It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bowman Now Calls For Impeachment: Asks Military To Refuse Orders To Attack IRAN

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I fully support Bowman! I have saved this letter since it sounds like the most important speech in our time regarding this war and administration. Although Cheney and Bush are going out of office it is not soon enough. They do not deserve to leave their offices with honor or any federal retirement. I was in USMC infantry for 4 years and although I disliked Clinton, I am disgusted and appalled with this administration. They have done nothing but lie and push the north american union and destroying our sovereignty and credibility. I find myself agreeing with Chavez when he said that bush was the devil. If he isn't he sure is a worshiper of the devil.




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaargg
 


Another thing worth reminding is that when war plans are drawn, military lawyers (JAG) are involved in the process to advice and in some instances approved or disapproved certain aspects of a mission. I don't know if it is a procedure that is in paper but I know that it happens.

And this lawyers don't answer to no one except the SecDef, so if an illegal order is issue they would let him know that that order is illegal, as to what happen after that if they decide to push the order despite the JAG advice then who knows, but my guess is that they are some procedures in place to prevent those in position of power to issue an illegal order and to be taken out of those positions in case they go nuts.

Think about it, all these scenarios are practiced, so I don't think it will come down to military members refusing to go, it will be more like an order being rejected on the grounds that its illegal. Now keep in mind that the JAG is not a tribunal and in no way they are going to investigate the legality, morality and ethics of the POTUS decision to go to war, they are just involved in the legality of an attack as far as proper use of force is concern.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yadhel

Originally posted by TheBorg
................
Either way, I don't think a nuke should be used in any regards, as that would be far too devastating, and it would kill many more people than would be necessary to accomplish our goals.
...............


I am going to ask this one more time.

Where in the world is all this talk about the "U.S. nuking Iran" coming from?....

What is the evidence "the U.S. is going to nuke Iran"?....

All i see are exagerations being made to bash the U.S.


I hear exactly what you're saying. The reason why you're being ignored is because you are not helping to perpetuate the baloney.

They base truth on junk they find on the internet. Even if this guy "Bowman", really did say this, it doesn't make any sense.

I'd like to hear what "Bowman" thinks about these backward governments (Iran, etc.) constantly saying they want to destroy Israel? That's ok, yeah.

Does anyone here really believe they don't want to make nuke bombs?
(If you do, you're plain silly).

They would become the central power in the middle east, they would hold Israel hostage. How easy would it be for them to just hand off a small nuke to a terrorist headed for Israel or NY. It would be inevitable.

So I guess all of that is ok for everyone to accept, maybe even wish. As long as the big bad USA, and Jews get what they deserve.

We saved the world from bad guys, wwI ww2. It's unbelievable how little understanding, support we receive from other countries when it comes to saving ourselves.

If this guy "Bowman" really said this, it might sound out of context. Maybe he was trying to make some kind of hypothetical point. If he wasn't, then doesn't it sound like he's a little off and dumb for a general?

Does anyone really think the US would attack Iran with nukes?
The US might try to destroy some targets in Iran via air. But attack with nuke? What garbage.

So mant smart people here. Do you really think there would be a ground attack? There would be nothing that resembles what we did in Iraq, there would be no ground forces (except for maybe some we never see or hear about, special ops). It would be all air stuff, missles shot from boats and planes. That would be it.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Does anyone know why this guy was banned?

Yadhel

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm curious to know if it was due to anything the member said in this thread.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


We can not let Iran have the bomb, think if they did, do you really think the world would be save? You can think what you will, But if we sit back and do nothing GOD HELP US



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 




This Bowman is a true patriot.



Too many times nowadays, a patriot, regardless of country, is regarded as somebody who declares his country is superior to all others and warns of bogeymen who don't exist, or have their potency hyped up, and demands other countries to be bombed.


Well, this Bowman is a true patriot, someone who has served in his nation's military but yet stands for the belief that the military is there to protect and act for the well being and safeguard of the people, not the government, and in that respect, bring a government to account when it acts against the people's interest.


I am glad Bowman also has the responsibility, and the level headedness to say a military dictatorship is not the answer.



Those who say Bowman is a traitor could not be further from the truth.


Those who continually question their government's motives, actions and decisions, do so because they care for their country.


A government that is not brought to account, that is not questioned for it's motives by civillian and military alike for fear of accusations of treachery is nothing short of dictatorship.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


There's a big difference in following illegal orders vs. unpopular orders. The Nazis were following illegal orders and that's why they were tried in court. The consequences of not obeying a legal order during wartime are pretty severe too. Legality, and popularity are not synonomous. Allowing Iran to get nukes would be a big mistake, as they have demonstrated time and time again that they can't function as a well behaved member of nations.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm
reply to post by Truth4hire
 

This Bowman is a true patriot.


Let's say he's a great patriot. Doesn't anyone else find his statement about the US nuking Iran ridiculous?

What real general would even find that possibility to be feasible? It's not feasible, so why include such a scenario in your speech? Makes no sense at all.

Won't you agree, that when or if the US needs to eliminate targets in Iran it would be done with conventional weapons, shot from boats and planes?

So why, then does this supposed general make such weird statements?

It's scary to see so many people support the notion that America should not defend itself, or Israel. We should all bow to these Islamic nut cases?

Why is the US demonized and the hateful and dangerous rhetoric coming from these people accepted?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Allowing Iran to get nukes would be a big mistake, as they have demonstrated time and time again that they can't function as a well behaved member of nations.


True. And why doesn't anyone get bothered or concerned about all the crazy stuff their "president" says? "We will destroy Israel..." You're going to say, on many ocassions in public that you're directive is the destroy Israel, all the while progressing with a "peaceful" nuke program intended for "energy"?

They are really governed, or more appropriately "dictated" by religious men who believe that if you are not Muslim then you are an "infidel". And they go on to say if you are indeed an "infidel" then you should be killed.

I believe we should talk to them. I think it's a big mistake not to.

But there is no denying that they preach death and destruction, hate and oppression. Can anyone say that's not true?

Yet, our president is the "bad guy"...!?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Of course Grover,

YOUR OPINION

More FACTS though for the record..

Stretched thin?

hmmmm

130,000 troops after this Christmas... 160,000 now for the sake of argument..


In 2005, the military had 1.38 million personnel on active duty,[48] along with several hundred thousand each in the Reserves and the National Guard for a total of 2.3 million troops.

WIKI


Semper


That is so disingenuous Semper I am surprised you even tried it.

Fair enough 1.38 million in our armed forces. OK I'll buy that.

The Coast Guard is not involved in Iraq so that branch can be ruled out.

The Air Force is really not engaged either as a fighting or occupying force there. Besides that the actual number of pilots is rather small but they have a large number of support staff.

The same can pretty much be said for the Navy.

So.... after you rule out essentially three branches of the military what do you have left?

The Army
The Marines
The National Guard
The Reserves

OK then you rule out the support personnel.

then rule out the service personnel stationed in places like Korea, Japan, Germany and other bases scattered around the world, not to mention the personnel manning bases in this country.

The end result is that the AVAILABLE pool of service personnel available to draw upon gets progressively smaller with each subtraction.

Which is why we are stretched too thin. IF we closed all our overseas bases (something we should have done before closing stateside bases in the 90's in my humble opinion)
then we would indeed have enough to work with.

Now I know you are going to poopah this post. Just as you totally ignored the link I posted about our troops being over stretched. That is your right but in doing so you are not being honest.

Ask yourself... if we really do have enough troops to do the job and we are not stretched too thin...

... then why is it the same troops get sent back again and again and again, having their tours extended and their discharges postponed?

After all to use your math 130,000 is only 6.9% of our armed forces. With that percentage each service person could expect to deploy every few years, and that ain't happening.

We are gutting our National Guard and Reserves to serve over in Iraq to the deteriment of the states needs.

Add to that Semper, we are thanks point of purchase stocking, going through our equipment faster than it is being replaced (we used to stockpile essentials ya know) and in many cases National Guard equipment is not being replaced period again leaving the states short.

I could go on and this is NOT my opinion no matter how you spin it Semper. It is a matter of record and you know it.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
This is just retarded .. U.S. Would not impose such actions as to Nuke somenoe unless all other options were null and void. And something else was going to become of theit actions if we don't do something. Can't you see that but what we are doing right now ?

reply to post by dgtempe
 



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I'm not a conservative republican and I have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. So this will come as a surprise.

I dont agree with the President being impeached. I dont see a real case for it unless you delve into conspiarcy theories. The President has made many mistakes, but ignorance or stupidity is not grounds for impeachment.

There is no reason for the military to refuse an order to attack Iran unless it is suicidal or genocidal. An attack on Iran will be neither.

I'm trying to remain objective about it. War is going to happen one way or another. It can happen now or it can happen later and be much worse. Humanity cannot make it more than 20 years without a major conflict. It is impossible. It cannot make it one hundred years without a Intercontinental War. Most of these wars have an unethical nature to them regardless of sides.

I urge people to go out and read some books on history, especially wars throughout history. There arnt any good guys or bad guys. Its all about Initiative and Opportunities.


And Bowman is not a traitor. He's a citizen with a free speech. Even though I dont agree with what he says I would fight to defend his freedom.






[edit on 18/9/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
This is just retarded .. U.S. Would not impose such actions as to Nuke somenoe unless all other options were null and void. And something else was going to become of theit actions if we don't do something. Can't you see that but what we are doing right now ?

reply to post by dgtempe
 




I agree with your statement, however the US could not nuke Iran under any circumstances. There wouldn't ever be any reason to do so, none, ever.

The US knows this, everyone knows this. This is my point. The supposed general's statement is completely ridiculous, and the argument here has been focused on military law? (You wouldn't argue the validity of his statement, or it's feasibility?)

It's cool to see intelligent debate, but we often get lost in abstract details. What's the point.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
What if we told the people of IRAN ... that hey we are bombing the whole country and you have untill 09/20 to get the heck out of this country to the bordering countries. You would be able to get all of the Citizens out of the country safely, yet, the terrorists are obviously not going to cooperate. Then you just bomb the heck out of that country go in and rebuild and BOOM .. You have the goal you started off to have in the first place.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   



I urge people to go out and read some books on history, especially wars throughout history. There arnt any good guys or bad guys. Its all about Initiative and Opportunities.


And Bowman is not a traitor. He's a citizen with a free speech. Even though I dont agree with what he says I would fight to defend his freedom.
[edit on 18/9/07 by MikeboydUS]


There are no good guys or bad guys? Wow! What would you say Hitler was, or Bin Laden?

What would you say of the dictators and Fascist who are oppressing people's rights, all for the love of power and money? Who execute "ethnic cleansings", and kill people for speaking freely or disagreeing with their leader's beliefs?

I guess they would be neither good or bad, I guess that's a "gray area".

So you recommend we should read some history books? I guess you would also recommend that we believe everything that is written in these books?




[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38

There are no good guys or bad guys? Wow! What would you say Hitler was, or Bin Laden?

What would you say of the dictators and Fascist who are oppressing people's rights, all for the love of power and money? Who execute "ethnic cleansings", and kill people for speaking freely or disagreeing with their leader's beliefs?

I guess they would be neither good or bad, I guess that's a "gray area".

So you recommend we should read some history books? I guess you would also recommend that we believe everything that is written in these books?




[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]


Hitler as a human being had some very evil traits. You cannot lump a whole nation as an individual human being though. Hitler was not Germany. Bin Laden is not some how a represenation of Arabs or Muslims.

You will find evil people in every nation, religion and race on earth. That doesnt mean all nations, races, and religions are evil.

Every empire or civilization has committed atrocities. That doesnt excuse them. Atrocities are horrible. Taking advantage of another's horror for your own gain is just as horrible and those opportunities have become common place in the latter 20th and early 21st centuries.

Well you can go read history and get a better understanding of how the world works or live in a delusion where World Peace is possiblity and humans are all rainbows and fluffly bunnies.

The books are by no mean perfect but they are better than nothing.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38


Let's say he's a great patriot. Doesn't anyone else find his statement about the US nuking Iran ridiculous?

What real general would even find that possibility to be feasible? It's not feasible, so why include such a scenario in your speech? Makes no sense at all.



The Bush administration apparently find it feasible, they have refused to take the 'nuclear option' off the table, this is therefore what Bowman is referring to, and is doing so as someone who is aware of the military 'options' at hand.



Originally posted by Electro38
Won't you agree, that when or if the US needs to eliminate targets in Iran it would be done with conventional weapons, shot from boats and planes?



Then why has Bush not taken the nuclear option off the table?



Originally posted by Electro38
So why, then does this supposed general make such weird statements?



It's actually not wierd at all, but is in consideration of the nuclear option being rumoured as the one to be used.




Originally posted by Electro38
It's scary to see so many people support the notion that America should not defend itself, or Israel. We should all bow to these Islamic nut cases?



This is not about America defending itself, or even Israel defending itself, this is about the imposition of American will upon Iran because it is an independent country.


Iran is not a threat, and would only be so if they were attacked.


The only means of threat they are is by supporting elements of the Iraqi insurgency. This is the same as if Mexico or Canada was invaded by China, America would arm the Mexican and Canadian insurgents next door.


I could believe your fearful assumptions Iran may be a threat if Iran was a world superpower and Iranian troops were stationed in Mexico and Canada by the shedloads and were making hostile statements against the US.


As it is, the US, a superpower, has US troops that are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq bordering either side of Iran.


In consideration of this, who do you think has more reason to fear attack?


You, the American, or an Iranian who has troops from a country that has hostile relations with his country on either side of two of their borders?



Originally posted by Electro38
Why is the US demonized and the hateful and dangerous rhetoric coming from these people accepted?



There are those in Iran who do chant "Death to America" that is true, but they have done so since 1979.



No it does not have to be accepted, but it does not mean that bombing them out of blind fear and little facts is acceptable either.


And if Iran makes a nuclear bomb, what do you have to worry about?


The US has nukes by the thousands.


Iran knows this, you know this.


Why the insecurity?

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Regensturm]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yadhel
I am going to ask this one more time.

Where in the world is all this talk about the "U.S. nuking Iran" coming from?....

What is the evidence "the U.S. is going to nuke Iran"?....

All i see are exagerations being made to bash the U.S.


This is what they are referring to...

Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   


Hitler as a human being had some very evil traits. You cannot lump a whole nation as an individual human being though. Hitler was not Germany. Bin Laden is not some how a represenation of Arabs or Muslims.

The books are by no mean perfect but they are better than nothing.


Dude, nowhere did I ever say anything about a nation's people being good or bad, (although we all know people of any nation are capable of being good or bad on any given day.) I was "bad" today, I think.

I am speaking, obviously about the leaders of nations.
I mentioned Hitler, I made no references to the German people.

You said "Hitler as a human being had some very evil traits."

By "some evil traits", do you mean trying, and almost succeeding in murdering a whole race of people?

My friend, that's called being "bad". So is it such a stretch for you to admit Hitler can be catagorized as "bad"?

My point is, when it comes to LEADERS of nations and governments there definitely are good and bad people.

No, you're right about books. My point was that you can't believe, absolutely, everything that is written, in a book or otherwise.
(Just look at the mess the bible, Torah and the Kuran are causing).

I didn't mean to be so critical of your post, sorry.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Electro38
 


Every country in the world would love to have nukes after our own nation made them and used them first.

Then sold the plans to other nations.

Let me clear this out the Iran wants to erased Israel is nothing more than propaganda.

Iran would never be a central power in the middle east due to the fact that Israel, Pakistan and India have already nuclear capabilities. so that is just propaganda.

BTW the only nation in the world to used nuclear power to attack another invasion was our own nation.

Israel Hostage? you mean like they are doing to the Palestinians?

I am not a Jew but I do not want my nation to get what they deserve due to the mistakes of the corrupted corporate government we have if it goes into invading and destroying another sovereign nation.

Because you want it or not, Iran had the right to defend itself against the aggressors and even have help from countries that will lend that help.

Yes US intervened into ww1 and ww2 my grandfather died in the last one but it was the results of helping and the reconstruction and money, profits to be made that did it, after all it put our country as the leading richest nation in the world, but now we are nothing more than consumers and big spenders after corporate American move their business to third world countries with a national debt up to our butts and our banker is communist China, Thanks again to wars this time for the benefit of the few, at least in the last wars the American people was the winners.

The way this present administration is doing its business and the desperation of the profiteers to have the job finish I believe anything right including nukes again Iran, wars are such a good way to make money.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join