Iran's Ahmadinejad Requests Meeting With Pope

[Lounge Daddy]

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL272939920080527"]Reuters has this story:[/url]

[quote]ROME (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked for an audience next week with Pope Benedict which would be the first meeting between the two leaders, a diplomatic source said on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad is among the heads of state expected to visit Rome to attend a June 3-5 United Nations summit on global food security, hosted by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

Vatican sources said earlier this week that it was not yet clear if the pope would meet individual heads of state attending the U.N. event or hold a collective audience for them in order to save time.

The Vatican has criticized Ahmadinejad for calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.[/quote]

Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the room if those two are meeting...

[Mercy me]

I saw that earlier and couldn't believe the gall of that man. But then really that has been a characteristic of him all along.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1545899' date='May 27 2008, 11:13 PM']I saw that earlier and couldn't believe the gall of that man. But then really that has been a characteristic of him all along.[/quote]I would have been surprised if he didn't ask for the meeting.

[kujo]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1545899' date='May 28 2008, 01:13 AM']I saw that earlier and couldn't believe the gall of that man. But then really that has been a characteristic of him all along.[/quote]

The gall of the man? Why? To want to talk to the leader of 1 billion people? To have a diplomatic audience with the Vicar of Christ?

Calm down.

Edited May 28, 2008 by kujo

[StColette]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1545899' date='May 28 2008, 12:13 AM']I saw that earlier and couldn't believe the gall of that man. But then really that has been a characteristic of him all along.[/quote]

Praise God that this man is wanting to meet with the Pope.

[kujo]

Maybe the Pope with be able to talk some sense into him before he ends up having his country get attacked. I've been in favor of an airstrike that would obliterate every single nuclear site. We would make it known to everyone in the area days before it happens so they can leave and be safe. Anyone who got hurt would have only themselves to blame. Tactical nukes wouldn't be off the table for this strike...but we have to get this guy to shut this program down. If he won't do it, it needs to be done for him.

This is what I'd like the Pope to tell him.

[prose]

I hope security would be very high at this meeting. I wouldn't trust the man at all. In any sense. He himself could be willing to give his life for Jihad. Also, it may be a meeting to declare war.

Scary stuff.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='prose' post='1546281' date='May 28 2008, 12:22 PM']I hope security would be very high at this meeting. I wouldn't trust the man at all.[/quote]

Heh, I was thinking the same thing. Good that he wants to talk with the Pope. But I hope they have ultra high security if the Pope agrees to meet with him. The Vatican, and most other governments as well, have severed relations with that guy for a reason. He's dangerous, belligerent, and thinks that he has a duty to usher his messiah into this world by triggering Armageddon.

[kujo]

[quote name='prose' post='1546281' date='May 28 2008, 01:22 PM']I hope security would be very high at this meeting. I wouldn't trust the man at all. In any sense. He himself could be willing to give his life for Jihad. Also, it may be a meeting to declare war.

Scary stuff.[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that the president of Iran is going to blow himself up, killing the Pope? Or that he would make the strategic error of declaring war with the leader of 1 billion people? Come on...you are making a mountain out of a molehill, not to mention being a bit racist. Not every Muslim wants to martyr him/herself. And most modern leaders of countries don't get their hands dirty in actually fighting the war, instead allowing soldiers to do the killing. This is even worse with terror organizations and what not.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kujo' post='1546091' date='May 28 2008, 10:40 AM']Maybe the Pope with be able to talk some sense into him before he ends up having his country get attacked. I've been in favor of an airstrike that would obliterate every single nuclear site. We would make it known to everyone in the area days before it happens so they can leave and be safe. Anyone who got hurt would have only themselves to blame. Tactical nukes wouldn't be off the table for this strike...but we have to get this guy to shut this program down. If he won't do it, it needs to be done for him.

This is what I'd like the Pope to tell him.[/quote]

I very much doubt that the Pope would be in favor of another preemptive strike, for one, and secondly, giving a few days' warning would be one of the worst things we could do if we were to attack, because that would give the Iranian government a sense of desperation, which would certainly lead to massive attacks on Israel, at least as long as they could keep it up.

Edited May 28, 2008 by aalpha1989

[kujo]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1546753' date='May 28 2008, 05:12 PM']I very much doubt that the Pope would be in favor of another preemptive strike, for one, and secondly, giving a few days' warning would be one of the worst things we could do if we were to attack, because that would give the Iranian government a sense of desperation, which would certainly lead to massive attacks on Israel, at least as long as they could keep it up.[/quote]

Iran would not attack Israel with anything less than nukes because, frankly, without them, Israel would kick the ever-lovin' croutons out of them...probably with [b]their nukes.[/b] Giving them a warning would give them time to either comply with our demands--take steps to shutting down the factories-- or for their citizens to get the heck out of the way.

I'm in favor of what my friends and I call viking diplomacy. It's a return to the big carrot, big stick method that aims to keep the peace through incentives, but is not afraid to use overwhelming force to achieve strategic goals. We need to let countries know that we are not going to sit back and let them kick our asses all over the world anymore. We are putting our soldiers into situations that are comparable to what the British did during the Revolutionary War, fighting insurgents who engage in guerilla and terrorist tactics. I'm tired, like the rest of us, of long wars. Why can't we throw our weight around anymore? We should focus on improving and using our strategic weapons to achieve these goals.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I think that it's important to consider all options when facing this issue.

[prose]

[quote name='kujo' post='1546746' date='May 28 2008, 03:09 PM']Do you honestly believe that the president of Iran is going to blow himself up, killing the Pope? Or that he would make the strategic error of declaring war with the leader of 1 billion people? Come on...you are making a mountain out of a molehill, not to mention being a bit racist. Not every Muslim wants to martyr him/herself. And most modern leaders of countries don't get their hands dirty in actually fighting the war, instead allowing soldiers to do the killing. This is even worse with terror organizations and what not.[/quote]

Racist? Excuse me? This is the man who has said he wanted to start Armageddon. I certainly was not referring to all Muslims, or even a majority (which wouldn't be "racism" anyways because it is not based on race). I am offended at you suggesting that.

Most modern leaders may not want to get their hands dirty, but this man is a dangerous, evil-filled man with no good intentions about Rome.

And, again, don't ever again suggest that I am a racist.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='kujo' post='1546746' date='May 28 2008, 04:09 PM']Do you honestly believe that the president of Iran is going to blow himself up, killing the Pope? Or that he would make the strategic error of declaring war with the leader of 1 billion people? Come on...you are making a mountain out of a molehill, not to mention being a bit racist. Not every Muslim wants to martyr him/herself. And most modern leaders of countries don't get their hands dirty in actually fighting the war, instead allowing soldiers to do the killing. This is even worse with terror organizations and what not.[/quote]

I've gotta tell you:
#1 no one on this thread said *every* Muslim wants to kill him or her self.
#2 if someone did assume that every Muslim is a jihadist, it wouldn't be racist.
#3 when someone is a member of a sect (as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is) that believes that they must bring back their messiah through blood and chaos, concepts such as retribution or "mutually assured destruction" are not at play at all.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kujo' post='1546778' date='May 28 2008, 04:22 PM']Iran would not attack Israel with anything less than nukes because, frankly, without them, Israel would kick the ever-lovin' croutons out of them...probably with [b]their nukes.[/b] Giving them a warning would give them time to either comply with our demands--take steps to shutting down the factories-- or for their citizens to get the heck out of the way.

I'm in favor of what my friends and I call viking diplomacy. It's a return to the big carrot, big stick method that aims to keep the peace through incentives, but is not afraid to use overwhelming force to achieve strategic goals. We need to let countries know that we are not going to sit back and let them kick our asses all over the world anymore. We are putting our soldiers into situations that are comparable to what the British did during the Revolutionary War, fighting insurgents who engage in guerilla and terrorist tactics. I'm tired, like the rest of us, of long wars. Why can't we throw our weight around anymore? We should focus on improving and using our strategic weapons to achieve these goals.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I think that it's important to consider all options when facing this issue.[/quote]

Once we announced a timeline of attacking Iran, they would know the game was up. It would be now or never against Israel, and they'd go for it. Why not? The sheriff already put out a warrent and is raiding the hole-up, might as well take their worst enemy with them, right? Sure, they'd fight their hardest against us, but from what I've heard citizens there are even more pro-US than Iraqis. No matter where we are there are going to be guerillas. We can't escape it, if that is the method of fighting they chose. Warning them to move their citizens will only get the baddies out of there, too. They're smart enough to stick with civilians. That way we think twice before sending a bomb their way. Talking about going in and "throwing our weight around" is ridiculous. You don't think the generals and troops in Iraq have been trying to do just that? The people we are fighting are not stupid. We can't just go in and kill every single one of them, they're too smart for that. Our military DOEs focus on "improving strategic weapons". Ask my parents. One of them used to help design weapons for the government. The other audits the nuclear weapons parts manufacturer. Why can't you understand that we ARE trying our hardest in Iraq, and that we can't eliminate them all just by deciding to do it?

You have a very low opinion of the enemy's intelligence and also of our military's decision making. I would also like to reiterate that I VERY MUCH DOUBT Papa Bennie would be all for a preemptive strike on Iran.

[kujo]

[quote name='prose' post='1546816' date='May 28 2008, 05:34 PM']Racist? Excuse me? This is the man who has said he wanted to start Armageddon. I certainly was not referring to all Muslims, or even a majority (which wouldn't be "racism" anyways because it is not based on race). I am offended at you suggesting that.

Most modern leaders may not want to get their hands dirty, but this man is a dangerous, evil-filled man with no good intentions about Rome.

And, again, don't ever again suggest that I am a racist.[/quote]

Not to get into semantics, but I said your comments were racist, not you. And you're right...bigotted and ignorant would be more appropriate terms. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anyway, I don't disagree in your assessment of the man's potential danger. I do think it's important to point out that his power and influence within his country is declining. He was publically overruled by the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in January of this year over a law that would supply natural gas to villages. Many feel that this public embarassment and other signs of discontent (such as the appointment of his political rival as speaker of the Parliament) led to a major shift in the country's parliament on March 14. He is currently at odds with Iran's new reformist parliament due to growing social and economic unrest.

We cannot know why he is going to Rome, but it can be inferred that doing something crazy like attacking the Pope or "declaring war" would only further isolate a man whose star seems to already be fading.

[kujo]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1546845' date='May 28 2008, 05:45 PM']Once we announced a timeline of attacking Iran, they would know the game was up. It would be now or never against Israel, and they'd go for it. Why not? The sheriff already put out a warrent and is raiding the hole-up, might as well take their worst enemy with them, right? Sure, they'd fight their hardest against us, but from what I've heard citizens there are even more pro-US than Iraqis. No matter where we are there are going to be guerillas. We can't escape it, if that is the method of fighting they chose. Warning them to move their citizens will only get the baddies out of there, too. They're smart enough to stick with civilians. That way we think twice before sending a bomb their way. Talking about going in and "throwing our weight around" is ridiculous. You don't think the generals and troops in Iraq have been trying to do just that? The people we are fighting are not stupid. We can't just go in and kill every single one of them, they're too smart for that. Our military DOEs focus on "improving strategic weapons". Ask my parents. One of them used to help design weapons for the government. The other audits the nuclear weapons parts manufacturer. Why can't you understand that we ARE trying our hardest in Iraq, and that we can't eliminate them all just by deciding to do it?

You have a very low opinion of the enemy's intelligence and also of our military's decision making. I would also like to reiterate that I VERY MUCH DOUBT Papa Bennie would be all for a preemptive strike on Iran.[/quote]

I think you misunderstand the intent behind striking Iran. I don't want to kill any "baddies." I want to destroy the nuclear facilities they are building. It would be a surgical strike that really ought not to kill anybody.

I said nothing of Iraq, dude. I know that we are doing our best and I wish it didn't have to be the way it is. Our servicemen and women are amazing and I wish they didn't have to do what they are doing now. I am trying to make it so that, in this particular situation (Iran) they don't have to do much of anything. They've more than served what they are called to do in Iraq and should be heralded as heroes.

Finally, just because the Pope is against a preemptive strike, doesn't mean that I have to be. I think that the Pope might be open to it if we could demonstrate that all steps were being taken to minimize the loss of life involved in such this airstrike. But, if he didn't, I would have to respectfully disagree.

[aalpha1989]

I apologize. I thought when you said this:

[quote name='kujo' post='1546778' date='May 28 2008, 04:22 PM']I'm in favor of what my friends and I call viking diplomacy. It's a return to the big carrot, big stick method that aims to keep the peace through incentives, but is not afraid to use overwhelming force to achieve strategic goals. We need to let countries know that we are not going to sit back and let them kick our asses all over the world anymore. We are putting our soldiers into situations that are comparable to what the British did during the Revolutionary War, fighting insurgents who engage in guerilla and terrorist tactics. I'm tired, like the rest of us, of long wars. Why can't we throw our weight around anymore? We should focus on improving and using our strategic weapons to achieve these goals.[/quote]

you were referring to Iraq. What, then, were you referring to?

And you think that Iran would just take it? They'd just be like, "ok, sure, you can just bomb these nuclear facilities we've been working on, we don't mind." I think there would definitely be some reaction, whether it was increased terrorism or an all-out war in the Middle East. Bombing them now would be a huge mistake.

Edited May 28, 2008 by aalpha1989

[kujo]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1546836' date='May 28 2008, 05:42 PM']I've gotta tell you:
#1 no one on this thread said *every* Muslim wants to kill him or her self.
#2 if someone did assume that every Muslim is a jihadist, it wouldn't be racist.
#3 when someone is a member of a sect (as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is) that believes that they must bring back their messiah through blood and chaos, concepts such as retribution or "mutually assured destruction" are not at play at all.[/quote]

#1 I didn't saying anyone did. I felt that his comment about this guy possibly harming the Pope was dumb and based on a pretty ignorant notion of Muslims.

#2 I corrected my use of "racist" to bigotted and ignorant.

#3 Read my previous responses. This guy isn't just some loon who stumbled his way into office. He is a keen politician who says what he does in order to be seen as the leader of and spokesman for all Muslims. He's appealing to Palestinians for the same reasons. If he props himself up as this glorified Ayatollah, he garners more power and influence. He's rational in the sense that he is not going to do something that would harm his place in the region. If we make it clear that pursuing a nuclear program would result in nothing but broken glass and wasted money (something Iran is not rolling in right now), he may back off. Or he might not. Who knows?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kujo' post='1546895' date='May 28 2008, 05:03 PM']#2 I corrected my use of "racist" to bigotted and ignorant.

If we make it clear that pursuing a nuclear program would result in nothing but broken glass and wasted money (something Iran is not rolling in right now), he may back off. Or he might not. Who knows?[/quote]

He has thusfar demonstrated that he will not back off. He is a proud man in a proud country, he will not allow the West to dictate to him how to run it.

I didn't think that they were being bigotted. Maybe ignorant, but not about how Muslims in general work. Probably just about politicians. Ahmadinejad would not harm the Pope because it is a political meeting and he needs to appear to be sane to the world. I think this meeting is completely about appearances (on the part of hte Iranians). However, Ahmadinejad IS a radical Muslim who believes in suicide bombings. I do believe he has commended the Palistinian suicide bombers, at any rate. I think he's too cowardly to do anything himself, though.


I did not mean that all muslims believe in suicide bombings, only that some do, and that this guy is one who does. I know that there are peaceful Muslims. I am just clarifying because I realized my post did look a little "bigotted and ignorant".

Edited May 28, 2008 by aalpha1989

[kujo]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1546882' date='May 28 2008, 05:56 PM']I apologize. I thought when you said this:
you were referring to Iraq. What, then, were you referring to?

And you think that Iran would just take it? They'd just be like, "ok, sure, you can just bomb these nuclear facilities we've been working on, we don't mind." I think there would definitely be some reaction, whether it was increased terrorism or an all-out war in the Middle East. Bombing them now would be a huge mistake.[/quote]

No worries. I think most Iranians don't want this conflict. They don't want the sanctions, they don't want the hatred and they don't want to get attacked. We need to spook them into action, not ease them into it. We could even play this in such a way that this guy gets ousted from power. If we can make him seem to be acting against the best interests of his country, his power, influence (and position of power) could plummet. The attack could be unnecessary but we need to be willing to take action.