US Generals 'Will Quit' If Bush Orders Iran Attack »
Posted By AGENTPROVOCATEUR 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsSOME of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Read Full Story at timesonline.co.uk »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 187
-
-
100%
supabro151 year, 7 months ago
agreed. if our commander in chief was a former officer who served a minimum amount of time in the armed forces, we wouldnt have tards like dubya sacrificing our youth for filling up his own pockets (hopefully i wont have to *crosses fingers*)!!!
this would also eliminate the fact that people make a career out of politics, which is something i REALLY beleive should not happen.
it should be for the good of the country, not the benifit of yourself.
Reply-
0%
TheTruthIsHere1 year, 7 months ago
Actually our current commander in chief is a former officer who served his amount of time in the armed forces....the one who didn't do that was Clintoon......
Reply
-
-
-
0%
kobzikov1 year, 7 months ago
Yes, cause conservative sources are so very-well sourced.
I mean they always name names when they make allegations, like when they all publicly named their sources for leaking identity of CIA agent before Grand Jury investigation.
Or you don't hold all the news sources to the same standard cause that'd be just way too unhypocritical?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
Spin spin spin, Mr. Slate. Billy O' would be jealous.
You trot out a quote from 1998, 4 years before the UN weapons regained access to Iraq in 2002. What Nancy Pelosi though in 1998 is about what we all thought in 1998. Saddam at that time was stonewalling the UN and denying access to the inspectors. It was only reasonable to assume that meant he had something to hide. By 2002, long before the invasion, Saddam had backed down to Bush's saber rattling and let the inspectors back in, even giving them access to his many palaces.
Scott Ritter and his weapons inspection team had followed up EVERY lead our CIA provided them. Well before the March 20, 2003 invasion began, Ritter had already established that there no weapons there. And yet Bush went ahead determined he 1 -- Knew where the weapons were. and 2 -- was going to find them and prove it.
The rest is history. But who are you going to believe, Dick "We know where the weapons are" Cheney or your own lying eyes?
Reply -
0%
Watchemoket1 year, 7 months ago
Yup, slate - lies are lies, regardless of the source. Some of the quotes in your linked site are outdated and irrelevant, but enough are recent, relevant and verifiable that I cannot argue with you on that point.
That being said, we still went to war based on lies, we are still occupying a foreign country which is in the middle of a civil war, and we still have no rational, verifiable and meaningful definition of what 'victory' is so we know when/if we achieve it. It is time to recognize that we 'freed' the Iraqi people from Saddam, we helped them to establish a legitimately elected government, and now it is time to start our withdrawal while helping to train the Iraqis to provide for their own security. We are not the 'guarantors' of everyone's freedom, adn we have no right to impose our version of government on anyone else.
Reply-
0%
slate1 year, 7 months ago
Out dated? LOL kinda like the WMDs they actually found that had sarin and mustard gas warheads? Yeah we showed em and your side nope those are too old and don't count. Unbelieveable how you on the left are the way you are and will turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't prove your own preconceived view of the war or Life in General.
Reply
-
-
0%
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
Kinda like these LIES LIES LIES?>>>>
I didn't check the link, because it has NOTHING to do with the HERE AND NOW, and it merely is a poor attempt at deflecting from the 'here and now.' We live in the NOW. What are we going to do about this mess? Are we going to 'deflect', or are we going to look at this in a non partisan way?
Reply-
0%
slate1 year, 7 months ago
Do you live in the now on all issues?
What about slavery that has been 150 years ago?
How bout Vietnam some 30?
No you only want to revisit the FAR past when it suits you but ignor the recent past when it shows how one sided your thinking is.
Besides, I've been around long enough that when someone on the left uses the term 'non partisan' it means to think the way they do and that isn't going to happen, I see the world differently than the left.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
FCC436AMXS1 year, 7 months ago
Well, that is our job in the military... one tour two tour, its our job, and thats what you get when you sign the paper, and NONE of us were forced to sign...
Reply -
0%
braveone1 year, 7 months ago
QUIT???? ya right...
if, in fact there is a shred of truth to the story,
they would be tried for treason.
Reply-
100%
LeftTurn1 year, 7 months ago
You may be right technically braveone, but how dare you!!!
Tried for treason? These men are refusing to do (again), to attack a nation based on what they know to be lies and false intelligence, that our own government is supplying them, and they know they are being deceived.
Who cares if it's true or not, the premise here is that if people don't agree with something, even in the military, you are there to save lives and protect people, it's your duty to try to determine the "correct" things to do, and be morally sound in judgement, because more lives may depend on that. If there is anyone in this that is willing to stand up for what is right in this world, I WILL stand with them, and fight if I have to, because THAT my friend would be something worth fighting for... When's the last time someone did the right thing around here? It's about time someone did.
If anyone should be tried for treason, it will be Bush and Cheney, and that is not too far away I assure you.
Reply-
0%
r2me21 year, 7 months ago
Well said LeftTurn. I couldn't have said it better. And tell braveone that even in the military there are orders that don't have to be obeyed if they happen to be against the Constitution, they endanger people's lives, or jeopardize the security of the country. In the case that Mr. President decides to act as he intends to, that attitude will certainly jeopardize the security of our country, in my humble opinion, it would be an illegal attack, and would endanger many, way too many lives. As you said, if that story happens to be true I'm glad someone had the guts, came forward and spelled the truth in the face of a commander in chief that doesn't command his own country properly.
Reply -
67%
TheTruthIsHere1 year, 7 months ago
LeftTurn: If anyone should be tried for treason...
it should be the NY Times, CNN, any general who goes on TV and tells the vunlerablities of our helicopters, John Murtha, and the rest of the leftist DemLib enemy within....
Reply
-
-
0%
jasmine50001 year, 7 months ago
no they wouldnt be tried for treason. treason would be like spying or sending information to a enemy.
generals refusing to attack on orders from the commander in chief would be disobedience. in not a military officer i cant remember the military term for that but its not treason. they could be sent to a military prison but my guess is the president would accept there resignation to lessen the embarrassment of a lengthy trial where everything sure to come out in the open.
Reply-
90%
BravoSierra1 year, 7 months ago
It's simply "refusing orders", or resignation. Most of them have put in their 20 - 30 years and can resign at their discretion. The contract is 6 years. Once you have done six years you technically cannot be called back to duty unless you have kept a reserve commission. They have two options. One is to refuse orders and go to trial is someone challenges them. The second is to resign. Refusing orders would make a more dramatic statement because Bush would have to defend the legality of the war and his incompetence in a public trial, probably involving Congressional oversite.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
kobzikov1 year, 7 months ago
They wouldn't be tried for treason. Refusal to follow orders is far different from treason, especially unlawful orders as would be in the case.
They could be court-martialed, but doing the right thing is not easy, never have been. So they'd be put on trial the same way Ehren Watada, the officer who refused to deploy, was.
Reply -
0%
BravoSierra1 year, 7 months ago
You are incorrect about their being tried for treason. You don't know much about how things work at the rank of General Officer. Additionally, if they were tried for treason it would create the national debate that the Republicans in Congress have been stonewalling. Can you say Billy Mitchell? Even if they were convicted, the next President would pardon them...lol.
Reply
-
-
0%
miklkit1 year, 7 months ago
Support our soldiers! They are the ones bleeding and dying for halliburton. Generals have resigned before over this calamity. Let them know we care.
Reply -
75%
Amazing11 year, 7 months ago
Hooray. Finally some people who are ready to stand up with because they SEE that the emperor has no clothes (or brains, for that matter). And I do not believe it is treason when your CIC is so foolish as start yet another war when the military is stretched so thin it can barely handle this one.
Reply -
0%
LeftTurn1 year, 7 months ago
SOR,
Can we really blame these people, our Democrats in the house and senate? It's not going to make any difference in the long run if half the good people we elected, are driven out of politics, ruined, or better yet end up dead, because they hastily tried to big down Goliath. Goliath is not two people, it's a network of power. This time Goliath can't be taken down, not with out massive support and protection from it's citizens, and unfortunately, we can not offer that protection.
We do indeed elect them, and then expect them to change the world to good instantly? It doesn't work that way, more innocent people end up dead that way. Things need to be undone, policies changed to stop funneling and agency fraud, and I think they are just trying to get a good bearing on how to fix things and get us back on track, and finally people need to stand up where they can and say something. I hear what you're saying, but the scuttlebutt is a major trial is brewing against the admin.
Reply -
0%
TheTruthIsHere1 year, 7 months ago
SoundOfReason: Benedict Arnold Peolosi
That is the most accurate thing you have ever posted....she is exactly that....
Reply -
-
0%
Watchemoket1 year, 7 months ago
Actually, it is my understanding that he still has an office and a staff at the Pentagon and still carries a lot of political clout, but he is no longer a cabinet-level official. I agree that he is probably not impeachable any more.
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
mpeach RUMSFIELD?>>>>
How about 'fire' his ass? He is sitting in an office in the Pentagon, yanno. I bet most think he's home playing golf, when he still has his dirty hands in this mess.
Reply
-
-
0%
Lisburn1 year, 7 months ago
Sooooooo, now that your democrat 'heroes' have shown how powerless they really are to end the war, you cling to this garbage?
Pathetic !!
The liberal/vermin continue to provide never ending entertainment.
Reply-
0%
Sandmn1 year, 7 months ago
Not powerless, gutless and cut from the same cloth as Bush. They will prove themselves to be completely useless. Perhaps it's time to retake our government and rebuild it. One thing I question, is this. Would Iran be justified if it made a pre-emptive strike against this country? We certainly seem to be an imminent threat to them. I guess it's a good thing they really don't have any nuclear weapons, after all.
Reply-
0%
slate1 year, 7 months ago
Maybe they would be,,, that's why we shuld stop them, since talking to them (as we have tried) doesn't seem to work. They want to have a go with us because they see us as weak, thanks to the modern day Democrat party. JFK would be shamed, that's why I left that party of old years ago, after what they did to our soldiers in Vietnam. Shameful excuse for a political party in my own humble opinion. NOw bring on the Insults, I'm in the mood.
Reply
-
-
0%
Acetyll1 year, 7 months ago
They aren't "powerless". They just don't have the balls or stomach to do what they have to do to stop the war. If they TRUELY believe we should not be in Iraq, all they need to do is defund or stop paying for the war. Viola......the war is over, the troops come home.
Funny isn't it. They have the power to defund the war, talk about doing it all the time, yet when it's time for action, all we see is inaction. They (Dems) sure do talk the talk though. I guess if you talk about doing something long enough, the American people believe you actually did something. Bah!!! Both sides are full of hot air (crap) and I'm sick of all the wussy politicians worried about the next election.
Acetyl
Reply
-
-
0%
