• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nathan Phillips vet status in question

I'm a Nam era vet, but I just say I'm a veteran so as not to be confused with a Nam combat veteran. I did live off base in Okinawa with a Vietnamese woman, so, saw a little action there.;) But back to the spitting allegations, I have known MANY, Nam combat vets and Nam era vets, including myself. The subject came up a few times, and my buddies said the same thing I did. we've always heard the stories, but never knew anybody it happened to, and neither have they. I've searched archived news stories about returning vets, never found a "cinfirmed spitting". I'm not saying it's absolutely no way it happened, I just think it 's like an urban legend.:peace

Until you talk to every vet (combat or Vietnam era), you'll never truly know. My husband was Vietnam era, and was told every time he flew that he had to remove his uniform and wear civilian clothes before he disembarked because of the anti-war sentiment. :shrug:

Not saying it happened. Not saying it didn't. I haven't spoken to every single soldier that served. :) Oh, and :peace to you as well, and thank you for your service.
 
Several people who went AWOL did so time and again. It wasn't uncommon.

Secondly - if you say so, about his lying. I have seen a lot of people erroneously say that he was a Vietnam vet, when he was actually Vietnam era. That's what I heard Phillips say. Vietnam times vet. But if he said he was actually in country, that would be wrong.

That being said, I love how everybody is quick to lambaste this old man for this, when it has nothing to do with what happened. Take the whole veteran thing out of the equation, and it was still wrong what happened. But then, instead of it happening to a veteran, it happened to an elderly Native American man. Doesn't negate the fact that it still happened, and all this character assassination about Phillips is certainly the end-goal, to get that MAGAt kid out of the spotlight.

It's truly disgusting. They don't just want the MAGA kids out of the spot light, they want to turn them into martyrs.

I really, truly have no hate in my heart for the native elder or the kids, and I think the media and social media should respect them and be careful. The death threats are out of hand. And no matter what happened in that video, what it really exposed, is how disgusting and hateful every day Americans can be on social media. It's actually scary. There is some real anger in our society.

Perhaps it is because some of these people truly have hate in their heart, their frustrated, and Trump/MAGA isn't winning. I guess they are taking it out on others, some being people in this thread. Since Hillary is gone, they need something new to attack, I guess. This isn't Making America Great Again.
 
Or like he did with Ted Cruz. He called his wife ugly and accused his father of having something to do with the JFK assassination. Now Cruz is sniffing his ass just like a dog in heat.

Disgusting.

Oh yeah. That's totally disgusting. Cruz really has zero character.
 
I don't mean lying about being a vet. I agree he is a vet. He lied about what his position was in the service.

I don't feel that kid did anything wrong, so I guess I'm on that side of the fence on this issue.

Actually, his tribe and community is standing by him: saying he has never lied to them, and his quotes are being taken out of context

quote:

Chase Iron Eyes, lead attorney for the Lakota People’s Law Project, says there has been a lot of backlash regarding Phillips’ response regarding comments at Standing Rock over the term ‘recon ranger.’

Iron Eyes told Indian Country Today, “The recon ranger quote was taken completely out of context. I’ve known Nathan a long time. He was speaking about his role at Standing Rock, he was not talking about his role in the military. He has always said Vietnam Times or Vietnam era when referring to his military service.”

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountryt...lips-military-records-p3Gs--zUpUiwJPURPIlzxg/

I think people are really grasping at straws to attack him, and this is all happening after the same people jumped all over the media for being unfair to the kids. Both sides deserve respect and privacy, because they are private citizens, and both should be given fair chance in explaining discrepencies instead of non stop character assassinations.
 
Actually, his tribe and community is standing by him: saying he has never lied to them, and his quotes are being taken out of context

quote:

Chase Iron Eyes, lead attorney for the Lakota People’s Law Project, says there has been a lot of backlash regarding Phillips’ response regarding comments at Standing Rock over the term ‘recon ranger.’

Iron Eyes told Indian Country Today, “The recon ranger quote was taken completely out of context. I’ve known Nathan a long time. He was speaking about his role at Standing Rock, he was not talking about his role in the military. He has always said Vietnam Times or Vietnam era when referring to his military service.”

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountryt...lips-military-records-p3Gs--zUpUiwJPURPIlzxg/

I think people are really grasping at straws to attack him, and this is all happening after the same people jumped all over the media for being unfair to the kids. Both sides deserve respect and privacy, because they are private citizens, and both should be given fair chance in explaining discrepencies instead of non stop character assassinations.

Grasping at straws? Those are his words!

Note this whole “explanation” of his words didn’t come when people were questioning his vet status BEFORE he got doxxed, only after. That’s a retroactive justification. They needed to justify why he said something that is a lie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's truly disgusting. They don't just want the MAGA kids out of the spot light, they want to turn them into martyrs.

I really, truly have no hate in my heart for the native elder or the kids, and I think the media and social media should respect them and be careful. The death threats are out of hand. And no matter what happened in that video, what it really exposed, is how disgusting and hateful every day Americans can be on social media. It's actually scary. There is some real anger in our society.

Perhaps it is because some of these people truly have hate in their heart, their frustrated, and Trump/MAGA isn't winning. I guess they are taking it out on others, some being people in this thread. Since Hillary is gone, they need something new to attack, I guess. This isn't Making America Great Again.

Come on, though. Did you ever really think Trump was going to "Make America Great Again?" We were pretty ****ing great before he got into office. It's just an embarrassing ****-show now.
 
Come on, though. Did you ever really think Trump was going to "Make America Great Again?" We were pretty ****ing great before he got into office. It's just an embarrassing ****-show now.

The government is shut down with no end in sight, economists are warning of a recession, our allies are pissed off at us, and Trump is dropping in the polls.... what a failure... :lol:

America is worse off
 
The government is shut down with no end in sight, economists are warning of a recession, our allies are pissed off at us, and Trump is dropping in the polls.... what a failure... :lol:

America is worse off

Way, way worse off. Worse than I've ever seen, but then I knew this. Man bankrupted 4 times, was a failure at just about everything that his father didn't bail him out of (and some things he did) so I can't, for the life of me, figure out why people thought he could run a country. He couldn't run a ****ing casino, for piss sakes, and casinos are designed to win for the house.

He went bankrupt at a business that literally throws money at you. :lol:
 
Way, way worse off. Worse than I've ever seen, but then I knew this. Man bankrupted 4 times, was a failure at just about everything that his father didn't bail him out of (and some things he did) so I can't, for the life of me, figure out why people thought he could run a country. He couldn't run a ****ing casino, for piss sakes, and casinos are designed to win for the house.

He went bankrupt at a business that literally throws money at you. :lol:

Casinos fail all the time. In southern California we a couple default and/or close in the last few years.
 
Way, way worse off. Worse than I've ever seen, but then I knew this. Man bankrupted 4 times, was a failure at just about everything that his father didn't bail him out of (and some things he did) so I can't, for the life of me, figure out why people thought he could run a country. He couldn't run a ****ing casino, for piss sakes, and casinos are designed to win for the house.

He went bankrupt at a business that literally throws money at you. :lol:

If a Democrat had his record, Fox News would have exploited it 24 7. The rest of the press, didn't even try to expose his history; lawsuits, Trump foundation, bankruptcies, money laundering, etc. The media just covered his campaign non stop, and he got tons of free press out of the deal.
 

Wow, freaking really?

980x.jpg


There, happy? It shows it there quite clearly. UA from 19 May 75 to 21 May 75. Then again from 2 September 75 to 8 September 75. Then finally from 6 December 75 to 19 December 75.
 
Until you talk to every vet (combat or Vietnam era), you'll never truly know. My husband was Vietnam era, and was told every time he flew that he had to remove his uniform and wear civilian clothes before he disembarked because of the anti-war sentiment. :shrug:

Heck, it can be that way even today.

I have had crazy people try to run me off the road on my motorcycle on the I-80 in Berkley because my jacket had a large USMC patch on the back (2014).

When I was at LAX with my wife and son in uniform I had 1 individual swear at me after we got out of the car, saying "I hope you f*****g die you murderer!" Then inside the termin another guy went out of his way to bump into me, and another swore at me calling me a "F*****g butcher and criminal". All of this within a span of about 15 minutes.

But it's OK, I expect nothing less really in California. Most people in the SF or LA area are insane it seems. In those areas, they really think it is still 1968.
 
I believe this is the official response, and Don Shipley most likely broke the law when he published Phillip's DD-214

Am still waiting to find out how somebody broke the law about releasing FOIA obtained military records.

You stated more than once he broke the law, please tell us how he did that.
 
I would accept that, but for the fact that they have been reporting this for around a decade, and he never once corrected them.

But funny how once his actual records became public all of the reports suddenly got "clarified". One or two articles I could accept, but every article and news report I have seen pretty much all call him a "Vietnam Vet", and apparently he never felt the need to correct them on this.

Since previously posting in this thread, I've seen a video where he does indeed claim to be a Vietnam Vet" minus his usual "times" disclaimer.

"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years."

In the same video, at around the 23:45 mark, he states, "I got a Section 8 home because I'm a veteran, wartime veteran like that. Honorable, in theater, so I have Section 8 home."



https://taskandpurpose.com/nathan-phillips-vietnam

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-n...his-military-service-in-order-to-raise-money/
 
This thread is an interesting study of stubborn willful blindness. :)
 
Wow, freaking really?

980x.jpg


There, happy? It shows it there quite clearly. UA from 19 May 75 to 21 May 75. Then again from 2 September 75 to 8 September 75. Then finally from 6 December 75 to 19 December 75.


Well, what I really was looking for was evidence that he was “drummed out,” as you claimed. And since I’m unfamiliar with the acronyms, I’m not sure what this paper means.

it does raise a few questions, though.

What does having been AWOL over 40 years ago have to do with recent events?

How did the Phillips haters get their hands on his military records? When I requested my father ‘s records, i had to attest to the fact that he was deceased, and that i was his daughter. (Even then i didn’t get them because the records of many WWII vets, including Dad’s, were lost in a warehouse fire.)

why did they bother to get his records, presumably under false pretenses (given that I only had standing to request Dad’s records because he was deceased and i was a close enough relative)? That they had the records in the first place, and that they’ve already used them for nefarious purposes (to destroy him) shows their dishonorable intentions.
 
Until you talk to every vet (combat or Vietnam era), you'll never truly know. My husband was Vietnam era, and was told every time he flew that he had to remove his uniform and wear civilian clothes before he disembarked because of the anti-war sentiment. :shrug:

Not saying it happened. Not saying it didn't. I haven't spoken to every single soldier that served. :) Oh, and :peace to you as well, and thank you for your service.

Thanks, and I never wore my uniform when I flew to the states either. I can say that I was treated rudely by civilians a few times. Even out of uniform, my high and tight stuck out like a sore thumb. Thanks to your husband as well.:cool::)
 
Well, what I really was looking for was evidence that he was “drummed out,” as you claimed. And since I’m unfamiliar with the acronyms, I’m not sure what this paper means.

What does having been AWOL over 40 years ago have to do with recent events?

How did the Phillips haters get their hands on his military records? When I requested my father ‘s records, i had to attest to the fact that he was deceased, and that i was his daughter.

why did they bother to get his records, presumably under false pretenses (given that I only had standing to request Dad’s records because he was deceased and i was a close enough relative)? That they had the records in the first place, and that they’ve already used them for nefarious purposes (to destroy him) shows their dishonorable intentions.

Getting records is very easy, I have already explained that in here many times.

His being kicked out is covered on the first page, his rank primarily.

Most Marines achieve the rank of Private First Class E-2 after 6 months or less. Lance Corporal E-3 at 12-18 months. Corporal after 3 years or so in service. This gut went AWOL 3 different times, spent time in the Brig (2 months in fact), and got out the same rank he was when he entered the service. Yea, he was kicked out.

And the top 3 lines really tell you all you need to know here. Here, let me break it down a bit for you.

19 May 1975, individual was reported UA - AWOL (Unauthorized Absence is the term the Marines uses for AWOL)
21 May 1975, he was assigned to "confinement". In other words the brig, military jail.
22 July 1975, he was released from confinement and returned to duty.

Now this is rather telling, in that he was confined for 60 days. If I have to guess, he was captured or returned by civilian authorities, then faces a Summary Court Martial. Now that is the lowest form of Court Martial, and they have some say in the punishments they can hand out. One of them is reduction in rank and up to 30 days confinement, or retention at their current rank and 60 days confinement. Since the latter was done, I am assuming that he likely had no rank to loose. Hence, the Summary for only a few days UA. He was already probably a problem child, hence he had no rank to loose.

He then went UA again in September, and again in December. At that time they seem to have had enough, and started the work to kick him out. We see him no longer assigned as a "RefrigMan", but to "Carpenter". In other words, he was stripped of his duties and then placed into a holding status in his own unit.

At this point, Christmas is right around the corner, so any disciplinary actions were put on hold until the new year.

Next entry is in April, where he is transferred yet again. But this is the most telling. on 27 April 76 his status is "Transfer", and on 28 April it is "Awaiting Relaxed Duty".

Yea, that is the most telling of all. "Relaxed Duty" means he has been stripped of all duties, and transferred into a special unit that is nothing but people who are waiting to get kicked out of the military. Now not everybody in this unit is getting "kicked out". They can be there because they have PTSD and can no longer perform their duties. They may be awaiting a hardship discharge (death of family member), it may be that something about their discharge was fraudulent and they are simply being sent home.

But yea, most members in a "Relaxed Duty" unit are getting the boot. Either an Article 15 or Summary Court Martial has made a finding that their behavior is not consistent of a member of the military, and they are being kicked out. Generally with an "Other Than Honorable" discharge. He was there until 5 May 76, where he was kicked out. Just in time to go home and celebrate the Bicentennial.

But to answer your next question, since you were the next of kin the records you could have gotten would have been much more complete. Nothing would have been redacted out, and a full and clear copy of his DD-214 would have been provided, which you could have used to apply for death benefits from the VA. This is not available for another individual who requests the records through FOIA.

But then you go right off the rails in the last paragraph. Nothing "nefarious" about requesting records, it is done all the time. In fact, if more reporters would request such records before or after interviewing somebody then a lot less cases like this would happen. Vogue wrote glowing articles about this guy several times. And never once did they even bother to verify his military record. And the rest of this really (along with your admitting that you are unfamiliar with any of the terminology) shows that you apparently are not even interested in the truth, you are trying to bend and twist things to come out the way you want.
 
What does having been AWOL over 40 years ago have to do with recent events?

Well, here is the thing really. And it really is important.

Are you familiar with the old radio show Fibber McGee and Molly? Well, this is where things like "Content of Character" start to apply. He was not just AWOL, he did it 3 different times (twice after spending 2 months in the brig). And after that, he was kicked out. This shows that in the service he had already established a pattern of misconduct. Also that his service was not honorable.

Then advance through the next 40+ years. And what we see is that he has played off of his "Vietnam Times Veteran" status over and over again. He makes claims that were not true repeatedly, all based upon that 40 year old service. They are relevant because he is the one that kept making those claims over and over again. He was a "Vietnam Vet", he was "in country", that he was a "Recon Ranger". If he had been like the vast majority and never mentioned his service, nobody would have asked and nobody would have cared.

But when every single interview he gives has to go into his Veteran Status, people are going to start questioning that status. In other words, most of the last 40 years he has been actively living a lie. And lying about his service. That is a condemnation on his current ability to be factual and his reliability to tell the truth.
 
I would accept that, but for the fact that they have been reporting this for around a decade, and he never once corrected them.

But funny how once his actual records became public all of the reports suddenly got "clarified". One or two articles I could accept, but every article and news report I have seen pretty much all call him a "Vietnam Vet", and apparently he never felt the need to correct them on this.

I see your point. I never say I am a Vietnam veteran, and if anyone calls me one, I correct them by stressing the word ERA...Vietnam ERA veteran.
 
Heck, it can be that way even today.

I have had crazy people try to run me off the road on my motorcycle on the I-80 in Berkley because my jacket had a large USMC patch on the back (2014).

When I was at LAX with my wife and son in uniform I had 1 individual swear at me after we got out of the car, saying "I hope you f*****g die you murderer!" Then inside the termin another guy went out of his way to bump into me, and another swore at me calling me a "F*****g butcher and criminal". All of this within a span of about 15 minutes.

But it's OK, I expect nothing less really in California. Most people in the SF or LA area are insane it seems. In those areas, they really think it is still 1968.

I'm not saying it can't happen. Just that the "spitting" incidents, if they ever really happened, were never verified, or corroborated. Here's an interesting read. This guy Lempke did a lot of research into specific incidents. He even wrote a book on it called "The Spitting Image". Read this article and let me know what you think. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...icle/?id=350&usg=AOvVaw3yXQhiwnH-KHBLccxVaS3Y
 
I'm not saying it can't happen. Just that the "spitting" incidents, if they ever really happened, were never verified, or corroborated. Here's an interesting read. This guy Lempke did a lot of research into specific incidents. He even wrote a book on it called "The Spitting Image". Read this article and let me know what you think. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...icle/?id=350&usg=AOvVaw3yXQhiwnH-KHBLccxVaS3Y

Oh, this has been talked about a great many times over the years. And most have pretty much entirely dismissed it. It is a convoluted attempt to claim that the entire claims of vets being abused is a false memory, essentially created by the Nixon Administration in order to drive a wedge between Veterans and the Anti-War movement. And his entire claim that it never happened pretty much boils down to "it never happened in front of a reporter".

Yea, and I do not know of any instances of one plane striking another that a reporter actually witnessed, does that mean that never happened? Most rapes never happen in front of a reporter, does that mean they never happen? The entire book is based on a shaky form of logic, and is laughable in the extreme.

And while a great many critics went ga-ga over the book when it came out (New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, I tend to notice what was said in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Lembcke's debunking of the spitting stories is quite persuasive. But he has much broader aims. Not only was there no spitting, he argues, but there was no hostility or tension at all between veterans and protesters. In fact, he characterizes their relationship as "empathetic and mutually supporting."

It is certainly true that a remarkable number of veterans opposed the war, and that the antiwar movement did forge alliances with veterans. It is also true that American culture has given too little in-depth attention to antiwar veterans. But Lembcke insists on a strict either/or argument: Veterans and peaceniks were either enemies or comrades. "Antiwar activists could not have been spitting on veterans while at the same time befriending them in off-base coffeehouses," he writes.

Lembcke can't seem to imagine that some activists may have been hostile to veterans; others suspicious, indifferent, fearful, guilty, welcoming, or any combination of the above. Or that an activist might have been cool toward some veterans (those perceived as pro-war, for example) and warm toward others. Lembcke believes that solidarity was virtually the only historical reality.
A Review of Recent Books on Vietnam

Yea, there was never any hostility towards veterans. My wife and son never witnessed the things called out to me. I never claimed to be spit at, but in a great many protests in the last few years we have seen what I can only call "Leftists" spitting at those who offend them in some reason.

And yes, no need to "point" me to the book, I read it about a decade ago and found it largely political and laughable. He really claim that there was no animosity towards returning veterans at all. And his entire claim is essentially because no reporter made an article saying they saw spitting happen.

He is attempting to confirm the "double negative", and fails at doing so.
 
I see your point. I never say I am a Vietnam veteran, and if anyone calls me one, I correct them by stressing the word ERA...Vietnam ERA veteran.

I also avoid the entire thing about the Gulf War, by saying I was a Cold War era veteran. I am also now a GWOT veteran, and have the campaign medal to prove it.

If anything I have seen over the years, other Veterans take a rather dim view of others who exaggerate their experience. Yes, we all do it to a degree, but when the claims bear almost no connection to reality, that tends to diminish the viewer in our eyes. It is like those who wear awards that they never earned.
 
Oh, this has been talked about a great many times over the years. And most have pretty much entirely dismissed it. It is a convoluted attempt to claim that the entire claims of vets being abused is a false memory, essentially created by the Nixon Administration in order to drive a wedge between Veterans and the Anti-War movement. And his entire claim that it never happened pretty much boils down to "it never happened in front of a reporter".

Yea, and I do not know of any instances of one plane striking another that a reporter actually witnessed, does that mean that never happened? Most rapes never happen in front of a reporter, does that mean they never happen? The entire book is based on a shaky form of logic, and is laughable in the extreme.

And while a great many critics went ga-ga over the book when it came out (New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, I tend to notice what was said in the Chronicle of Higher Education:


A Review of Recent Books on Vietnam

Yea, there was never any hostility towards veterans. My wife and son never witnessed the things called out to me. I never claimed to be spit at, but in a great many protests in the last few years we have seen what I can only call "Leftists" spitting at those who offend them in some reason.

And yes, no need to "point" me to the book, I read it about a decade ago and found it largely political and laughable. He really claim that there was no animosity towards returning veterans at all. And his entire claim is essentially because no reporter made an article saying they saw spitting happen.

He is attempting to confirm the "double negative", and fails at doing so.


I was treated rudely in bars as such on an occasion or 2. Nobody was buying us drinks, that's for sure. I wasn't saying all people loved us back then. But I do know that there was a good many veterans that protested the war. Everybody I knew that had a draft card was against the war by time Tet was in the rear view mirror and the 70s were here. I remember all the "bring the boys home" marches and such. I think what is getting lost in all this , is the claim by Phillips the he was "spit on by a hippie girl" is pretty doubtful. Of course you can't prove something DIDN'T happen, so, it is a pretty safe claim to make. But getting back to our anecdotes, I never saw it happen, or knew anybody that saw it happen. But yeah your right, I can't prove that it didn't happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom