Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/22/2019 4:08:12 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3721293/posts



Skip to comments.

Vanity: Washington Post Corrects Story: Phillips Never Deployed to Vietnam
Washington Post ^

Posted on 01/22/2019 11:41:50 AM PST by TigerClaws

Correction: Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips served in the U.S. Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was never deployed to Vietnam.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: covington; demlies; nathanphillips; oops; stolenvalor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: rey

Vietnam Era Vet is a valid term. It distinguishes veterans who did not go to Vietnam during that time from the Vietnam Vets who did go.


41 posted on 01/22/2019 12:29:56 PM PST by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dalberg-Acton

Agreed. This puke never served a day in the military.


42 posted on 01/22/2019 12:39:20 PM PST by MNDude (WWG1WGAalso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

No. “Veteran” means you served as a member of the U.S. armed forces, war or not.


43 posted on 01/22/2019 12:40:10 PM PST by VietVet876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Fake Injun too, I’d think.


44 posted on 01/22/2019 12:41:23 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

He enlisted at 17?


45 posted on 01/22/2019 12:41:30 PM PST by databoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

Most likely someone at the WP who trolls FR saw it and sent an email to executives before someone slapped a slander suit on them.


46 posted on 01/22/2019 12:41:57 PM PST by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Fake Injun too, I’d think.

His parents told him he had high cheek bones and is probably an indian.

47 posted on 01/22/2019 12:42:14 PM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Regardless of what Chief $#itting Bull may or may not have done 45 years ago, today he is a professional troublemaker and a pathological liar.


48 posted on 01/22/2019 12:44:34 PM PST by NorthMountain (... the right of the peopIe to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

I was in the USN from 61 to 65 and the last two years were the best times of my life. I’ve never equaled it. People who never served in the military are missing something to be found nowhere else.

And anyone who served honorably in the military is a veteran, whether it’s Audie Murphy or some guy who spent his enlistment digging graves in the Solomons.


49 posted on 01/22/2019 12:46:08 PM PST by sparklite2 (Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PIF

Vietnam era enlisted vets have the lousiest benefits you could imagine


I served during that time. I’ve used education benefits and VA home loans. What added benefits are there now?


50 posted on 01/22/2019 12:48:04 PM PST by sparklite2 (Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

It’s a weasel phrase because if falsely suggests that the person served in combat in Vietnam. “Vietnam” should be left out unless you actually served in Vietnam. That does not diminish one’s veteran status, which should be lauded.


51 posted on 01/22/2019 1:00:35 PM PST by bort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

My ed benes for four years were $1200 and 12,000 home loan - when average home where I lived at the time was $72,000. Used W$1000 of ed up only to find out I was not able to do the job unless willing to go blind. You imagine there are additional ones? I doubt that they were increased and fat lot of good any of them would do me now at 76.


52 posted on 01/22/2019 1:00:50 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

“FWIW - if you enlisted prior to Oct 1, 1976, you are considered a Vietnam Era veteran, and qualified for the old GI bill.”

That describes me. I never got closer to Nam than the Pacific Side of the Panama Canal Zone. I tell people that upfront. I did get to see a lot of Gitmo and a lot of the water around Gitmo for 2 years.

I did qualify for the old GI Bill, and the VA helped to finance our first home and to pay for my Master’s Degree.


53 posted on 01/22/2019 1:02:44 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Liberals//GOPe's 2019 Strategy, mantra, plan = 'No Borders, No Walls, No USA at All!'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Need to see his DD214. He claimed he was 'in' the military, 'served' is another question yet to be answered. No DD214, then stolen valor.
54 posted on 01/22/2019 1:04:16 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: skimbell

Look, if you write “Vietnam ERA veteran” on forms required by the Government, that’s one thing. But to go around and publicly call yourself a Vietnam era vet is misleading, and connotes that you served in combat in Vietnam. I know of one Vietnam ERA vet who just got his ass kicked a year ago at a local VFW because he was wearing a hat that said “Vietnam Era Vet.” Just call yourself a “veteran.”


55 posted on 01/22/2019 1:04:20 PM PST by bort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PIF

I’m not imagining anything. Another poster said the benefits we got were paltry compared to what came later. I asked what came later.


56 posted on 01/22/2019 1:06:18 PM PST by sparklite2 (Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bort

It’s a weasel phrase because if falsely suggests that the person served in combat in Vietnam.


No, it states that someone served during the Vietnam ERA. It does not imply they served in VN, so it is the opposite of weasel. The weasel wants to exaggerate his service, not diminish it.


57 posted on 01/22/2019 1:10:03 PM PST by sparklite2 (Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dalberg-Acton
Dishonorable discharge?

Fold3 is very efficient.

Suggest...don't use Vietnam War as search item.

Haven't had Fold3 for many years now so maybe I'm wrong.

58 posted on 01/22/2019 1:13:39 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
That’s not a weasel word. “VietNam Era Veteran” has been in common use for decades, well, since the war itself basically. “Vietnam Veteran” has been reserved for Troops who were deployed to the country.

I worked in the VA from 1974 to 1996. These terms were used and understood by everyone in the veteran and VA community.

There is no dishonor in calling oneself a “Vietnam Era Veteran.” It just means you served in the military during the war but were not deployed to SE Asia.

Pretending you were In country when you weren’t is dishonorable and reprehensible.

59 posted on 01/22/2019 1:13:44 PM PST by hinckley buzzard (Power is more often surrendered than seized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
As a National Guard Reservist who was on active duty in the Vietnam Era for training, they passed out what was referred to as the Vietnam Era Ribbon, but was actually the National Defense Service Ribbon. It looked like this:

If you spent even one day in Vietnam, in the surrounding waters in-support or in the neighboring countries supporting the Vietnam operations, then you were awarded this:


60 posted on 01/22/2019 1:20:13 PM PST by KC Burke (If all the world is a stage, I would like to request my lighting be adjusted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson