American Legion National Commander is a lair..

B

Bugs100

Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
1,468
Likes
68
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Paul A. Morin American Legion National Commander claims to be a Vietnam Veteran.

In todays Boston Globe it was revealed that he never left the country and stayed in Fort Lee N.J. for the two years he was in the Army.

As a Vietnam Veteran myself I think it's disgusting that people think they can claim to be a Vietnam Veteran just because they were in the military at the same time as the war was going on.
 
I don't agree with you at all. If anyone served on a ship throwing artillery
at the country, flying over it, supporting it from numerous logistical locations
that to me would qualify. If you wanted to trash him for not being a ground
combat VN veteran, go for it. Otherwise I think that you are not thinking this
through entirely. I was in the Army at the onset of the war, and in fact
volunteered to go there. My MOS was a critical need but they wouldn't take
me as my time left in the Army was not equal to the 13 month tour and I wouldn't
extend, so that fell through. When I got out the PRM labelled me a VN veteran
and gave me a monetary stipend for being in the military during that period.

I do not consider myself a VN veteran as I never stepped foot in country, nor
did I provide any support for the level of troops there at the time. I was in
France drinking cheap congnac and eating Brie and baggettes.

The point I am making is that people get labelled simply for being in the military
at that time vs being in country. As a matter of fact I believe that there is
an award for any service during the VN period. Don't get too uptight about it.
We are all brothers and we should hang together. It's not like he is claiming
an award for valor or other personal metorius service. In fact, he was
probably awarded the VN service medal. I think you are over reacting.

TBP
 
Last edited:
Actually there are two types of Vietnam veterans. There is the "Vietnam Era" veteran (as defined by both Federal and State statutes) and the "Vietnam" veteran as defined by actual physical service in Vietnam.

The Vietnam Era veteran only had to have served in the active military (I don't believe that Reserve or Guard time counts unless activated) between certain dates. I think those dates were some time in 1965 to somewhere in 1975, I'd have to look for the exact beginning and end.

As long as he didn't claim to have been in Vietnam, a claim of being a Vietnam Era verteran may be correct.
 
I agree with the two types as FPrice stated above.

However, if he termed himself as a Vietnam Vet, most people would consider that misleading at best, and at worst-- lying.

My father was in the service (Aviator) during Vietnam, but he would never call himself a Vietnam Vet, as he never went anywhere near SE Asia. He would not even use the "VN Era" term for himself although it would be technically correct. My dad was flying a P-2 around the Caribbean tracking Soviet subs. Said it was boring as Hell. [grin]
 
Another point. It's the Glob and it is their policy to trash anything and anyone
related to the military. I would check the BS meter before I believed anything
that those bastards said.

TBP

bsmeter.gif
 
Having lived very near to Fort Lee, NJ for almost fifty plus years and having family involved in the town itself, where could one possibly serve in the town? There are no military installations anywhere near the place.
 
I have a Southwest Asia Service Medal, legally qualifying me as a Persian Gulf veteran. I was serving in the Navy nowhere near the Gulf during ODS. My second sea tour found me in the Persian Gulf for Iraq No Fly Zone patrols. Again, I didn't fly the missions. I supported them from a carrier.

Being a war or campaign veteran has a very specific legal definition and it doesn't always jive with what civilians (and many military people) think.
 
I never thought that the differentiation of the Vietnam Vet and the Vietnam Era vet was fair.

In every other war that this country ever was involved in, if you served during that war, you were a veteran of that war. No matter where you served.

Did you ever hear of a Korean ERA vet? NO, everyone that served was a Korean War Vet. No matter where you served.

Or a WW2 ERA vet? NO! I know many guys who never left this country who are WW2 vets. No matter where you served.

Or a WWI ERA vet? Or a Spanish American ERA vet?

How about a guy who trained in Mass but never got out of the state before the Civil War was over? Was he a Civil War ERA vet?

If you served during Vietnam but didn't go there, it was because Uncle wanted you doing something else.

I wear a National Defense Ribbon, which is awarded only when you serve during a time of war...in this case ..the Vietnam war, but I can't call myself a Vietnam War veteran, even though I wear a ribbon that says I served during the Vietnam War?

I enlisted during a war but I'm not a war veteran.

I spent 4 Christmases overseas during a time of war but I'm not a Vietnam vet. The VFW won't let me forget it either.

Granted, those who served in Vietnam are different and that's why they got the Vietnam Service ribbon...just like those WW2 vets who served in Europe got the European Theater ribbons. Those who didn't go to Europe or the Pacific are still WW2 vets.

I'm tired of referring to myself as a Vietnam ERA vet. Most people don't even know the difference.

Why are we any different than those of other wars who don't have to make excuses for where they served?
 
Last edited:
FPrice said:
Actually there are two types of Vietnam veterans. There is the "Vietnam Era" veteran (as defined by both Federal and State statutes) and the "Vietnam" veteran as defined by actual physical service in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

There is only one kind of Vietnam veteran. Those who served during that conflict, regardless of where they served. That is the legal definition.

Others may invent their own definition of what it means to be a (insert your war here) Veteran. But don't expect others to accept it as correct.
 
Jose said:
There is only one kind of Vietnam veteran. Those who served during that conflict, regardless of where they served. That is the legal definition.

Others may invent their own definition of what it means to be a (insert your war here) Veteran. But don't expect others to accept it as correct.
Click to expand...

Jose,

I'll stand by my definitions. Partially because of the people who have (falsely) claimed that they served in Vietnam and saw combat when they didn't. And largely to honor those who did actually put boots on the ground. It's not a matter of denigrating those who served in other places but rather to recognize those who actually had to go where the bullets flew.

You are free to differ.
 
Back
Top Bottom