Ted Turner

[Downthestretch55]

Ted Turner recently spoke. Though I disagree with some of the things he says, there is "food for thought" in a couple of his opinions.
I also admire his business sense and the fact that he is "self made".
Anyway, here is what he said....

Published on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 by Reuters
Ted Turner Says Iraq War among History's "Dumbest"
by Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK - The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the "dumbest moves of all time" that ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia, billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said on Tuesday.

The founder of CNN and unabashed internationalist also defended the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons and the effectiveness of the United Nations and, in a jocular mood, advocated banning men from elective office worldwide in a Reuters Newsmaker appearance.

Alternately combative and humorous, Turner spoke nine years after his pledge to donate $1 billion to the United Nations over 10 years and on the same day President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly a mile away.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq has caused "incalculable damage" that will take 20 years to overcome "if we just act reasonably intelligently."

"It will go down in history, it is already being seen in history, as one of the dumbest moves that was ever made by anybody. A couple of others that come to mind were the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia," Turner told the forum.

"It literally broke my heart. You don't start wars just because you don't like somebody. ... I wouldn't even start a war with Rupert Murdoch," Turner said, referring to his onetime cable network rival.

Often contrarian, Turner called it a "joke" that Bush demanded that Iran abandon any ambitions for nuclear weapons while at the same time hoping to ban all such bombs.

"They're a sovereign state," Turner said of Iran. "We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel -- they've got 100 of them approximately -- or India or Pakistan or Russia. And really, nobody should have them.

"They aren't usable by any sane person."

POWER TO THE WOMEN

One way to reduce such dangers in the world would be to leave women in charge, said the former husband of Jane Fonda.

"Men should be barred from public office for 100 years in every part of the world. ... It would be a much kinder, gentler, more intelligently run world. The men have had millions of years where we've been running things. We've screwed it up hopelessly. Let's give it to the women."

In the meantime, the United Nations represents the best hope, Turner said.

While the world body is ridiculed as ineffective and irrelevant by its harshest critics and often criticized by its strongest advocates, Turner offered what was then one-third of his net worth to the world body nine years ago.

"I am absolutely certain we would not have made it through the Cold War without the U.N.," Turner said. "When Khrushchev at the U.N. took his shoe off and hit podium he was so mad, but he had a place to let off steam. If the U.N. hadn't been there, that would have been war right then."

When a questioner from the audience challenged Turner on the United Nations's value, Turner shot back.

"The war between Lebanon and Israel and Hizbollah would still be going on if it hadn't been for the U.N., and that's only in the last two weeks, Bubba."

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ted Turner recently spoke. Though I disagree with some of the things he says, there is "food for thought" in a couple of his opinions.
I also admire his business sense and the fact that he is "self made".
Anyway, here is what he said....

Published on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 by Reuters
Ted Turner Says Iraq War among History's "Dumbest"
by Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK - The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the "dumbest moves of all time" that ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia, billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said on Tuesday.

The founder of CNN and unabashed internationalist also defended the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons and the effectiveness of the United Nations and, in a jocular mood, advocated banning men from elective office worldwide in a Reuters Newsmaker appearance.

Alternately combative and humorous, Turner spoke nine years after his pledge to donate $1 billion to the United Nations over 10 years and on the same day President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly a mile away.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq has caused "incalculable damage" that will take 20 years to overcome "if we just act reasonably intelligently."

"It will go down in history, it is already being seen in history, as one of the dumbest moves that was ever made by anybody. A couple of others that come to mind were the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia," Turner told the forum.

"It literally broke my heart. You don't start wars just because you don't like somebody. ... I wouldn't even start a war with Rupert Murdoch," Turner said, referring to his onetime cable network rival.

Often contrarian, Turner called it a "joke" that Bush demanded that Iran abandon any ambitions for nuclear weapons while at the same time hoping to ban all such bombs.

"They're a sovereign state," Turner said of Iran. "We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel -- they've got 100 of them approximately -- or India or Pakistan or Russia. And really, nobody should have them.

"They aren't usable by any sane person."

POWER TO THE WOMEN

One way to reduce such dangers in the world would be to leave women in charge, said the former husband of Jane Fonda.

"Men should be barred from public office for 100 years in every part of the world. ... It would be a much kinder, gentler, more intelligently run world. The men have had millions of years where we've been running things. We've screwed it up hopelessly. Let's give it to the women."

In the meantime, the United Nations represents the best hope, Turner said.

While the world body is ridiculed as ineffective and irrelevant by its harshest critics and often criticized by its strongest advocates, Turner offered what was then one-third of his net worth to the world body nine years ago.

"I am absolutely certain we would not have made it through the Cold War without the U.N.," Turner said. "When Khrushchev at the U.N. took his shoe off and hit podium he was so mad, but he had a place to let off steam. If the U.N. hadn't been there, that would have been war right then."

When a questioner from the audience challenged Turner on the United Nations's value, Turner shot back.

"The war between Lebanon and Israel and Hizbollah would still be going on if it hadn't been for the U.N., and that's only in the last two weeks, Bubba."

The guy's an idiot..."they aren't usable by any sane person" Duh...that's the point!! Does he want to rely on the leaders of Iran acting in a sane manner???
Not to mention that if they had 10, they'd sell 5 to various terrorist organizations...God, what a fool!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The guy's an idiot..."they aren't usable by any sane person" Duh...that's the point!! Does he want to rely on the leaders of Iran acting in a sane manner???
Not to mention that if they had 10, they'd sell 5 to various terrorist organizations...God, what a fool!

Somerfrost,
Unfortunately, the present administration in the US has depleted our military resources. The need to resupply our troops that struggle on in their 4th and 5th deployments in Iraq has indeed cost our once great nation.
Are OUR leaders acting in a sane manner????
It seems to me that FOOL'S rule in both countries.
The real shame is that we can no longer do anything more than try to talk our way out of it. Bad decisions DO have consequences...
And here's a good article on the subject.

Iran Has Called the West's Bluff on the Nuclear Standoff
The US cannot risk imposing stricter sanctions or military action. Fairness is now the only option

by Martin Woollacott

As the Iranian and American presidents offer their rival versions of international reality at the United Nations this week, it is worth recalling that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the first Iranian leader to travel to New York to proclaim his country's right to make its own decisions about energy resources, to denounce imperialism, and to condemn a world order weighted in favour of a handful of powerful nations.
In this same month in 1951, Dr Mohammad Mossadeq convinced the UN that British efforts to regain control of the oil industry the Iranian government had just nationalised did not deserve the world body's support. Mossadeq won over the security council, and he won over the United States, which enjoyed the spectacle of this elderly, eccentric and eloquent man challenging the British empire. American reporters affectionately nicknamed him "Old Mossy".

How different is the scene at the UN today, with Bush castigating Iran for political suppression at home, for supporting terrorism abroad, and for pursuing nuclear weapons, while Ahmadinejad portrays the US as the leader of a group of nations which have hijacked international institutions in pursuit of their own narrow interests. Between these two moments on the East River lies a half century in which the US was transformed, in Iranian eyes, from the angel in international affairs that Mossadeq had imagined into the demon scourged by Ayatollah Khomeini and most of his successors.

"Old Mossy" hoped America would help Iran become truly independent. Instead, America joined Britain in removing him from power and ensconcing the Shah as an authoritarian ruler. Most Iranians, including opponents of the regime, think the US has never redeemed itself for that act, or for its later meddling in Iranian affairs. American intervention would reach a malign climax, they say, if the US were to attack Iranian nuclear installations. Just as Iranians believe the US has never made up for the wrong it perpetrated in 1953, so Americans believe the Islamic republic demonstrated, by its seizure of American diplomats in 1979, a deeply unreasonable and probably permanent hostility towards America. The two nations, in other words, bulk pathologically large in each other's vision, and that is the ultimate problem which makes an accommodation between them on nuclear matters, let alone a more general rapprochement, so difficult to achieve.

The drama which began three years ago when Britain, France and Germany undertook to bring Iran round on the nuclear issue has had its comic dimension, as European wiliness encountered Iranian guile, and was usually outmatched by it. But now comedy threatens to tip over into farce, and tragedy lies in wait. After the passing of many deadlines, the latest at the end of last month, the Iranians are still enriching uranium. They have so far suffered no consequences, and even if a very modest package of sanctions were to survive Russian and Chinese objections at the UN, it would not hurt the Iranians much, if at all.

The western bluff has been called. The Europeans have moved from making suspension a condition for talks to contriving formulas to allow talks to begin without it. As long as serious sanctions lay in the far future, the Europeans were ready to act as if they, and even the highly sceptical Russians and Chinese, would be prepared to take strong measures. But as soon as they become a real prospect, the excuses emerge, ranging from the lack of adequate inducements to the absence of conclusive proof of Iran's nuclear intentions and the danger of pushing the Tehran regime into too tight a corner. All have some substance, but nevertheless represent a retreat from previous positions.

In the unlikely event that strong sanctions were imposed, Iran would find it relatively easy to survive them, and they would play into the hands of those in the Iranian government, including Ahmadinejad, who may well believe that a good relationship with the west is a contradiction in terms - something that would sully the revolutionary purity of the republic. So there are indeed reasons for caution on sanctions. In any case the real sanction has been the prospect that if negotiations were to end in total failure, they would be followed, no doubt after a period in which economic measures would be shown to be ineffective, by American military action. The bunker-busters would go in and parts of Iran would be dug up and ploughed under by a bombing campaign, aimed both at destroying installations and killing scientists, which would set back Iran's nuclear programme by three or four years.

Yet even if the Bush administration was less weakened by Iraq than it is, the chances of it choosing this option are somewhat less than they may have seemed some months ago. There is no readiness in the country to accept another military enterprise, even if it "only" involved air action, and anyone ordering it would suffer grievous political damage. This would come not so much in the campaign itself, but with the inevitable retaliation by Iran in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The US government would be wide open to the charge of making a bad mess worse, and the charge would be true, something which it may now be beginning to grasp. It will not rule out the counter-proliferation option, and the American military will continue to plan for it on a contingency basis, but the Iranians are probably right to conclude that it is not a very immediate threat.

But it is in the nature of the relationship between Iran and the west that as one danger recedes, another advances. If the Iranian regime comes to believe that both the Europeans and the US are paper tigers, it will be both strengthened and emboldened. At home, the consequences may well be to quicken the pace of the regime's encroachments on the freedom and democracy the Iranian system still displays. Abroad, they could give a push to the sort of adventurism which would make war between Iran and the US a stronger possibility. The only answer is a Middle Eastern policy which stresses needs, rights and fairness more than threats and enemies. Easy generalities, but somewhere in that direction lies the solution, if there is one to be found.

Guardian Unlimited

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
Unfortunately, the present administration in the US has depleted our military resources. The need to resupply our troops that struggle on in their 4th and 5th deployments in Iraq has indeed cost our once great nation.
Are OUR leaders acting in a sane manner????
It seems to me that FOOL'S rule in both countries.
The real shame is that we can no longer do anything more than try to talk our way out of it. Bad decisions DO have consequences...
And here's a good article on the subject.

Iran Has Called the West's Bluff on the Nuclear Standoff
The US cannot risk imposing stricter sanctions or military action. Fairness is now the only option

by Martin Woollacott

As the Iranian and American presidents offer their rival versions of international reality at the United Nations this week, it is worth recalling that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the first Iranian leader to travel to New York to proclaim his country's right to make its own decisions about energy resources, to denounce imperialism, and to condemn a world order weighted in favour of a handful of powerful nations.
In this same month in 1951, Dr Mohammad Mossadeq convinced the UN that British efforts to regain control of the oil industry the Iranian government had just nationalised did not deserve the world body's support. Mossadeq won over the security council, and he won over the United States, which enjoyed the spectacle of this elderly, eccentric and eloquent man challenging the British empire. American reporters affectionately nicknamed him "Old Mossy".

How different is the scene at the UN today, with Bush castigating Iran for political suppression at home, for supporting terrorism abroad, and for pursuing nuclear weapons, while Ahmadinejad portrays the US as the leader of a group of nations which have hijacked international institutions in pursuit of their own narrow interests. Between these two moments on the East River lies a half century in which the US was transformed, in Iranian eyes, from the angel in international affairs that Mossadeq had imagined into the demon scourged by Ayatollah Khomeini and most of his successors.

"Old Mossy" hoped America would help Iran become truly independent. Instead, America joined Britain in removing him from power and ensconcing the Shah as an authoritarian ruler. Most Iranians, including opponents of the regime, think the US has never redeemed itself for that act, or for its later meddling in Iranian affairs. American intervention would reach a malign climax, they say, if the US were to attack Iranian nuclear installations. Just as Iranians believe the US has never made up for the wrong it perpetrated in 1953, so Americans believe the Islamic republic demonstrated, by its seizure of American diplomats in 1979, a deeply unreasonable and probably permanent hostility towards America. The two nations, in other words, bulk pathologically large in each other's vision, and that is the ultimate problem which makes an accommodation between them on nuclear matters, let alone a more general rapprochement, so difficult to achieve.

The drama which began three years ago when Britain, France and Germany undertook to bring Iran round on the nuclear issue has had its comic dimension, as European wiliness encountered Iranian guile, and was usually outmatched by it. But now comedy threatens to tip over into farce, and tragedy lies in wait. After the passing of many deadlines, the latest at the end of last month, the Iranians are still enriching uranium. They have so far suffered no consequences, and even if a very modest package of sanctions were to survive Russian and Chinese objections at the UN, it would not hurt the Iranians much, if at all.

The western bluff has been called. The Europeans have moved from making suspension a condition for talks to contriving formulas to allow talks to begin without it. As long as serious sanctions lay in the far future, the Europeans were ready to act as if they, and even the highly sceptical Russians and Chinese, would be prepared to take strong measures. But as soon as they become a real prospect, the excuses emerge, ranging from the lack of adequate inducements to the absence of conclusive proof of Iran's nuclear intentions and the danger of pushing the Tehran regime into too tight a corner. All have some substance, but nevertheless represent a retreat from previous positions.

In the unlikely event that strong sanctions were imposed, Iran would find it relatively easy to survive them, and they would play into the hands of those in the Iranian government, including Ahmadinejad, who may well believe that a good relationship with the west is a contradiction in terms - something that would sully the revolutionary purity of the republic. So there are indeed reasons for caution on sanctions. In any case the real sanction has been the prospect that if negotiations were to end in total failure, they would be followed, no doubt after a period in which economic measures would be shown to be ineffective, by American military action. The bunker-busters would go in and parts of Iran would be dug up and ploughed under by a bombing campaign, aimed both at destroying installations and killing scientists, which would set back Iran's nuclear programme by three or four years.

Yet even if the Bush administration was less weakened by Iraq than it is, the chances of it choosing this option are somewhat less than they may have seemed some months ago. There is no readiness in the country to accept another military enterprise, even if it "only" involved air action, and anyone ordering it would suffer grievous political damage. This would come not so much in the campaign itself, but with the inevitable retaliation by Iran in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The US government would be wide open to the charge of making a bad mess worse, and the charge would be true, something which it may now be beginning to grasp. It will not rule out the counter-proliferation option, and the American military will continue to plan for it on a contingency basis, but the Iranians are probably right to conclude that it is not a very immediate threat.

But it is in the nature of the relationship between Iran and the west that as one danger recedes, another advances. If the Iranian regime comes to believe that both the Europeans and the US are paper tigers, it will be both strengthened and emboldened. At home, the consequences may well be to quicken the pace of the regime's encroachments on the freedom and democracy the Iranian system still displays. Abroad, they could give a push to the sort of adventurism which would make war between Iran and the US a stronger possibility. The only answer is a Middle Eastern policy which stresses needs, rights and fairness more than threats and enemies. Easy generalities, but somewhere in that direction lies the solution, if there is one to be found.

Guardian Unlimited

My point though is that while Bush may have made a series of blunders, he is not insane...the cats in Iran clearly are! The only thing between us and thermo-nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the fact that both sides were sane, the Soviets were in no more of a hurry to burn the planet and see their families die than we were...you simply can't say that about the current leaders of Iran!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

My point though is that while Bush may have made a series of blunders, he is not insane...the cats in Iran clearly are! The only thing between us and thermo-nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the fact that both sides were sane, the Soviets were in no more of a hurry to burn the planet and see their families die than we were...you simply can't say that about the current leaders of Iran!

Somerfrost,
We can't go back to the Cuban missile crisis.
Sorry to say, that's in the past. Given those circumstances, it seemed plenty insane to me, but I was just a little kid at the time.
We are confronted with the "blunders" that have lead to the "now".
Regarding current events, there is no question that ALL people that inhabit this planet would not like to see their families die. Included would be the people of the USA, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Dafur...
You get the point ...I could list so many. That's part of being "human".
In the "now", a very "insane" condition presents itself.
If you believe that a world player like China won't provide nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for petroleum futures, you might not have been attending to where Katosha (sp) rockets came from, or silk worm missiles during Vietnam, for that matter.
In my humble view, "brinksmanship", though played in the past, is nothing compared to today's decisions. Based on GWB's previous ones, I lack confidence in his current ones. Fools exist on both sides of this problem.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
We can't go back to the Cuban missile crisis.
Sorry to say, that's in the past. Given those circumstances, it seemed plenty insane to me, but I was just a little kid at the time.
We are confronted with the "blunders" that have lead to the "now".
Regarding current events, there is no question that ALL people that inhabit this planet would not like to see their families die. Included would be the people of the USA, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Dafur...
You get the point ...I could list so many. That's part of being "human".
In the "now", a very "insane" condition presents itself.
If you believe that a world player like China won't provide nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for petroleum futures, you might not have been attending to where Katosha (sp) rockets came from, or silk worm missiles during Vietnam, for that matter.
In my humble view, "brinksmanship", though played in the past, is nothing compared to today's decisions. Based on GWB's previous ones, I lack confidence in his current ones. Fools exist on both sides of this problem.

Your problem, DTS is that your obvious hatred for George Bush has paralyzed parts of your brain...every issue somehow ends up as George's fault! You lack clarity...of course you can use past references when talking about the present! If you think that the folks in Iran are "the same" as other world leaders, you haven't paid attention. Stop the "Hate George" tirade long enough to absorb this simple fact...all people ARE NOT the same. There are two distinct types of people...good and evil. Sometimes, good people will commit evil acts but evil people will never do good unless it's a shortcut to some evil end! The clowns in Iran WANT to die in a blaze of fire, in their perverted minds, that will lead to eternal glory! Give folks like that the means to commit mass murder and they WILL commit mass murder. There have always been evil people but most have had an element of self-preservation...Saddam has it, so did Hitler, so did Stalin. They committed horrible acts but they always were looking out for their own survival...not so with these fanatics, they welcome death! When you care about your own survival, there is no point to ending the world as we know it (as would have been the case in the Cuban situation), no point in attacking an elephant with a BB gun (as would be the situation should any of the world's nuclear countries start a nuclear confrontation with US, Britain and Israel)...but when you welcome death...why not kill millions of "infidels"? Stop the constant comparisons of our elected leader with terrorists and other maniacs, it invalidates any points you may make!