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

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

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

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.


For once we almost agree

ALMOST

Except for the fact that the issue goes to a much deeper level of concern..

Arrogance

If the order came to attack Iraq, Canada or The Vatican, the simple fact is that NO ONE SOLDIER has all of the information that went into giving that order, with the exception for those that made the decisions..

I am not arrogant enough to presume I am more intelligent or more informed then they are...

So I follow the order

That is the REAL root of the issue...

Those that THINK they are informed enough, or Intelligent enough to DECIDE that the members of the War College, Presidential advisor's or Joint Chiefs of Staff are somehow LESS than they are...

So THEY being the smartest most informed people in the world, in other words Liberals that tell us ALL what to do, THEY make the decision that an order is somehow WRONG

What incredible ARROGANCE

Semper




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Double Post

Semper

[edit on 9/23/2007 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Thanks for saying that, Grover. It needed to be said. I think some folks are having a hard time distinguishing between the two.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. IT, THE POLITICIONS MAKE POLICY. AND OUR MILITARY CARRY IT OUT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLICY. VOTE THEM OUT. DON'T CRY ABOUT IT.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by valleypest
THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. IT, THE POLITICIONS MAKE POLICY. AND OUR MILITARY CARRY IT OUT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLICY. VOTE THEM OUT. DON'T CRY ABOUT IT.


Well said. But you must allow for a "rogue government clause".

If you wanted to "vote them out" you would have to wait up to four years.... A country can go seriously down the drain in four years, let alone eight!

What if you voted for a politician who turns out not to represent the people who voted for him?

What if the U.S. leaders are stark raving mad?

Will you still follow orders and not "cry about it"..?

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Then you follow your conscious semper, then you follow your conscious. Its called free will.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
[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


Semperfortis I think I understand, I really do. I was in the service in the Netherlands and stationed at Langemanshof in Germany while the D.D.R. was still there. A lot of Americans were stationed there as well.

Part of my training was about not following all orders persé but using common sense. I was just a (drafted) corporal (PainfBat 42-BLJ) and was never involved in any special operations or training.

An example about common sense I can recall was when a superior would order you to viale Genevan conventions by e.g. executing or hitting a prisoner, you were supposed to NOT follow that order, and report that superior to their C.O. asap.

Given that you have served under that many Presidents I gather that you are probably in Special forces or even a Marine, which I imagine never had any consideration about reporting a superior to a CO. Something to do with the "code".

I gather the ones that will be going into Iran are Airforce and Marines, who will no doubt not think twice to do so for the reasons mentioned above, and I can understand that, given the severe training.

I don´t blame them (you) but I´d rather not see the U.S. invading Iran and I would strongly oppose such a move as it would create a firestorm in the middle east involving Iraq, Iran, Israël, Afghanistan, Syria and possible Egypt and even Lebanon.

Don´t do it Mr. Bush!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I'll tell you what I do know about marshall law, if there were some sort of disaster befor the election. Bush would have the power to call off all elections and seize power. Then it's up in the air...unless the whole plan was to give a false choice in the election anyway. Meaning that it wouldn't matter who got elected president, because they all hang out and are rooting for the same cause. SKULL AND BONES. Remember, either the members in skull and bones share a common agenda, or they share a common agenda and are related. The same !@#$er !@#$ers have been in control for as long as they have been organized. Lets fire everybody in washington and start from scratch, this time lets not keep the money holders in power. It seems like you don't have a chance in hell of becoming anything political without the dough...Oh and how about a thorough background check. kinda like " Hey, I am GB senior and I was never a member of the CIA befor I became head of the CIA" that is a load of poop, if poop ever made a sound.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by examineenimaxe
I'll tell you what I do know about marshall law, if there were some sort of disaster before the election. Bush would have the power to call off all elections and seize power.


Well invading Iran would surely qualify as a disaster...

The indefinitly ruling Bush. Argh!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
they "refused" caligula didn't they? what will it take... appointing a horse to the senate? oh wait...



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis


So THEY being the smartest most informed people in the world, in other words Liberals that tell us ALL what to do, THEY make the decision that an order is somehow WRONG

What incredible ARROGANCE

Semper



Why do you always have to turn things into a liberal/conservative issue when it is obviously not?

It has nothing to do with arrogance or liberalism... it has everything to do with what is just and right and moral. It is a matter of conscious and free will.

To put it in the context of my service in the Coast Guard...

We sometimes stopped during drug patrol off Florida, Cuban refugee's. The policy is that if they are caught on the high seas they are to be turned around.... if they make it to shore they can stay.

Now say we came across a boat load of women and children making for the Keys and we ordered them to stop and they refused. Policy was to block them and then board.

If ordered to do that I have no problem. We pull in front of the boat and block it. Failing that we fire one shot across its bow.

Instead of doing what is prescribed though, an officer orders us to open fire on this obviously unarmed and overloaded boat of refugees. Not lob a shell across its bow but physically at this boat, potentially injuring or killing a score of innocent refugees.

Do I then follow orders and fire on these refugees who are in themselves doing nothing more than seeking freedom...

... or do I say no sir, that would be wrong and against procedure, and I am not going to do that?

How is that a liberal/conservative issue Semper?

Its not.

None of us EVER have all the facts, this is true. At the same time we have the ultimate obligation to follow our conscious.

To rephrase all of what I said above in the context or Iraq... you are in a patrol and you know that the standard operating procedure is to enter a house, hold its occupants at gun point while it is searched, and then if nothing is found, leave, if there is, proceed from there. Now what do you do then Semper if the order is given to kill everyone in the house, man, woman and child regardless if anything is found or not.

What do you do then semper and again how is this a liberal/conservative issue as opposed to a matter of conscious?

Do you blindly follow orders or do you think for yourself?

There is a time and a place for both and ultimately that decision...

... to obey or to say no is up to the individual.

It is not a liberal/conservative issue.

Again to put it more concisely... You are one of those soldiers who launch nuclear missiles and the oder comes down to nuke the Vatican (your suggestion not mine) or even Mecca during pilgrimage.

You are given essentially a stark choice... say no; the Pope has never done anything to us or, no there are a million innocent pilgrims at Mecca, knowing that you will be shot and someone who will do it will replace you... or do you blindly follow orders?

Again... I say it once more it is not a liberal/conservative issue.

To put it that way is to suggest that conservatives follow orders and liberals don't which is flat out wrong and you know that, not to mention it is an insult to your fellow military who do not prescribe to your political beliefs Semper.





[edit on 24-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Everytime you post Grover, you take the opportunity to degrade Conservatives....

Is it that YOU can not see how YOU make it a Lib, Con issue?

If you can not see that, then I apologize

From your initial reference of Clinton, to laughing at my opinion for Reagan

Your constant manipulation of conservative names is insulting to you and anyone that debates you

That is why I have come to avoid that at all costs

Which I will now get back to

You posted such a large post, I felt it only polite to let you know why I don't respond anymore

Semper



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

To rephrase all of what I said above in the context or Iraq... you are in a patrol and you know that the standard operating procedure is to enter a house, hold its occupants at gun point while it is searched, and then if nothing is found, leave, if there is, proceed from there. Now what do you do then Semper if the order is given to kill everyone in the house, man, woman and child regardless if anything is found or not.

What do you do then semper and again how is this a liberal/conservative issue as opposed to a matter of conscious?

Do you blindly follow orders or do you think for yourself?

There is a time and a place for both and ultimately that decision...

... to obey or to say no is up to the individual.



That's a ridiculous scenario. When Cordon and Search missions are conducted, there is never a "kill every man, woman, and child" order issued, even if contraband is found. This would be an obvious violation that no soldier or marine would follow(yes there are exceptions that may have occurred in isolated cases).



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

That's a ridiculous scenario. When Cordon and Search missions are conducted, there is never a "kill every man, woman, and child" order issued, even if contraband is found. This would be an obvious violation that no soldier or marine would follow(yes there are exceptions that may have occurred in isolated cases).


I agree. And this is the point I'm trying to make: The Commanding Officer we are talking about, issued an order to do that exact same thing, to kill EVERYONE in the houses they went into. You are supposed to open the door, see if there's anyone armed or otherwise dangerous and if they all are unarmed, only THEN do you toss in a grenade. The CO had everyone lobbing grenades into the homes of civilians without even looking to see if they were armed or not.
This is clearly against Geneva Conventions.
This was the guy's first time as a commander. He should never have been put into a position of leadership, he doesn't know how to handle it.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Everytime you post Grover, you take the opportunity to degrade Conservatives....

Is it that YOU can not see how YOU make it a Lib, Con issue?
Semper


Right. Semper, it was you who brought up the dem/repub thing, when you insulted Carter.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by grover

To rephrase all of what I said above in the context or Iraq... you are in a patrol and you know that the standard operating procedure is to enter a house, hold its occupants at gun point while it is searched, and then if nothing is found, leave, if there is, proceed from there. Now what do you do then Semper if the order is given to kill everyone in the house, man, woman and child regardless if anything is found or not.

What do you do then semper and again how is this a liberal/conservative issue as opposed to a matter of conscious?

Do you blindly follow orders or do you think for yourself?

There is a time and a place for both and ultimately that decision...

... to obey or to say no is up to the individual.



That's a ridiculous scenario. When Cordon and Search missions are conducted, there is never a "kill every man, woman, and child" order issued, even if contraband is found. This would be an obvious violation that no soldier or marine would follow(yes there are exceptions that may have occurred in isolated cases).


This type of scenario is were people might suggest that there is a grey area and there is not. If the person in charge of the mission issues such an order is obviously illegal and should not be followed, BUT if the military believes that there is a HIGH VALUE TARGET in a house they are going to go in no matter what, like when they took out the Hussein brothers and Al-Zarqawi.

In those 2 separate incidents, women and children were killed but since they were label enemies by the Iraqi government, anyone who gave them safe haven or were with them was fair game, this might not sound ethical, moral but is the reality of war.

When the pilot of the jet that took out Al-Zarqawi got the orders, he said that they told him that the mission was to take out a HVT. They didnt told him there was children or women at the house, he carried on his mission and was in the clear.

Again many of you might find it unmoral, unethical, but it was not illegal.

If we decide to take action against Iran, guys in the sub might know where they going but not exactly what they are doing, as long orders are legal your are bound to follow them, if not you are done.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
All of you can split hairs all you want.... I gave those as examples period, what ifs.

There have been numerous examples though of soldiers randomly killing as well though or following orders to do so and before anyone goes off....Mai Li comes immediately to mind.

BTW semper it is one thing to argue politics... you post some pretty insulting things about liberals and Democrats so you are no innocent either, but that is not what I am saying... I am saying that this as an issue is not a liberal/conservative issue.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Right. Semper, it was you who brought up the dem/repub thing, when you insulted Carter.



Sure, Sure

As usual,


more mindless administration

the 1980 election anyway. At least, like or dislike them Ford and Carter were two decent men, and you could live with either choice. Since then we have had a senile grade B actor and have been swapping back and forth between two families.


I vote because I feel that it is my obligation to do so as a citizen and a vocal one at that but every election cycle I find myself feeling ripped off and throughly disgusted by the so-called choices we are... offered. And this election cycle already started is no better.

I vote Democratic not because I necessarily like them anymore, jellyfish have more backbone, but because I find the the hard right wing extremists who have taken over the Republican party so odious.


As you can CLEARLY see, the issues were posted by GROVER WAY in advance of any political commentary I made

Does anyone ever actually READ the posts? Or just make comments supporting something they have not read?

Semper

[edit on 9/24/2007 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
That is my opinion that is true but still it in no way affects the nature of this discussion. I was BTW responding to you and what you had said previously so don't take it out of context. I have guests and I can't debate this any further for now out of politeness to them.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


The method you describe is absurd and not feasible, it would only increase the casualty count, prolong the engagement, strengthen the OPFOR, eat up more resources, and accomplish few objectives.

During the battle of Fallujah US Marines warned everyone in the city who should not be there to evacuate and gave them ample time to do so. So automatically the mindsets is that everyone left behind should be treated as a possible enemy combatant, especially males. Second, US Marines did employ house to house clearing tactics to ensure security and minimize collateral as well as civilian deaths. However if the Marines were receiving contact from a location, i.e. house it was automatically taken out without a search, it would be almost suicidal to enter that location. Same thing happened if Marines entered a house and came under immediate enemy fire, if deemed necessary it would be evacuated and the entire building would be destroyed. It may not sound appealing but there is no viable alternative unless you want unnecessary losses. In such a dynamic environment as urban combat you should not try and enter obvious enemy strongholds because there is a remote possible that "civilians" may be in there. At that point there is nothing we can do, the reality of war has to sort that out…

One more thing, sometimes enemy combatants would place themselves directly behind an entrance with automatic assault weapons and open up as soon as they heard anyone come near. Several US soldiers were killed this way trying to enter and clear a residence.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join