Thanks Paul. I am Ted not Val (just using her machine while mine is with the man with the spanners) 805 Charlie Harris spent 3 years and 32 days on active service in WW1 and got 2 campaign medals (and the MM) QX54455 Phil Davidson spent 929 days on active service in WW2 and got 4 campaign medals You spent (I assume) 365 days on active service and got 2 campaign medals and a Vietnamese award -------------------- I spent 1 year and 48 days in Malaysia (not considered active service) and have recently been deemed as qualified for 1 service medal and 1 anniversary of Nation Service medal. ------------------- how any one can suggest that my service (2 medals) in any way equalled that of my Dad (see Charlie Harris above) (2 medals) is beyond me. --------------------- You seem to have your facts tangled about the difference between the Australian Active Service Medal and the Australian Service Medal. check the details on http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-medals/1945-1975.htm and on http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-medals/oz-recent.htm#asm ------------------------------------ another thing that beats me is this. WW1 and WW2 and Malaya and Korea vets all came home and got on with their lives. So did most of the Viet Nam blokes. Why do a small group of vets from SVN still after 30 plus years, run around bleating about how badly done by they were? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Kinney" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: Re: AUS-MILITARY-D Digest V03 #36 > Ms Val Harris > Dear Val, > My apologies, I do not read newspapers. I find that any resemblance > between what really happens, and what is written, is more often than not, an > accident. > You are absolutely correct regarding the Australian Award system, > again my apologies, I had forgotten that we had once more taken Australia > into the bold new world of being a country in our own right, with our own > award system. > I noted your further comments about National Servicemen and the > small amount of time they spent in the service. You must be careful though > when you compare Service medals with bravery awards. Service medals are > given to show the areas where a soldier has been on Service, they do not nor > can they be taken to represent acts of bravery. > Your e-mail noted the award of the National Service medal to all > those who served in the 1950's by doing the 90 + days requirement of that > time, quite frankly I believe the award of the National Service medal to > these men was long over due. Remember, they were being trained to fight in > an era when Communism was at it's most rampant. The cold war was a reality > and a bloody terrifying one at that. Joseph Stalin was still the man until > 1952, and then came Nikita Kruschev. This country had Robert Menzies as a > Prime Minister and England would have been in trouble if the expected war in > Europe broke out, and 'Ming' would have sent our Army to Europe at the drop > of his hat. Who would have defended Australia? The National Servicemen, from > whom? Indonesia was going communist, the communists where fighting an armed > conflict in Malaya and Viet Nam. Australian troops, airmen and sailors where > committed to the Malayan conflict alongside the British, Ghurkas and > Indians. At the same time China and North Korea from 1950 to 1954 had > instigated and and fought the Korean War, so with our regular army committed > in Malaya and the government in need of backing the regulars up, our > National Servicemen where the backbone on which any enlargement of our army > would be based. > You state in your e-mail: > "What is the benefit, so far, of the Australian Awards system? We have > awarded medals to hundreds of thousands of National Servicemen who did 94 > days training in the 1950s, we have made tens of thousands of men who did > buggar all, eligible for the Australian Service Medal 1945/75, we have > medals for this medals for that and the end result is that they become > almost meaningless" > The benefit of the Australian Awards system is that our country can > finally recognise the service rendered to it, by those who have worn and > wear, it's military uniform. When you put that uniform on you become a part > of something special, the ANZAC tradition. Whether, Nasho or Regular you are > a serviceman, it was and is a thing to be proud of. > 'Buggar all'. To be placed in a position, at the behest of your > countries government, of possibly being called on to do active service, when > and if your country needs you, is hardly 'buggar all'. Ninety-four days of > training would give you a good chance to know some of the rudiments of what > is required to survive in combat. Combat is what servicemen train for, to > kill the enemy. Not for parades, or to fight bushfires or help out in floods > or assist at major disasters, but to kill people. 'Buggar all', indeed. > The following will help you to understand the reason for awarding the > Australian Active Service Medal: > "The Minister for Defence Industry Science and Personnel recently announced > the creation of the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-1975 (AASM 1945-75) > to recognise warlike service between 3 September 1945 and 14 February 1975. > The award was approved by the Queen on 11 December 1997." > 'Warlike service', as none of the National Servicemen of the 1950's qualify > for this medal it is not possible for them to receive it. Unless they joined > the regular services and did do 'warlike services'. This medal is for > servicemen and women who put their lives at risk for their country in a > combat zone. Again it is an award that was long overdue. The Korean, > Malayan, Sarawak and Borneo campaigns have finally received the recognition > they deserve. > By your definition Val, I am one of those who did 'buggar all' to > receive that medal. I was a national serviceman, I spent 349 days in Viet > Nam as a rifleman in the Infantry. If what I and my mates did can be > described as 'buggar all', I would be intrigued to find out what your > definition of the opposite to buggar all is. Be advised that you are most > probably not on your own as the RSL then, and to a certain extent now, still > believe that we where not in a real war. > "Medals for this and medals for that and the end result is that they > become almost meaningless", only in the eyes of those who do not understand > or fully know the significance of what they are seeing. > To finally receive acknowledgement of what you have done for your > country, after having had to wait fifteen years for even a welcome home > parade, is, like the parade, a part of the healing process for those of us > who served in Viet Nam. For the families of the men who died in Viet Nam any > further recognition they receive, from the people of this country, for their > loss, is more than deserved, even if it is a medal. > With our very own award system we can now recognise, and have, the > contributions of our Peace-Keeping forces wherever and when ever they > represent our country. The same can and will be done for our people going on > 'Active Service' or who have gone on 'Active Service, our SAS in Afghanistan > for instance. > Will there be a quota system? I think not, I will get back to you on > that, when I have confirmed it, with several serving members of our armed > forces, who should know. > Respectfully yours > Paul Kinney > > >From: [email protected] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: AUS-MILITARY-D Digest V03 #36 > >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:00:01 -0700 > > > ><< message2.txt >> > ><< message4.txt >> > ><< message6.txt >> > ><< message8.txt >> > ><< message10.txt >> > ><< message12.txt >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to > http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp > > ______________________________