not scaremongering, insults and saber rattling, and I believe that if Bush were placed in the same position as this leader from the ‘axis of evil’, then he would find it difficult to respond with the same restraint and eloquence.

I wonder if they'd treat a visiting dignitary from China in the same manner. China isn't exactly 'squeaky clean' itself in regards to human rights, and for that matter, neither is the US.

If I were the ayatollah, I might make a quote from another 'religious' leader's bible:

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[Schtoo]

Unfortunately a lot of people feel the same. They don't want to even attempt to see the issues from another perspective, and they'd prefer to just eat what's fed to them.




I hope that's not pointed directly at me... :cool:


I simply said that a better response from the Uniclown would have been to just stay out of it and don't give the Iranian President the dignity of an audience. Inviting someone to a conference so you can openly insult them isn't exactly cricket.

Would I have walked out? Probably not.

Would I have listened? Probably yes.

Would I have agreed? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Would I have asked questions? Yes, but I know I am not as eloquent, intelligent or calm enough to ask really biting questions.


I would expect that the head honcho of a large, well respected University would be eloquent enough, intelligent enough and calm enough to ask questions that would show the Iranian Government for what it really is.

In the case of Iran (and a few other places on this rock), maybe diplomacy among the governments in question would serve better if it were conducted along the lines of....

"Saying nice doggy, while searching for a large rock."

[pawnhead]

I would expect that the head honcho of a large, well respected University would be eloquent enough, intelligent enough and calm enough to ask questions that would show the Iranian Government for what it really is. I would also expect that he’d be impartial enough to debate the plight of the Palestinian peoples, as well as the behaviour and reputation of his own government. There were many questions posed by President Ahmadinejad that were left unanswered. Perhaps he will take up the presidents offer to speak in any of the 400 universities in Iran. Although somehow I believe that he’d prefer to play the ball in his own court, even though he did ask for the invitation.
Time will tell.


In the case of Iran (and a few other places on this rock), maybe diplomacy among the governments in question would serve better if it were conducted along the lines of....

"Saying nice doggy, while searching for a large rock."Well that’s the sort of thinking that’s got us into the mess that we’re in in Iraq. I don’t believe that many people actually approve of this war since the deceptions of the Bush administration have come to light. It was an illegal invasion conducted without UN approval, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush fulfils his promise to deal with the Iran situation before the end of his term in a similar underhanded manner.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering

“You’re either with us, or you’re against us” George W Bush

[Gingermick]

“You’re either with us, or you’re against us” George W Bush


Only a Sith deals in absolutes,
Shrub must be a sith

[Rossluck]

After reading through the arguments outlined here, and after thinking about it, I stand by my assertion that it was a great and brave speech. I can see that Bollinger sent down a straight, fast delivery in a diplomatic world much more used to spin, and that his behaviour may be quite offensive to people in the Arab nations.

But it was a speech about the freedom of speech, and it was directed at a person who is increasingly depriving his own people of this freedom. To see why I appreciate it, you need to read the first part, before he turns to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, very carefully. What he says in there is that one of the most beneficial aspects of freedom of speech is that it teaches us self-restraint, the restraint that is required to listen to that that you fear and dislike.

I thought this to be an eloquent and thoughtful probing of the power of free speech and debating; to be able to talk openly so that differences can be identified and then hopefully resolved.

Then he turned to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and bowled a quick but dead straight delivery that almost went through him. I love it.

[woodbe]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Being offensive to people in Arab Nations (or any other people) is not something we should aspire to.

woodbe.

[pawnhead]

There's nothing brave about introducing someone who you've invited to speak as a "petty and cruel dictator". Especially when you're on your own ground. You should play the ball and not the man, and you should do some research to find that he was in fact democratically elected to his position.

Unless you're trying to provoke another war, then I see it as nothing more than a cowardly slap in the face. :tdown:

[K_S]

I'm in the Invitations = Courtesy camp.

It did nothing to open up dialogue to help ease world tensions - just reinforced existing prejudices.

The points of disagreement/dislike could have been put courteously without being soft on the subject.

[joe greiner]

Sorry Joe I didnt see your post... probably cross posted eh? :doh:

I didnt see the 60 minutes report with him... but do you not understand why he would feel like that toward the USA? It amazes me that he actually stayed there at all... As I said I cant comment on the interview simply because I didnt see it.

Yep. Sure can. Amazes me too. I could go on with a rant about all this crap of the past 3 years, but it'd make me sick. For now, I'll just say this about Bollinger and company:

Ditto the invitation equals courtesy. The way Bollinger handled it made the "discussion" into a kangaroo court from the outset. He could have better expressed himself piecemeal during the process, and nibbled his way to his conclusion instead of the meat-axe approach. Tortoise and the hare, remember?

Joe

[Rossluck]

Yep. Sure can. Amazes me too. I could go on with a rant about all this crap of the past 3 years, but it'd make me sick. For now, I'll just say this about Bollinger and company:

Ditto the invitation equals courtesy. The way Bollinger handled it made the "discussion" into a kangaroo court from the outset. He could have better expressed himself piecemeal during the process, and nibbled his way to his conclusion instead of the meat-axe approach. Tortoise and the hare, remember?

Joe

I'll go along with this, Joe. I'll acquiesce to the extent that I think the meat-axe section was a little harsh. I read yesterday that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was warned before going to Columbia that his appearance was going to be more a debate than a speech, and that Bollinger was going to pose some "sharp questions".

But to me it boils down to a question of how many crimes does someone have to commit before they lose some of their rights to diplomatic respect. Maybe what's being said in this thread is that Bollinger said the right stuff in the wrong way. I'd go along with that.

[dazzler]

In 2004, 5700 people were officially listed as executed.

Iran was 174

The US was 59 (71 the year before)

China was a minimum of 5000........

What hypacrites, oh thats right, they need to trade with China :rolleyes:, better not talk too loudly :wink:

[Gingermick]

Nah mate, hypocracy requires fiscal matters to be completely and utterly uninvolved.

[dazzler]

And perhaps Mr Bollinger forgot that Iran lost soldiers in the thousands thanks to US support with weapons and satellite intel during its war with Iraq in the 80's.

I wonder why the US did that?

Cue Mr Garrett......Short memory must have a, shor or ort memory :D

What an idiot. :)

[RETIRED]

Keep it on topic please. The speech, not policies.