It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Generals will 'quit' if Bush orders an Iran Attack

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:44 AM
From the same link in my last post:

War on Terror

In the War on Terrorism President George W. Bush has used these war powers to justify several controversial acts, e.g. NSA electronic surveillance program. The administration has used a legal theory known as the unitary executive theory, to explain that in his duty as Commander-in-Chief the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by law or Congress. In the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy this was used to suggest he was not required to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The same rationale was used to deny detainees in the War on Terror protection by the Geneva Conventions resulting in a global controversy surrounding apparent mistreatment. Also it is thought that the McCain Detainee Amendment, which was adopted to address prisoner abuse, might be ignored after President Bush added a signing statement invoking his rights as Commander-in-Chief, to that bill

I find this interesting.

his duty as Commander-in-Chief the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by law or Congress.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:13 PM
Bush has used his powers of president wagging a war to the extreme, Bush has said that he is the decider but he has forgotten the constitutional role of congress.

Congress actually has more powers than the commander in Chief to the point that congress can constitutionally shut down the war. However, that will bring an unprecedented war between the executive powers that a nation like US do not need right now in front of the world.

What will be very intersecting to see is how far the President and his power will step over constitutional matters if Bush keeps with his plans on his war on terror and into Iran.

With a poor popular rating and both houses against it.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:28 PM
Reading all the ignorant "treason" comments are sickening. It is especially disappointing to read that many believe that Generals and our soldiers in general are not only expected but obligated to follow orders that are obviously illegal.

I was formally in the Army as a 95B (MP). I joined the Army because I am a patriot and believe in the constitution enough to lay my life on the line for it. When I first signed I expected that I would at least remain in the reserves until they wouldn't have me but as a human with a conscience and the underrated ability of critical thinking, I opted to not re-enlist as I will not kill innocent poor people to enrich the same people that oppress the poor people here in the US.

Even the most insecure when it comes to preserving one's world-view can see that at the very least we were misled into this war. As Americans we should look at General resignations very carefully. They can resign as they please, btw, without penalty (it is kinda scary that so many of you believe that our soldiers are not privy to basic human rights like saying no to evil).

Think about what it means to resign in protest as a General. Those of you that think they are somehow being unpatriotic or self-serving on a whim need a clue. Do you have any idea what it takes to become a General? Do you have any idea what they would be sacrificing by resigning in protest? For men of such stature to risk their careers, their life-works, it must be for a serious cause.

Also, if you think that 5 or 6 top Pentagon Generals resigning would have no impact on Bush's political ability to make war, you are naive. I will agree that if they did resign it would be a sad day in the history of our country but mostly because as a people we have allowed our civilian leaders misuse our military so thoroughly that their resignations were necessary to wake us up.

Unfortunately, if those generals did resign the majority of Americans would probably echo many of the posts here in a feeble effort to preserve a false world-view as analytical thinking for one's self is not an attribute that is encouraged in our society.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:32 PM
AMEN tainted AMEN. Most of the gung ho types here are safely at home and will never see battle. For those of us who have actually been in (and I did not see battle either thank god) though, we are seldom so enthunstic about war.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:09 PM
It bears pointing out that military officers' primary allegiance is to the COnstitution... not the President, per se:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

By extension, if these officers believe that the President is ordering them to do something that violates the Constitution thay are obligated to not follow said orders. Enough of the blank check. IMHO, it is way overdue to reel this cowboy in. Before we create even more problems.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:15 PM
What I find funny is that this is the complete opposite of every Hollywood movie about war.

Usually you have the president whos intelligent being egged on to conflict by a bunch of war hungry idiot generals. In real life, we have some ethical generals not wanting a moronic war hungry president to go into another conflict.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:16 PM
Kinda funny how someone just said that Bush could go into Iran in the name of the war on Terror while just this week information has been made public that shows how the US is sponsoring terrorist organisations in Iran to terrorize Iranian people in an attempt to force the Iranian goverments hand. (Just like they did before in Iran and with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan before).

It all again depends on who's side your a terrorist for it seems.

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:40 PM
Tell that to all of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China, the UK, and France. They apparently didnt get the memo.

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Lexion
To all of you naysayers :
Are you now, or ever been in the military ?
Do you know the pride of raising your right hand, and serving your country ?
Do you know the rigours of military life ?

Have any of you, ANY of you cowardly, monday morning hypocrits EVER
had the nads to do anything other than criticize our country and government ?

It's easy to talk, bitch and complain. Easy.
It gets tough, when you actually have to do anything.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, and probably some type of ban,

I am so sick of the yellow-belly people that talk the crap that I see in threads like this.

I served. I am proud of that damnit. PROUD !!

I am a proud vet,

I served, and I think we should get the hell out. AND I think our nation is wrong in her pursuits. AND, I don’t support the troops, because I don’t support the war and the troops fight the war. I CHOSE to go, same choice we all made. We all had a choice. I don’t grasp at my sanity by pretending I think it was all noble. I have no “ultra-patriot” defense mechanisms hide from the truth of how horrible the thing I did was. I deal with it by facing it head on, with guilt, with remorse, like every killer of men should.

So yeah, I served, went to Iraq with the 2ACR, stayed in Sadr City, shot a little girl in the chest on accident (saved her after, but I still cant look at my three girls without thinking of her, kills me every day) killed various "bad guys" for defending their country, took a minor bullet wound and got my wrist injured in an IED (now 50% from VA after honorable medical sep. for combat injury)

Will you listen to those of us who can see past our colors, who left the gang out of guilt, who no longer claim green?

Does my opinion count, am I good enough for you?

[edit on 3-3-2007 by cavscout]

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
They are used in a manner similar to Cavalry Scouts.

Nice try. You tankers and MPs always want be scouts, but none but the shades cavalry men dismount at Fiddler's Green.

Only one recondo around here (well, two if you count ADVISOR, but I heard he was on a track.)

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by semperfoo
If this is true it makes you wonder if the Generals know something that we dont....

Faulty Chips Could Cripple U.S. Attack On Iran

Man I dont know if its true. Im not the biggest military buff here. But If china has infact intentionally sold us faulty chips to "get the upper hand" on the US, then an attack on irans nuclear facilities could potentially fry our equipment due to EMP.

the article states that its becoming better known amongst the military brass. So if those generals knew about this it would only make perfect sense to voice their objectivity in a possible fight against Iran.

Decide for yourself... I thought It was BS until I started reading into it a bit more. Now Im not so sure.

[edit on 122828p://2802am by semperfoo]

I did see that article Semper and I have been trying to find some more information on it.

This is about all I could find.

The fleet of 54 V-22 Osprey aircraft used by the Marines and Air Force was grounded this week after a faulty computer chip was discovered in flight-control computers.

Observers said the continued problems don't bode well for an aircraft that Marine generals say they intend to dispatch to a war zone this year.

Senior Marine generals have said repeatedly that they plan to deploy the first operational V-22 squadron this year, probably to Iraq or Afghanistan. Military officers overseeing the V-22 program are 'very confident,' Darcy said, that the latest problem 'is not going to impact' that timeline.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by deessell]

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 12:26 PM
I havent heard any more on it deessell. Like I said, im not the biggest military buff on this site. I dont know all the intricacies of military hardware that would have these chips in them. But it kinda makes you wonder. And about our spy satellite being ineffective when we were spying on little kimmys nuclear testing...supposedly china used and EMP wave beam to disrupt our spy satellite that was focusing on the testing..

According to this well-informed source, “We had no warning” of the North Korean test because “the Chinese took down our look down capability” with a frequency-focused EMP. “And we were going, ‘What the # just happened?’ Nobody knew. Even after it happened nobody knew. Because it leaves no signature.”

Since “an electromagnetic pulse goes on through and it’s gone,” such egregious aggression could not be proven, and was not an act of war.

It was a wake up call. Because the advanced NSA spy bird—”a little higher than Keyhole 14”—was supposedly “hardened against everything from solar flares to enemy action,” Hank was told.

Wouldnt that fry the circuits in the satellite though? Thats how EMP works I believe.

In a confrontation in the Persian Gulf or off Taiwan, where another U.S. task force has also been deployed, it will not matter if some “Made In Colorado” hardened chips shut down in time to dodge aimed or accidental pulses. Because complex electronic circuitry is assembled in a cascade-inviting daisy chain, if one microchip fails, even if the other dozen chips connected to that circuit come back online, the device they’re directing won’t.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in