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

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by astmonster
WAR is insane.


Who knew you could bring reason back to someone with just a little editing?


I have a couple of questions for the ‘obey or be a traitor’ crowd. The first regards the constitution. Since the constitution clearly states that war is to be declared by congress, and the last war in which this happened was WWII, haven’t all wars since been unconstitutional, and fought in clear violation of the oath to ‘protect and defend’?

Second, can you give me an example of an action by the president that you would consider to have made him a domestic enemy to the constitution, and therefore liable for arrest, or at least removal from office?




posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I followed the orders of :::

President Carter (Biggest Idiot in Presidential History)

President Reagan (Greatest President in History)

So, to answer your question I have ALREADY proven i would follow a bigger idiot than Bill Clinton... We have yet to see how big an idiot Hillary would be.

I was in a STA Platoon (Look it up) and I REALLY did have to FOLLOW some orders that haunt me still...

But I did...

That is what soldiers, sailors and Marines do

The BS that you all are spouting here, is just that...
Disobey orders
Ask for them in writing
Debate the validity of orders

I usually take the word of anyone posting here about their service, but WOW do you all make it hard....

Being liberal is your choice. Following orders is what you MUST do in the military. Being stupid is also a choice and not following orders is just that.
Stupid, Mutinous and Traitorous

Your SPIN has nothing to do with the actual situation
Your fantasy has no real world relevence

Nice talking to you

I'm outta here..

Semper



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Reagan was the greatest president? ROTFLMAO!!!!


Lets see... Washington, both Adams, Jefferson Lincoln, both Roosevelt's and Kennedy were all far better than that grade B actor... And Bill Clinton was far more involved and intelligent.

Carter is a good man... he was just in at a bad time. I don't think that there was anyone who could have handled those times well, Republican or Democrat.


[edit on 22-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
So if a serving military platoon is ordered to infiltrate an elementry school, and summarily execute all the cihldren there, it would be unpatriotic, and treasonous to dis-obey that command and arrest the individual who made it for war crimes?

A nuke is far more devastating than killing children in an elemntry school, of which the nuke would probably do dozens of times over. Have fun in Hell buddy, with all your war crminal buddies, with dreams of killing innocent people until the end of time.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


What I have read on this link is THE single most DILUSIONAL spewing of ignorance I have ever had the displeasure to read!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Yeah, I suppose we should partake in "discussions" and "share" with them our "feelings" on why they shouldn't hate us. This is pathetic. You NEVER take an option off the table. How do I know? I served 23+ years! Iran IS a global threat. Syria IS a global threat. They PAY people to kill children. You may say we've killed children in Iraq too. Maybe, but not TARGETTED. They have no problem with that. And these are children of their own faith too!

Do I look forward to a nuclear attack? Of course not. But if it will prevent Iran and/or Syria from becoming a nuclear power and can be confined to a specific area, so be it. BTW, the military refusing an order by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is Sedition and Traitorous, plain and simple. The Constitution gives the President, and the President alone, that authority. You don't like it? CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! Until then, you people need to grow up!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


"Lets see... Washington, both Adams, Jefferson Lincoln, both Roosevelt's and Kennedy were all far better than that grade B actor... And Bill Clinton was far more involved and intelligent.

Carter is a good man... he was just in at a bad time. I don't think that there was anyone who could have handled those times well, Republican or Democrat."

Yeah, I'll give you Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson. But FDR is vastly overrated. Or haven't you read history? If it weren't for WWII, he would have been a 1 term President. And his creation of Social Security was a Ponzi scheme to beat all. A wonderful concept, but it's implementation was just bad. As for Clinton, we'll never know, will we because what did he accomplish? He put the security of the country at risk and put himself in a position to be blackmailed because he preferred a quickie with a cigar with Monica to doing what he can for the country. Who says he wasn't blackmailed anyway? Why else would he sell missle technology to an enemy; China? As for Carter, Carter definitely WAS the worst President of the past 150 years. Truly the worst recession since the Great Depression, no respect in the world, the military moral was tremendously low, Interest rates of 18-21%, Inflation of 9%, Unemployment of 9%, and he had the NERVE to blame America for it's "malaise". As for Kennedy, what did Kennedy actually "DO"? He was only President for less than 3 years. He gave away a lot during the Cuban missile crisis. So what else did he actually DO?

Reagan was a visionary with core beliefs and a TREMENDOUS President.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch

This is not a military mess this is a mess brought to you by no one but yourselves. Learn from it, if you gets disapointed and feel that your military let you down cause we choose to follow our orders, always remember that you guys put us in this position, you elected them and if we are killing other people and getting killed also is because the official that you choose to put up there.

Learn your lesson please.


Really? So when I am part of the majority who didn't vote for Bush/Cheney in either election, with fraud eing documented at the polls, how is it my fault. Can you explain in detail how I brought it on myself? Was it the money I spent on 5 different candidates to help them get elected? Maybe it was the time off from work I spent protesting...

Blame it on the other side that legitimately voted for stay the course. I am sure there are a bunch in the military who did so that you could talk to.

I think there is the seed of a legitimate point in this thread which is: given the disaster that just happened over the last 8 years, what would a civil society have to do to make sure it could never happen again?

I don't know the answer, but until voting systems are as secure as ATM machines, I don't think there is a chance to secure the country at all...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Nunny
 


Present company excluded right? I think GWB will top the list of all time worst presidents by far. He is a real leader in this regards, from fiscal mismanagement to foreign policy blunders, internal corruption, cornyism, to the war. He has it all!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nunny
The military refusing an order by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is Sedition and Traitorous, plain and simple. The Constitution gives the President, and the President alone, that authority. You don't like it? CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! Until then, you people need to grow up!


What is it when the President violates his oath of office repeatedly, then gives that order? I would argue that it is Sedition and Traitorous for the military to take orders from a traitor.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
A nuke is far more devastating than killing children in an elemntry school, of which the nuke would probably do dozens of times over. Have fun in Hell buddy, with all your war crminal buddies, with dreams of killing innocent people until the end of time.


Is the question not why it makes sense to use a nuke versus the myriad of other options open to us?

Does anyone really think that there will be no blowback from a nuke in use for any reason? I would think that such a use would become a virtual promise that we will suffer a nuke attack on US soil rather than a deterrent...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by grover
 

Being stupid is also a choice


..apparently.

Looking for signs of the scholar as you claim to be....



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by astmonster
WAR is insane.


Second, can you give me an example of an action by the president that you would consider to have made him a domestic enemy to the constitution, and therefore liable for arrest, or at least removal from office?


Repeated violations of the FISA law, along with the bragging about it would be the easiest of several arguments for it.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
QUOTE 1
Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

QUOTE 2
especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States.


It would seem here that this is the illustration of Congress attempting to abdicate its role of being the only body with the ability to declare war by implying that a declaration of war is unnecessary and is in fact undesirable as it comes with too many checks and balances.

I laugh every time i see the word 'unforseen' in that passage. Because it wasn't unforseen at all was it?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
If there is an uprising within our own armed forces and the troops were to start refusing to execute their orders, that would set off a chain of events more catastrophic for this country than anything that could result from engaging Iranian targets.

This Bowman fellow who wrote this letter, is an utter and complete fool.


I would modify two things:

were to start refusing to execute their legal orders

Obviously a military that follows no orders is by definition not a military. It would seem to follow that a military that executes orders contrary to ethics and law is already a catastrophy.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Sorry, but those statements show how you don't know a thing about middle-east political field.

And yes, this is guy is a hero.
Semperfortis, according to your view, you would have supported Hitler back in the 40s if you would have been a german. You think like that, follow the leader until the end, no matter where he leads you and no matter what he does... this is a sick behavior if you ask me.


Read a newspaper man: www.afghanistanwatch.org...

re: Analogy to Nazi germany: right-on brother!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I have read many many post about the war we are in and it shows a pattern that those that havent been there knows more than those that have. I am not saying just this blog but all I have read. I was in the military and I dont remember the oath as saying I could chose which order I could follow, if I dont like this one dont do it ,if I liked that one then do it. I also remember the day of 9/11 and days after THE WHOLE NATION stood up and said do something. Now Iran is becoming a threat to somebody[ why have nuclear weapons and not use them]. I dont like going to war any more than the next guy but why sit on our a**es and act like we know more than anybody because we read it on the internet. Thats about as bad as the news these days. They report what they want you to hear. Fox, CNN, and the like dosent report the same thing. Some people would be just as happy as to wait till we have another attack on our home ground and then say why wasnt something done. The military has been this way for as long as it has been around so why is it now not a good way to run things? If things was done right in the 90's we wouldnt be dealing with them today. I may be rambling on but this arm chair internet reading of knowlegde is getting old. If things is so bad then why hasent things changed, why hasnet Bush been impeached, why is the war still going on? All the things griped about is still running the same way with the same people in charge. If Clinton wasnt so worried about getting B.J,s he might have stopped this back then and not been impeached. This is my two cents worth.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
If we attack Iran, in the eyes of the world, we will be seen as the bad guys. Let Iran nuke us first then it will be justified to shoot back with whatever we have left. We can all live with a few less cities and a few million dead........can't we? Lets just kick back, be nice guys and see what happens.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


I already gave details when the same question was asked by another poster, please read the entir thread, thanks.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I don't think that anyone is saying that you can pick and chose which orders to follow. I know I never did. And I don't think that it is the nature of this debate either.

Specifically the debate as i see it is between those of us who feel that under certain circumstances, say an unprovoked attack on Iran with nuclear weapons, whether or not a service person has the right to say no... and if so is it treason.

People like semper say no. You must follow orders or object within a prescribed process. People like me believe saying no to authority when they are in the wrong is one of the most honorable things a person can do, even if it gets you a court martial or shot.

In reality there is not much difference except he asserts obedience first and foremost, I assert following your conscious.

I mean really this is not about average orders that a grunt gets day to day... it is all about extraordinary ones and any discussion outside of that narrow construct is simply muddying the waters.



top topics
 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join