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

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   


Whatever the consequences and they will be huge, the consequences of not doing so will be enormous. 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.

Sorry, but those statements show how you don't know a thing about middle-east political field. First the Talibans and Iran hate each others, Iran nearly invaded Afghanistan in 1999. Second Al-Qaeda and Iran are ennemies, you know shiite and sunnis, plus the real Al-CIADA is in Iran right now doing real terrorism.... And if a nuke attack would happen anywhere it would be blamed on Iran, because they are the first suspect and the uranium used can be traced where it was enriched and then Iran would be nuked to oblivion. So please educate yourself.

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.




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Thankfully no one is asking you and no the notion of order instead of anarchy is not "sick". One more thing, the Nazi - US companion has been a dead horse issue for some time now, lets not try to win arguments by illogical emotional nonsense. Food for thought, there was a time not too long ago in the US where comments such as these would have gotten one arrested and tried, be grateful...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Attacking Iraq was the biggest mistake since Vietnam, but I also disagree.

Not attacking Iran is the biggest mistake which could be made.

Bush has destroyed the credibility of his office, just when it needs it.

Sorry to my friend dgtempe, but I don't advocate any kind of invasion or occupation. I do advocate taking out Iran's nuclear capability urgently.

Whatever the consequences and they will be huge, the consequences of not doing so will be enormous. 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.

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

[edit on 17-9-2007 by sy.gunson]




And the USA is a dangerous nation with nuclear capability

[edit on 17-9-2007 by patriot jim]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by patriot jim
 


Well I think the USA is a dangerous country, too

[edit on 17-9-2007 by patriot jim]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


IF there was no such thing as "Vote fraud" I would agree, but......Bush was NOT elected in either election, so saying it's the fault of the People of the US is a bit naive' to say the least. I'm sure with a little research you will come across the reported voter fraud in BOTH elections.

The POTUS swore an oath to defend the constitution of the US, then called it a G*ddamned piece of paper, that alone should have gotten him thrown out of office IMO.

I think it would be wise of the senior military staff to resign, one after another, until there is no one left to carryout the order to Nuke Iran, however I'm sure there is some low level weasel (like Bush was) that would give the order, but I'm very glad that some one had the intestinal fortitude to speak up.

The current events are already set in Motion, the out come is Obvious, WE ( the world) will pay the ultimate price, enjoy as much of life as you can now, it's not going to last much longer

[edit on 17-9-2007 by thedigirati]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The U.S needs to be held accountable,and this is what the rest of the world sees as well.Attacking Iran would be the worst possible scenerio and yet it's being pushed every single day.

There is no way around it now I feel,even though this guys move was honorable it just wont matter.Military men take orders,that's what they have been trained to do and it will be no different when they get the orders to attack Iran.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor


Agree, he should be arrested and tried for conspiracy to commit treason...
There are certain topics that NO ONE should mess around with, this is most definitely one of them. The military is obliged to follow the chain of command and proper authority. Individual assessment, personal feeling, interpretations and or opinions are ultimately not up for debate. This is the basis for one of the most stable and reliable civilian led militaries in the world. Everyone has opinions, just because yours differ from mines does not give you the right to call for treason…

"What luck for leaders that men do not think."

-Adolf Hitler

C'mon man, even the founding fathers gave us an amendment to bear arms and fight to overthrow the gov't if need be.

What part of enemies domestic didn't you get?

[edit on 17-9-2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


The Founding Fathers initially did not even consider the Bill of Rights as necessary so be grateful that changed. Furthermore there is no constitutional amendment or case law which denotes the right to conspire, rebel or otherwise overthrow the established government. If you want to change the political leadership you will have to work within the legal system.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Semperfortis' opinion is in the minority and he should realize it by now. The large majority of the American people are against this war and have started tuning out bush minor when he opens his mouth as so much inarticulate static.

As for calling for impeachment.... I think that there is plenty of evidence now that the war was sold on false premises and while it is open to debate as to whether bush minor and his administration deliberately lied their way into this war, or chose not to listen to contrary opinions is moot, the end result is the same... so they are either liars or incompetents or blinded by their own ideology. None of which bodes well for this country. If Clinton can be impeached for a BJ...
there ain't no comparison. Impeachment should be on the table... though if it is to be pursued then the VP and the whole administration should be put on the table, not just bush minor.

As for calling for the military to refuse to attack Iran, there is a long standing military tradition of of saying no... if the generals saying no feel that following orders would be detrimental to both the nation and the military. As it stands we are already stretched too thin and the troops too exhausted. Should we attack Iran, and they retaliate, it could be a major disaster for this country.

As for being a traitor... I have said it before and I will say it again... it is no sin Semper, no treason or dishonor to object to what your country is doing if you feel that it is wrong.

Blind obedience and blind allegiance is nothing to be proud of.

You may be gungho but you are not in harms way anymore either.

War, and all military actions are nothing more than a failure of diplomacy and reason... not noble... not heroic... not honorable.... bloodshed represents nothing less than failure.

And, given the fact that not only does Iran not have nuclear capacity, according to the IAEA, they are at minimum of 5 years or more away from that capacity, then what is the rush? Why attack now?

Doesn't prudence and reason say engage diplomatically and deal with the issue that way instead?

If a member of congress or a retired military officer is calling for impeachment, it is their right and there is nothing treasonous about it. They are stating their opinion. If they are urging the military to refuse a possibly disastrous order; it may be extreme but given the circumstance, of an overstretched and exhausted military and a leadership that does not listen... well then perhaps it is called for.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
That is a very bold, and politically correct statement. however refusing something in the military will probably get you shot. Especially during war time.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
George Mason refused to sign without a bill of rights and offered to write one then and there. he had written the Virginia bill of rights but wanted to add a few things like anti-slavery ect. obviously as some of you pointed out the others where nervous and didn't think the southern delegates would sign the constitution with the addition so they didn't want him to write one. the bill of rights they later added was actually mostly copied off his Virginia Bill of rights but without his desired additions. some think the desired additions by mason would have either made the cival war immediate or may have avoided it all together..things for us to ponder..


Most politicians didn't believe in a lot of the things about the constitution that we do even when it was fresh ink on the table.. many didn't care then and won't hesitate to squash our freedoms now and abuse power at their whim.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by DIRTMASTER]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Dude, you've gotta get past the traitor bit. Even the military is told that if an order is unlawful, they have the full right to not do it. That's the problem with a lot of people, they only see right in front of their face, and therefore become robots. Just following orders for the sake of following them instead of doing the right thing makes it an easily corruptible world.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
IMO, I don't consider the present Bush administration to be the ``elected government``. They have betrayed with high treason the american people at least 10 times, which orders you (if you have a conscience and support the constitution) to not support the current leadership and restaure a government that will support the american people.

Westpoint, for me you're in the same category as semper, a brainwashed follow orders person. I'm pretty sure you're in the military, so it's not really your fault to think like you are. Yes the US is in a war, but not a war for survival like WW2 was. Iran is not a threat, nor was Iraq nor was Afghanistan. There's no real threat, we're not in WW3 like Gingrich says everyday, muslims extremists won't take over, none of that bull is real.

I don't hate you, I just disagree with your views to support the Bush administration which is in my opinion a traitor to the constitution and everything mankind stand for.


PS. If you want a civil war, supporting Bush is exactly what could lead to it if he was to declare himself dictator to fight terrorism. In that case, would you still support him or would you call for his arrest?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
When you join the military, you must take an oath which says that you will defend your country and your constitution, NOT the president. You also take an oath to uphold the Constitution and if you are given orders to do something that is unconstitional or unlawful, you are DUTY-BOUND to disobey. And that's how the military puts it, that you are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and refuse orders that are against it or are illegal.

Iran has not attacked us. It would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, something that very much goes against the grain of most Americans and is decidedly an unAmerican idea. The top brass of the military would be simply doing what they are supposed to, which is to not carry out an illegal operation that would be an EXTREMELY harmful thing to America.

After the war crimes of WWII, it was determined that a soldier cannot use the excuse, "I was ordered to." That is one thing that has not changed.

None of the top guys have upheld the Constitution, not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice. It is our DUTY to overthrow the govt when the govt isn't abiding by the Constitution - impeachment is the legal means by which we should accomplish this.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Back during the Reagan administration, Robert Bowman waged a nearly single-handed campaign against SDI, arguing that such space-based weapons were not defensive, but rather offensive weapons that could blind the enemy's early warning satellites, thereby increasing the likelihood of an accidental OR intentional nuclear war.

I have a lot of respect for that guy.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If Clinton can be impeached for a BJ...
there ain't no comparison. Impeachment should be on the table... though if it is to be pursued then the VP and the whole administration should be put on the table, not just bush minor.


This is just an all too often rehashed ignorance of actual events.

Clinton was not impeached for sexual issues. He was (rightfully) impeached for LYING under oath (and I guess for not knowing what the definition of "is" is).


[edit on 9/17/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I guess if he is a traitor so is our present president and his vice president for deceptions and lies to the American people to pursue personal and corporate agendas while sacrificing American citizens serving in our military and the millions of death and exile Iraqis for invading their nation.

Yes I am against what the present administration is doing and they deserve to be impeached and put in jail, so I guess I am a traitor also in your views?

Mr. Bowman its facing the dangers of been tagged a terrorist helping and giving comfort to the enemy and the destabilization of Iraq, something along the lines on one of Bushes last executives orders.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
When you join the military, you must take an oath which says that you will defend your country and your constitution, NOT the president. You also take an oath to uphold the Constitution and if you are given orders to do something that is unconstitional or unlawful, you are DUTY-BOUND to disobey. And that's how the military puts it, that you are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and refuse orders that are against it or are illegal.

Iran has not attacked us. It would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, something that very much goes against the grain of most Americans and is decidedly an unAmerican idea. The top brass of the military would be simply doing what they are supposed to, which is to not carry out an illegal operation that would be an EXTREMELY harmful thing to America.

After the war crimes of WWII, it was determined that a soldier cannot use the excuse, "I was ordered to." That is one thing that has not changed.

None of the top guys have upheld the Constitution, not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice. It is our DUTY to overthrow the govt when the govt isn't abiding by the Constitution - impeachment is the legal means by which we should accomplish this.


Yes, well put. It would be MORE traitorsome to obey the orders than not. The only problem is people are too stupid to see this. All they see is if they disobey an order, they're treasonous.

Just like I said before:

"What luck for leaders that men do not think."

was quoted by Mr. Adolf Hitler.

He used many people that see the stupid way to help gain his dictatorship (along with other tactics of course).



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
When you join the military, you must take an oath which says that you will defend your country and your constitution, NOT the president. You also take an oath to uphold the Constitution and if you are given orders to do something that is unconstitional or unlawful, you are DUTY-BOUND to disobey. And that's how the military puts it, that you are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and refuse orders that are against it or are illegal.

Iran has not attacked us. It would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, something that very much goes against the grain of most Americans and is decidedly an unAmerican idea. The top brass of the military would be simply doing what they are supposed to, which is to not carry out an illegal operation that would be an EXTREMELY harmful thing to America.

After the war crimes of WWII, it was determined that a soldier cannot use the excuse, "I was ordered to." That is one thing that has not changed.

None of the top guys have upheld the Constitution, not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice. It is our DUTY to overthrow the govt when the govt isn't abiding by the Constitution - impeachment is the legal means by which we should accomplish this.


Did you ever read the now retiring Gonzales mention his oath" to the president" to the judiciary committee? and that he" takes it very seriously"

having taken the oath to defend the constitution myself.. those statements made me want to kick his a%! apparently all of bush's cronies took it.. no corruption there..{sarcasm}



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Can you define is without looking it up?


I know the excuse given was that he lied under oath, but that is all that it is. It was nothing more and nothing less than a political move to remove a president that Newt the Gingrich and Tom Delay did not like. Perhaps somebody actually cared that he lied (If you were married to Hillary... wouldn't you?
) but not the people who pushed it. It was a political act period. In short it was an attempted coup to remove a sitting president.

Clinton's "crime" simply does not compare to bush minor's wars of aggression.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join