Navy puts kibosh on IVAW-UXO concert
The latest money-raising scheme of the Iraq Veterans Against the War is their UXO Tour. UXO means unexploded ordinance – hinting that veterans back from the war are going to go off any minute now. Well their first concert was on a cruise ship in New York City and it was timed to coincide with Fleet Week when the most active duty service members, mostly Marines and Navy personnel, would be there.
Well of course, the Navy forbade their people to go to this concert and IVAW is mightily upset. I won’t link to them, because they block traffic to their site from this blog anyway, but here’s the “press release” they link.
“The military chain of command has no right to micromanage what service-members are doing in their off time”, said Nick Morgan, an Iraq veteran and UXO organizer. “They have no right to censor the information that’s available to them, especially when it’s within the confines of the law.”
You remember Nick Morgan, don’t you? He was the IVAW member who got stomped by horse-mounted police at the last Presidential debate on Long Island. I guess he’s survived.
Another organizer was junior rocket scientist Bobby Joe Grubb;
Grubb, another IVAW member who has never seen Iraq, said;
“We were incredibly successful in reaching out to these Sailors and Marines,” says Grubb. “We made solid contact with those we met while doing outreach”. He said many of them were interested in getting more involved in the active-duty and veteran-led anti-war movement.
But then the Navy forbade Navy personnel from attending. So I called the Navy in New York City and spoke to a PAO LT Sean P. Riordan. LT Riordan told me the reason the Navy restricted attendance at this particular GI Resistance Concert is because all of the Marines and Sailors were in New York in an official capacity and they were all in uniform, so the Navy decided that attendance at a GI Resistance Concert in NYC during Fleet Week in uniform would be inappropriate according to military guidelines.
Morgan also added that these concerts are helping to bring legal and mental-health resources to members of the military. “It’s imperative for these veteran-led efforts to be accessed by active-duty troops to make up for the lacking support they get from the current administration, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans Administration.”
Yeah, that’s why they had a concert. They could hand out brochures describing the help IVAW provides soldiers – like homeless Trey Kindlinger (a former member of the Navy) and legal help like James Branum. And if the concert was about providing veterans services, why is it called a GI Resistance Concert?
The Sailors and Marines weren’t “off” the whole time they were in NY, Nick Morgan, neither did the Navy restrict information. You could talk to them all you wanted.
The Navy made the correct call and IVAW is left to cry into their empty glasses because they overplayed their hand.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military issues, Usual Suspects
Does he waltz around in public like the rest of IVAW, wearing a t-shirt that says “Iraq Veterans Against the War”? That’s enough for me; the average non-veteran observer doesn’t know enough about IVAW to know that they aren’t limited in membership to actual Iraq veterans. The only possible reason for IVAW to call themselves “Iraq Veterans” rather than just the more accurate “Veterans” is to create a false perception of superior knowledge among observers. It’s a fucking bald-faced lie, just as it would be if I walked around wearing a t-shirt that read “Cancer survivors against cancer”.
If you’re a veteran, I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. The cardinal sin in the military is to claim accolades one has not earned, and nothing is more pathetic than someone who tries to church up their service record to make themselves sound harder than they were. This includes adopting the label “Iraq Veteran” whether by implication or omission. IVAW would do well to admit this, because I know from speaking with certain group leaders, and reading missives of former members of the group that it drives the actual Iraq veteran members nuts to have their service equated to that of fucking punks who went AWOL from the Coast Guard. But of course they won’t change a thing, because then they lose the false perception of superiority that they have worked so hard to cultivate. Plus, they’d have to kick out Matthis “Short deployment to Afghanistan” Chiroux, and who could possibly spew the same degree of bullshit as that rapist?
“I think it is pretty amazing that so many people slam the messenger and ignore the issue.
Ahem, newsflash FAV, am a self decsribed frenemy of TAH, oppose how the war is being waged (Initial invasion of Aghanistan I agree with, nation building, NO. Invasion/occupation of Iraq, oppose), despite this, I understand why a highly trained and disciplined military is necessary to preserve our nation. That’s why I oppose the marxist/ISO steered IVAW, they want to destroy military discipline.
My politics lean Libertarian/U.S. Constitution party. Despite this, I’d never vote for that IVAW funster Adam Kokesh. Due to his immaturity,gun smuggling, admitted drug use (Chasing Xanax with gin), and lack of life experiences, I’d never vote for him, ’cause I could see him doing a Teddy Kennedy waterborne exercise or some such.
You will find all kinds of views here on TAH. You haven’t been here long enough to see them all.
Just the fact that IVAW can’t figure out that having an “associates”, meaning non- incountry vet status, designation on bullock-nose boy’s t-shirt is enough to disparage them 🙂
VVAW Associates membership and American Legion auxillary/SAL programs have been around for some time… How come IVAW couldn’t have sub-designations :8
fucking punks who went AWOL from the Coast Guard
Are you accusing Bobby of this..? Be careful, very careful how far you take the slander.
Wearing a shirt that says Iraq Vets Against the War doesn’t make you one any more than wearing a Budweiser shirt makes you a beer.
Advertising on apparal is a time tested techique to promote a cause.
Actually, it was Alex Bacon, the previous ED of IVAW who went AWOL from his Coast Guard station in Hawaii As far as I know, Bobbie Joe Grubb didn’t go AWOL.
In reference to the T-shirt, IVAW doesn’t really care if anyone in the org has been to Iraq, they just need people willing to wear the T-shirt, because hippies don’t care who has been to Iraq or not, they just need self-propelled mannequins to wear the shirt in front of the cameras. The hippies pay the bills.
Well now, I think we finally see what side of the fence you’re sitting on, toots…
And you seem to have a bit of a problem with logic and facts. So tell me, does he fit as a member of IVAW when he has never left the states, let alone been an Iraq veteran? Seems you’re trying to dodge that pesky little question, and having EPIC FAIL in the process.
“Are you accusing Bobby of this..? Be careful, very careful how far you take the slander.”
No, I wasn’t; there are other members of IVAW to whom this applies. Attempts to threaten with defamation suits on internet message boards are pathetic. I’ll say it again: Bobby Grubb and any other IVAW member who hasn’t been to Iraq is a fucking liar, as far as the perception they are attempting to create goes.
“Wearing a shirt that says Iraq Vets Against the War doesn’t make you one any more than wearing a Budweiser shirt makes you a beer.”
No one is going to confuse you for a beer if you’re wearing a Budweiser shirt.
The million dollar question: Why would an organization designated by name as Iraq Veterans admit veterans who haven’t been to Iraq?
There is only one possible answer: increase membership potential, while not losing any of the perception of superior knowledge that comes only from having served in Iraq. The organization was intentionally misleading from its foundation. I defy you, or anyone, to posit an alternate explanation.
Membership Eligibility:
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is a group of men and women who have served or continue to serve in the U.S. military since September 11th, 2001. We are calling for:
Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq; and
Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered; and
Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other support for returning servicemen and women.
IVAW welcomes all post-9/11 veterans and active duty servicemen and women from all branches of military service, National Guard members, and reservists who support this mission to join our ranks.
“UXO means unexploded ordinance.” Sigh… Ordinance means “law”; ORDNANCE means bombs… I see this misspelling all the time!
ORDNANCE, not ordinance. Please, please correct this.
“UXO means unexploded ordinance.” Sigh… Ordinance means “law”; ORDNANCE means bombs… I see this misspelling all the time!
ORDNANCE, not ordinance. Please, please correct this.
IYAOYAS!
every post 9/11 vet has been affected by the change in the mission statements implemented and that is why they accept Post 9/11 vets. I was active duty ’78-’81 and I am don’t agree with everything IVAW is about just as I don’t agree with everything written here. I do however think personal attacks do nothing to further a cause or issue, it just clouds the issue and while it may make the person commenting feel superior it really detracts from the true issue.
“every post 9/11 vet has been affected by the change in the mission statements implemented and that is why they accept Post 9/11 vets. ”
Then call it Post-9/11 Veterans Against the War. Simple fix. Why haven’t they done this?
“I do however think personal attacks do nothing to further a cause or issue, it just clouds the issue and while it may make the person commenting feel superior it really detracts from the true issue”
I consider it an extremely personal attack when people who never served in Iraq feel they are entitled to publicly claim Iraq Veteran status to further their cause. They didn’t fire a shot in anger, or have to experience the abject fear of driving through a hostile area in the dark not knowing if you’d be blown up at any second. They didn’t pick of body parts of friends and enemies, didn’t have to don armor and run for cover during incoming mortar attacks, and didn’t leave a slew of loved ones to wonder anxiously every time the news reported another soldier killed. They may have been affected abstractly by the change in the mission, but they did not make the same sacrifices, and its a goddamn insult to everyone who did for them to claim the same experience in order to promote an agenda. THAT to me IS the issue, at least until IVAW either makes a change to their name or their membership requirements, and I’ll put it at the forefront of anything they’re associated with until that day comes.
#64 F.A.V.
You said that you don’t agree with everything IVAW is about, just like you don’t agree with everything posted here. I would be curious to know what it is about IVAW you don’t agree with?
The concert wasn’t organized by IVAW – it was organized by the UXO collective, which includes active duty, vets, civilian student organizers, and mental health professionals. We work with IVAW, and the forming AVAW, but we’re autonomous.
I will add – it doesn’t matter what the Corps or the Navy bans. We were in town the entire week. A few sailors joined IVAW, but many more have just begun to resist the ridiculous war in Afghanistan (you want to fight for a guy who threatens to join the Taliban every time he gets criticized? Then join on up. But the Marines and Sailors we spoke with don’t.) We’ll stay in touch with the Marines and Sailors that gave us there contact info, supporting them in whatever way they need, with or without resistance.
Y’all can just continue to armchair general.
And if anyone want to see the 50 some page resource packet we’ve distributed you can just ask. And then you ask yourself why you haven’t attempted to provide a sliver of the resources we have. Or just admit you support a war but not the troops. I’d much rather support the troops and not a war…
“Or just admit you support a war but not the troops. I’d much rather support the troops and not a war…”
Right. IVAW supports the troops by going around saying the military is full of racists, sexists, rapists, homophobes and mindless uneducated killers. You can keep your brand of “support”.
So, when are ya gonna stop pretending, and ditch the “I” in “IVAW”?
Scotty –
Feel free to spend all your time online screaming traitor. Or, if you actually give a shit, maybe volunteer at giveanhour.org, or the Wounded Warriors project…
Doubt that’ll happen, but one can always hope.
And while I completely support IVAW and AVAW, I’m not in either. I work with the collective.
Yeah, Adam, I don’t know how I got the idea that IVAW organized the UXO concert – well, except maybe because of this from your own stupid link;
And no one called you traitor, we save that distinction for people who leak information to the enemy. You’re just an illiterate, misguided little troll.
“And while I completely support IVAW and AVAW, I’m not in either. I work with the collective.”
Heheheee, sounds eerily like “we are the Borg, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated…….” lol
Don’t worry Scott, the Armed Forces as a whole represent less than two percent of the country’s population, wingnuts like this represent even less than that. 🙂
I won’t call those in IVAW traitor. However I agree with some of the above comments that wearing a shirt that says Iraq Vet Against The War when you are not one is very misleading. The above justifications from the pro-IVAW side are also pretty thin.
IVAW does very little to support Soldiers, if anything real at all. I know, I was an Active Duty War Resister.
IVAW uses real Vets to push the “movements” agenda and as soon as they speak out against the movement, you get the ax.
True, IVAW did not put on the UXO concert, but they should never have been allowed to take part.
But what do I know, according to some of your board members and general members and supporter I’m just a baby killing racist xenophobic rapist sheep fucker.
This Adam Jung guy is quite insulting. I personally am not “armchair quarterbacking” the war since I am on active duty in support of a small element of OEF that is hugely detrimental to national security. But the real insult is that he gauges “supporting the troops” by his own biased and skewed standards and definitions. For example, I’m on the board of my local VFW post and frequently work with the service officer to support vets. I also provide specialized volunteer assistance to members of the military on my own time. I suspect many others here do the same.
I’m not going to call this guy a “traitor” because there are probably more accurate descriptions of him based solely on his words. But he certainly is condescending for adopting his typical and tired rhetoric as superior over other viewpoints.
You have to take a shot for each person in this picture who is in IVAW, but not an actual Iraq Vet. Happy drinking!
Well, Casey, I think that’s Chantelle Bateman next to Jose, and she went to Iraq. But, she’s the only one.
3 of those pictured are Iraq vets.
I would like to see all the vets who wear shirts or otherwise openly support “GI Resistance” to publicly sign a pledge stating that they will either give back or not use any non-medical benefits gained from their service, to include GI Bill and veterans preference for jobs. In that way, they can remove the stain of hypocracy.
Adam:
You don’t know me, nor what I have done and do for veterans in my spare time. I can guarantee it has impacted more vets’ futures positively than any of the bullshit your organization of circle jerkers does ever will.
Yeah, Matthis, IVAW poster boy, blast Soldiers as being mindless murders, and complaining about the Army and the country, but has no problem using that G.I. Bill.
You know what I find hilarious? When the American Legion says that they consider all veterans who served during wartime to be veterans of that war, no one goes on the attack on the American Legion. No one here (at least I hope) goes tracking down WWII veterans to say “Oh, you only trained pilots in the states, TAKE OFF THAT WWII VETERAN HAT”. Or, “You were only running Intel from London”. No, it’s only with IVAW that people have this enormous issue, because they don’t agree with the politics.
The bullet or bomb that kills in Iraq takes a lot of helping hands along the way. We used to recognize that. When did that stop?
American Legion doesn’t hand out T-shirts that imply that their members are veterans of any war they didn’t attend. Now, if VFW offered membership to non-theater veterans, you might have a point – but they don’t and you don’t have a coherent point.
Yeah, besides someone doing intel in London would be in a combat zone. You know, they did get bombed. My Grandmother on my Dad’s side is British, and my Grandfather was deployed to England, and I think some other places. In any case, that is where they met.
Your point really hold no weight because it does not account for sick fucks like Matthis, or your Bobby Joe Grubb’s, Alex Bacon’s, etc etc, who had zero input in the war.
I agree that the Iraq war is wrong, so it’s not a difference in a stance on the war. It’s a difference in a level of integrity. As in I have it. You know exactly what people assume when they see people in that shirt.
Jonn-
I was referring specifically to a statement a highup AL muckety-muck made, which is very similar to statements IVAW members have made, that no one (at my last glance) saw fit to insult and make fun of.
You don’t address the people going around wearing WWII veteran caps, I note.
Casey: You and I have talked about this. It’s hard. What broad standard can you make to make sure the people that had direct (and often quite significant) war impact are counted, and ones that had no war impact aren’t? How you define war impact? At what degree? Would you say, for example, people training at the NTC are having an impact on the war? And, once you’ve got this standard, how would you/we sort for it? Everyone would have to be sorted on a case by case basis, and with the volume of incoming, people would never get processed.
I know what some people assume-but that doesn’t make them the arbiters of what is right. Some people, for example, would assume that only people who got in direct firefights were Iraq war veterans-they wouldn’t count the supply, or the mechanics, or the intel, or anyone else but eleven bang-bangs. When your average citizen thinks of a war veteran, their mental picture comes from WWII or Vietnam movies. It’s just not realistic. That’s not our fault.
Pretty simple really.
If you rate the WWII Victory Medal, you’re a WWII veteran.
If you rate the Iraq Campaign Medal, you’re an Iraq veteran.
“When your average citizen thinks of a war veteran, their mental picture comes from WWII or Vietnam movies. It’s just not realistic. That’s not our fault.”
But you have no problem capitalizing on this misperception to peddle your agenda, that’s for damn sure.
Actually Bobby Joe did serve his country. His choice was to serve as an active member of the coast guard to save lives arather than destroy them.