NATO Medal Authorized

[orange.paint]

You've made your point.

well he didnt.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, my point was your constant whining and bad mouthing the General, not the content. The ice is cracking.

 

[orange.paint]

Basically all i said was I didnt know about a non article 5 for afganistan specific.And if there was just the one generic (which I had previously thought) thats would be a pretty crappy comment to make.But alas grunt who owns a medal mounting shop and knows quite a bit more than most of us on the subject added info to clarify.

cheers to grunt
and apology to mgen Leslie

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Basically all i said was I didnt know about a non article 5 for afganistan specific.And if there was just the one generic (which I had previously thought) thats would be a pretty crappy comment to make.But alas grunt who owns a medal mounting shop and knows quite a bit more than most of us on the subject added info to clarify.

cheers to grunt
and apology to mgen Leslie

Go back and read your own post. Every time you've been nailed tonight, you've tried to backtrack and say "that's not what I said/ meant" or some such. It would be better if you just thought about what you were going to say first, type it, read it and read it again. If it sounds bogus or demeaning, it probably is. I don't think you've had a good thing to say about anyone (other than Grunt) or anything all night. That comes suspiciously close to trolling, and you don't want to go there. Just my advise, you don't have to take it.

 

[axeman]

im not sure its like the navy getting the Afghanistan barand ribbon to the SWASM that they get , as opposed to the ribbon no bar that Tampa got . if the navy is still supporting the new mission why are the still getting the SWAsm and not any of the rest of the GSM ,etc?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There's a big thread on this already, maybe a couple, around here somewhere. Plug SWASM, etc into the advanced search engine and see what comes up. I think your specific question is answered there.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Wow...  I suppose I should have been clearer in explaining the context and we could have avoided the pissing contest.

Again, IIRC, the DComd ISAF was referring to the term "non-Article 5" as not meaning much and that it was hardly indicative of the hazards of the theatre or the nature of the mission.  This, to me, is hardly aimed at denigrating service in other theatres, although I'm quite happy to have the GCS.  As I pointed out in my original post, it is not a direct quote anyway.

I remember much rolling of eyes when this bureaucratic, uninspiring title was announced for the "new" NATO medal, despite the later addition of specific mission bars.

 

[tomahawk6]

Whats funny is that while the NATO medal is authorized bars are not.