Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread
- Thread starter military granny
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
You know it seems to me that the biggest argument is a semantic one.
The fact is sacrifice or not the criteria exist for a reason and that reason is to qualify, who, what, when, where, why and how. Should you fail to meet those criteria then you do not qualify. It's like a Basic para course, you can pass all the ground PO's but fail to walk off the DZ even on jump 5 you do not earn your wings. Some people may take issue with the how far back the medal is dated to, that I can understand in fact that argument makes perfect sense. If you are going to make something to replace something else then fully replace it.
However as callous as this may be, those who died from wounds received in an accidental shooting or accident in an SDA, DO NOT qualify and that is simply that. They did not meet the criteria for the wound stripe and they do not meet the criteria for this new medal. The families received the memorial cross for the sacrifice they made of there loved one and that is simply that. End of debate, end of story there.
The dating as I said well that needs to be looked at.
Oh and as for calling it a trinket well that's better then what I call it, I have used the terms "cheap piece of tin", "meaningless garbage" etc etc. That's pretty much how I feel and I do have a wound stripe and I would rather not wear anything then wear this ridiculous thing..and in fact probably will do that and be charged rather then wear this medal. But this is just my personal thought and opinion on the medal.
EDIT: Grammar and speling etc etc..I am sure 9er will be along shortly to sort me out even more...she hasn't been so it's a work in progress as I spot things...LOL
The fact is sacrifice or not the criteria exist for a reason and that reason is to qualify, who, what, when, where, why and how. Should you fail to meet those criteria then you do not qualify. It's like a Basic para course, you can pass all the ground PO's but fail to walk off the DZ even on jump 5 you do not earn your wings. Some people may take issue with the how far back the medal is dated to, that I can understand in fact that argument makes perfect sense. If you are going to make something to replace something else then fully replace it.
However as callous as this may be, those who died from wounds received in an accidental shooting or accident in an SDA, DO NOT qualify and that is simply that. They did not meet the criteria for the wound stripe and they do not meet the criteria for this new medal. The families received the memorial cross for the sacrifice they made of there loved one and that is simply that. End of debate, end of story there.
The dating as I said well that needs to be looked at.
Oh and as for calling it a trinket well that's better then what I call it, I have used the terms "cheap piece of tin", "meaningless garbage" etc etc. That's pretty much how I feel and I do have a wound stripe and I would rather not wear anything then wear this ridiculous thing..and in fact probably will do that and be charged rather then wear this medal. But this is just my personal thought and opinion on the medal.
EDIT: Grammar and speling etc etc..I am sure 9er will be along shortly to sort me out even more...she hasn't been so it's a work in progress as I spot things...LOL
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
BulletMagnet
Well said, and by a person more qualified than most to say it.
Sadly, one has to remember the fact that there have been suicides in theatres, and they too would qualify for this medal, should the criteria be changed to include all deaths or injuries. That, I think would truly hurt the meaning of what the medal was supposed to represent.
Well said, and by a person more qualified than most to say it.
Sadly, one has to remember the fact that there have been suicides in theatres, and they too would qualify for this medal, should the criteria be changed to include all deaths or injuries. That, I think would truly hurt the meaning of what the medal was supposed to represent.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Infanteer said:
I don't consider it a trinket. The medal as awarded, following its criteria, is a worthy award.
This is not the only medal currently being brought up as not being awarded to someone. There are many people out there, whining for a medal for a wide variety of reasons, other than the criteria laid out for our various awards. These people are degrading the medal's purpose with their "desire" (to be polite) for it to be awarded outside of its criteria. To me these people are disgusting and cheapening medals down to the level of trinkets. I find them (the people) disgusting in their attempts to do so.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
George Wallace said:
Some of those people, George, are the parents of the soldiers that have sacrificed their lives.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Ok I am going to be a bit cold here and I will get slagged for it I am sure
Yes they died...it was tragic it was not something anyone wanted. But the circumstances are such that all the family is entitled to is the Memorial Cross FULL STOP. They can want this medal all they want but they are not entitled, Their Son, Daughter,Husband, Nephew etc etc did not die in such a manner as to get this medal. Any argument past the criteria is playing with the name of the medal to twist it to their own ends period!
They are muddying and cheapening the meaning of this medal period.
Yes they died...it was tragic it was not something anyone wanted. But the circumstances are such that all the family is entitled to is the Memorial Cross FULL STOP. They can want this medal all they want but they are not entitled, Their Son, Daughter,Husband, Nephew etc etc did not die in such a manner as to get this medal. Any argument past the criteria is playing with the name of the medal to twist it to their own ends period!
They are muddying and cheapening the meaning of this medal period.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
BulletMagnet said:
Had the mission (That of creating a medal that honours a sacrifice) been planned well, then there would have been no room for discussion. Wouldn't you agree?
George Wallace has a superb thread, that deals with this.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Honestly no I don't Tess
The simple fact is that you could call the medal purple monkey dishwasher!
What matters is the criteria which is iron clad in my book. What is happening is that people have decided that because of a semantic they should be entitled to this little gong too. And they are using the name to justify it. It's petty and it's sickening. If those soldiers were alive today I don't think anyone of them would want to see see them get this medal.
IMO
The simple fact is that you could call the medal purple monkey dishwasher!
What matters is the criteria which is iron clad in my book. What is happening is that people have decided that because of a semantic they should be entitled to this little gong too. And they are using the name to justify it. It's petty and it's sickening. If those soldiers were alive today I don't think anyone of them would want to see see them get this medal.
IMO
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
BulletMagnet said:
Really,
And as a soldier that would have been entitled to the sacrifice medal, if you changed the date of my incident i.e if it happened now, I have no idea of what they would think?
Gee thanks, but I think you are wrong with that statement.
dileas
tess
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
BulletMagnet said:
I am not talking about the date issue, I am talking abou how you feel you know what the dead troops would think, as aopposed to those of us who have as well served, and sacrificed. Regardless of time of injury.
That is what intrigues me about your post, not the timeline allownace for the medal. I agree with you that the time period criteria sucks, but do you actually think that the soldiers would deny receiving the medal?
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Tess
I am surprised you would even ask that to be honest, I cannot think of any soldier I have ever met worth his boots that would want to recieve a medal they knew they were not entitled to because of some little semantic wording. So yes I believe Most especialy in Jeff Walsh's case who'm I knew fairly well he would not want this medal.
IMO
EDIT: Added the fact that it is my opinion that Jeff would not want to recieve this medal based on my personal knowledge of him.
I am surprised you would even ask that to be honest, I cannot think of any soldier I have ever met worth his boots that would want to recieve a medal they knew they were not entitled to because of some little semantic wording. So yes I believe Most especialy in Jeff Walsh's case who'm I knew fairly well he would not want this medal.
IMO
EDIT: Added the fact that it is my opinion that Jeff would not want to recieve this medal based on my personal knowledge of him.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
BulletMagnet said:
Brother,
We are letting our emotions get in the way, and I am completely guilty of doing that.
But, I offer the view of somone who has 14 years of thinking letting me speak. This is unfair to you and Jeff.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Just a point that BulletMagnet brought up, as did a few others, and a point that is being overlooked:
Tess, do you know about the Memorial Cross? It covers the criteria that these folks are 'crying out' about.
Tess, do you know about the Memorial Cross? It covers the criteria that these folks are 'crying out' about.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
George Wallace said:
You mean this memorial cross?
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group09
Memorial Crosses
The Memorial Cross (more often referred to as the Silver Cross) was first instituted by Order-in-Council 2374, dated December 1, 1919. It was awarded to mothers and widows (next of kin) of Canadian soldiers who died on active duty or whose death was consequently attributed to such duty.
as opposed to;
Sacrifice Medal
Artistic rendering, creation of the Chancellery of HonoursBackground
The Sacrifice Medal was created to recognize a member of the Canadian Forces, a member of an allied force, or a Canadian civilian under the authority of the Canadian Forces who, as of October 7, 2001, died or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action.
George,
I think you summed up your argument elequently, when you started the thread abou the name of the medal.
However, you constant posts, with regard to the next of kin likening them to greedy people looking out for themselves, really exemplifies what pisses me off about the medal.
I have summed up my feelings here ;
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/79731/post-760014.html#msg760014
This medal was ill thought, full stop. The issueing of the wounded stripe, in the last 20 years was a disgrace, Full Stop. They trying to fix it with this fantabulous medal, was a mistake, full stop.
As I said it took one diplomat, and a few interpreters to convince the power that be, to include them in the receiving of this medal. How many forgotten Canadian soldiers will it take to fix their wrong?
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I've been following this thread for a while now, and have stayed out of it because I have basically zero CF experience to date. However, I just can't seem to wrap my head around the argument. I don't understand what the big deal is? There is a new CF medal that not everyone qualifies for, and because of that we need to change it? So what about The Campaign Star vs the SWASM. They are pretty much the same thing, but not everyone gets one or the other, or both. When it comes to this medal it says that you must have been killed/wounded as a direct result of hostile action. That is the criteria. Yes not everyone killed overseas qualifies over it. However, they do qualify for something. Their personally selected loved one gets the Memorial Cross to represent the Ultimate sacrifice they have paid. They are not being "forgotten, or left out." They are getting the medal that their situation meets the criteria for.
There are many medals that we will never qualify for, or receive. Does that mean we should work on changing criteria on those too until it's something we can all qualify for? Doesn't that take away from the whole point of having different medals?
Also, why is it we are looking to have this criteria changed now? Previously the criteria for the wound stripe did not include it being awarded posthumously. This new medal however does allow this. I'm curious as to why people weren't arguing that fact beforehand? Is it different now because this is a shiny medal?
I mean no disrespect to any of the fallen soldiers we have lost over the years, as they have paid the ultimate sacrifice and nothing should ever take that away from them and their families.
I do agree on the date factor though. If this is indeed replacing the wound stripe, then I don't understand why it wouldn't be awarded to all those that have previously been awarded it.
There are many medals that we will never qualify for, or receive. Does that mean we should work on changing criteria on those too until it's something we can all qualify for? Doesn't that take away from the whole point of having different medals?
Also, why is it we are looking to have this criteria changed now? Previously the criteria for the wound stripe did not include it being awarded posthumously. This new medal however does allow this. I'm curious as to why people weren't arguing that fact beforehand? Is it different now because this is a shiny medal?
I mean no disrespect to any of the fallen soldiers we have lost over the years, as they have paid the ultimate sacrifice and nothing should ever take that away from them and their families.
I do agree on the date factor though. If this is indeed replacing the wound stripe, then I don't understand why it wouldn't be awarded to all those that have previously been awarded it.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
the 48th regulator said:
Today, all Service Members annually fill out the forms indicating who they want to have a Memorial Cross presented to. The form has spaces for three separate nominations. It does not restrict its presentation to mothers or widows (next of kin). Ten years ago, no one filled out these forms, and the Memorial Cross was presented in accordance with what some Clerk or Bureaucrat felt was correct.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
George Wallace said:
So they did not look a the form, simmilar to a will, to see who next of kin was?
Are you also saying, that by the three spaces I could my name down each time? That there is a possibilty, that had I still served, I could nominate myself, and be awarded it posthumously? And no one knows this?
I learn something again today!
dileas
tess
I find that hard to beleive, or a criticism of the clerical sytem within the CF, not a standard.
These parents are asking for their child to be sacrificed by giving up their llives, as per the name of the medal. It's not for them.
A sacrifice medal. Not a medal dedicated to the wounded (Which we are all debating). Not a medal dedicated to those who died (With a new definition is broad and generous, meaning to members ouside of the Canadian Military). Not a Medal that they want to claim as their own.
Why is that so hard to understand?
dileas
tess
A
aesop081
Guest
the 48th regulator said:
I could tell you the same thing Tess.
