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

page: 18
24
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
There is a distinction that many of you aren't seeing. Legally speaking, there is a difference between taking down an objective on a raid/ambush, where innocents are injured/killed, and the killing of innocents(or even guilty parties) after the objective has been cleared, and threats neutralized. As an example, say one is setting up an ambush along a road/trail. You'll set in left and right security, a support by fire position with your crew served weapon, and the assault team. Once the enemy element enters the kill zone, you'll initiate the ambush with the most casualty producing weapon(generally Claymore mines, or the crew served weapon, depending on the situation). The support position and assault position will lay down a heavy volume of fire till the enemy force is suppressed/eliminated. The assault team will then bound to the near side of the kill zone, get on line, and sweep the kill zone shooting any enemy they see. They will continue across to the far side of the kill zone to the LOA(limit of advance), and set up far side security. The EPW and Aid/Litter teams will then sweep the kill zone from one end to the other to render assistance if any enemy are still alive. Once the assault team has crossed the kill zone, it is then unlawful to turn around and shoot a wounded enemy soldier(unless they are still a threat) merely to avoid having to deal with prisoners. The Aid and Litter team is required to render medical attention to any living enemy at this point. Now, this analogy holds true when raiding a house/building too. Upon the initial assault, all occupants are considered hostile, until proven otherwise. Once a room is cleared, it is then unlawful to kill any enemy that isn't an immediate threat. It is not illegal however to shoot anything moving when initially entering. Of course if you see that there are no enemy forces, common sense would normally dictate calling a cease fire. The SOP for taking down a room normally would include throwing grenades in before the entry team procedes, to inflict maximum casualties, ensure the element of surprise, and create confusion amongst survivors, giving the entry team the advantage.




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Please come on guys, you cannot possibly be serious about invading Iran.

Have you even read the full interview with President Ahmadinejad?

Full transcript here

Why is it so hard to get the message through? Is it about brainwashed americans?


...or something far worse?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Please come on guys, you cannot possibly be serious about invading Iran.

Have you even read the full interview with President Ahmadinejad?

Full transcript here

Why is it so hard to get the message through? Is it about brainwashed americans?


...or something far worse?


Can you link any references where an invasion of Iran has been discussed? If anything you might hear of contingency plans for airstrikes/cruise missiles, against the facilities in question.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by Bunch

I trust that the American people would be smart enough to put leaders in position of power that would make the right choices, when the choice is made and is for me to put my gear on that's all I think.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]


And like when has that happened in recent memory? We have been stuck with the evil of two lessors for as long as I can remember... 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 AM FRICKING SICK AND TIRED OF BUSHES AND CLINTON'S!!!! GIVE ME A REAL CHOICE DAMNIT!!!!

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.

In short I find myself not voting for a candidate as opposed to voting against one. And, it really pisses me off.

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.

For most of the candidates all I can say is out of 100 million sperm per shot... this was the best you could do? OI VIE!!!


This is exactly what I said Semper and while you may not like what I said about Reagan the fact remains that the man had altzhimers and in most likelihood, given the nature of the disease, was in the early stages in 81 or 82.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
hey...what about... the US actually DECLARES war Iran FOLLOWING the constitution rules then no one can complain about it period. However, if your waging illegal wars with an army that serves to fight declared ones, well thats where the problems start.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can you link any references where an invasion of Iran has been discussed? If anything you might hear of contingency plans for airstrikes/cruise missiles, against the facilities in question.


You´re right. Please change the words "invading Iran" to "attacking Iran" in my previous statement.

Please do not attack Iran, it would be a mistake. Even if Iran creates nukes in the future, unless a different president with entirely different characteristics than current President Ahmadinejad will rule Iran, no nuclear first strike will originate from Iran.

Let Iran mature, evolve their technology and prosper. Isnñt that the right of any country?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by wytworm
 


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


Thanks for pointing that out. I am satisfied that iyou understand my point and will move on.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:18 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


Your constant pejorative use of the word liberal to paint everyone who disagrees with you is incredibly simplistic, and really makes your views seem shallow. A short look at history would show you that Bush is a screaming liberal compared to even JFK. And don't look now, but it's BushCo that's currently doing it's best to micromanage individual's lives.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
A short look at history would show you that Bush is a screaming liberal compared to even JFK.


Thats a depressing thought... its enough to make me wanna get drunk but its only 8am DAMN IT!!!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
At least, like or dislike them Ford and Carter were two decent men, and you could live with either choice... ...Since then we have been swapping back and forth between two families.

I AM FRICKING SICK AND TIRED OF BUSHES AND CLINTON'S!!!! GIVE ME A REAL CHOICE DAMNIT!!!!



Doesn't anybody else understand that the concentration of political power into the hands of a couple of political families bodes extremely ill for this country?

If Hillary wins.... whats next? A run by Jeb Bush.... and after that... Chelsie?

Mark my word, and I am saying this as a citizen, not as a liberal or a Democrat... this bouncing back and forth between these 2 families is a disaster for this country.


[edit on 25-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can you link any references where an invasion of Iran has been discussed? If anything you might hear of contingency plans for airstrikes/cruise missiles, against the facilities in question.


You´re right. Please change the words "invading Iran" to "attacking Iran" in my previous statement.

Please do not attack Iran, it would be a mistake. Even if Iran creates nukes in the future, unless a different president with entirely different characteristics than current President Ahmadinejad will rule Iran, no nuclear first strike will originate from Iran.

Let Iran mature, evolve their technology and prosper. Isnñt that the right of any country?


The problem is that Iran has a history of state sponsored terrorism, and have made threats against the US and Israel. The stakes are unacceptable to allow a country with their track record to acquire the means of killing hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans/Israelis.
It's too late when you have a glowing pile of rubble where a city used to be, before you act. If they could play nicely in the world arena, and act responsibly, they wouldn't have to be treated like children.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


That was the exact same line that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the bushies were wrong then.... so we are to believe them now?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


That was the exact same line that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the bushies were wrong then.... so we are to believe them now?


The fact that Iraq had WMDs isn't in question. What they did with them is a good question though. Every Intel agency in the world, Republicans, Democrats, etc... believed the same thing. The WMDs are somewhere, just perhaps not in Iraq any longer.

Iran's nuclear program is pretty well documented, so it's not just a guess that it exists. Whether you want to believe them when they say that it's only for peaceful purposes is up to you. I don't trust them, so I'm leaning towards the "they're full of @#$@," line of thinking.

Do you accept the possibility that the Intel agencies having learned some lessons over the last few years, and Bush, could be right( or is that an absolute impossibility?) It's dangerous to let your dislike of Bush cloud every bit of information you hear about.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


That was the exact same line that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the bushies were wrong then.... so we are to believe them now?


The fact that Iraq had WMDs isn't in question. What they did with them is a good question though. Every Intel agency in the world, Republicans, Democrats, etc... believed the same thing.


Thats because none of the intelligence agencies listened to the inspectors who repeatedly stated that Iraq had been essentially prior to their leaving at Clinton's suggestion prior to his bombing in 98.

The bush administration has lied so consistently over the past 7 years its all but pathological in nature so no I do not believe a word they say.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
im not in the military any more but i was. i think it would take a lot more than attacking iran to get the military to rebel. anything short of bush asking them to attack their own people. i dont think it is gonna happen. you swear an oath to the prez as well as the country. by ucmj you must obey all legal orders of those above you and right now bush is the a #1 of all branches of the military..



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 

If we are to go around the world attacking every country that has nuclear capability we'll have to attack a lot more than Iran. This Iraq business is the first time America has engaged in a preemptive war. It's disgraceful and has caused the rest of the world to hate us. Yes, Bush and Cheney should be impeached on Constitutional grounds. They are traitors. But impeachment does nothing if it is not followed by a removal from office and a trial. They must be punished according to whatever the Constitution prescribes for traitors. It it's life imprisonment, so be it. They are criminals and they must be dealt with as such. In reference to Iran's nuclear capacity, they don't have the capacity to engage in an attack on the US. They do need nuclear power because they don't have the resources left for any other kind of power. We must all ask ourselves one important question. Which nation on this earth has actually dropped a nuclear bomb on another nation, not once but twice, within days of each other? That would be the US on a completely, hopelessly defeated and starving nation, Japan, who had already unconditionally surrendered, but their surrender was ignored because the plans were already underway to drop those bombs. If nuclear capability is a criteria for bombing a sovereign nation into oblivion, we'd better all start building bomb shelters in our back yards. There are other nations who have nuclear capability who have never threatened us. We leave them alone, they leave us alone. This president is a loser who never accomplished anything in his life accept some inside trading and made a heap of money doing it. It was illegal, by the way. He was an abysmal failure in business, a drunk, and a drug addict. He would have gone to prison for coc aine use but his daddy got to a judge and got him off. He avoided going to Nam by getting into the National Guard and then was derelict in his duty at that. He repeatedly refused to take drug tests for obvious reasons, and just plain didn't show up for duty. If any of the rest of us did that we'd be in prison. And NOW he's the president of the US, and is just as incompetent at that job as he was at everything else he ever did. We have a lot more to worry about than Iran's nuclear power plants. The last two elections were completely rigged. The year 2000 was not an election; it was a coup d'etat. There have been plans in place to rig the next presidential election ever since the last one. (That is if we have another election) This maniac is liable at any time to declare himself the dictator of America, and declare marital law. He has already publicly stated that there is nothing wrong with a dictatorship as long as he gets to be the dictator. Besides that, we were already bombing Iraq for years before officially starting this absurd war, so what makes you think we're not already bombing Iran?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
[url=http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ShahNuclearPlants.jpg]Click Link



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Neopheus
 



Wow, that is some find.


Does anyone know what became of the Sjah´s Nuclear Plant building plans? Did he get booted out before they were realised?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stupiejan
 


Disagreements in policy doesn't = traitor.

Here are some definitions of treason/traitors

-Offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war. In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly — as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies — in order to lessen the possibility that those in power might falsely or loosely charge their political opponents with treason.

-A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

-One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country;
one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust,
delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or
place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or
body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also,
one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or
one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

Now I ask you to show me some hard evidence that Bush/Cheney have done any of these things. On the flip side of that, those that offer aid and comfort to the enemies of their country, or attempt to overthrow their government are by definition traitors.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join