Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sheldon Adelson: Obama Should Drop ‘Atomic Weapon’ At Iran, Not Negotiate

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Sheldon Adelson: Obama Should Drop ‘Atomic Weapon’ At Iran, Not Negotiate




When asked about Western strategy in nuclear talks with Iran, Adelson replied: “What are we going to negotiate about? I would say ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ …You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ And so there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.” “Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes’,” Adelson said.


I am convinced this man is insane. He clearly knows nothing about nukes and obviously fallout. If he want's to fight Iran then by all means he can go to Israel and join their military. I hate to think what Romney would be doing had he won the presidency seeing how this crazy person donated a hundred million to his campaign.
edit on 24-10-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Just in the title, stupid idea. I do not know why they restricted the OP, why not just take it down if so bad.

Any way, stupid idea.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Ahh OK you r post released.

While i understand you fear over full on nuclear exchange you are aware that one nuclear strike will not kill the world. Since the first test in 1944/5 there have been over 2000 nuclear explosions.

That's a lot of bombs, and a lot of fallout, yet we are still here.

Nothing short of a full nuclear exchange will kill us. But one strike. ahhh not so much



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


kosherpress.com...somehow I'm not surprised.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

buster2010
I hate to think what Romney would be doing had he won the presidency seeing how this crazy person donated a hundred million to his campaign.



Thinking of what Romney would be doing now as a sitting president in charge of US foreign policy is one of the very few thoughts that makes me not regret voting for Obama.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

buster2010
Sheldon Adelson: Obama Should Drop ‘Atomic Weapon’ At Iran, Not Negotiate



I am convinced this man is insane. He clearly knows nothing about nukes and obviously fallout. If he want's to fight Iran then by all means he can go to Israel and join their military. I hate to think what Romney would be doing had he won the presidency seeing how this crazy person donated a hundred million to his campaign.
edit on 24-10-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)


Thank you for posting this, I saw his ramblings on a liberal site and figured if I posted it nobody would pay attention because I'd linked to a blue site. Who can complain about it from a kosher site.

Well done.

And yes, the man is scary barking mad. That seems to be a theme in politics these days.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

JakiusFogg
Ahh OK you r post released.

While i understand you fear over full on nuclear exchange you are aware that one nuclear strike will not kill the world. Since the first test in 1944/5 there have been over 2000 nuclear explosions.

That's a lot of bombs, and a lot of fallout, yet we are still here.

Nothing short of a full nuclear exchange will kill us. But one strike. ahhh not so much



No bombs needed -- just the continuing pollution from the nuke industry. That will kill us all in due course.

And it would never stop at just one bomb.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


If that were true, which is it ( 2000+ detonations since 1945) you are already dead. One bomb WILL NOT start a nuclear winter.

Does that make it right? no!

but lets not over dramatise it!



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

JakiusFogg
Ahh OK you r post released.

While i understand you fear over full on nuclear exchange you are aware that one nuclear strike will not kill the world. Since the first test in 1944/5 there have been over 2000 nuclear explosions.

That's a lot of bombs, and a lot of fallout, yet we are still here.

Nothing short of a full nuclear exchange will kill us. But one strike. ahhh not so much


Yes but Iran isn't as big as the US and a lot of our tests were underground.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




And it would never stop at just one bomb.


Yep, once one is used as an offense it will be all bets off. Hopefully those who can make the decision with them understand it.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

BobM88
reply to post by buster2010
 


kosherpress.com...somehow I'm not surprised.


It's a Jewish news service. Is there a problem with it?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


No, it will no cause a "nuclear winter" but the repercussions of nuclear bombs and nuclear fall outs are very real and right now been felt even decades later, Including the death of hundred of thousands of innocent people caught in the insanity of the few with power.

I am trying to understand your reasoning here, I guess your post means you agree that Iran should be nuke.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


There's a lot of insanity where the ME is concerned. Hard to say who is more insane, that guy or the other. Personally, I'd be more in favor of creating a huge refugee crisis and letting the chips fall where they may. Wiping out a bunch of people with nukes is too much like playing god and people just aren't in His league.

Like another participant in the thread said, there's not altogether that much of an environmental impact. Using that as a dismissive argument is a poor strategy deterrent. Sheople need to know this.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
If Israel wants to nuke Iran, then they can do it themselves and deal with the consequences on their own as well. Netanyahu has already stated his intentions/desire for solo action against Iran; so I say go for it. It's what the Zionists want. The Dome of the Rock must be destroyed through Armageddon before the Temple can be rebuilt (a likely destruction with retaliation against Israel), and hypocritical warmongering fools like Bibi are determined to see it happen in their lifetimes.

Frankly, in the modern age Israel is no longer a valuable or needed strategic ally to the United States. Between the USS Liberty, Mossad ties to 9/11, human rights violations against the Palestinians and Sudanese, and other blatant hypocrisies... a large portion of Americans are tired of Israel's Zionist-extremist government incessantly whining and warmongering.

It's about time for the U.S. to cut the umbilical cord, and for Israel to grow up and stand on its own.



The video addresses some of the issues Israel is facing as a dwindling strategic ally. It's becoming harder and harder for Americans to justify billions of dollars a year in aid, to a relatively wealthy nation, while economic policies at home are going down the toilet.
edit on 10/24/13 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Not surprising to see an article about going to war with Iran in a Jewish news site.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Snarl
reply to post by buster2010
 


There's a lot of insanity where the ME is concerned. Hard to say who is more insane, that guy or the other. Personally, I'd be more in favor of creating a huge refugee crisis and letting the chips fall where they may. Wiping out a bunch of people with nukes is too much like playing god and people just aren't in His league.

Like another participant in the thread said, there's not altogether that much of an environmental impact. Using that as a dismissive argument is a poor strategy deterrent. Sheople need to know this.


What could be more insane than using a nuke as a warning shot?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   

buster2010

Snarl
reply to post by buster2010
 


There's a lot of insanity where the ME is concerned. Hard to say who is more insane, that guy or the other. Personally, I'd be more in favor of creating a huge refugee crisis and letting the chips fall where they may. Wiping out a bunch of people with nukes is too much like playing god and people just aren't in His league.

Like another participant in the thread said, there's not altogether that much of an environmental impact. Using that as a dismissive argument is a poor strategy deterrent. Sheople need to know this.


What could be more insane than using a nuke as a warning shot?

For me, personally, I'd rather be nuked than hit with a biological or chemical agent. Of course, I wouldn't object if God decided to reincarnate Moses and set him against all the whackos over there in them parts.

Curious (seriously) how you would approach the situation if you were in charge of foreign policy. You strike me as a very intelligent and knowledgeable person.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


It's going to take someone stepping up and being the "bigger man". Someone with egalitarian principles/beliefs needs to take a stand and stop the human rights violations to start with. Anyone who thinks bulldozing neighborhoods and stealing land because some kid threw a rock, or some nutter blew himself up on a bus, is a nutter themselves. The Hatfields & McCoys feud, seeing each other as nothing more than infidels and goyim, has grown old.

At the moment Israel is the only one with nuclear weapons; so, being the largest "threat" in the region, they are going to have to be the ones who take that stand unless another nearby country can finish the m.a.d. equation. Once that happens the chance to prove what nation is truly benevolent, if any, is up for grabs.

The real issue Israel faces (addressed in the video) is that... it's easy to be the bully on the block when your "dad" is the town judge, jury, and executioner; however, it's growing more likely that they may lose that support as years pass. Financially, things in the U.S. are looking worse by the day. With unbalanced budgets and increased deficit spending the national piggy bank is broken, and Israel is no longer the necessary strategic ally it once was (before we had other viable military bases in the region, and discovered new oil reserves here on this side of the globe). The scheme of tossing a relatively financially-stable Israel a few billion a year in aid, so that AIPAC can toss back a few million in campaign donations to both parties, isn't sustainable.

People around the world are growing more and more tired of social, economic, religious, and political hypocrisy. The circle/cycle of hatred and violence is absurd, and needs to end. Time is ticking, and the gravy train is running dry.
edit on 10/25/13 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
....

edit on 25-10-2013 by Kaifan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   



Yes but Iran isn't as big as the US


So nuclear stuff respects imaginary geo-political boundaries, and so a smaller land mass of a politcial area would concentrate the blast and therefore make it more intense I suppose????

Really, did you think that one through??









 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join