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

Originally posted by Regensturm

Originally posted by Electro38


Let's say he's a great patriot. Doesn't anyone else find his statement about the US nuking Iran ridiculous?

What real general would even find that possibility to be feasible? It's not feasible, so why include such a scenario in your speech? Makes no sense at all.

The Bush administration apparently find it feasible, they have refused to take the 'nuclear option' off the table, this is therefore what Bowman is referring to, and is doing so as someone who is aware of the military 'options' at hand.

Originally posted by Electro38
Won't you agree, that when or if the US needs to eliminate targets in Iran it would be done with conventional weapons, shot from boats and planes?

Then why has Bush not taken the nuclear option off the table?

Originally posted by Electro38
So why, then does this supposed general make such weird statements?

It's actually not wierd at all, but is in consideration of the nuclear option being rumoured as the one to be used.

Originally posted by Electro38
It's scary to see so many people support the notion that America should not defend itself, or Israel. We should all bow to these Islamic nut cases?

This is not about America defending itself, or even Israel defending itself, this is about the imposition of American will upon Iran because it is an independent country.


Iran is not a threat, and would only be so if they were attacked.


The only means of threat they are is by supporting elements of the Iraqi insurgency. This is the same as if Mexico or Canada was invaded by China, America would arm the Mexican and Canadian insurgents next door.


I could believe your fearful assumptions Iran may be a threat if Iran was a world superpower and Iranian troops were stationed in Mexico and Canada by the shedloads and were making hostile statements against the US.


As it is, the US, a superpower, has US troops that are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq bordering either side of Iran.


In consideration of this, who do you think has more reason to fear attack?


You, the American, or an Iranian who has troops from a country that has hostile relations with his country on either side of two of their borders?

Originally posted by Electro38
Why is the US demonized and the hateful and dangerous rhetoric coming from these people accepted?

There are those in Iran who do chant "Death to America" that is true, but they have done so since 1979.



No it does not have to be accepted, but it does not mean that bombing them out of blind fear and little facts is acceptable either.


And if Iran makes a nuclear bomb, what do you have to worry about?


The US has nukes by the thousands.


Iran knows this, you know this.


Why the insecurity?

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Regensturm]

I appreciate your reply.

I don't condone bombing anyone, anywhere.

The "insecurity" comes from seeing my city's greatest building get demolished on TV, and then seeing the smoke plume for about 3 weeks afterwards. My city was attacked, and my family was at risk.

And this attack didn't come from a "super power". So I disagree with you're argument that I (or you) should only feel threatened by a "super power". They were radical nuts in a cave.

When you experience something like that in your city, and when you come to the realization that your city is constantly "under the gun" with constant risk to your family, then let me know how you would feel.

I never said anywhere that there should be an attack on Iran, I believe, and hope there will not.

You guys are so used to seeing, and responding to the cliche` posts from people who have "denied ignorance" (however, instead denied that they are victims of it), that you can't see "multi-dimensional" posts, which are neither purely black, or white. Which explains your uni-dimensional, cliche` replies.

In other words, I'm not saying USA = good, Iran = bad.

(Please don't take offense to my reply, I'm just waxing dramatic, a little)

Thanks.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

Originally posted by Electro38

Dude, nowhere did I ever say anything about a nation's people being good or bad, (although we all know people of any nation are capable of being good or bad on any given day.) I was "bad" today, I think.

I am speaking, obviously about the leaders of nations.
I mentioned Hitler, I made no references to the German people.

You said "Hitler as a human being had some very evil traits."

By "some evil traits", do you mean trying, and almost succeeding in murdering a whole race of people?

My friend, that's called being "bad". So is it such a stretch for you to admit Hitler can be catagorized as "bad"?

My point is, when it comes to LEADERS of nations and governments there definitely are good and bad people.

No, you're right about books. My point was that you can't believe, absolutely, everything that is written, in a book or otherwise.
(Just look at the mess the bible, Torah and the Kuran are causing).

I didn't mean to be so critical of your post, sorry.

no offense taken.

leaders can be quite bad.

Hitler had some very evil traits. I would say Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahmer had evil traits.

When I say bad guys or good guys I mean in a sense when one reads or watches fiction, Lord of the Rings or Star Wars etc. People have a tendency to lump factions in conflicts by using comparisons to fiction. Yet in real life it is not that simple. Hitler was not Sauron or Emperor Palpatine. Germany was not Mordor or the Galactic Empire.

Both sides committed atrocities in WW2, one side more than the other though. This happens in every war. Atrocities by all sides. Historically I'm not sure if there has been good guys, its more like the lesser of two evils. Thats oversimiplification though. Reality is much more complicated.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Electro38

 

Every country in the world would love to have nukes after our own nation made them and used them first.

Then sold the plans to other nations.

Let me clear this out the Iran wants to erased Israel is nothing more than propaganda.

Iran would never be a central power in the middle east due to the fact that Israel, Pakistan and India have already nuclear capabilities. so that is just propaganda.

BTW the only nation in the world to used nuclear power to attack another invasion was our own nation.

Israel Hostage? you mean like they are doing to the Palestinians?

I am not a Jew but I do not want my nation to get what they deserve due to the mistakes of the corrupted corporate government we have if it goes into invading and destroying another sovereign nation.

Because you want it or not, Iran had the right to defend itself against the aggressors and even have help from countries that will lend that help.

Yes US intervened into ww1 and ww2 my grandfather died in the last one but it was the results of helping and the reconstruction and money, profits to be made that did it, after all it put our country as the leading richest nation in the world, but now we are nothing more than consumers and big spenders after corporate American move their business to third world countries with a national debt up to our butts and our banker is communist China, Thanks again to wars this time for the benefit of the few, at least in the last wars the American people was the winners.

The way this present administration is doing its business and the desperation of the profiteers to have the job finish I believe anything right including nukes again Iran, wars are such a good way to make money.

I hear what you're saying on some points. I know Palestine isn't being helped, and the Israelis are partly to blame for their oppression.

I could imagine that some of these things could be "propaganda", but didn't those words come directly out of Ahmadinejad's mouth? (destroying Israel?) I'm not Jewish either. But if the Swiss were threatening France, I would take the same stance.

My posts are not about USA being the good guy and Iran being bad.
But the US is not automatically the bad guy in every situation.

Given the the US gov. can be wrong, or even "bad" sometimes, why then couldn't the Iranian gov be wrong, or even bad?


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Electro38]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Reality is much more complicated.

I think, only sometimes reality is more complicated. It's not always more complicated. I actually think most of the time "reality" is much simpler than what is perceived.

I can appreciate your analogies, but in this case wouldn't you say that art imitates life?

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.

...

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.

Thank you forestlady for putting some sensible comment into the debate. All the ludicrous posturing by the hyper-patriots cannot disguise that the people at the top, and those who do their bidding, are war criminals.

It's also distressing to discover (after time away from this board) that so many US citizens are still prepared to take White Hose or Pentagon press releases as Gospel when those same sources have been revealed as liars so many times recently. Gosh, those pesky weapons of mass destruction, we'll just have to keep bombing countries until we find 'em! Oh... and has anyone noticed that Alan Greenspan just admitted, well, yes, removing Saddam was all about the oil?

In this case, the uncritical acceptance of Iran's nuclear "capability" and the idea that they pose some sort of credible threat to the West is just the most laughable of the cretinous notions that somehow find their way into the reality-tunnel of so many US citizens. But, as Bill Hicks used to say, "you can stop your internal dialogue right now, people!" Iran doesn't have the bomb, they want nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and there's absolutely no proof to the contrary. It's 2003 all over again.

Those who don't learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it: and some people here evidently relish being accomplices to war crimes in the offing. Good luck.

I really don't see were the problem is when we talk about preventing a country like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Yes the U.S. has some so does Israel and so does many other countries, do we really need more countries to posses those, the fact that many countries already have some is scary enough.

Now, I will like for our government to try anyway possible to avoid a conflict (diplomacy, sanctions) if that does not work I will like for my country to signal an intention to escalate the issue just to see if the iranians agree on something if not that, to make other countries that support Iran like Russia and China to intervene diplomatically and make Iran agree on something, the other side of that is that if we signal our intent to escalate and the iranians don't budge we are at war.

I don't really think that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, there no need to, we have many weapons in the arsenal capable of destroying underground facilities, it might take more than one bombing run but is achievable.

The other side of that is let's allow the iranians get nuclear weapons, some of this forces that give weapons to the terrorist in Iraq, give one nuclear weapons to hezbollah or hamas, the device is detonated in Israel the all hell comes loose. Do we really want that?

Another scenario will be Israel attacking Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and then Israel will be under the gun of every Arab nation, and Israel having not the capabilities to engage them on numbers, what we think they going to do? They going to use the bomb.

The fact is that they are many reasons to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, we will be saving lives, all kinds of lives by doing so, americans, iranians, israelis, Arabs, Muslims, Jewish, Christians, would be saved by preventing this, so I don't see were the issue is in regards to that.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Bunch
The fact is that they are many reasons to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, we will be saving lives, all kinds of lives by doing so, americans, iranians' israelis, Arabs, Muslims, Jewish, Christians, would be saved by preventing this, so I don't see were the issue is in regards to that.

I believe these are excellent points. Well said.

Originally posted by bigbert81

True. The Presidential election could very well be rigged. It is much more reasonable to think that with electronic voting.

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

Dude, the 04 election was already rigged!!!! Do you think it's a coincidence that the Dems picked an unwinnable candidate who also happened to be one of Bush's skull and bones cronies? Not a chance!! Kerry was chosen, and it was predetermined by TPTB that he would lose and bushie would win. The Reps and the Dems are the same stink, different name. It's pathetic what's become of politics in America. Whatever happened to the days when public servants actually served the public?

I think Bush needs to be served with a copy of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, because he obviously has no idea what made this country great to start with.

Originally posted by Electro38



I think, only sometimes reality is more complicated. It's not always more complicated. I actually think most of the time "reality" is much simpler than what is perceived.

I can appreciate your analogies, but in this case wouldn't you say that art imitates life?

I wouldnt say art always imitates life but it's definitely inspired by life. I think more often life tries to imitate art.

[edit on 18/9/07 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by Regensturm


Because the nuclear option hasn't been taken off the table doesn't mean that it is a likely option. All that it means is that the Iranians have to guess whether or not we would use nukes or not, and the fear that we might could cause them to have second thoughts. If you start off getting rid of that leverage, then you bargain from a diminished position. That's why in Desert Storm, Bush Sr. would say things like "we will neither confirm nor deny that there are nuclear weapons on board our aircraft carriers," etc... to keep Saddam guessing.

To all those, "oh my god the US is gong to nuke Iran" posters......

When the Iranian nukes begin to explode and the EMP takes the net down, it will be interesting to observe as a fly on the wall, the "Charmin" moment to follow............

Iran has intent to destroy the US and Israel............they have said it over and over. They are making bombs as fast as they can go...........

Are you really willing to bet the future of this planet on your current opinion?

Bowman should go to Gitmo....now!

Push the "Button" there "W"..........quick before its too late......

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by Electro38



I think, only sometimes reality is more complicated. It's not always more complicated. I actually think most of the time "reality" is much simpler than what is perceived.

I can appreciate your analogies, but in this case wouldn't you say that art imitates life?

I wouldnt say art always imitates life but it's definitely inspired by life. I think more often life tries to imitate art.

[edit on 18/9/07 by MikeboydUS]

Yeah, you could be right, but I was only referring to the analogies you made; "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars".

They're very similar to the classical mythologies, especially "Star Wars".

Anyway, you could be right. Maybe life imitates art, maybe it's a 2 way street.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Regensturm

 

Because the nuclear option hasn't been taken off the table doesn't mean that it is a likely option. All that it means is that the Iranians have to guess whether or not we would use nukes or not, and the fear that we might could cause them to have second thoughts. If you start off getting rid of that leverage, then you bargain from a diminished position. That's why in Desert Storm, Bush Sr. would say things like "we will neither confirm nor deny that there are nuclear weapons on board our aircraft carriers," etc... to keep Saddam guessing.

Excellent points. You know, the "nuclear option" is never "taken off the table".

No, it's not. When have you ever heard any govt. politcal leader say, "we're taking the nuclear bomb scenario off the table in this case..."?

At the same time, you'll never hear a govt. (except for maybe Iran) say that they will specifically use nuclear weapons in a battle.

You'll never hear that said. If you do, please let me know! (I'm serious)

But, you know it would be the dumbest thing to do. How could anyone live that down.

Let's all get some perspective here. The US would never nuke Iran.
We might target certain sites with conventioanl weapons, that's it.

Can we get some more knowledgable people in here? Please?

reply to post by astmonster


Dude, what do you base your beliefs on? The same credible evidence we heard when we went into Iraq? You can't just believe anything your told on one side, and then totally disregard other's points. That's picking and choosing.

Also, why is it that there are people on here who think that blindly following an order (and therefore choosing ignorance over knowledge) is more patriotic than doing what you think is right for your country and it's people?

If we invade, destroy and occupy three nations in 5 years how are we any different than Nazi Germany? Hitler convinced his people he was right too, they all cheered in the streets.We torture people for "national security". I am disgusted with my fellow Americans. Im so #ING sick of 911,911,911, we have to kill EVERYBODY 911, 911,911...911. WHO GIVES A #. 9 freaking 11 should NEVER have occurred. 4 planes hijacked and flown around for hours hitting highly secured targets. WHY DONT WE HOLD THE GOV RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT PROTECTING US?

911 was a DROP in the bucket compared to the casualties suffered by countries around the world on a daily basis. Ridiculous.

911.. 911...9...11..911... gotta ..911.. kill....911.. everyone..911.. especially... 911... if ....911 they.... 911... have....oil... 911...911.. we... 911... are... 911... the... 911.. good...911... guys... 911... everyone... 911... else... 911... is....911.... wrong... 911... but.... 911.... us....NINE ELEVEN.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by shug7272]

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by astmonster

 

Also, why is it that there are people on here who think that blindly following an order (and therefore choosing ignorance over knowledge) is more patriotic than doing what you think is right for your country and it's people?

Because many of us that serve in the military know that disobeying a lawful order in time of war its a crime that can even be punishable by death.

We that serve in the military serve for a higher cause than our perception of certain situations. I be the first one to say that the war in Iraq has been mismanaged from the beggining. Also if my Sgt. tells me to go in a house in Iraq and kill everyone inside because one of the family members kill my comrade, I know that order is illegal should not be followed.

Now to go from that, to lay down my arms and refusing to go to battle just because public opinion of the war is not favorable that's an entire other issue.

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.

Many of us are tired, tired of war, tired of being away from our family, tired of seen our sisters and brothers being killed or maimed, just tired, but we sign up for this, we sign up to serve the people through our elected leaders, many guys here I understand their frustration but at the end of the day, is not the military fault that Bush is in power, is the American people fault, so don't blame us to take orders from the guy that you put in power. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Bunch]

We that serve in the military serve for a higher cause than our perception of certain situations. I be the first one to say that the war in Iraq has been mismanaged from the beggining. Also if my Sgt. Tells me to go in a house in Iraq and kill everyone inside because one of the family members kill my comrade, I know that order is illegal should not be followed.

Now to go from that, to lay down my arms and refusing to go to battle just because public opinion of the war is not favorable that's an entire other issue.

Fair enough. But I hope you can see what principle I'm gunning for. You are doing what you think is right for your country, and if you don't think so, you'll disobey. That is exactly what I'm referring to. I guess the point that would have to be made is what you consider to be right for the country. This is exactly why I think everyone should be in the know, and not just do what someone else wants without at least thinking "why?"

Many of us are tired, tired of war, tired of being away from our family, tired of seen our sisters and brothers being killed or maimed, just tired, but we sign up for this, we sign up to serve the people through our elected leaders, many guys here I understand their frustration but at the end of the day, is not the military fault that Bush is in power, is the American people fault, so don't blame us to take orders from the guy that you put in power. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Please God, tell me your joking right? I love how you can categorize 300,000,000 people like that. So many things have changed, and not to mention that Al Gore actually won the majority vote. Then we can look at other things like rigged elections, lies, etc.

Then if we look at Congress and passing the Patriot Act without reading it and knowing at the time that there were issues in there that they had voted no on before which were squeezed in. And all the people in the country are to blame huh?

You DO realize that only about 29% of Americans currently support Bush, right?

[edit on 18-9-2007 by bigbert81]

Originally posted by semperfortis
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

I looked through the UCMJ articles

UCMJ Articles

And the only provisions relating to the scenario I provided in my post are:

881. ART. 81. CONSPIRACY
885. ART. 85. DESERTION
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY

These are punitive articles describing various crimes that relate to the hypothetical scenario I posted before. Under NONE of these articles did I find ANY explanation about "Immoral, Unethical, or Illegal orders" being legal to disobey. In addition, I found no provisions throughout the entire code covering the jurisdiction of the Military Court to acknowledge the illegality of or question the legality of an executive order from the CIC.

Could you help me find where these articles are?

Thanks Semper.

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!!!

reply to post by bigbert81


If you are in the military, you can't pick and choose which orders you will follow. Unless given an illegal order, it is your duty to follow orders. The military would implode if everyone could simply decide which orders they agreed with, and ignored the rest.