Jump to content

Talk:About Face: Veterans Against the War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active Duty Members?

[edit]

This article mentions active duty military members of IVAW in 2 separate places, but isn't sourced. It's probably against regulations for active duty to be members, as they're prohibited from most political activities like campaigning, advocacy, etc. Nathanm mn 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is perfectly legal for those who are currently serving to join IVAW as long as they do not speak in uniform and do not make it know that they speak for them selves and not the US military.
Also as one of the founders and the person who wrote our mission statement I can assure you that we allow active duty troops to join.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.237.151 (talk) 02:13, March 25, 2007
Servicemembers are authorized to join political organizations (DoD Directive 1325.6). User:DayKart


City Pages Jen article

[edit]

One veteran planning to give testimony, a young woman who had guarded Iraqi POWs, expresses guilt and remorse for her abusive acts in an interview for the Twin Cities alternative newspaper, City Pages.[1]

Above removed from article. Claims to have put powder from Flameless ration heater in two cigarettes. Doesn't seem reasonable. Magnesium powder burns very hot and is hard to extinguish. Including specifically that in MREs.[1] -- SEWilco (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A Soldier in Winter", City Pages, March 5, 2008

there is no "occupation"

[edit]

this is a liberal slant on the truth, typical of Wikipedia, and needs to be changed. we are there with the consent of the duly elected government of Iraq and the majority of Iraqi's want us there and are glad we overthrew Saddam. Statesboropow (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links with polls which show the opposite of the claim that Iraqis "want" a US military presences: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/07/11/iraqis_want_us_troops_to_leave/5785/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Seven_out_of_10_Iraqis_want_0317.html http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/ there seemed to be an endless number of sites that provided swourced polls of the Iraq population and the "democratically elected" government - that both show that they want the US to leave, and fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.13.147 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US and Coalition Forces

[edit]

are there by the permission of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Iraq. if you want to talk about "occupation" look no further than the West Bank and Gaza! we will leave when the Iraqi govt and American Govt reach an agreement. to say that this is an "occupation" is biased, POV, inaccurate and irresponsible. Statesboropow (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We? If you are here as a representative of the US gov and not as a wikipedioa editor please do not edit here. I would also point out that the Iraqi government did not invite the US to invade in 2003. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks? you're welcome. we are there now with the permission of the democraticaly elected government. we, meaning: the United States. if they were telling us to leave, it would be a different story. the british were in ireland for over 700 years. that was an occupation. the israeli govt occupies the west bank and gaza against the will of the majority of the people. to say that we are occupying iraq is simply false. are we "occupying" germany and Korea??? Statesboropow (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the US installed the democratically elected government that can hardly be taken as evidence that it is all ok. At the end of the day a large chunk of the Iraqi population does not want the US anywhere near them. In addition, of course the current Iraqi government is not going to say "ooh no, we don't want the US here"; if the US pulled out the current structure would last about half an hour. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how would you know what the Iraqi population want? have you dont a study? Statesboropow (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: : When was the last time a German or South Korean used some form of home made weaponry against the US military stationed in those countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.13.147 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IVAW past support of Nasser Jason

[edit]

The IVAW has made efforts to fund his legal defense and other moral support a year or two back.

This is a screen shot from the IVAW website before it was deleted.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Abdo-IVAW-links.jpg

http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Abdo-IVAW.jpg

http://warresisters.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/nyc-press-conference-9-years-of-occupation-and-war-in-afghanistan/

This is the website that was listed in the IVAW website. I used the wayback machine to show the that this website was real.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110303152117/http://www.freenasserabdo.org/

Articseahorse (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Veterans Against the War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:About Face: Veterans Against the War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated as start class because it has good information on the group's membership and a useful skeleton on its activities, but needs more information on activities, history, and public/media reaction or criticism. Kalkin (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Veterans Against the War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Veterans Against the War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Veterans Against the War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop-Loss v. Recall Confusion

[edit]


"Stop-Loss" is the action of extending one's service contract beyond its original end date whether or not the person consents.

"Recall" is when people, who are under contract, are called back to serve. Anyone called up by this process had consented to it prior to joining the military. People are given these terms before they sign their contract, and have the choice of how long they will be in the "Individual Ready Reserve" (IRR). The first term of enlistment is 8 years with a 6 active / 2 IRR split as the standard. However, being in the IRR doesn't mean a person is "out of the military".


The article mentions "recall" and "stop-loss" as if they were the same thing. For anyone actively serving at the time of a stop-loss, if their contract was due to expire, they would have been extended until their deployment was done. On the other hand, there were people that deployed and returned to the IRR after they got home.

Both items were not liked by either the IVAW or regular veterans, but the meaning of each should be made clear for non-military Wikipedia readers. I served with some great people who were subjected to either stop-loss, or recall from the IRR. I hope this clears things up.

208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:About_Face:_Veterans_Against_the_War&oldid=1204453455"