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

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Can you define what is is?



Originally posted by grover

is |iz|
third person singular present of be .
be |bē|
verb ( sing. present am |am|; are |är|; is |iz|; pl. present are; 1st and 3rd sing. past was |wəz; wäz|; 2nd sing. past and pl. past were |wər|; present subjunctive be ; past subjunctive were; present participle being |ˈbēi ng |; past part. been |bin|)
1 (usu. there is/are) exist : there are no easy answers | there once was a man | there must be something wrong | I think, therefore I am.
• be present : there is a boy sitting on the step | there were no curtains around the showers | Are there any castles in this area?
2 [with adverbial ] occur; take place : the exhibition will be in November | the opening event is on October 16 | that was before the war.
• occupy a position in space : the Salvation Army store was on his left | she was not at the _
• stay in the same place or condition : she was here until about ten-thirty | he's a tough customer— let him be.
• attend : the days when she was in school.
• come; go; visit : he's from Missouri | I have just been to Thailand | the doctor's been here twice today.
3 [as copular verb ] having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified : Amy was 91 | the floor was uneven | I want to be a teacher | father was not well | his hair's brown | it will be Christmas soon | “Be careful,” Mr. Carter said.
• cost : the tickets were $25.
• amount to : one and one is two | two sixes are twelve.
• represent : let A be a square matrix of order n.
• signify : we were everything to each other.
• consist of; constitute : the monastery was several three-story buildings.
auxiliary verb
1 used with a present participle to form continuous tenses : they are coming | he had been reading | she will be waiting.
2 used with a past participle to form the passive mood : it was done | it is said | his book will be published.
3 [with infinitive ] used to indicate something due to happen : construction is to begin next summer | I was to meet him at 6:30.
• used to express obligation or necessity : you are to follow these orders | they said I was to remain on board.
• used to express possibility : these snakes are to be found in North America | she was nowhere to be seen.
• used to hypothesize about something that might happen : if I were to lose | if I was to tell you, you'd think I was crazy | were she to cure me, what could I offer her?
4 archaic used with the past participle of intransitive verbs to form perfect tenses : I am returned | all humanity is fallen.
PHRASES
as/that was archaic as someone or something was previously called : General Dunstaple had married Miss Hughes that was.
the be-all and end-all informal a feature of an activity or a way of life that is of greater importance than any other.
be oneself act naturally, according to one's character and instincts.
be that as it may see may 1 .
be there for someone be available to support or comfort someone while they are experiencing difficulties or adversities.
been there, done that see there .
not be oneself not feel well.
-to-be [in combination ] of the future : my bride-to-be.
PHRASAL VERBS
be about see about .
be off go away; leave : he was anxious to be off.
ORIGIN Old English bēon), an irregular and defective verb, whose full conjugation derives from several originally distinct verbs. The forms am and is are from an Indo-European root shared by Latin sum and est. The forms was and were are from an Indo-European root meaning ‘remain.’ The forms be and been are from an Indo-European root shared by Latin fui ‘I was,’ fio ‘I become’ and Greek phuein ‘bring forth, cause to grow.’ The origin of are is uncertain.
USAGE For a discussion of whether it is correct to say that must be he at the door and | it is I rather than | that must be him at the door and | it is me , see usage at personal pronoun .




[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 



Unproven conspiracies aside, the fact is most of you guys need to accept that the voters elected this guy.

Everyone need to be held accountable, the President, the military, but not the people that put them in office? What a joke, all I make is that most of the people that post here are really the in the electoral minority and are just whining cause their guy is not in power.

Try harder next time.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Here is how I unfortunately think it will go down. Syria going to lob a few new toys from Iran in retalliation for breaking some of their N. Korean toys. Israel toasts Syria, Iran launches Shebaz's on Israel and US forces in Iraq. Our carriers begin assault from sea and air. China and Russia bomb a few nice towns and cities here in US and armeggedon will commence. the prophesies will be complete. And we can roast wenies without the grill to the beautiful nuclear glowing skies. I sure hope I'm wrong. I just don't believe the US can do this pre emptively though. It would have to be provoked. I'm sure a missing nuke on a carrier would do the trick though. We're not in Kansas anymore boys and girls.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


There goes this thread as well..

Oh well

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER

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}


Well then Dirtmaster, I would sincerely love to hear your thoughts on posts like those from Westpoint since you have personally been through these oaths. (no sarcasm, kind of sounds like it though, sorry)

[edit on 17-9-2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Sorry, way off topic sorry. Sorry. Mod feel free to toast my post. Sorry again.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Sorry

Edited due to a complete waste of time

Semper

[edit on 9/17/2007 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper


Wha!?!

Is it traitorsome to do what you think is the best thing for the country? I see your picture that says "fighting for your freedoms", how can you be doing that if they're continually taking them away? And we're only to see more freedom lost if we attack Iran.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


And what is that supposed to mean?

I have made some very valid points whether or not you like them or not.

That is so very rude.

Have I ever said Oh Semper has made a post I might as well not respond?

No I have not.

I read your posts respectfully even though I disagree

AS IS MY RIGHT AS A UPSTANDING CITIZEN.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

they're continually taking them away? And we're only to see more freedom lost if we attack Iran.


What freedoms have you lost my friend?

I have not personally lost any

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

they're continually taking them away? And we're only to see more freedom lost if we attack Iran.


What freedoms have you lost my friend?

I have not personally lost any

Semper


Every time they make a law or an act that is against our Constitution, that is a loss of freedom.

Here, check this out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And:

www.nyclu.org...

How far does it have to go before someone like you decides to stand up?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Because he does not support what "may" come from the president.

What about freedom of speech.

What about just saying, if this or that happens, this and that should happen.
It was an opinion.
He is welcome to his opinion in MY America with a Constitution still in effect.

Now, I am not, nor never was in the military.
That said, however, I "thought" there was some uniform code of justice saying something like, if an illegal or unreasonable order is give, it need not be followed.(I am not stupid, I full well know that if others don’t agree, it is disobeying a direct order and this “could” lead to punishment or removal from military)

Now saying what the military should do and making it happen are two different things-I believe.

Impeachment is a legal hearing-no treason there
Doing or not doing something to stop global nuclear war….I honestly don’t know the “legality” in the military, But I clearly see potential morality.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I have stood up my friend...
Countless times


I was not intending on raising your ire, I was being completely truthful in my statement that I have lost no freedoms...

Perhaps you have, if so, I am sorry

I just have not

Just an observation

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
There are those on here who unfortunately seem to believe that if you oppose the policies of this administration that somehow you are less than a patriotic American and your comments are to be discounted because of it.

It is their right to believe that if they want to; and I am not about to say that they do not have the right to their opinion, but in doing so they not only discount the opinions of their fellow citizens, which is wrong.

They in essence prevent any meaningful dialog or exchange of ideas in doing so. In essence they say that our opinions can and should be discounted because we disagree with this administration.

If everyone agreed and backed all the same policies of whatever administration was in power, Republican or Democrat, this would not be a democracy.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:50 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.


wow. that sucks

who is at the top of the chain of command?



[edit on 17-9-2007 by jimjamjerry]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

if an illegal or unreasonable order is give, it need not be followed


The facts are this

An order can be disobeyed if it is

1. Illegal
2. Immoral
3. Unethical

HOWEVER

That can not be in the persons OPINION, or MINDSET, it is incumbent on the person disobeying the order to PROVE, FACTUALLY before a TRIBUNAL of MILITARY officers and enlisted men, that the order in facts fits one of those criteria..

We can all have our opinions, and feel strongly about them. Perhaps so strongly as we begin to believe them to be facts....

Frequently however, they are just opinions

No one can state FACTUALLY that attacking Iran, Somalia or Diego Garcia willl produce anything. Not factually. This is because it has not been done and there is no factual precedent to draw upon.

That is why in the Military, we follow orders

Those that give those orders are in positions, with the full use of War Colleges and experienced advisers, to make those decisions that ground troops should never make..

Simple system

Has worked for over 200 years

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I have stood up my friend...
Countless times


I was not intending on raising your ire, I was being completely truthful in my statement that I have lost no freedoms...

Perhaps you have, if so, I am sorry

I just have not

Just an observation

Semper



Fair enough, but if you are in the military, then you do have an obligation to protect the American public and our freedoms. Even though your life is the same, many others are not.

And when I asked that question, I was referring to how far does OUR gov't have to go for you to do the same as Bowman?

Thanks for the reply though.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

if an illegal or unreasonable order is give, it need not be followed


The facts are this

An order can be disobeyed if it is

1. Illegal
2. Immoral
3. Unethical

HOWEVER


No one can state FACTUALLY that attacking Iran, Somalia or Diego Garcia willl produce anything. Not factually. This is because it has not been done and there is no factual precedent to draw upon.

Semper


ya but couldn't attacking Iran be considered immoral and unethical, especially if the real reason for attacking is, as that greenspan guy just said, oil



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
While it is very easy to condemn various acts in the military as either being traitorous or otherwise, please remember this:

The Military in the US is not governed by the Constitution. What I mean by this is that there is no Freedom of Speech and other basic rights once you join the armed forces.

Thus - you MUST follow your orders. Period.

It doesn't make it right when bad orders are given, but it is necessary...why?

Becuase when you have 130,000 troops in the middle of a desert and they are all constantly fighting under life and death situations, you can not afford to have 130000 people doing what they think is right.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin

Thus - you MUST follow your orders. Period.

It doesn't make it right when bad orders are given, but it is necessary...why?

Becuase when you have 130,000 troops in the middle of a desert and they are all constantly fighting under life and death situations, you can not afford to have 130000 people doing what they think is right.



hmm, a system that prevents the individual from doing what they believe to be right.

that's kinda scary, don't ya think?





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join