Ted Turner: U.S. and Israel Should Disarm to Prevent Nuclear Iran

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Ted Turner: U.S. and Israel Should Disarm to Prevent Nuclear Iran
By Brad Wilmouth | May 04, 2012 -- NewsBusters


Ted said this on the Piers Morgan Tonight show on CNN


He cites a double standard that the U.S. and Israel have towards expecting Iran not to seek nukes.

He says all nations should get rid of nuclear weapons so Iran won't build any !!!

The story has a video .... see and hear for yourself !


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.



Some of the transcript:

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.



The problem with nuclear disarmament is:

Who do you trust to enforce it ??




More:

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.



""Let's get rid of ours, and then Iran will stop, I believe"" ......

Well Ted, what if they don't ??


Is Turner making any sense ?




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

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


This is laughable OP and you quoted this as well...Why don't we get rid of ours? We are so damn concerned about everyone else, but the Russians never bombed us...I guess the U.S. just likes to feel so damn powerful that they think they can bully anyone...I am ashamed of this country seriously...Our forefathers are rolling in their graves...The U.S. Government today is like how the kids now days respect the music we grew up with...They have no respect for it what so ever...
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Funny thing is that Iran has no nukes and there is absolutely no evidence Iran wants to get or develop nukes yet we still talk about it like its a sure thing.

Of course we should get rid of our nuclear weapons and frankly Iran is putting itself at risk by not having them because we all know how dangerous the US can be.

I hope this gets worked out peacefully, but it seems unlikely.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
You are right..who do we trust to enforce it?

Yet Iran is supposed to trust the only country that has ever dropped atomic bombs on humans.

Peace



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Superman could do it.

But if he fails to show..we are stuck with them....'til the end : )

Peace



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

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.

Do you really think the US would do it even if they said they were going to.
Sure the public would be for it but when has the government ever acted in favor of the public? They say one thing and do the complete opposite 99% of the time.
It would be corporations calling the real shots and as their business models go; avoid risk.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
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)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I find it interesting that in such a short thread both people who say this couldn't work because the outside world couldn't be trusted to disarm AND people saying it's the United States who could never be trusted are represented.

I think the sad part? Both are right. I almost think the world needs this war we're looking at. It's a giant spherical Mexican Stand Off and no one dare trust anyone else...and for good reasons in all directions. Something has to change and I suppose it isn't coming outside war on the global level.

Turner can go tell the Russians and Chinese to disarm though. Let's not be the only nation that ignores him outright.

So much for a Nuke-Free world..... John Lennon did write some good music, even if that's all it ever became. Oh well....the drums beat louder.
edit on 4-5-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





John Lennon did write some good music, even if that's all it ever became.




^^Imagine......



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So much for a Nuke-Free world...


it could be but ironically a lot of the wrong people in the right place would have to die in the process.
an incremental process that would take a lot of effort and time. as well, an entire generation's mindset would have to be re-programmed, as terrible a concept as it is when we think of others doing it.

look what they've got us into, they can't expect to move forward without confrontation, can they??
surely they know someones next, history shows us that it's a constant. there's always a bigger fish.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 





history shows us that it's a constant.


And eventually s### rolls downhill...Now its all about getting back up to the top.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
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?....

Half of our forces are overseas at the moment!
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

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.

EMP strike at the same time as an axis multi-national special forces operation to cut the chain of command and maybe you've got your spearhead to an invasion, but anything else would be blown out of the water by the navy 500 miles out me thinks. and if the invasion were from the south then the minigun front would form imo.

"half of our troops are overseas",
they would be the first wave attack.
or our retalitory strike against any key resource/supply targets to slow their ability to further attack us.
edit on 4-5-2012 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
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....



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

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)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

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)



You already know the answers to those questions you stated above...Those so-called questions you stated above are thee answers....



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 

If it happened suddenly? Realistically, I think Red Dawn captured what would happen very well in the early stages. Shock, disbelief and outright surreal quality to the whole event would have some fighting in a stupid way and being put down one way or the other...and the rest submitting by default because the shock would take longer to wear off than the capture and subduing of the people in any given area. That is my guess...

Those that prepared...wouldn't fare too much better in the shock part of it. They'd be the ones that still had something to find and use when the shock wore off though. Few else would. ....and a very small % would react and move intelligently and deliberately almost from the first moment. I hope, if such a thing ever happened, I'd find myself near one of the latter. Probably a Vet.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join