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: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
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.


They're not using the same argument. It is much different in this case (Iran) because they have developed a nuclear program, also Ahmedinejad has said in public on numerous occasions that Israel should be destroyed.

Also, isn't there proof that the Iranian gov. supports and aids terrorist organizations? Haven't they publically made their support known?

1. They have a nuke program
2. They support terrorism

Can anyone say that this is not true? I think the whole world agrees with that.

This is why it is very different than Iraq.

(Not saying it's right, or wrong. I really don't know. But I do know the Iran situation is very different than Iraq.)



[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
There must be some reason behind the gov. agenda. They wouldn't tell us because it might give the enemy a advantage. Don't you think terrorist read stuff like this when they planning their attack?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38


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.

They're not using the same argument. It is much different in this case (Iran) because they have developed a nuclear program, also Ahmedinejad has said in public on numerous occasions that Israel should be destroyed.

Also, isn't there proof that the Iranian gov. supports and aids terrorist organizations? Haven't they publically made their support known?

1. They have a nuke program
2. They support terrorism

Can anyone say that this is not true? I think the whole world agrees with that.

This is why it is very different than Iraq.

(Not saying it's right, or wrong. I really don't know. But I do know the Iran situation is very different than Iraq.)





We (USA) have a Nuke program! Iran may have a nuclear program for energy. All the statements to the contrary are strictly propaganda!







We created terrorism by having our troops as a occupying force on the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel has nukes and can defend itself.


[edit on 063030p://upTuesday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 063030p://upTuesday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by QuasiShaman
 


Fair enough, point made.

I guess I'm just stuck on the idea that there's so much more to this than fighting terrorism. Makes me wonder if another Alan Greenspan will come out and say the same thing about oil.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The title is very misleading. Bowman is clearly talking about nuclear war over Iran. Not war in general.
Or atleast in its conventional sense.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by QuasiShaman
 


And what happen when Israel defend themselves?

Don't you think that there is going to be consequences for everyone involved as well? Consequences meaning lots of people dying.

I just watch Brit Hume, the last segment with the panelist was dedicated to this issue, they were seriously discussing who would nuke who first, and how Israel will be destroyed not before they drop some nukes in the neighboring nations and Iran of course reduce to ruins. They did used the word genocide more than once.

Just make sick to my stomach, that with all the smarts that we have as a race we have not figure basics things of life, we have advance in nothing regardin basic morals and respect towards life, they only difference is that now we can destroy each other from a distance.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by QuasiShaman
 


Yes, we (America) have a nuke program, however we are not supporters of terrorism and our leaders don't make crazy statements about destroying other countries.

We don't make it our prime directive to kill other people who do not believe in our religion.

They believe we are infidels because we are not Muslim, we don't follow or embrace Islam.

Even if we went and pulled our troops out of all the places they shouldn't be, and closed down all of our military bases. They will still believe we must be killed because we will still be "infidels". Their terrorism would not stop, unless we also all converted to Islam.

They hate our culture and beliefs.

I'm not saying USA is right to have bases on their land, or invade these places. I believe that's probably most of the problem, but not all of it.






[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
There are some threads I just hate to even open up.

All you communist traitors saying 'attack Iran' and spewing the 'everybody should just follow orders' crap are so lucky that I am absolutely swamped bringing in the fields that feed the world right now or else I would have some time to lay into you and expose you for the fascists you are. America IS NOT the worlds police and by advocating a broader more expansive 'GLOBAL war on TERROR' you are advocating the overextension and thus ultimate demise of this once great nation.


Damned Jarheads.
Why dont you put something into those jars other than 'kill, kill, kill' ?

May God have mercy on us all.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 11Bravo
 


Is the propaganda, what will the big profiters of war will do if they don't have a war to profit from?

Where will they get their money? that is why the propaganda has to be kept alive and working, as you see it does works for some.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38

Yes, we (America) have a nuke program, however we are not supporters of terrorism and our leaders don't make crazy statements about destroying other countries.



No but we have supported them... go ask the average Nicaraguan about the Contra death squads... or the average Chilean or Argentine about the disappeared... governments or insurgents we backed.

Who is the number one arms dealer to the world? We are.
Who is the one country opposed to banning land mines, who could actually do something about it? We are. We sell them and put those profits first.

The list goes on and it is a shameful one at that, especially given our rhetoric.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by Electro38

Yes, we (America) have a nuke program, however we are not supporters of terrorism and our leaders don't make crazy statements about destroying other countries.



No but we have supported them... go ask the average Nicaraguan about the Contra death squads... or the average Chilean or Argentine about the disappeared... governments or insurgents we backed.

Who is the number one arms dealer to the world? We are.
Who is the one country opposed to banning land mines, who could actually do something about it? We are. We sell them and put those profits first.

The list goes on and it is a shameful one at that, especially given our rhetoric.


Well, those are good points.

Does anyone think that if they are allowed to continue with their nuke program, that eventually one of their nukes won't end up going off in NY or Israel?

At this point I don't care who's right or wrong, don't care who is more ethical and moral. I just don't want that to happen.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaargg

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Zaargg
 


The UCMJ would prevent that

All Military Personnel are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It contains pretty extensive guidelines and protections against just what your talking about...

Semper


I looked through the UCMJ articles

UCMJ Articles

And the only provisions relating to the scenario I provided in my post are:

881. ART. 81. CONSPIRACY
885. ART. 85. DESERTION
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY

These are punitive articles describing various crimes that relate to the hypothetical scenario I posted before. Under NONE of these articles did I find ANY explanation about "Immoral, Unethical, or Illegal orders" being legal to disobey. In addition, I found no provisions throughout the entire code covering the jurisdiction of the Military Court to acknowledge the illegality of or question the legality of an executive order from the CIC.

Could you help me find where these articles are?

Thanks Semper.


Semper, could you clarify this for me?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I don't want it to happen either but I have a different take on it.... simply put the best way to deal with nations like Iran is to engage them not threaten or attack them... not unless there are absolutely no options left, and we are no where near that point yet.

As for Israel... not the UN, not the United States, nobody but Israel itself can do anything about its problems with its Arab neighbors, and that includes Iran. They have got to get off their high horse and pull their heads out of their rear and deal HONESTLY with the Palestinian problem and until and only until then, will there be any chance of peace in the Mid-East.

In this we are powerless. This mindless war and this even more mindless administration has forfeited any hope of that with our obstinate backing of Israel come hell or high water and our behavior in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

It will be a generation before we are trusted again there.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
simply put the best way to deal with nations like Iran is to engage them not threaten or attack them... not unless there are absolutely no options left, and we are no where near that point yet.

As for Israel... not the UN, not the United States, nobody but Israel itself can do anything about its problems with its Arab neighbors, and that includes Iran. They have got to get off their high horse and pull their heads out of their rear and deal HONESTLY with the Palestinian problem and until and only until then, will there be any chance of peace in the Mid-East.


I agree, well said.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
If someone might help me answer my question.. see my last post and the post I wrote before that (the one Semper replied to, there will be a link to the original post in the quote).

Basically, I'm trying to determine if it is even possible for a soldier to disobey a direct order to commit an atrocity, with the way laws are currently set up and interpreted, and avoid legal discourse. PLEASE READ MY TWO POSTS, because I've already been told the three reasons (supposedly) why a soldier might not be executed for disobeying orders, and I cannot find anything in the code addressing this or whether a military court even has the jurisdiction to deem an order from the Commander in Chief "illegal, unethical or immoral."

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Zaargg]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaargg
 


I think I tried to answer your question a couple of pages ago but you might have skip it so here I go again.

The Geneva Convention outlines the rules of war, that is the supreme law of the land according to the constitution, when war plans are drawn the U.S. has to make sure that they are abiding by this rules and one way they do that is by bringing military lawyers at the time that war plans are drawn.

Is during that phase of planning that all the kinks regarding proper use of force and other treaties are examine, reviewed and scratch out of the plan or included.

As to what happens if civilian command try to push an illegal order in disregard of international law, my guess will be that there are procedures in place that would allow for the removal of that person from that position.

If you are refering to an illegal order issue during the heat of the battle then is up to the troops in question at the time to decide if that order should be follow or not. Then if going to be decide it by a military tribunal if the order was indeed illegal or not.

Hopes that helps.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by Zaargg
 


I think I tried to answer your question a couple of pages ago but you might have skip it so here I go again.

The Geneva Convention outlines the rules of war, that is the supreme law of the land according to the constitution, when war plans are drawn the U.S. has to make sure that they are abiding by this rules and one way they do that is by bringing military lawyers at the time that war plans are drawn.

Is during that phase of planning that all the kinks regarding proper use of force and other treaties are examine, reviewed and scratch out of the plan or included.

As to what happens if civilian command try to push an illegal order in disregard of international law, my guess will be that there are procedures in place that would allow for the removal of that person from that position.

If you are refering to an illegal order issue during the heat of the battle then is up to the troops in question at the time to decide if that order should be follow or not. Then if going to be decide it by a military tribunal if the order was indeed illegal or not.

Hopes that helps.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]


I guess

I'm just wondering if it's possible that because this current administration interprets the constitution in such a way as to give the CIC immense wartime authority, they might not ever consider disobeying an order unless they decide to accept a death sentence for it.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


"Dude, what do you base your beliefs on?"...........?

How about actual FACT. Iraq is a just war. After Saddam was hanged, the war has been extended by IRAN. Therefore Iran has declared war on the US, time we took the war to Tehran.

Forget the "tripe" being spewed on this site and major media. Amadingdong will kill YOU to bring on the 12 imam of his insane and vile cult called Islam. Amadingdong will kill millions of innocent children to force his 12th out of the well.

Wake-up or sleep at 1,000,000 degrees some night. This is fact, not some fantasy on TV or Xbox..............



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by astmonster
reply to post by bigbert81
 


"Dude, what do you base your beliefs on?"...........?

How about actual FACT. Iraq is a just war. After Saddam was hanged, the war has been extended by IRAN. Therefore Iran has declared war on the US, time we took the war to Tehran.

Forget the "tripe" being spewed on this site and major media. Amadingdong will kill YOU to bring on the 12 imam of his insane and vile cult called Islam. Amadingdong will kill millions of innocent children to force his 12th out of the well.

Wake-up or sleep at 1,000,000 degrees some night. This is fact, not some fantasy on TV or Xbox..............




IQ 168 my a$$!

When did fact become synonymous with propaganda!?

Did you not see the videos I posted with Scott Ritter? Scott Ritter the weapons inspector, who has been to Iran on a few occasions, inspecting there nuclear capabilities. Iran is no threat to us...... either by nukes or by invasion!

Turn off the Fix Noise channel please!


[edit on 023030p://upWednesday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38


I appreciate your reply.



And I appreciate yours.



Originally posted by Electro38I don't condone bombing anyone, anywhere.

The "insecurity" comes from seeing my city's greatest building get demolished on TV, and then seeing the smoke plume for about 3 weeks afterwards. My city was attacked, and my family was at risk.

And this attack didn't come from a "super power". So I disagree with you're argument that I (or you) should only feel threatened by a "super power". They were radical nuts in a cave.



The hijackers were purportedly Saudi, from wealthy families, from a wealthy nation. They did not live in a cave.




Originally posted by Electro38
When you experience something like that in your city, and when you come to the realization that your city is constantly "under the gun" with constant risk to your family, then let me know how you would feel.



Well, actually, I can indeed tell you how it feels.


I'm from the UK.

In my childhood, my Grandparents, Aunt and Great Uncle all lived in London.


Every holiday, we used to all go and visit them, and travel around London.
It was at the height of the IRA campaign. We used to drive past bombed buildings not far from where my Nan lived.


A house that my Great Uncle used to walk past everyday turned out to be IRA bomb factory. We found out because it exploded and the police found all the gear inside.


We used to go to the popular spots of London, regardless of the IRA.


But never did we fear. Never did we paralyse ours and think what if?


Equally, we knew that the people who wanted to bomb London were people of small power....we did not take it from their acts that we should lash out.


UK Troops were occupying N Ireland. We knew because the British soldiers were over there, we in the UK would be targeted.



I understand what you are saying about Iran, and in hindsight of what you experienced but Iran is actually the mortal enemy of Al Qaeda.


Al Qaeda is Sunni Islamic extremist and have called Shia Muslims (which is Iran's government's composition) "Dogs, worse than Jews."


According to extremist Sunnis, because Shias decided to follow a different successor to the Prophet Muhammad from the one Sunnis believed should succeed, extremist Sunnis believe Shias are worthy of nothing but to be killed.


Before September 11th 2001, Iranian journalists ventured into Taliban controlled Afghanistan to report on the situation there.



The Taliban (extremist Sunni), finding these journalists to be Iranian, and probably Shia, murdered some, and imprisoned others.



Iran, upon learning this, deployed it's troops to it's border with Afghanistan.


Following September 11th 2001, Iran caught Al Qaeda militants fleeing Afghanistan into Iran and handed them over to the US as a means of goodwill.


In 2003, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, wrote a letter to the US, offering a diplomatic relationship between Iran and the US, for Iran to stop it's support for Hezbollah, for Iran to give up it's nuclear programme, and to help the US against a common enemy: Al Qaeda.


The US Administration threw this away. An opportunity was missed.



Originally posted by Electro38
I never said anywhere that there should be an attack on Iran, I believe, and hope there will not.



So do I, because it will be terrible. The effects, the consequences. Terrible.



Originally posted by Electro38
You guys are so used to seeing, and responding to the cliche` posts from people who have "denied ignorance" (however, instead denied that they are victims of it), that you can't see "multi-dimensional" posts, which are neither purely black, or white. Which explains your uni-dimensional, cliche` replies.

In other words, I'm not saying USA = good, Iran = bad.

(Please don't take offense to my reply, I'm just waxing dramatic, a little)

Thanks.




No offence taken. I am probably guilty of not looking further into your post, and for that I do apologise without hesitation.


I think I being a bit jaded and growing weary of posters who just want to bomb Iran and not consider the consequences or facts does not help.


Sorry about that.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Regensturm]

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Regensturm]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join