It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Appearing as a guest on Thursday's Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN, the news network's founder, Ted Turner, complained that a double standard exists between the U.S. and Israel being allowed to possess nuclear weapons while Iran is expected to be nuclear-free, as he suggested that all countries dispose of their nuclear weapons to persuade Iran not to build such weapons.
After host Piers Morgan asked Turner what he would do about Iran if he were President, the CNN founder absurdly complained that Iran was being held to a different standard than Israel, without either he or Morgan noting Iran's support of terrorism against both Israel and the U.S.
Turner:
Well, first of all, I believe in total nuclear disarmament. That's the only way we're ever going to get there. We all got to play by the same set of rules. We have 2,000 or several thousand nuclear weapons. Iran has none at the current time. It's okay for Israel to have 100, but it's not okay for Iran to have two. That's, that's, you're not treating everybody equally.
He soon recommended all countries get rid of their nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from going nuclear:
I think we've already voted at the U.N. and the Security Council to get rid of nuclear weapons. Let's get rid of them. Let's get rid of ours, and then Iran will stop, I believe, and everybody else will because if everybody doesn't have them, then we're safe - at least safe from a nuclear attack.
PIERS MORGAN: What would you do about Iran if you were the American President?
TED TURNER: Well, first of all, I believe in total nuclear disarmament. That's the only way we're ever going to get there. We all got to play by the same set of rules. We have 2,000 or several thousand nuclear weapons. Iran has none at the current time. It's okay for Israel to have 100, but it's not okay for Iran to have two. That's, that's, you're not treating everybody equally.
You have no strong position except force. Only by force can it be done. I think we've already voted at the U.N. and the Security Council to get rid of nuclear weapons. Let's get rid of them. Let's get rid of ours, and then Iran will stop, I believe, and everybody else will because if everybody doesn't have them, then we're safe - at least safe from a nuclear attack.
I mean, if we have full-scale nuclear exchange, it's going to destroy life on Earth, all life. Maybe there will be a few cockroaches left, but that's all, and I find that crazy. This is such a nice world, and most of the people are really nice here. But, you know, and if you treat people with dignity, respect, and friendliness like I did with the Russians and the Soviets before them with the Goodwill Games, if you try and make friends, you can make friends and you can do that even with former enemies. Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor, and now we're good friends with the japanese. We fought China in the Cold War, but now we're good friends with the Chinese, most of us are.
I think we've already voted at the U.N. and the Security Council to get rid of nuclear weapons. Let's get rid of them. Let's get rid of ours
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You know, I think I'll shock everyone and say this isn't a bad idea at all. No catch... no but... No snarky punch line. It really would be.
It is not snarky to say that disarming in a nuclear world would have to be world wide or nothing though. 2 Nuclear nations doing it unilaterally are like these people who jump a zoo fence to hug a tiger or panda. Yeah...good intentions get hospital trips.
So... De-Nuke everyone at once..and with some heretofore never seen mechanism for verification? I'm all for it. However unlikely it would ever be...
but of course, I know Turner really MEANT only the US and Israel, huh? At least that man is consistent.
Do you really think the US would do it even if they said they were going to.
Originally posted by yourmaker
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You know, I think I'll shock everyone and say this isn't a bad idea at all. No catch... no but... No snarky punch line. It really would be.
It is not snarky to say that disarming in a nuclear world would have to be world wide or nothing though. 2 Nuclear nations doing it unilaterally are like these people who jump a zoo fence to hug a tiger or panda. Yeah...good intentions get hospital trips.
So... De-Nuke everyone at once..and with some heretofore never seen mechanism for verification? I'm all for it. However unlikely it would ever be...
but of course, I know Turner really MEANT only the US and Israel, huh? At least that man is consistent.
there is no way in hell we could trust the Chinese or Russians to do the same in my opinion.
as much as i'd love a denuclearized world, when you have a Communist dictatorship in existance on the same planet, you'd best have any meaningful defense...even if we are temporarily the bad guys because of a few bad apples..don't spoil the bunch!! that is the last thing we should ever allow ever ourselves to become complacent about, at least me personally. ending dictatorships are priority.
there is no way in hell we could trust the Chinese or Russians to do the same in my opinion. as much as i'd love a denuclearized world, when you have a Communist dictatorship in existance on the same planet
John Lennon did write some good music, even if that's all it ever became.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So much for a Nuke-Free world...
history shows us that it's a constant.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by yourmaker
there is no way in hell we could trust the Chinese or Russians to do the same in my opinion. as much as i'd love a denuclearized world, when you have a Communist dictatorship in existance on the same planet
Or anyone else....Those are two major suspects, but come on how many countries are in the world?...Think...If all these countries wanted to destroy us....They would instantly...The nukes would be pointless....edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)
i'm actually not sure about that...a conventional invasion of North America, no nukes? we would have insane defenses everywhere, the scope of which blows my mind now that I think about it. minigun fronts and laser designated everything everywhere...dude...plus all of the snipers in the random hills and in outposts all over the place, and citizens in their cars with mounted everything LOL...thats not even including the special forces and army and everything else...please god don't let it happen
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by yourmaker
i'm actually not sure about that...a conventional invasion of North America, no nukes? we would have insane defenses everywhere, the scope of which blows my mind now that I think about it. minigun fronts and laser designated everything everywhere...dude...plus all of the snipers in the random hills and in outposts all over the place, and citizens in their cars with mounted everything LOL...thats not even including the special forces and army and everything else...please god don't let it happen
What you are saying takes preparation...However; If this attack was to happen suddenly? Then what?....
thats impossible, we have satellite imagery, spies and can intercept communications, any troop movements across the globe are monitored, we'd watch as they prepared and mobilize.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by yourmaker
thats impossible, we have satellite imagery, spies and can intercept communications, any troop movements across the globe are monitored, we'd watch as they prepared and mobilize.
Yet 9/11 still happened....
Originally posted by yourmaker
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by yourmaker
thats impossible, we have satellite imagery, spies and can intercept communications, any troop movements across the globe are monitored, we'd watch as they prepared and mobilize.
Yet 9/11 still happened....
Bush was president?
we didn't profile Saudis well enough at the time?
we let our defenses down?
on purpose?
so we could attack in the future with justification?
to prevent something like this from ever happening again?
or we really are that vulnerable? which is the scariest option of them all to be honest.
*monitoring terrorist cells is a lot different from monitoring governments and militaries. it's a lot more formal.edit on 4-5-2012 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)