Thread by @graywolf442

NT! By now the name of Nathan Phillips has become well known to most, if not all of us, being the man in the middle (literally) of the controversy that happened this weekend. The facts are in, and it is now known what his role in this was ...

But, that's been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum by others, and that's not what I want to talk about here. What I do want to talk about here is information about Mr. Phillips from various sources, that the legacy media refuses to ...

Acknowledge, let alone speak about, or even consider, and that is whether or not he is, in fact, a Viet Nam veteran. In the various interviews of Mr. Phillips, he has been called that by the interviewee, or referred to that in print, and on the web.

If in fact, Mr. Phillips is the reported age that he is, which is 64, and he served during the time frame he has claimed (which has been verified), he is *not* a Viet Nam veteran, as he *never* set foot in that country. *Only*those who *did* ...

Deploy to Viet Nam during their military service are considered to be Viet Nam veterans. No, Mr. Phillips is in the "class" of veterans who are Viet Nam Era veterans, a status that was applied to those who served either during that ...

War, but never went, or enlisted in the period shortly after our military involvement had ended. I am a Viet Nam Era veteran, as well, having enlisted in 1974. The fact that Mr. Phillips is vague on his status is telling, only saying "Viet Nam times" ...

Without correcting anyone when they refer to him as a Viet Nam veteran, as he is blatantly lying by omission, and compounding that lie by overtly lying about what he did while in the Marines, falsely claiming that he was a "recon ranger". Lol, wut?

The Marines call their reconnaissance troops Force Recon, not "recon rangers", and having been in the Marines, Mr. Phillips is well aware of that fact. The other known thing about Mr. Phillips is that he spent at least two stints in the brig ...

The Navy and Marine Corps version of jail. How could he have been in Viet Nam, if he was in the brig? The last thing about Mr. Phillips is that he was a basic electrician, assigned to repair refrigerators. Force Recon Marines don't do that. Support Marines do.

All of the information that is now known and being promulgated over the internet shows, to me, some guy that was at times (possibly always, don't know) a malcontent, doing a job he possibly hated, someone who couldn't wait ...

To get out of the Marines. Perhaps to make himself look more "important" (than a lowly basic electrician) to others, he began to "embellish" his time in the military. I don't know as I don't know the man. But, I think I'm correct.

We all like to look good in the eyes of others, and I believe Mr. Phillips is no different in this regard. He possibly hated his job, possibly resented those who were in command over him, and began to construct an image of himself ...

To make himself look good in the eyes of those he knew back home ... and himself ... to impress and awe, rather than admit that he got in trouble, and did a boring, regular, though necessary, job.

You might refer someone like that to an "armchair warrior", while we call people like that pogues ... in my opinion, Mr. Phillips is definitely a "pogue", and has ventured very close to, if not actually, being someone guilty of #StolenValor.

Mr. Phillips does not deserve any more of our time, although you will see his name in the news for who knows how much more time, long enough for the Left to milk his "usefulness", until he is no longer deemed to *be* useful ...

And then it'll be on to the next shiny thing, the next outrage, manufactured or real, something they can browbeat others, especially conservatives, and best of all Trump, with. And then it'll be on to the next shiny object, rinse and repeat. Buckle up.

ADDENDUM: Something that was brought to my attention was, is there a *legal* distinction between those who served *in* Viet Nam and those who did not, but are part of the Viet Nam Era class, and I want clarify this.

For VA purposes, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 38 Paragraph 3.2 (f), the Vietnam Era is "The period beginning on February 28, 1961 and ending on May 7, 1975, inclusive, in the case of a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period.

Source fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec… page 4.

So technically there is no legal distinction, as all who served during that time frame are considered to be Viet Nam Era veterans. However, there is (usually) a definite distinction between (honorable) veterans as to who's who, and what their "status" is ...

And for the most part, it stems from those of us who never served *in* Viet Nam, even if we served *during* Viet Nam, or like me, later. We don't call ourselves Viet Nam veterans out of a deeply held sense of respect towards those who *were* there.

Especially towards the 58,286 Viet Nam veterans whose names are etched into the black granite walls of the Viet Nam War Memorial, in Washington DC.

I hope this clears things up.