where is this argument going?

The author of this article criticized the early comments because they didn't go into the area of debate that leads no where, and I don't see what American foreign policy has to do with what Ward Churchill has been accused of. I think it is childish for us to sit here and debate what the world would be like without the United States just as it would be childish for us to debate what the world would be like if tobacco had never evolved or what the leftists would complain about if the right wing were to move to Canada. The question here is simple: can Ward Churchill say whatever he wants and conduct his "research" however he feels necessary simply because he dislikes the government and still receive government funding allocated to research? Iraq is not relevent to this topic; the Mexican War has nothing to do with Churchill...the question is simple: did Churchill deserve to be removed from his position as a university professor, and I think that if we were to put all of our prejudices aside and deal only with what we know based on the findings, that we would have to answer "yes." I, just like everyone else, would love to live in a world without war and poverty and hatred and fire ants, but that doesn't mean I am going to support a half-assed scholar.

Guest