President

5th November 2007

A visit to Columbia University and the chaotic aftermath

After being allowed to address the Columbia University, Iranian president Mohamed Ahmadnijan showed a rare character and a high level of social hardness. He blasted the American society and saying there was no gays in Iran. The eccentric leader of the republic of Iran is seen as a controversial and as an inspiration in the extremist movement. His position and virtues that aim at drawing out need to wipe Israel out of the map and to destabilise the West through all aspects of concerted violence and extremist principles, obviously resonate as great and are indicative of what the extremism followers should look up at in a leader. He has funded terrorist organizations and helped the insurgency in Iraqi with a purpose of frustrating the West and the effort of the international community to stabilise Iraqi.

Insults to the UN and the US

The Iranian leader dismissed the United Nations and ridiculed its authenticity and legitimacy. What he implied was the inability of policy within the structures of the UN and projected the US as the sole decision maker at the body. This view is myopic and absurd. He launched a scathing attack on the US at Columbia University.

Controversial character and intentions

His visit to Columbia University on 17th September 2007 has further transformed the leader to a major threat to the West’s relationship with the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Mohamed received a hostile reception at the University. His visit within a literally approach was designated to be a symbolic truce with the West’s culture and system but due to a rigid perspective on him and the commonplace attitude and general perception, Ahmednijad’s aims and objectives were not understood.

He realised within his faculties, the hatred and fear the American nation regarded him with. Subsequently he saw how ready the West was to ‘at any chance to get rid of him. Diplomacy came to a dead end with the senate at Columbia coming under criticism for allowing him to address the University gathering. Ahemdnijan was branded a ‘holocaust denier and a perpetrator of terrorism. The Columbia University president termed him as an intellectual mind set and an un-educated leader. This is the hatred Ahmednijad saw and felt in the United States Columbia University. His behaviour and character as seen in context before this was not focussed on neither intonation nor abhorrent ethos towards America but symbolic and reaching out moves which in the same context were not seen nor recognized by the American society.

What sparks this controversial and hate towards the Iranian leader is the fanatical and anti West fanaticism in him, also his strategic positioning of Iran as a pillar of Islamic extremism, consistent attacks on American foreign policy and blasting of diplomatic efforts to end the nuclear standoff which has invoked sanctions on Iran. In reciprocation to this animosity Ahmednijan sought to commence his fall back position through diplomacy. He replied in a principled perspective.

He confronted within the same schematic approach the Americans had done. He questioned the integrity of the Columbia University president Mr Bollinger and subsequently claimed the rights of Iran to own nuclear weapons just as the West owned. According to Anthony F and Robin W., (2007)  ‘Ahmadinejad, who in the past has argued that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” repeated his assertions that the Holocaust should be researched “from different perspectives” and said Palestinians should not be “paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with.” The Iranian leader also blasted U.S. sanctions against his country, insisted on Iran’s right to nuclear development and declared his willingness to “dialogue” with U.S. leaders’. His behaviour by then was characterized with apt criticism of the West hypocrisy and desire to see that they managed the greater global policies. He repeated that the holocaust needed to e researched. The aftermath was an onslaught on his sanity and audacity as a leader.

 Diplomacy and amnesty

Ahmednijad might have opted to appease Americans through diplomacy. There are many issues within the history of the West problem with Iran. Both view each other as a threat to the others interest only that the West is autonomous, militarily stronger and more strategic economically and politically. Iran is only a minnow with more strategic position within religious lines and political-religious positions.

This aspect has spared it the possible military strike by Americans. Although the United States has been more cautious with Iran, the debut of France in the anti Iran sentiment and the promise of military action as an eventuality add panache to the West desire to stop Iran’s strategic position growth. Ahmednijad wants to prove he is the key to the Middle East problem since he represents the radical ness and the extremist policies the Islamic community.

The Iranian leader acted in speed to show his stand and diplomatic aspects as a leader. He advised his government to release a Californian businessman Ali Shekri who had been jailed in Iran. He morally was seeking retribution and sought to justify desire to establish peace and cohesiveness. But due to the abrasiveness and blindness of the American lawmakers and leaders, the Iranian leader saw no relenting. Subsequently his general issued a statement that insinuated that Iran was more militarily steady and ready. There was also the launch of two air force aircrafts which symbolised the industrialised and military power of Iran. This was an act of provoking the international community especially the United States.

His character complexity and moral perspectives

However his character is seen as more re-proactive and meant to seek the elasticity of the Americans hate and military options against Iran. The Iranian leader was ready to visit the ground –zero. This would have been a symbolic and a significant gesture. He was to lay a wreath and probably make a speech. However the tensions after the Columbia University incident would render the entire visit for him dangerous.

There were emotions and protests were all over. University students and civilians were on the streets chanting anti him. This was enough reason to refuse him the chance to go to the Ground-zero. But contextually, what was the motive of his intentions? Why would such an anti American leader wish to make a symbolic visit to a place where people from his religion and community killed thousands of innocent lives? This makes the Iranian leader controversial. In the event of a visit, no wonder Ahmednijads comments and sentiments would be more controversial than his remarks about the Jewish holocaust. He mght have justified jihad and the death of these people. He might have projected the Palestinian deaths within this situation as what the Americans paid with the September 11.

Further within this issue, Ahmednijan could not be a target of American extremists, obviously they don’t exist, and hence, he was not amused that, it was only a matter of distaste and the hate American legislators felt for him. It might be obvious he knew he could never get a chance to visit ground zero but confirming it through seeking the permission to is outward and provocative. This as seen within an academic perspective is a character that is seeking to find leeway’s and fissures in the American society and government so as to achieve personal goals. These goals are two-way-traffic. The Iranian leader might be seeking to make peace and embrace American foreign policy and become part of the international community, or is acting with impunity as an agent of the large extremist world to learn and find weakness in the American system.

Worry and pessimism in Iranian leader

Though exuding confidence, the Iranian leader projected fear and desperacy to avert a war crisis. His intentions in the United States depict this character. The leaders is troubled and more in a quagmire than in good stead. Most probably he is worried by the French Foreign minister Bernard Kouchner remarks that France should prepare for war if Iran makes nuclear weapons, a sentiment shared by the United States. Ahmednijan might have weighed his options And saw he could not counter such brute force militarily. He knows the strength of Maericans through the Iraqi conflict but knows nothing of the French.

Through visiting such a prestigious government funded Columbia University. David J (2007) argues that the Iranian president has been in a cage, he wants out but what he does every time he leaps up is to hang on in even when his foot is outside. He escalates in his justification of his country having nuclear power; Ahmednijan asserts in his Columbia interviews that “Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. […] What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?

So we’re quite clear on what we need. If [the US has] created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity. […] I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, or testing them, making them, politically they are backward, retarded.”

This seems a strategy to appease the American public on the Iranian nuclear intentions so as to pre-empt the French threat and be left with the US animosity and military intervention plans. Ahmednijad shows fear and strategic shift of his policy on nuclear weapons. This way the public debate transforms from the context of his violating the proliferation faculties and embracing religious backed extremes.

Going to Columbia is an insignia of his acknowledgement of American education and federal system.He is trying to be identified with the community and seeks to tone down his strong desire to be vocal against these institutions and instead be seen as a moderator of policies. He wants to prove his actions and statements are basically intended to mend and project positive perspectives in the interest of the Iran and the Middle East.

His character raises the storms at home where his popularity is waning drastically. He is seen as an Islamic leader rather than a president of a republic. He is not dwelling on domestic issues but constantly criticizing the West and the Israeli’s. His actions do not represent the majority of his supporters and political cronies as more pressure mounts on Iran making military strikes inevitable. Though his approach to popularity is myopic, he is a symbol of Islamic rise against Western imperialism. Noor, M., (2006)

Sources

Noor Mohamed 2006 : Ahmednijads falling popularity in the domestic front. Daily Nation Kenya

My purpose in writing this essay was to show that while “A letter to the President of the United States” was written by someone who was very knowledgeable and signed or approved by many other scientists was not successful. This essay goes to show that sometimes no matter how much valid evidence is presented to an individual regarding why they should not make a decision, they disregard that and make the decision anyway. I hope that the readers are able to understand that the scientists were truly worried about what long term effects the use of the atomic bomb would have on the United States.

Before this assignment, I was unaware that Szilard had written any type of letter to the President. I also have a better understanding of why the United States used the atomic bomb on Japan. In some ways, my perspective did change. I would now like to research what some think may have happened had the United States not used the atomic bomb. While writing this critical evaluation essay, I found myself conflicted as to the results. There was a part of me that wondered why the President had not taken the views expressed in the petition more seriously.

Did the president truly think about the long term effects or was he looking for an immediate solution regardless of the ramifications? Personally, this was not one of my favorite assignments. While I enjoy history and learning more about the subject, this one was hard for me. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I had chosen another article to write about. While this letter was able to portray ethos, pathos, and logos it was a short and precise letter. I chose “A Petition to the President of the United States” by Leo Szilard.

I chose this because it was a subject that I was familiar with and I was interested in learning more about the letter and the effects the letter had. I think I have been able to use all of your previous questions to portray to you my feelings regarding this essay. I do not feel this is one of my best writing, and hope to use your feedback to better myself as a writer and to excel in this class. In the article, “A Petition to the President of the United States” Leo Szilard, the author of the petition, discusses why he thinks the use of atomic bombs is not a good idea.

Szilard’s uses his expertise and knowledge to provide valid points behind his petition. Szilard is a working scientist in the field of atomic power. He also brings up the points of what has been said about the use of atomic bombs against the United States in the past and how the use of this type of weapon would be the first step to a weapon that would become even more powerful in the course of its development. He talks about how the American public also perceives the use of weapons in warfare. Szilard makes some valid points about why the atomic bomb should not be used on Japan.

Szilard uses an appeal to ethos in order to make the petition more creditable. An appeal to ethos relies on the credibility of the author. The first point that Szilard’s makes in his petition is about himself and the fellow scientist, who also signed the petition, and their background in the field of atomic power. “We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power for a number of years. ” (Szilard, 1945) This is a point that really grabs the attention of the reader. Szilard should have maybe elaborated on this point a little more.

Using more facts that supported his background in atomic power possibly could have made the argument a little better because the reader might not be aware of how powerful the use of atomic bombs could be. Szilard also uses an appeal to pathos. An appeal to pathos relies on the audience’s emotions and feelings. “Atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of this development.

Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale. ” (Szilard, 1945) In this exert, Szilard is trying to portray the President that the after effects of using the atomic bomb would not only affect Japan, but also the United States, as the United States would have to take on the responsibility of having unleashed this power and could also feel the effects if the atomic bo0mb were to be used against other countries in the future.

The author uses logos, an appeal to the logic, by trying to reason with the president “We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender. ” (Szilard, 1945) The author used logos reasoning throughout the paper, but it was most pparent in that statement. If Japan was aware of all the negative effects that the atomic bomb would have upon them, would there still be a need for the use of it or would Japan surrender to the United States? The scientist knew that not only would the atomic bomb affect the people that were alive then, but it would also have an effect on Japan for years to come. The use of the atomic bomb affected the land, food, and natural resources of Japan.

Leo Szilard’s “A Petition to the President of the United States” created some very valid points and was written by a very knowledgeable scientist. in the end however, the petition was unsuccessful and President Harry S. Truman decided to use the atomic bombs on Japan. Works Cited Szilard, Leo and Cosigners. “A Petition to the President of the United States. ” Atomicarchive. com. 2011. Web. 11 May 2012.

The president is a very important person. Homeless people are not. Society has many “rungs” on the so called “social ladder. ” A homeless person would probably be at the bottom. Where as, the president would be near the top. A rich and powerful man like the president means a lot more to the world than a homeless man. If the president were shot the whole country would cry, but if a homeless man was shot few would shed a tear. The president of the United States known by everyone. He works and lives in the white house, which is in Washington D. C. The white house has 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms.

President George Washington decided where the house was to be built in 1791. He is the leader of our country. He has a lot of responsibilities he must take care of every day. Some of which include, signing off on new bills and laws, and making sure they are enforced. When Congress sends him a new law, he may or may not agree to sign it. He lets Congress know about new laws he thinks should be passed. Leaders of other countries meet with the president to solve problems in the world by signing treaties. He decides how America will act toward other countries and he represents our country here and around the world.

He is considered the commander in chief, which means he is the leader of our armed forces. They help to keep the country safe. He also flies his own plane. It’s called Air Force One. It has accommodation for the president to eat, sleep, and work. Presidents through out time have played a major role in the history of the world. Homeless people are regular nobodies that have nothing to their name. They have no permanent place to live, so they stay where they can, often a shelter or free housing complex. They have been known to sleep in abandoned cars. Most homeless people have little to no responsibilities.

Most of the time the only thing they look for is their next drink. You can see them outside of your locale gas station begging for change. They will say it’s for something to eat or some other necessity, but it’s a trick to feed their alcohol or drug addiction. Some homeless people have no friends or family. Others, all they have are the other homeless people whom they consider their friends. It can be very harsh living on the street. They are always in danger of being beat up, robbed, or even killed. Their interaction with the outside world turn out bad in most cases.

They will work for food because most are at risk of starving to death because they have no money. Things that homeless people say and do don’t mean very much to most people. They do not play any positive role in our everyday lives. The president and mere homeless man are very different. The president has an enormous amount of impact on everyone. Homeless people only make a negative impact on the people around them. That’s a great example of how the social ladder in society today works. I would much rather be the president than a homeless person.

Case Analysis ReportFMB&T Bank I. Statement of the Problem The new Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of FMB&TBank have no clear authority and responsibility. II. Objective There should be a clear authority and responsibility for the new IT Executivein order for her to be effective and efficient. III. Analysis of the Causes a. Relationship between IT Department and other bank business units ismixed up causing considerable confusion, friction and inefficiency. . Work request are vague and not coordinated and consolidated to reflect aclearer picture of the problem making it hard to formulate a quick solutionwhich the bank’s other business units require. c. The presence of the new IT executive was not welcomed by the unitmanagers of other business units of the bank making it harder for her tofacilitate solutions for IT problems. d. IT staff responsibilities are limited only to application works.

They are notgiven the freedom to explore and apply new developments in the ITindustry. e. There is considerable influence from other regional executives todecentralize IT operations to regional branches because they feel thatresponse will be faster to meet their requirements. IV. Choices a. Define an explicit authority and responsibility of the new IT executive. Thep of authority should include all business units involve in the use IT toensure that all will follow IT processes and procedures. . The new IT executive must formulate strict IT policies and procedureswhich have the approval of the CEO and all IT users are required to follow Failure to follow IT policies and procedure should be dealt with inaccordance with company’s existing rewards and punishment policies. c. Involve IT staffs in a more flexible working environment and give them thefreedom to take advantage on new IT innovations and apply it to thecompany’s IT system. d.

Re-organize the company’s whole organizational structure to adapt intothe new requirement of IT technology rather than remain as rigid as thecurrent vertical structure. e. Decentralize the whole IT department operations to regional branches inorder that implementation will be faster. V. Selection from the Choices As a CEO, I will reorganize the whole organizational structure of the companyand include IT as a major division in the implementation of companystrategies. If a bank wanted to grow in this generation, it must be willing toadapt to technological innovations.

Task the new IT executive to formulate ITpolicies and procedures that will be implemented company wide where all ITusers are required to follow. VI. Implementation IT department should be given blanket authority in terms of implementing ITstrategies of the company and this should be understood by all departmentsand divisions. The new IT executive should create a company wide IT helpdesk where allwork requests are consolidated, analyzed and collated to come up with anintelligent solution to all IT problems.

This will also eliminate confusion;friction and inefficiency since all information needed to create a solution arealready consolidated. The only thing that IT will do is to design a frameworksolution to any imaginable IT problems that were presented based on the IThelpdesk consolidated information. With this strategy, IT will have moreefficient control of its resources and channel saved resources in developingnew IT innovations that they can apply for the development of the company. 2 VII. Work place application

In our company, the IT department has full control of all IT related issues. ITdepartment has regional helpdesk to cater to all IT related work requests. TheIT helpdesk will in turn consolidate all work requests and assign qualifiedtechnical staffs that can best address the problem. For minor IT problems,the helpdesk will address it immediately by giving direct instructions to theuser. If technical intervention is required, a district IT technical staff will beimmediately dispatched to address the problem