IVAW goofuses to throw away “medals” in Chicago
Greg Broseus says “They’re my medals. I earned them. I can do whatever I want with them” so he’s going to throw them at NATO. Or something. I’m sure NATO would love to get their hands on that Army Achievement Medal or his ArGreg Broseusmy Service Ribbon (yes, at least three of those awards in this rack aren’t medals at all, but service ribbons);
His purpose?
“Just to let NATO know that, as the troops, the people that are sent to fight these wars … we don’t agree with them,” Broseus says.
Yeah, because that will terrify NATO.
Broseus says an enemy bullet struck his Humvee. It brought him way too close to becoming a casualty of a war effort he didn’t condone.
But now he’s made peace with the gunman he’s never met — a lesson of war.
“If I could meet that person today, I would want to sit down and drink tea with them and talk to them about their experience,” Broseus says.
And he’d want to saw your head off on camera, so you have something in common, doncha?
“They’re putting the bombs out there because we’re there. So, the best way for us to get rid of the bombs is to just not be there,” Broseus says.
Yep, even though we were trying to help Iraqis build their country from scratch and a few were trying to seize power without the will of the people, we should have just let the thugs take over.
Broseus and other veterans making a similar protest hope they’ll be able to hand over their medals to a NATO representative. If not, they say they will throw them over the fence that surrounds the highly fortified summit site.
Which NATO representative will mollify you, Broseus? And how long will it take you to order replacements from Ranger Joe’s with a couple of extras? Broseus was smart enough to not have a profile on IVAW website, I wonder why?
Thanks to Art for the link. I moved the video below the link because it was slowing down the front page;
Category: Iraq Veterans Against the War
Just got two questions for ya, “Anonymous” (Broseus, maybe). (1) You do realize that NATO played a negligible role in Iraq?
(2) Why not pitch them over the fence at 1600 Penn Ave, Wash, DC?
Hondo : Thanks for the candid responses…I have little dealings with reserve/guard and no positive ones that I can think of. I am interested and always have been the guy with questions….
Dear anonymous,
I take it your claiming to be the guy staring in this subject? You are not almost a casualty and can not almost be a casualty by definition. Unless you want to argue that everyone in the military is almost a casualty…I would still disagree but would not so vehemently do so.
My questions to you (not that I expect an answer or could verify it was actually who you claim to be or the same person responding as the comment in 50) are many. Did you ever stop to think the awards you received as a member of a team reflect not only on you but your unit your branch your military and your country? Did you ever stop to think about the 18 year old Americans down range and in garrison that disagree with you? That disagree with you politicizing (is that a word?) your service in any way? Did you ever think your actions are only ammunition for people that wish to degrade our military or even worse harm our military and country as a whole?
You claim to not be “that guy” whining about being deployed until you were deployed. That doesn’t compute…you whined about being deployed only when you could make it political? How is that different? How is that not worse?
I ask that you stop using your service as a tool….I ask that you stop using your service to garner attention to yourself. Your service was done as a member as a team and that fact should never be forgotten. Stop allowing yourself to be used as a tool. Please remember the team and please think how your actions reflect on the team.
My parting words are these: if this exceptional country is ever invaded or attacked again I will be in uniform and in line with my brothers defending this great land and her citizens.
I have to also ask if this is not just a stunt to get attention for your photo gallery in the media?
@#50. You reference a film adored by the NYT, the Village Voice and Time magazine? No agenda there. I suppose you believe that “documentaries” never have a political point they’re trying to make?
It appears that you just want to have your Jean Fraud Kerry moment, and want to make sure it translates to 15 minutes of fame. Like Hondo said, what’s wrong with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
So it goes from “a round hit my HMMWV” to “HOLY SHIT IT WAS A SNIPER!!!” Not buyin it pal.
“Just to let NATO know that, as the troops, the people that are sent to fight these wars … we don’t agree with them,” Broseus says.
And a heartfelt “FUCK OFF” for presuming to speak for everyone that served in Iraq. Smug little prick.
Gum Daggit … I hate it when they sign on as Anonymous. How about a little honesty, courage, and conviction.
PussyInChicago2012 writes, “I joined as a way to pay for my education fully aware of what singing the dotted line means.”
MAN TRANSLATION: “I am self-centered, singular in action, my education comes before my core values, I have no idea what the oath says but I can find the “dotted line” (what ever that means), and … oh … yes … I am still a pussy”
So as we all know the media like so leave out things. I always tell people that I’m talking to that I can only speak for MY experience and MY views. I never speak for anyone else. When I said “Just to let NATO know that, as the troops, the people that are sent to fight these wars … we don’t agree with them,” I was talking about the veterans that are handing over their medals. I am not speaking for the entire population of military servicemen and women. I reference the documentary because I believe documentaries are fair and balanced but because there are top advisers to Bush who speak out about how the invasion was handled. The FACT is Bush and his administration, against warnings, decided to not provide security to the Ministries of Iraq which in turn led to the collapse of their infrastructure. As to me looking for attention. Sorry you don’t know me. I never reached out to the media. The media contacted me AFTER seeing my work that is on display at the NVAM. I use photography as a way to communicate the trauma of war and what happens after war. My photography has nothing to do with NATO. Are you all now going to start telling me that PTSD is non-existent? That the suicide rate amongst returning soldiers is not at a staggering rate? Will you try to deny that the military and VA does a piss-poor job at getting soldiers the help they need when they come home? As far as NATO goes, I do understand their role in Iraq. I also understand the symbolic gesture of handing over medals and ribbons at the gathering of the worlds strongest powers, including but not limited to top U.S. officials. Another thing that was left out of the interviews is the fact that I would first and foremost want to hand over the medals to my former Commander-in-Chief, George Bush. He, however, no longer resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Redacted: I could care less if you believe me. Badams: you seem the most level… Read more »
“I reference the documentary because I believe documentaries are fair and balanced but because there are top advisers to Bush who speak out about how the invasion was handled. ”
That was supposed to read NOT because I believe…
For clarification I KNOW documentaries are NOT balanced.
Broseus: nice sidestep. Now, please answer the questions I posed above. Specifically: explain why are you returning your medals to NATO – which had virtually nothing to do with US operations in Iraq, or with the decision to deploy forces there – instead of the US government? And please also explain why you’d rather return your medals to a retired POTUS than the current POTUS – you know, that guy actually might have the authority to do something about changing conditions today? It couldn’t be due to politics, could it? Don’t bother to answer. Your comment 58 above makes it obvious that it’s about politics – and nothing else. You’re being disingenuous here on multiple levels. If you actually wanted to return your medals quietly without fanfare, the USPS delivers to both 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, and Crawford, TX – at reasonable rates. You wouldn’t need to deliver anything in person or attract any attention to yourself while doing so. It also sounds to me like “thou doth protest too much” about not wanting to attract attention to yourself. IMO, that attention (in terms of making a public political statement) is exactly what you’re looking for. A public interview isn’t exactly the behavior one would expect from someone who didn’t want the limelight; interview requests can be politely refused. But of course, without interviews no one would know about your “symbolic gesture of handing over medals and ribbons at the gathering of the worlds strongest powers” – would they? Finally, despite your protests you ARE presuming to speak “for the troops”. You’re doing exactly that above when you say “. . . . we don’t agree with them.” I can speak for myself, fella. And you DON’T have my permission to speak on my behalf. Next time, make it clear that you’re speaking as an individual by saying “I don’t agree with them.” Sheesh. You’re as transparent as warped glass. And you distort reality similarly. Seems to me like you’re still bitter about having your comfortable college life interrupted by that little matter of having to honor your military… Read more »
Read a little closer and you can answer your own questions. I explained why at the NATO summit. I explained that saying “we” refers to not only myself but to those that are HANDING OVER MEDALS/RIBBONS. If you don’t fall into that category you’re not part of that “we.” That was cut from the clip. I don’t edit what goes on the news, fella. I have no desire to speak on your behalf.
I’m not bitter about having my college interrupted. Again, don’t presume to know me.
Of course there is a reason for not doing this quietly. When you do something quietly the general public is left in the dark. Should we only have news clips of soldiers saying they support the wars? My point is I’m not using this as an opportunity to promote my art. The media that has contacted me has done so due to having already seen the work. My point is to promote what IVAW is doing. We can agree to disagree about the politics of these wars. That’s the great thing about our nation right?
I don’t feel a need to hand over medals to the current POTUS because he is actually making efforts to bring an end to the wars.
Since you feel so strongly about the wars are you going give back all of the hazard duty pay that you received when you were a occupier according to your own words? I am sure that would create more media interest then just giving several Ribbions at a dollar and a quarter each.
Just think of all of the media attention of you handing over a cashiers check to so that you can decry the “blood money” you received.
So what do you say.
Broseus sez: “Saddam posed no threat to us at that moment. All we can say is that he was a dictator who needed to overthrown, but what about N. Korea? What about the other dictators of the world that we just sit back and watch? Why not invade their countries too? Why have we sat back for so long against Iran?”
What about North Korea or Iran? Well, what about them? Is the extent of your reasoning that if we can’t do something about every a$$hole in the world that we shouldn’t do anything about any of them? Would that have meant that if we couldn’t have deposed Stalin we should have done nothing about Hitler or Tojo? It might be crude realpolitik to say that taking out Saddam (aside from OBL our most visible enemy during the days after 9/11) sent a strong message to our other enemies, but it is a course of action other than the traditional “wring our hands and fret” that lefties always seem to find attractive.
Like any other power we have limited resources and have to make hard decisions about how to use them. We might have tried to concentrate our forces in Afghanistan-at the end of the longest supply line in history and on terrain that gave the enemy a variety of advantages-or we might try to lure our enemies onto a battlefield more to our liking while at the same time removing one of our most visible enemies and putting pressure on neighboring nations that are also often up to no good.
Since we invaded Iraq there have been uprisings in Lebanon, Iran and Syria with varying degrees of success. But as the great Mark Steyn so sagely pointed out the “stability fetishists” who argued against our action there offered no alternatives as to what to do other than their own good intentions and self regard. Iraq is free today and will prosper, I hope that its neighbors will follow that example and I am forever proud of my part in the war.
Broseus: 1. Regarding NATO: No, you didn’t offer an explanation; you merely made a self-serving statement. You did not explain why you’re returning your medals to NATO vice the US Government. NATO had essentially nothing to do with Iraq. So tell us- why are you returning your medals to them and not the US Government? Is the true answer “political theater”? 2. Regarding your “only the people participating” claim: while that may be technically true, it’s also misleading. The clear implication of your words is that you are speaking for veterans as a group, not merely for yourself. It’s disingenuous to say, “Just to let NATO know that, as the troops, the people that are sent to fight these wars – we don’t agree with them,” while claiming “I never speak for anyone else.” The two are mutually exclusive. Singular is not plural. 3. Actions speak louder than words. Your animosity towards the former POTUS is clear, and belies your claims of not being bitter. Get over it. 4. No issue if you want to act like a fool in public. But don’t be a hypocrite on top of that by claiming/implying that you don’t seek the media’s attention. In fact, you are actively seeking – and want – publicity for your actions in order to use them to make a political statement. 5. What the current POTUS did in Iraq was to continue policies put in place by his predecessor – e.g., to withdraw US forces after military and political objectives had been achieved. What he’s planning for Afghanistan appears more like “unconditional withdrawal irrespective of military realities”. Time will tell whether either was the correct decision. However, early indications regarding current Afghanistan policies are problematic to say the least. And you do realize that more casualties have occurred in Afghanistan in 3+ years under the current POTUS than occurred in 7 1/2 under his predecessor – don’t you? It’s obvious that you’re anti-Bush and pro-Obama. But Bush has been gone for 3+ years. Get over that, too. “Blame Bush” no longer a valid excuse for the current administration’s… Read more »
Nicely done, Hondo. You boiled it down pretty well, Broseus is only doing what his messiah has done, blame Bush.
And, it’s all about him and IVAW.
Too lazy to read through all that mess. Did he ever say why he isn’t tossing them over the fence at the WH?
So, Greg, the question that is on the tip of everyone’s tongues, and the true test as to your intentions – are you also handing over all of your VA benefits when you hand over your medals? After all, it’s easy to hand over intangible symbols of something that you disagree with; it’s a real act of courage to give up financial and political benefits. To fully complete the act, once the medals are symbolically handed over, so should your membership in every veteran organization, as you have also handed over your title of veteran. If you feel that the symbols of your service are symbols of corruption, then the financial, educational, and medical benefits are equally symbols of corruption and must also be handed over. To not do so would be the ultimate in hypocrisy. Somehow, however, I have a feeling that the GI bill paperwork will be submitted again when the next semester begins.
OWB? Because Broseus and his kissing cousins are too damn chickenshit to attempt it? Still trying to figure out what the flock NATO has to do with their US issued medals. Never mind that, I’d simply burning up precious cpu time, lol.
The benefits argument falls short. It wasn’t my choice to start these wars. The U.S. government sent me to fight and thus they owe me for my time and duty. They also owe Iraq and Afghanistan for the destruction that was caused to those two countries. I will do everything I can to give back to the Iraqi community, not our government that caused this whole mess.
You’d like to argue it’s okay to invade another country simply to get the enemy onto your preferred terrain? “You see what happened officer, I went to attack this guy in his own house but the floor plan was too tricky so I broke into his neighbors house where I felt like I had a better chance to win the fight. Plus I had beef with his neighbor so I figured it’d be okay.”
And it takes more than 3+ years to clean up after a messy house guest like Bush.
Again, in the interview we had been talking about the vets handing over their medals. Thus the pluralization. I’m aware of the difference between we and I. When talking about a group, in this case those handing over medals I use WE. The clip was EDITED. I’m sure you’re bright enough to figure out what that means. I’m sure you’re bright enough to realize I’m not the one who EDITED the interview for the news.
You guys keep asking the same questions while ignoring very simple to understand answers.
You’d like to argue it’s okay to invade another country simply to get the enemy onto your preferred terrain? “You see what happened officer, I went to attack this guy in his own house but the floor plan was too tricky so I broke into his neighbors house where I felt like I had a better chance to win the fight. Plus I had beef with his neighbor so I figured it’d be okay.”
Right, that’s exactly analagous because warfare is exactly like domestic law issues (you would have been caught up in the original issue of going to attack the other guy in his house there chief). Anyway, maybe you don’t favor our going into Afghanistan, but that still leaves aside just exactly what we should have done after 9/11. Warfare is a dirty business, but the rule is that it not about good and bad choices in war, but about bad and worse.
Anyway, I’m certain that you’re going to go right ahead and sign over your GI Bill benefits and any money you might have earned from your deployment since you “…will do everything I can to give back to the Iraqi community…”.
You’d like to argue it’s okay to invade another country simply to get the enemy onto your preferred terrain? “You see what happened officer, I went to attack this guy in his own house but the floor plan was too tricky so I broke into his neighbors house where I felt like I had a better chance to win the fight. Plus I had beef with his neighbor so I figured it’d be okay.”
Right, that’s exactly analagous because warfare is just like domestic law disputes (you would have been caught up when you went to go attack the first guy). Anyway, maybe you think that we were wrong to fight in Afghanistan, but that leaves aside what exactly you think we should have done after 9/11. The rule in warfare is that the choice isn’t going to be between good and bad, but between bad and worse.
And I’m sure that you are going to sign over all the money that you earned from your deployment and your GI Bill to the Iraqis given that you “…will do everything I can to give back to the Iraqi community…”. The fact that it was owed to you is irrelevant to the moral argument that you make about the war, ill-gotten gain and all that.
Bullshit, Broseus. You can’t have it both ways. In one place, you’re claiming to speak “only for myself”. In another, you’re claiming to speak for a group. Which is it, amigo?
And you’re lack of integrity is clearly showing here. If you really felt the war in Iraq was immoral, you’d refuse to accept any monetary gain associated with same. Specifically, you’d refuse to profit from your service if you were actually serious about your claims. You certainly wouldn’t play the “they owe me for my time and duty” card to justify your accepting VA benefits if you were sincere in your claimed beliefs.
You do realize that the Federal government has already paid you for your “time and duty”, don’t you – dipstick? What in the hell do you think the base pay, combat pay, and tax benefits you got while deployed to Iraq was for?
Sheesh. I first thought you were merely a misguided, naive youngster. I see now that you’re nothing but another jackass claiming your military service was “immoral” to score political points while at the same time profiting from the benefits earned by that same service. That means you are nothing but a damned hypocritical asshole. You have no honor, and are worthy of little more than contempt.
You disgust me.
The light has just come on in his head that the government funded liberal arts degree that he will soon be awarded is going to buy him the same job that his Army scam shield was going to get him unless he makes a name for himself. The easy way is to play the politically expedient “rogue vet” card and hope that the latest incarnation of ACORN is hiring.