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. eace
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Link?
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:
I believe this is the official response, and Don Shipley most likely broke the law when he published Phillip's DD-214
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.
Wow, freaking really?
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:
Not saying it happened. Not saying it didn't. I haven't spoken to every single soldier that served.Oh, and eace to you as well, and thank you for your service.
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.
What does having been AWOL over 40 years ago have to do with recent events?
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.
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
A Review of Recent Books on VietnamLembcke'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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?