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.


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

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by bigbert81

Please God, tell me your joking right? I love how you can categorize 300,000,000 people like that. So many things have changed, and not to mention that Al Gore actually won the majority vote. Then we can look at other things like rigged elections, lies, etc.

Then if we look at Congress and passing the Patriot Act without reading it and knowing at the time that there were issues in there that they had voted no on before which were squeezed in. And all the people in the country are to blame huh? *shaking my head*

You know, this is one thing that bothers me the most about the U.S., I'm going to off topic here but follow me please.

I come from Puerto Rico, ameican citizen since birth as PR is a U.S. Territory, the elections for the governor position in PR draws more than 80% of the people elegible to vote to the election booth.

Here in the U.S. For the highest position in government in the country, the position of more power around the world, barely 50% of the population elegible to vote go out and do so. That what I'm refer when I say is the citizens fault, if you are to lazy and dont go out and vote, then don't complain and many people complain but don't go out and do what is essential that is vote.

I talk about this with many friends that are as frustrated as many people here, then I ask them: did you vote? They go: no!

That's is almost 50% of the population that don't care about who is going to lead this country.

I'm not generalizing 300+ million citizens when I speak I speak for those that elected Bush that like 54% of those who voted and the almost 50% that could not care less, so I'm critizicing almost 75% of the people that could have make a difference.

And the other 20 to 25% of those who voted for Democrat, do a better job next time, get more people involved in the process, don't let the politics of fear and gay marriage get in the way of what your message is, don't be afraid to get your message across.

BTW the electoral votes system sucks.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by grover

I really wish we had some serious alternatives, third and fourth and fifth parties to chose from... and this is the gottdamned rub... I point blank refuse to waste my vote voting for a third party candidate who who does not have an actual chance

Totally agree. It's sad that without $100,000,000 backing you that you don't really have a choice. Makes it VERY easy to manipulate who wins with only two choices, and especially when you get the media to tell all the people without the ability to investigate matters themselves whatever you want.

A biased media=a controlled environment

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

Yes, I do understand the importance of following orders. What my point is is that we can't just be robots and do whatever. Without people thinking clearly and doing what they thought was right, we would have never founded this country, and even if we still had, it would be quite different than it is today.

Your morality should be more important.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by bigbert81

Well, if you want to take a stand like you're suggesting, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. You can't have it both ways.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by Bunch

Yes, good post and I do strongly agree. I think everyone SHOULD go out and vote, but like in one of my last posts, we are a two party system. Without $100,000,000 backing you, you don't stand a chance of winning the Presidency. I think this system STRONGLY discourages people from going out and voting.

I do agree that the electoral system sucks, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I see someone put me in the category for blame because of our rock-headed president. I NEVER VOTED FOR BUSH! And like I said, things change and Bush only has a 29% approval rating currently.

I bet all the people who were opposed to Kerry because he "always changed his mind" are probably thinking that that probably wasn't so bad afterall.

(BTW, he didn't change his mind even remotely close to what people like Sean Hannity sold the public on. (Yes, people on Fox and Sean Hannity are extremely biased and they use the power of press.))

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

Obviously depending on the orders, I couldn't continue on like I am knowing I did something immoral/unethical that caused innocent people their lives, so I guess, once again depending on the orders, I would deal with the consequences. Honor nowadays is dead it seems, if good people do nothing.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by bigbert81]

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:26 PM
BTW, just for the record, I know the military won't disobey the orders, and I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. What I am saying is that Bowman has done something respectable by risking tarnishing his reputation in order to stand up for what he believes in.

It seems to me that his moral is right where it should be judging by his actions.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Iran is a very dangerous nation with nuclear capability. It is known to have supplied Chinese arms to the Taliban and it would not hesitate to supply nuclear weapons to al Qaeda, nor even to use them itself.

You really need to show some proof here. There is no reason to bomb Iran, other than to appease Israel. This trumped up threat has been manufactured and sold to the masses who weren't even thinking of Iran and couldn't have told you who its President was months ago.

Now they must be destroyed.

We have supplied Iran with nuclear materials, facilities, and reactors in the past, and we helped arm, supply and train Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein.

If anyone has really helped to arm/train our current enemies it's us.
Perhaps we should bomb ourselves?

Recently a senior Iranian cleric issued a fatwah against the west, blessing the use of nuclear weapons against the infidel (in other words, us).

Yes and the politically influential Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez on national TV ( CNN ) but who cares? Should Chavez now plan to bomb all Christians?

You can't condemn and entire group of people based on the words of one cleric, otherwise you better be prepared to hate the United States because there are plenty of lunatics out there saying everything from "God wants soldiers dead" to "bomb the middle-east and bring back Jesus".

Put things into perspective man.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:40 PM

I’m just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam , F-4 Phantom, Phu Cat, 1969-1970) who’s now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange.


I'd like to know how an F-4 pilot gets cancer from agent orange exposure.

This guy is an idiot and a traitor, to boot.

He should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to spend the rest of his pathetic life in prison.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Well Grady not to step into your shoes here but the agent orange is worst that many may think and affected a lot of our soldiers.

My neighbor next door finally after almost 40 years later and endless struggles with the VA and the government now got disability and his illness that had left him depending on dialysis and lost of the use of one of his arms to the results of agent orange.

Yes his only contact with the agent was loading the agent orange into the air planes, funny it took 40 years for him to have the government acknowledge that agent orange cause his illness, his skin is full of sores that do not heal and he is getting worst.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by lee anoma

I have always being intrigued on why people bring past episodes of our history to critize actions or issues that we face on the present.

How does that help us resolve the current conflict? Hopefully we have learn our lesson of the past but the fact is that we need to resolve the challenges and issues that we face today.

I bet that if those past administrations knew that OBL would ended up killing thousands of americans, if they know that Iran will ended up being a muslim state and Saddam a vicious murderer they would have taken other courses of action, but the fact is that they thought that they were helping secure and protect american interest abroad and security at home.

The middle east by its history has been a very volatile area, they fight themselves, they fight the infidels. I was watching retired Gen. Abizaid talking yesterday, and I agree totally with him, that provided that Iran agree not to acquire nuclear weapons, we should take a different approach concerning the middle east, a more distant approach.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by lee anoma

I have always being intrigued on why people bring past episodes of our history to critize actions or issues that we face on the present.

How does that help us resolve the current conflict? Hopefully we have learn our lesson of the past but the fact is that we need to resolve the challenges and issues that we face today.

To learn from past mistakes. Experience. If we've been in a similar situation, we need to look at what happened back then, and use that information to help us best proceed. We can see what worked and didn't, and have a better understanding of today.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by bigbert81

I agree totally and I express that in that very same post, my point is that yes we have weapons to OBL, yes we have some technology to Iran, yes we gave biological/chemical weapons information to Iraq, but how does that factor in resolving the current conflict with Iran?

The lesson from the past that applies to this conflict is not let this middle east countries get all armed up. Not with ICBM's not with nuclear weapons, not with any kind of weapons that can be used against us offensively. That we learn and we should make sure that don't happen, that's what the government is doing.

So what's the issue? That's because Israel agree on that too we should not proceed? I said it earlier and I say it again, there would be many lives save if Iran is prevented from going nuclear. Lives on all side of the equation, we don't need to attack them, there is many ways I think and hope that we can accomplish that without military action, but the clock is ticking and if Israel decides to act first, then it would be bad on all sides of the equation.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Bunch

Fair enough. But do you realize that they're using the exact same argument for Iran that we heard for Iraq. No weapons found, just an attack that killed 1.2 million Iraqis and thousands of U.S. soldiers. And as far as "terrorism" goes, Al-Qaeda is replenished.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by bigbert81

Yes I do realize that, the thing is that this time around they would not be able to slip this one by a democratic Congress, specially in a election year and having had that disaster in Iraq.

That's why I I'm more concern about Israel going solo, than U.S. attacking Iran. Bush might have illusions of having he's legacy restored by attacking Iran, I just don't see it happening.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:54 PM
Just to those of you that continually "misquote" the oath one takes when entering into the service for the United States...

I just saw it on a previous post where a poster said that you take the oath to defend the Constitution and not the President...???

Well having taken the Oath and being somewhat familiar, I thought I would post the actual Oath here so that we may reference it in our debate...

People are debating this issue with decorum and civility on the most part and I wonder this. If we could get all these countries to debate their issues as soundly and professionally as we are debating here, would not the world be a better place?

Just a thought

Here is the oath for enlisted

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

And commissioned

"I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The enlisted oath is pretty cut and dry

In the Officers oath, it is the "Faithfully Discharge the Duties of the Office" ...

One of the duties of the office is to obey the orders of those appointed above you..

It really is pretty simple


posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Good post and well put.

When they have you say defending the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies, it makes me wonder if they put this part before following orders for a reason, like this part is the most important. That is how the Bill of Rights was lain out, so I can't see why they wouldn't put the most important part first once more.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Still you should note that the only reference to swearing allegiance is to the constiuition, not to the president, it says only that you will obey him.

Not the same thing by a long shot.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:27 PM
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

But notice it does not say IMAGINED.

Anyhoo, i dont fight with you, Semper. You're a good friend, but, i couldnt resist.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:46 PM
If it were on a modern country as Russia, then rebellion would be acceptable and honorable; the risk of life would be far to great to want nuclear use. HOWEVER, for a nation of Iran, then nukes should be considered. They are an attitude combination of WW2 Germany and Japan. They hate the Jews and would sacrifice themselves just to kill their enemy. They are a risk. However, I'm more for just sending a sniper team overt to knock out the leadership. The people hate their gov there, and we could EASILY gain support with the people should we simply occupy and help them. By doing this, we would end all three wars. Without Iranian dollars buying IEDs for Iraqis, they would die, and the ability for Osama to transfer troops from Afghanistan to Iraq would be killed too. The war would end in weeks. That is, should we actually fight and not being a bunch of no-doers.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in