War Terror Medal

[bigjarofwasps]

Anyone any idea what the Criteria is to qualify for the War On Terror Medal?

[Nick]

The Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal will be awarded to service members who serve in military expeditions to combat terrorism on or after Sept. 11, 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom is the prime operation the medal may be awarded for. Personnel assigned to operations in Afghanistan and the Philippines are examples of service members who will receive the award.

The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal will be awarded to service members who serve in military operations to combat terrorism on or after Sept. 11, 2001. Operation Noble Eagle is an example of the type of operation the medal may be awarded for.

[John]

Good Evening Mr Chairman.

Will it be engraved?

[bigjarofwasps]

:violent-smiley-017: :food-smiley-004:

Wouldn`t have thought that it will be engraved, looks a bit cheapy and nasty to me, like the NATO/UN Medals!!!!

Can UK service personal apply for it, or is it purely for US troops? cheeky

[John]

I'm with you BJOW, on the description! I would imagine you would have to be working with them to qualify. I'm sure someone will get one.....

[Nick]

Yes the medals seem a little poor when you consider that they are pretty hard earnt awards. I imagine that they will be unamed.

I agree that for a Brit to be awarded one they would have to be attached directly to US forces and then they may qualify. As menioed already I am also sure there are a few Brits attached so someone will get one.

[Firefly]

Dear oh dear! I'm not a Medal man as you all know, but that looks like something a kid would win on Sports Day for the egg-and-spoon race!

[Biscuit Brown]

Can I have one , too? My Mum always said that I was a little Terror.

[bigjarofwasps]

Quality!!!

I think I`m safe in saying all US medals are naf looking, and the less said about the NATO and US medals the better.

[Guest Darrell]

Here's mine:

[Laurence Strong]

How'd you get your grubby little paws on that one????

[Guest Darrell]

How'd you get your grubby little paws on that one????

←

jumping

[Laurence Strong]

EEEWWWW Does that mean you are not telling

@ BJOW, as I am a simple colonial what does "Naf" mean, does it mean a "good" thing, or "bad'

Edited April 2, 2005 by Laurence Strong

[Nick]

Laurence

I am afraid that "naff" is a negative term.

It is not as strong as meaning that something is out and out bad, more like it is lacking in taste or style.

Probably originates from the services reference to the NAAFI the butt of many British Servicemens jokes.

Nick

[Laurence Strong]

Thanks Nick

I fiqured that it had something to do along those lines.

[Harvey]

Quality!!!

I think I`m safe in saying all US medals are naf looking, and the less said about the NATO and US medals the better.

Wow, and you're a moderator? Sorry, I thought this was the GENTLEMAN'S Military Interest Club...

So they're all "naf looking" are they? Funny that I'm rather fond of the ones I've earned... and I suspect that most - if not all - of the U.S. veterans who frequent this site would feel the same way.

So you don't like the look of these particular medals - good for you; thanks for sharing. Please leave your personal opinions of our nation's recognition of her servicemembers' sacrifices and valor for The Lounge, where you can vent to your heart's content.

[IrishGunner]

Wow, and you're a moderator? Sorry, I thought this was the GENTLEMAN'S Military Interest Club...

So they're all "naf looking" are they? Funny that I'm rather fond of the ones I've earned... and I suspect that most - if not all - of the U.S. veterans who frequent this site would feel the same way.

So you don't like the look of these particular medals - good for you; thanks for sharing. Please leave your personal opinions of our nation's recognition of her servicemembers' sacrifices and valor for The Lounge, where you can vent to your heart's content.

Need some more coffee this morning, Harvey? Let it go, dude, the comment was made over 5 years ago.

[Harvey]

Need some more coffee this morning, Harvey? Let it go, dude, the comment was made over 5 years ago.

Heh. Yeah - I failed to notice that I was going through the threads starting with the last ones - so was not aware of the date.

Oh well, maybe it'll be an interesting footnote in another 5 years when some other poor schlub stumbles across it...

But thanks :beer:

[Chris Boonzaier]

So you don't like the look of these particular medals - good for you; thanks for sharing. Please leave your personal opinions of our nation's recognition of her servicemembers' sacrifices and valor for The Lounge, where you can vent to your heart's content.

Harvey,

It is a medals site, and many modern medals are cr2p. This has nothing to do with the men that earned them, simply a statement of fact.

I have a couple of medals on my bar that were designed by a drunk, approved by a moron, had the dies cut by a blind man and provided by the cheapest contractor... I am still proud to have them, but recognize that esthetically and quality wise they are of a lower grade than the USD5 key rings I can buy at the local gas station...

If we want to limit our opinions on medal design we would be forced to discuss medals where there is no longer an living recipient. It would not be realistic.

I dont think these are the worst designs out there in recent times, I think the modern UK ones where the crown is twice the size of QE2s head are up there with bad designs, but fact of the matter is.... the medal designers of today are reduced to recycling the same old same old.... I think the source for originality has simply dried up.

Best

Chris

[Harvey]

I understand what you're saying, and agree that debating the design and appearance of various medals is part of the discussion. However, what I disagreed with - and reacted strongly to - was his blanket condemnation of ALL U.S, medals as "naff looking.". I mean c'mon - that's just silly (and untrue, of course).

[Paul R]

Hi Harvey,

I do not even know what the word "naf" even means, but I can assure you that the poster did not mean any harm. He is a guye advocate for our forces, despite not being an American. I think that he was objectively trying to say how

cheaply" made/designed our newer medals have become.

I agree with him, but also, I am very proud of my GWOTEM, as I know that I earned mine. I just wish that stars were authorized for subsequent tours/campaigns. :43:

[Harvey]

Yeah, I've read some of his other posts, and he does seems to be an advocate of the U.S. military in particular. Which is why I found it so incongruous that he would make such a blanket statement like that. I wouldn't have said anything if he'd just stuck to his impression of the GWOTEM...

I received my GWOTEM for service in the Republic of Georgia - but if you got yours for Iraq/Afghanistan then you would qualify for the relevant campaign medal (with campaign stars) for subsequent tours. And I have a feeling that they will eventually allow stars for subsequent qualifying tours, much as they do for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

[Gldank]

Keep in mind guys that the history of American medals is quite different from the European idea of orders and medals. The United States was founded by consciously breaking away from their European roots. When our country gained independence, we wanted also to break away from many European ways. One of these changes was not having a caste system of orders and medals. This was seen by our founding fathers as imperialistic. The US Purple Heart started out as a cloth patch in the 1700s. It was not until the 1800s that America really found a need to have military medals but even then there was only one. This is why that by WWI, high ranking US military people had very few medals on their chest as compared to their German, English and French counterparts. Even as late as WWII, the American military still had not caught up to the amount of European orders and medals that could be bestowed on the military let along it’s civilian population. It was not until the advent of the US Legion of Merit did the United States have a medal that could really be compared to a European order. Many of our US military medals are cheaply made. Even our Medal of Honor is not made of precious metals made by famous jewelers hanging from expensive silk. It is made of cheap materials. Why? Because acts of valor and courage speak for themselves in America.

I spent 25 years in the US Navy. I never shot and killed another human in anger and I thank God for it every day. But I have been shot at. I did not receive my medals sitting behind a desk either. My son, presently in the US Marine Corps has served under fire for long periods of time and he deserves every medal my country can bestow on him. We two have received both the US Global War on Terrorism Service and Expeditionary Medals. And I am proud to have served. I do collect Belgian medals and orders. Europeans as well as other countries produce beautiful medals but it is the act that is more important to me than the gold, silver and enamel contained in them. Thank you Harvey for your posts!

[Tim B]

Harvey,

It is a medals site, and many modern medals are cr2p. This has nothing to do with the men that earned them, simply a statement of fact.

I have a couple of medals on my bar that were designed by a drunk, approved by a moron, had the dies cut by a blind man and provided by the cheapest contractor... I am still proud to have them, but recognize that esthetically and quality wise they are of a lower grade than the USD5 key rings I can buy at the local gas station...

If we want to limit our opinions on medal design we would be forced to discuss medals where there is no longer an living recipient. It would not be realistic.

I dont think these are the worst designs out there in recent times, I think the modern UK ones where the crown is twice the size of QE2s head are up there with bad designs, but fact of the matter is.... the medal designers of today are reduced to recycling the same old same old.... I think the source for originality has simply dried up.

Best

Chris

Totally agree! The design process has went down the tubes since circa Viet Nam. You can compare just about any US service or campaign medal of the past to those made post '75 and see there is very little thought or effort that goes into these modern pieces of crap.

Here's a case in point; show me one current medal that even compares to the quality of strike or overall design to these pre-WWII medals. Shame really, considering the meaning they are supposed to hold. We could/should do better!

Tim

Edited January 2, 2011 by Tim B

[army historian]

I understand what you're saying, and agree that debating the design and appearance of various medals is part of the discussion. However, what I disagreed with - and reacted strongly to - was his blanket condemnation of ALL U.S, medals as "naff looking.". I mean c'mon - that's just silly (and untrue, of course).

Harvey, I probably should stay out of this (Got my butt chewed by a Colonel - for saying I hated the design of the US Humanitarian Service Medal [i earned twice] and wore with the reverse to the front - because I hate the "Hand"). But that said I believe first of all that US medals produced since sometime in the late 80s or early 90s are very poorly made, and second the designs (since the Vietnam Service Medal) have little or no style. I think the sort of frosted finish they now use is part of the problem. I feel bad for our troops, that more attractive medals could not be designed. This is just an observation on my part, and definitely has not a thing to do with the troops God bless them. Respectfully Captain Albert

Edited January 2, 2011 by army historian