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

reply to post by TheAvenger


Bush will never be impeached because the Democrats are being fed by the same animals as the Republicans. it is not a stretch to conclude that the whole system is in serious peril. I keep hoping that the someone will step up and say that they have had enough and force out the whole bunch of them. Bowman seems to be a decent point man.

Many are arguing that a soldier must obey orders no matter what. What if your commander ordered you to shoot some innocent girl walking down the street, because he says that one day she will give birth to a potential terrorists. Would you do it?

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

Bush will never be impeached because the Democrats are being fed by the same animals as the Republicans. it is not a stretch to conclude that the whole system is in serious peril. I keep hoping that the someone will step up and say that they have had enough and force out the whole bunch of them. Bowman seems to be a decent point man.

Many are arguing that a soldier must obey orders no matter what. What if your commander ordered you to shoot some innocent girl walking down the street, because he says that one day she will give birth to a potential terrorists. Would you do it?

No.. it would make 10 more terrorists right then and there.

Originally posted by grover
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.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with them though. Perhaps it is time to remind the masses exactly what he had to say on the subject.


Quote from Teddy Roosevelt

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Edit to say you'll need to scroll down a bit.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by ShadowEyes]

G-d help us all if people like Bowman have their way, and Iran is allowed to get nuclear weapons. All of you people criticize the President for his religious beliefs, yet you have no problem allowing an Islamofascist dictatorship that is the world's #1 state sponsor of terror get its hands on nuclear weapons? These guys are hell-beant on the destruction of not only the US and Israel, but of the West in general.

If you think a US-invasion or airstrike is going to end terribly for us, then let me tell you something... sitting idly by and allowing these radical murderers to get their hands on nukes will be the end of the world as we know it.

And anyone in the military who ignores a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief should be tried and hung as traitors. Do you people even realize the implications of the military going against the President on something like this? We're talking about a military coup. That's what it will lead to. This country and this democracy will collapse the day that the military brass ignore the orders of our President. Do all of you hippies really want the military running this nation? I don't think so...

Those of you who are supporting this guy are playing right into the hands of our enemy. You've allowed the initial failure of securing Iraq to scare you guys away from confronting EVIL in this world. And that, my friends, is what will lead to our downfall.

Originally posted by Rasputin13


Those of you who are supporting this guy are playing right into the hands of our enemy. You've allowed the initial failure of securing Iraq to scare you guys away from confronting EVIL in this world. And that, my friends, is what will lead to our downfall.

I believe you are VERY wrong! Attacking Iran might be the beginning of the end for your country, it will be the biggest mistake in the history of your country, it will put you, your family and your country at very high risk, attacking Iran will make the world angry, it will basically mess up the whole world, attacking Iran will basically give excuses to everyone who hates The USA, it will make them seem like the good guys, they will gain many followers because the will have reason to attack you.

Attacking Iran is the stupidest thing America can do, only a stupid person would do that, your basically BEGGING to get your country messed up.

What The USA could do, is befriend Iran, give advice to them, not get aggressive with them, because if you attack Iran, most people in the world will see America as the bad guys, the evil country who invades countries, and kills women and children, ruins peoples lives, bombs peoples homes, it will put fear to all the countries and will create mayhem.

Say NO to war on Iran!

IF the USA wants the world to get f--ked up, if they want their country to get attacked, then go ahead attack Iran.



[edit on 18-9-2007 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

I believe you are VERY wrong! Attacking Iran will be the beginning of the end for your country, it will be the biggest mistake in the history of your country, it will put you, your family and your country at very high risk, attacking Iran will make the world angry, it will basically mess up the whole world, attacking Iran will basically give excuses to everyone who hates The USA, it will make them seem like the good guys, they will gain many followers because the will have reason to attack you.
............

Even the PM of France is saying if diplomacy doesn't work, and he even states it doesn't seem to be working, that there are grounds for going to war with Iran....and this is not the first time the French authorities have been pushing for tougher actions against Iran, including war.....

But as always some people will point fingers at the U.S., because it fits their propaganda and goals...

Originally posted by Yadhel
..

But as always some people will point fingers at the U.S., because it fits their propaganda and goals...

Yeah thats what I mean, there are so many people out there that would be happy to mess up The USA if they attacked, they are hated for this exact reason.

But maybe if another country attacked Iran instead it might not be so dramatic?

Anyway what I'm saying is, if The USA attacks Iran, it will be adding fuel to the fire, it will give people, countries a good reason to go against the USA, if the USA don't attack Iran, people wont have as much reason or an excuse to attack them, the world would be more calm, and the fire will slowly burn out.



[edit on 18-9-2007 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by Rasputin13 Islamofascist dictatorship that is the world's #1 state sponsor of terror

Who's killed more people over the past 5 years, Iran or the USA? I'd say the U.S is a bigger sponsor of state terror because it pays for the U.S military.

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
.............
Many are arguing that a soldier must obey orders no matter what. What if your commander ordered you to shoot some innocent girl walking down the street, because he says that one day she will give birth to a potential terrorists. Would you do it?

That's a totally different issue... This man is calling for a rebellion, all members of the Armed Forces when taking the oath swear an oath of loyalty to the U.S. and to follow the orders of the POTUS, which is their Commander in Chief.

The Commander in Chief is not asking anyone to go kill innocent people, and nowhere have I seen any evidence that would corroborate all the BS being said about a "nuclear strike against Iran by the U.S.".... This is nothing more than political propaganda from someone who wants to be president of the United States.

Originally posted by RedDragon
Who's killed more people over the past 5 years, Iran or the USA? I'd say the U.S is a bigger sponsor of state terror because it pays for the U.S military.

The insurgents/terrorists, Al Qaeda and similar Islamic radical groups.... Those are the ones who "have killed more people over the past 5 years"......

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Yadhel]

reply to post by Yadhel


Look up the stats and the U.S is the party responsible for more deaths than any other.

When I took My Oath as a Marine I believed in it, and I swore to follow the orders of the POTUS, but remember when the POTUS took office he also took and oath, should I follow my oath KNOWING that he is not following his own?

I would have no problem bombing Iran back to the stone age at all, IF WE HAD NOT ATTACKED IRAQ, if we had stayed in Afghanistan and concentrated on Bin Laden, I would be ready to carry the banner to war with Iran.

The skeptics here like to say "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" I want to KNOW that they are going to be a threat..

Example N. Korea, they made a nuke that almost wasn't and took a week to make sure it really was, they didn't get bombed, Dafur had genocide, they didn't get bombed, China and Russia are REAL threats, they aren't getting bombed. Most of the terrorist on 911 where Saudi's, they didn't get bombed

I am skeptical that Iran is really a threat to the USA, Israel maybe but not us.

If we had never invaded Iraq, we would have full support to bomb Iran, but the world was LIED to about Iraq , maybe they are lying to us now?

even though the POTUS can't say it, I can

"fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on ME"

the choice is Very simple, don't bomb Iran and (allegedly) maybe lose a city to a small nuclear bomb or bomb Iran and definitely have LARGE nuclear warheads hit many US cities.

If the military did refuse to Bomb Iran, I think the rest of the world would be more likely to rejoice them see it as weakness, it would take more guts to say no and stand up for what is MORAL, then blindly march to the end of the world.

The selfishness of a few will cost the rest of us Dearly

Originally posted by thedigirati


the choice is Very simple, don't bomb Iran and (allegedly) maybe lose a city to a small nuclear bomb or bomb Iran and definitely have LARGE nuclear warheads hit many US cities.

If the military did refuse to Bomb Iran, I think the rest of the world would be more likely to rejoice them see it as weakness, it would take more guts to say no and stand up for what is MORAL, then blindly march to the end of the world.

The selfishness of a few will cost the rest of us Dearly

Very well said. Its really about common sense, and my common sense tells me that attacking Iran would put the world in danger, it makes me feel very uneasy thinking about it, and if they did attack Iran, I personally would be very upset, and worried about our future.

I'm in the UK, I hope the UK wont get involved. But I guess somehow if Iran gets attacked, it will put the UK at high risk too.

Its the people in the middle of all this, the families etc that I feel most sorry for if things go down.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by _Phoenix_]

Here is what I see as going on in this thread:

1) People are arguing basically over the validity of the war. I think that if everyone here believed in every word the gov't told us, we would probably all be gung ho for Iran; however, there is evidence to point in the other direction from "fighting for our freedom" or "the war against terror".

2) Some here are arguing that you should follow an order no matter what vs. others saying you should use your own concious before following orders.

In my opinion, everyone here is flesh and blood, not steel and wires, so I think good men NEED to look at things beyond black and white and see WHY they're doing what they're doing. How many people here would gladly give their lives for their country and for freedom vs how many would gladly give their lives for oil or world dominance? I just couldn't bring myself to risk my life for something I didn't believe in or think was right, nor could I kill for the same.

It's the people who think that following orders no matter what is being patriotic, when I believe that doing what's right for the country and her people is what truly defines patrionism, even if it's against your orders.

Iran needs to be stopped. Iam not saying drop da fecking nuke on them. But we need to stop them. If diplomate failed, war is the only solution.

Even the Iranian people I know are believing that he building nukes.

About Bowman, he is a traitor in my eyes. Armed forces sworn to their country and to the PROTUS. Whoever he is, Whatever he said. If this coming handy, all forces would decide on their own gutfeelings which command from the PROTUS they should follow and not. In that case - we would be fecked in a big way and enemies would attack us instantly.

Originally posted by semperfortis

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..

Semper

Now, I ask these questions to anyone in the military who cares to try to answer.

If the Commander in Chief does order something illegal, immoral, and unethical, how would we know? Well, that was a rhetorical question of course, since the Military Tribunal decides, am I correct? So the Military Tribunal is therefore able to determine if an executive order falls under those categories. Now, considering the Tribunal consists of men under the jurisdiction of the Commander in Chief, wouldn't they then be unable to question the legality, morality, or ethics of an order made by the CIC unless the CIC himself was on trial? Or are they able to do that?

Secondly, doesn't that represent a POSSIBLE fault in the decision making process in terms of being able to evaluate whether an executive order falls under those categories? I'm NOT asking you to state anything you are not allowed to say as an acting officer, so phrase/sidestep as needed in any questions I ask in this post.

Not to mention, if the current CIC's interpretation of the constitution is strongly of the Unitary Executive Theory, the CIC could HYPOTHETICALLY officially state that any questioning of an executive order, by congress or the supreme court or anyone, is illegal, and so how would the process of legally refusing an order work in that situation? In order for the War Tribunal to acknowledge that the executive order in question is "illegal, immoral or unethical" wouldn't they have to break the law in order to acknowledge this? And if that's the case, wouldn't it then be impossible for any military personnel to ever disobey any order under any circumstance legally?

I thank you for your time and clarifications.

Originally posted by semperfortis
I also would have refused to kill innocent women and children as most if not all of my comrades in arms... (I would hope)

semper

Semper, I'm not sure if someone has responded to this post by you yet, but I'm gonna throw my $0.02 in while I can.

If we went to War with Iran, many innocent people will die. We call that collateral damage. Is it right? No. Is it fair? No. Is it real? YES. My point is though, that if the military is to deny an order to go to war, that like you said, they'll need to show why it's an unlawful order.

Either way, I don't think a nuke should be used in any regards, as that would be far too devastating, and it would kill many more people than would be necessary to accomplish our goals. In a purely pragmatic sense though, it would be tactically more sound to use diplomacy first to establish some sort of dialogue. If that failed, then bomb them with robotic ordinance that we have available, so that no ground troops need to go over there. Or we could just send our troops stationed in Iraq on over for the picnic in Tehran.

Anyway, that's my take on this. I don't like the war either, as you well know, but I can understand a couple of reasons why it might have been valid. I know of at least one, but Bush has yet to mention it, even in passing. It's sad really. I hope the situation gets better for the region, before crap really starts to roll.

TheBorg

Originally posted by RedDragon

Look up the stats and the U.S is the party responsible for more deaths than any other.

Wrong, look up the causes of death and you will see most deaths in Iraq done to Iraqi citizens are caused by the insurgency/terrorists....

For crying outloud the insurgents keep attacking targets where there are regular Iraqi civilians. They bombed poll stations as iraqis went to vote, and if you read about almost every attack the insurgents/terrorist do, most casualties are Iraqi citizens....

Originally posted by TheBorg
................
Either way, I don't think a nuke should be used in any regards, as that would be far too devastating, and it would kill many more people than would be necessary to accomplish our goals.
...............

I am going to ask this one more time.

Where in the world is all this talk about the "U.S. nuking Iran" coming from?....

What is the evidence "the U.S. is going to nuke Iran"?....

All i see are exagerations being made to bash the U.S.

reply to post by Zaargg


The UCMJ would prevent that

All Military Personnel are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It contains pretty extensive guidelines and protections against just what your talking about...

Semper