Ted Turner, founder of CNN, advocate of “population control” who describes observers of Ash Wednesday as “Jesus freaks,” opponents of abortion on demand “bozos” and claims we’ll all become “cannibals” if we don’t deal with global warming. Take it away Ted:
He can be a whack job, but I don’t think his intent was malicious here. Blowing this out of proportion is no better than blowing the Murdock “rape” out of proportion.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
He can be a whack job, but I don’t think his intent was malicious here. Blowing this out of proportion is no better than blowing the Murdock “rape” out of proportion.[/quote]
I agree I find it amazing that the republicans have not figured out any one can be demogogued
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Blowing this out of proportion is no better than blowing the Murdock “rape” out of proportion.[/quote]
I’m speechless.
I’m not, those who are smart enough to read between lines know exactly
what Ted means here…(One does not become a self-made Billionaire by being stupid BTW).
I may not agree with his U.N. stance, but I find it curious the Outrage directed at Ted by
many is mis-directed, when clearly the outrage should be directed at the utter lack of care
for our troops when they come home after experiencing the Hell of the Battlefield on the other
side of the World, they are expendable because there’s always another young naive ‘Gung Ho’
Soldier to take his or her place barely having a clue what they are about to experience.
Fuck Ted Turner anyway, but you guys are essentially Killing the Messenger
here…What ELSE did one expect Ted Turner to say??..he’s fucking Ted Turner for cryin’out loud.
My point is, it’s who he is, it’s who he’s been,
and he’s been consistent at it since most of you were in friggin’ Diapers, I do not agree
with the wording, but he did catch your attention didn’t he? That’s Ted…Get it?
So that being said there is not one word yet on the cause of more Military Killing
themselves than at the hands of the enemy, lets talk about that for a moment shall we,
because that’s the Elephant in the Room no one wants to tackle, and everyone bypasses conveniently
while we lose one Soldier by their own hand every 18 hours.
The Soviets were in Afghanstan for a Decade back in the 80’s and lost over 14,000
of their own, then they basically said ‘Screw it were outta here’, so who are WE to think we can
break these people?? We can’t, they are breaking US, Afghan Soldiers are too tough minded
to kill themselves via the PSTD route because War is practically in their DNA, they have successfully survived
every Empire thrown at them by Invasion and Occupation for Centuries, PTSD is a joke to them, they shake that shit off in their minds in one afternoon.
Google ‘Graveyard Of Empires’ for a start and learn the History of the unbreakable
Afghans.
Focus on the Big Picture and forget Crazy Ted for a moment because he’s not the problem.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Google ‘Graveyard Of Empires’ for a start and learn the History of the unbreakable, unbeatable
Afghans.
[/quote]
Barfield’s Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History and Caroe’s The Pathans are far better works.
[quote]Karado wrote:
…forget Crazy Ted for a moment because he’s not the problem.
[/quote]
When batshit leftists say things like it’s “terrific/good” that US troops are killing themselves and then spew pacifist drivel it most definitely is a problem.
“When batshit leftists say things like it’s “terrific/good” that US troops are killing themselves and then spew pacifist drivel it most definitely is a problem.”
A miniscule of a problem compared to the bigger issue at hand I already stated.
We know Teddy is Batshit already, what else is new?
… It’s quite obvious that he meant that it’s good in the sense that the suicides show that people are retaining their humanity. Ie. You put people in a horrible situation and they react in a way which shows they are severely negatively effected.
They are not turning the way of the “get some” helicopter pilot in Full Metal Jacket. This is a good thing.
He wasn’t saying the suicides themselves are a good thing.
[quote]Karado wrote:
A miniscule of a problem compared to the bigger issue at hand I already stated.
[/quote]
To suggest that the most powerful nation on earth with a population of over 300 million and a defence expenditure equaling every other nation combined and numerous allies can’t defeat a rabble of stone age tribesmen is beyond ridiculous.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
… It’s quite obvious that he meant that it’s good in the sense that the suicides show that people are retaining their humanity. Ie. You put people in a horrible situation and they react in a way which shows they are severely negatively effected.
[/quote]
So it’s good that they’re committing suicide then? Because it means they’re suffering PTSD. And hopefully the suicide rates won’t drop because that would be a bad sign? Right?
They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. The Pashtun are waging genocidal war against us.
[quote]
He wasn’t saying the suicides themselves are a good thing. [/quote]
Well he did actually say that. And even if you interpret it the way you have done he is still saying that the high rate of suicides is a good sign.
The Afghans aren’t unbeatable. They are invaded, controled and eventually the invading empires fall.
Case in point: Islamic Arabs invaded Afghanistan in the 7th Century and they are still under the rule of Islam today. If the Afghans defeated every invader then logically they should still be Buddhists.
You could probably make the same argument for India if you wanted to. Look how many times India was invaded over the Centuries. I think they could give Afghanistan a run for their money as a “Graveyard of Empires”.
I do not dispute the fact that Afghans live in a region pleagued by almost constant warfare, it is just not unique to them.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The Afghans aren’t unbeatable.[/quote]
Of course they’re not. It just takes resolve.
"Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyse their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins [Churchill’s mother was American]. I thought of a remark which [British politician] Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before - that the United States is like “a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate.” - Winston Churchill
“To suggest that the most powerful nation on earth with a population of over 300 million and a defence expenditure equaling every other nation combined and numerous allies can’t defeat a rabble of stone age tribesmen is beyond ridiculous.”
First of all, the Population of Country has absolutely nothing to do with it’s power,
England had Spain had their Empires and they had small populations in relation to the
territories they conquered, so you can scrub that population thing outta your head at once,
and ask the Chinese about the Japanese invasions and the “Rape Of Nanking” if you think
size matters.
Secondly that Churchill quote was before the Nuclear Age…the game has changed dramatically,
and so have the demographics here, we are NOT the same place or the same people we were 70 years ago,
that generation is mostly dead now…scrub that one too because we’ve softened up
considerably, so much so that “Dodge Ball” is practially illegal in our School System
now for fear of Little Johnny getting a little welt on his arm from an inflated Rubber Ball.
Thirdly, the Afghans ARE beating us, otherwise with all the defence expediture we should have beaten
them in 5 years, but in spite of our defence expenditure, we haven’t beaten them in over 10.
So with all our expenditure we haven’t beaten these “stone age tribesmen” in over a decade,
“tribesmen” that Do not have what have, “tribesmen” who are giving us trouble for 10 years Fighting Us with NO Jets, NO Helicopters, NO Tanks, NO night vision equipment, NO Armored Humvees, NO radar, NO protective Uniforms, etc. etc.
So much for expenditure.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
… It’s quite obvious that he meant that it’s good in the sense that the suicides show that people are retaining their humanity. Ie. You put people in a horrible situation and they react in a way which shows they are severely negatively effected.
[/quote]
So it’s good that they’re committing suicide then? Because it means they’re suffering PTSD. And hopefully the suicide rates won’t drop because that would be a bad sign? Right?
They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. The Pashtun are waging genocidal war against us.
[quote]
He wasn’t saying the suicides themselves are a good thing. [/quote]
Well he did actually say that. And even if you interpret it the way you have done he is still saying that the high rate of suicides is a good sign.[/quote]
I think this is stupid and we are arguing over syntax/meaning/specific point… whatever.
He says - " I think it’s good because it’s so clear that we’re born, and we’re programmed to love each other, not to kill each other"
In other words - He is saying that the suicides speak to the nature of man and that since man is, in his opinion, inherently good, he doesn’t do well psychologically in war. ← THIS is what’s “good”.
suicides = doing poorly psychologically in war = probable cause to believe man’s mind is not suited for war = probable cause to believe man’s mind is more suited for peace/love/cooperation
peace/love/cooperation= a good thing
doing poorly psychologically in war = a good thing
ergo
suicides = a “good thing”
Do you actually think he means that the death of soldiers in and of itself is a good thing?
If that is what he means then I fully agree with you and I think he is batshit crazy…
edit - he could have been a lot more clear about his point though and not left so much room for inference. That it looks like he almost said “terrific” is very bizarre and concerning…
[quote]Karado wrote:
First of all, the Population of Country has absolutely nothing to do with it’s power,
[/quote]
It gives a larger pool of manpower increasing the industrial capacity of the country and if conscription is necessary it provides the pool of manpower for the military to draw upon - as in WWII when nearly 10 million men needed to be mobilised by the US. At this time Australia had a total population of around 8 million and therefore was at a much greater disadvantage and could not possibly mobilise anything like that. See how it works?
No it wasn’t. The History of the Second World War was written, funnily enough, after the war had ended.
I know. But it’s not inevitable by any means.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Do you actually think he means that the death of soldiers in and of itself is a good thing?
If that is what he means then I fully agree with you and I think he is batshit crazy…
[/quote]
Yes I do. And if you look at his “apology” you will see it’s a meaningless lie:
Ted Turner: “During my recent interview on CNNâ??s Piers Morgan Tonight, I inadvertently used the word ‘good’ when asked for my thoughts on the increasing rate of suicide among U.S. military soldiers in the Middle East. It was certainly not my intent to imply that suicide is ‘good.’ Rather, I was implying that it is good that the public is more aware of these tragedies…”
There are two obvious lies there and it doesn’t even make sense. The first lie is that he used the word good ‘inadvertently’ - clearly if you watch the video you see he did not. He was in fact, about to say ‘terrific.’ The second lie is that he was implying that it is ‘good’ that the public is more aware of these tragedies. Also a lie and it doesn’t make sense as there was nothing of that sort said by him.
“I know. But it’s not inevitable by any means.”
If 20 collective years of 2 Superpowers failing to break the Afghan Will doesn’t
convince you they cannot be beaten, you are living in fantasyland.
Soviets failed in 10 years…so have we.
Let’s bring our troops home, 10 years was 5 years too many.
[quote]Karado wrote:
“I know. But it’s not inevitable by any means.”
If 20 collective years of 2 Superpowers failing to break the Afghan Will doesn’t
convince you they cannot be beaten, you are living in fantasyland.
[/quote]
What are they immortal or something? Like vampires?
Sure, al Qaeda won’t be emboldened by our withdrawal. The Taliban won’t harbour them whilst they plot more attacks. /sarcasm
“What are they immortal or something? Like vampires?”
Very convenient cop out completely bypassing recent history.
No Comment whatsoever on the 20 year total Soviet/American Failure there.
"Sure, al Qaeda won’t be emboldened by our withdrawal. The Taliban won’t harbour them whilst they plot more attacks. /sarcasm "
Another cop out…What’s YOUR “Magic Number” of years we should be involved in this
fiasco before we leave?..another 10 years?