Before I reply to Preach's comment, I'd like to address a few points that were brought up in this discussion.
First thing is the degrading reception of the president of Iran. Columbia's faculty did a very poor job in receiving the Presidnt. Calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" while being there guest of honor, is completely manner less of the faculty. However, Ahmadinejad did a great job in replying to that comment. He showed that he can be more civilized than those claiming civilization while attributing barbarism to him.
Second, Ahmadinejad's remark about homosexuality could have some merit to it. Although I disagree with the way he handled that question, he still had a point. In Iran there might not be homosexuals or there might be. It would be difficult to prove such a thing since it's illegal to be homosexual there. I've read a few news reports in regard to this question where some newspapers gave the execution of two teenage boys as example for "raping" younger kids. We must keep in mind that the punishment for any kind of rape is death in Iran. So to give that as example of punishing homosexuality in Iran is ridiculous.
As for the nuclear program, that's a very complicated issue. Maybe the existence and sovereignty of Iran depends on a nuclear program. Look at what happened to Iraq. Iraq has been invaded and is no in chaos by the same countries that claim that they are working to better the world and to stabilize it. Contradictory if you ask me.
As for Preach's comment, I thought it was childish to some extent.
The realist in me is able to see a pattern when a president wants a state removed. How would he ever manage to do that in a humanitarian way? Tell them to please discontinue their government and just "disappear" or hand the country over to others? In a smaller spectrum, the people employed by the government of Israel would never agree to this. Relinquishing their powers, their funds, losing their salaries and life-styles. I don't see it happening without some sort of war being waged. I don't know but mister president seems pretty persistent that Israel should not exist.
It's easy to judge when you are living in a country where you don't have to worry about your house being demolished or your family being exiled without the possibility of returning to their own home any time soon. You don't have to wake up to gun shots every day in the morning. You sleep soundly every day. You see, palestine is the land of it's original inhabitants not of those that migrated to it after Hitler did what he did.
Unfortunately, the people that used to live in palestine were manipulated and cheated out of their land. then superpowers aided the Zionists with man power and weapons and many other things to take over the land.
The question then becomes, should we risk the potentially disastrous outcomes of letting a near sociopath have access to nuclear technology, and to a further extent, nuclear weaponry only to maintain our idea that everyone has equal rights? The grander perspective: The middle east is a hot place and shit is bound to pop off in one way or another. The examples already used, the prospect of a union between the Iranian government and a terrorist group, aren't too far out there. Iran wouldn't let U.N. inspectors get full insight in how they have chosen to utilize what is so far known about nuclear technology, right? Doesn't that tick something off with you, that he's hiding something from the world? It doesn't seem off at all?
sociopath? that's funny. Last time I've heard is that Bush is the one invading countries not Ahmadinejad. I believe that every country has the right to develop nuclear weapons just like the US or Russia just to maintain their sovereignty. The possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons from Iran is as high as getting it from Russia, China, India, Pakistan or any other country.
Iran insists that it is enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes. I'd like to give Iran the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, that's my reasoning. It's a great risk to take and I don't see why ANY country should have nuclear weapons. Right now, a few have them and that's more than enough. And what if the Iranian president in his lunacy decides to actually send a bomb into Israel? Sure America is gonna bomb the whole country to smithereens, then what? A toxic wasteland is left there, inhabitable. And wind currents would spread toxic waste over the whole region. In the end, once the damage is done there is no going back and prohibiting Iran from making nuclear weapons, to me, is about preventing that damage from ever being done.
It didn't stop the US from using the A-bomb against Japan even though had no nuclear weapons at that time. You see. what will guarantee Iran wont be a victim of the US or any other country with nuclear weapons such as Israel. Israel has shown that it will attack any country it deems a threat to it even without reasonable cause just like it did against Iraq and recently Syria.
Last but not least, the President (presumably as I don't really know) should be a Muslim right? Allow me to crack a slightly demeaning joke to get my point across: What do we know about Muslims? Well lots of things, but one of them is that a lot of Muslims like the idea of dying to serve a greater purpose. I am not making any implications here, just throwing the idea out there that maybe the President goes on a rampage because he believes he is carrying out Allah's will for the greater cause, or something equally insane.
I won't dignfy this with an answer.
rolleyes
