It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

Killing millions for oil might be legal,


Disagreeing with the conflict or originally the war is everyones right and supported by everyone I know. Feeling the need to make up things to support this, is foolhardy and detrimental to a good discussion

Just my thoughts

Semper


that's not what you said earlier. earlier you said that people who didn't agree with the war were traitors, pure and simple (your words)


Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   




You've got to be kidding me. If there was proof, do you really think much of this stuff would be going on? Would people sign up for the military to risk their lives and die over some oil? Just because something can't be proven does NOT mean that it doesn't exist, and when you have people like Greenspan coming out and saying it, that certainly might be an indicator. I'm so tired of people relying on two words to squeeze them by any argument, "prove it". There is a TON of stuff that is not law that is still taught in schools.

I'll tell you what, you prove it WASN'T about oil or other darker motives (NWO, decrease in population, world dominance), then I'll support your war for "freedom", which of course is what we're all told, even though they walk over the Constitution like it was...

"...just a Goddamn piece of paper."

-George W. Bush



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81

Exactly what I would do too. And what else is, I would do it before the next Presidential election so that I could remain President, or I could keep the same puppet as the President.



actually good point. something has to happen before the next election in order to justify Bush's imposition of martial law. cause when you impose martial law, then the president doesn't have to step down at the end of term right. If something bad happens, Bush can stay on indefinitely.

I guess this would be the test. For all of you who think the war is all stars and stripes, will your thinking change if something happens and Bush, as predicted, declares martial law and hangs onto power.

Course, doesn't have to be bush. could be someone else. everybody knows all these president people are chosen from the same secret society right. They are all "bones men" or something like that? Wonder if that is significant in any way.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
"In October, 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate vote on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack U.S. eastern seaboard cities. Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations Security Council that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the U.S." (from Wikipedia article on the Iraq war)

All this was proved to be false. Reading it now amazes me that people were buffaloed into believing it. Considering we had stomped the Iraqi military into the ground in 91 and imposed crippling sanctions to its economy and had inspectors poking around everywhere until they were advised to leave by the Clinton administration.

BTW they authorized the use of force if deemed necessary... they did not authorize war... for that the president would have to had to appear before congress and declare war, which bush minor did not.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81

Originally posted by semperfortis

Killing millions for oil might be legal,



I would still like to see the PROOF of this allegation...

Is it the 80 dollar a barrel we are paying? nope that makes no sense

Is it the free oil we are getting from Iraq? nope, there is none

There is no proof

It is simply a liberal by-line without a shred of proof that is used to inflame others about the war and the current conflict.

This comment is exactly like the comment "Illegal War"

The "War" was voted on and approved by Congress, who had the same information as the President; therefor legal.

You may not like the war and that is fine, that does not however make it illegal

Some of you should take note of the limited number of people that come on threads like this anymore...

It's partly due to us having to repeat the some old clarifications when a poster continues to quote a mantra that is patently false

Disagreeing with the conflict or originally the war is everyones right and supported by everyone I know. Feeling the need to make up things to support this, is foolhardy and detrimental to a good discussion

Just my thoughts

Semper


You've got to be kidding me. If there was proof, do you really think much of this stuff would be going on? Would people sign up for the military to risk their lives and die over some oil? Just because something can't be proven does NOT mean that it doesn't exist, and when you have people like Greenspan coming out and saying it, that certainly might be an indicator. I'm so tired of people relying on two words to squeeze them by any argument, "prove it". There is a TON of stuff that is not law that is still taught in schools.

I'll tell you what, you prove it WASN'T about oil or other darker motives (NWO, decrease in population, world dominance), then I'll support your war for "freedom", which of course is what we're all told, even though they walk over the Constitution like it was...

"...just a Goddamn piece of paper."

-George W. Bush



Agreed! congress signed the war on terror before countries were specified.. many congressman complain openly about knowing what the plan is.. for the pres to refuse to tell congress to me is impeachable.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jimjamjerry
 




Course, doesn't have to be bush. could be someone else. everybody knows all these president people are chosen from the same secret society right. They are all "bones men" or something like that? Wonder if that is significant in any way.


True. The Presidential election could very well be rigged. It is much more reasonable to think that with electronic voting. Here is a video I find interesting regarding the subject.

www.youtube.com...

I guess whoever's really in control here could definitely make whomever they wanted to be the leader of the free world.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper



Sure, technically. Your country was founded on such actions. See the irony?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I have to agree, this war in Iraq was not for oil but for the price of oil funny how oil companies have made such record profits in the last 6 years.

I am proud to say that I am a Marine as well but more in the vein of Smedley Butler, a TRUE Marine, not at all like the "new wave" Marines they have currently.

bb code edit

[edit on 17-9-2007 by thedigirati]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DIRTMASTER
 


Yes, they did the same thing with the Patriot Act. Not to start on a new subject, and to strengthen your point, the majority of Congress also admits to never reading the Act before they signed it.

Isn't it great that we have people signing things into law or letting people go to war and die without knowing all the facts?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


Ahh Smedley Butler now there was a man with backbone. Lest we forget that Prescott Bush, junior's grandfather was a known and admitted fascist (NAZI) sympathizer; and he along with a few other financiers associated with Standard Oil and DuPont plotted a coup against FDR and chose Butler to pull it off. Instead he exposed their plans to Congress. Who acknowledged the plot but did not proscute.

We need far more like him today.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


Sorry. It was your link but the quote is too good to leave posted only by a link. Again we need far more like him today.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Wait! You mean that this man did something which others would consider treasonous because he knew it was the right thing to do?!? And if he hadn't, the world would be quite a different place than it is?!?

My God, what will people who call Bowman treasonous think?!?

Sarcasm aside, great post.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Boy did her Ever, just look at the Ruckus he raised, but then as now,

The government's inaction was also swift and decisive.
the full story is here. True patriotism is not taught, but learned.......

the parallels to then and now are scary



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


Yes, a great man who did what was right. Another sentence worth mentioning was "According to MacGuire, the League's members could easily manipulate the media to provide public approval." Hmmm, does sound a little familiar...

If someone stood up and did what he believed to be the right thing now, how would history look at him down the road?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I'm confused about the article saying use of "nuclear" weapons against Iran?

Why would the US use nuclear weapons in Iran?

I can't see any scenario where Iran would "launch" a warhead, anywhere. It would be a convoluted secret handoff to a terrorist headed for Israel or NY.

We probably wouldn't know for sure where it originated, so where would we send our nukes?

The title of the article doesn't make sense.

Doesn't the article read kind of strange?

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Electro38]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper


/me pulls semper's head out of something

"Arrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh" cries semper.........."I dont like reality!!!!"

/me shoves it back in.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


I bet you that I can find anything in the internet that would either validate something that I would say or prove wrong any other point of view.

Does that mean that I have to take it as gospel? No.

I'm done arguing with conspiracy people, they would try to pass anything as fact and if you don't accept it, then you are ignorant. Some people need to get away from the computer and enjoy reality every now and then.

On topic, many people here complain about the losing of freedom but at the same time they will welcome the military staging a coup?!?!

Are you willing to trust any General over any other public elected figure? Talking about giving your rights and freedoms away!

What makes you think that a group of generals won't declare martial law, abolish the constitution and replace it with something to their liking?



[edit on 17-9-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 




I'm done arguing with conspiracy people, they would try to pass anything as fact and if you don't accept it, then you are ignorant


And what do you believe, and WHY? Apparently everything the media has said? Terrorists acting under Bin Laden flew planes into the WTC toppling 3 buildings, and now we're fighting for our freedom and against terrorism?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by thedigirati
 

I'm done arguing with conspiracy people, they would try to pass anything as fact and if you don't accept it, then you are ignorant.


The same can be said for non conspiracy people, unfortunately we get labelled as 'Tin Foil Heads' as we are not as easily influenced by the normal day today propaganda that others are, so we are deemed the fruit loops (PS when I say we, I mean me.....and me
)



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
And what do you believe, and WHY? Apparently everything the media has said? Terrorists acting under Bin Laden flew planes into the WTC toppling 3 buildings, and now we're fighting for our freedom and against terrorism?


Yes, exactly.

What if your belief in a "conspiracy theory" is the actual conspiracy? Maybe you were sold a bill of goods.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join