Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[Starlight31]

I agree Piper,

I was unlucky to get 2 of the damn things (WS).. Though I think the medal is a step in the right direction, and was done without malice.  I think it is everyone else's intent.  What I find crazy is the amount of people that are know asking for the medal, or asking "how can I get that medal" which is taking away from it.  As well, as thous before us (Before 2002 who the W/S)! I know of people that have redress in for Wound Stripes that clearly do not meet the criteria, now that the medal is out!! Man, a good day not to be a CO/RSM.  Good luck DHR!! I am sure all eyes are you.

Time will tell, until then, we watch and shoot. The medal is a go no matter what, the GG (Who announced it, and every news paper covered it) as well as the Queen have given it the green light.

Should be interesting, and I already have people calling me asking me to mount their medals when they get them!! Just like my 2 friends, who I am honoured to do so, as so for any honour!!

 

[forgotten]

I finally received my wound stripe on Sunday Nov2ND...31 years after the fact.. It was a very emotional day..but positive..to me it was closure.I was not aware that there was so much controversy about the new medal etc. Again for all those who commented and helped Thank you!!

 

[geo]

Sacrifice Medal Inauguration Ceremony Postponed!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of the issues raised by members of the public with regards to the Sacrifice Medal following its announcement, the Minister of National Defence has asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to conduct a review of the criteria for the new Medal and formulate a recommendation to the appropriate Government Honours Committee. The review is currently underway and it has been decided that it would not be appropriate for the inaugural ceremony to take place before a final decision has been taken with regards to the future of the Medal.

Dollars to doughnuts that the issues raised by the public means..... expect all former servicemen (and merchant mariners) wounded in their service to the country have applied to get one...

If this is the case - there is absolutely no excuse that justifies the situation where current recipients are "bumped"

 

[1feral1]

I finally received my wound stripe on Sunday Nov2ND...31 years after the fact.. It was a very emotional day..but positive..to me it was closure.I was not aware that there was so much controversy about the new medal etc. Again for all those who commented and helped Thank you!!

Good on ya Forgotten.

Here's to ya  :cheers:

Glad to see you were finally awarded this Wound Stripe, which was rightfully yours so long ago.

Regards,

Wes

 

[forgotten]

Thx Wes there was lots of "beer down range" that day

 

[forgotten]

I had LOTS of friends who showed up from the RCMP, firefighters, Reg force, reserves couple of marines etc..This wound stripe i dedicated to  Peacekeepers..and I have been helping former Vets get help. The battle was won but the War continues..........

 

[Starlight31]

Forgotten, That is outstanding to hear  ;D.. and Geo, I agree %100... What about everyone prior to Oct 2001? WW1 WW2 etc.. 

 

[geo]

Starlight,
WW1 vets are, for all intents and purposes, gone. There should not be any posthumous awarding of sacrifice medals, for prior wars, to surviving families. Where would it end.... claims for medals going back to the foundation of the country? - I think not.
If a WW2, Korean conflict want to have a Sacrifice medal for their "blighty".... where is the harm in that?...  If they want one, I would be proud to staff their request within my area... but again - not to surviving families.

However, while this paper war is being fought, the Sacrifice medals owed to those who have recently had their own "blighty"... should be presented... and make that "PDQ" (purdy damn quick )

 

[Franko]

Starlight,
WW1 vets are, for all intents and purposes, gone. There should not be any posthumous awarding of sacrifice medals, for prior wars, to surviving families. Where would it end.... claims for medals going back to the foundation of the country? - I think not.
If a WW2, Korean conflict want to have a Sacrifice medal for their "blighty".... where is the harm in that?...  If they want one, I would be proud to staff their request within my area... but again - not to surviving families.

However, while this paper war is being fought, the Sacrifice medals owed to those who have recently had their own "blighty"... should be presented... and make that "PDQ" (purdy damn quick )

They've canvassed the troops in theater and asked if we'd be opposed to seeing it being backdated to 1938. No one has said no to my knowledge.

If we get it and they want it they should have it IMHO.

Regards

 

[geo]

They've canvassed the troops in theater and asked if we'd be opposed to seeing it being backdated to 1938. No one has said no to my knowledge.
If we get it and they want it they should have it IMHO.
Regards

I'd be really surprised if anyone currently serving was to object.
As I said, I'd be honoured to help staff the requests

 

[RHFC_piper]

WRT the posthumously awarding of the Sacrifice Medal; Why hasn't anyone ever tried to get the Wound Stripe awarded posthumously?  Would the same people who are fighting so hard to get the criteria for the Sacrifice Medal, and awarded posthumously , fight just as hard if there was no medal, just the wound stripe?  Meaning that; is it the recognition that people want, or is it just a shinny gong? 

This is what bothers me so much about this; it seems as though people are fighting for this thing 'cause it's a medal... No one ever fought to have the wound stripe awarded posthumously to people who don't fit the criteria.  In fact, the only person I've ever heard of fighting to get the wound stripe they're entitled to is Forgotten, who, in my humble opinion, deserves to wear it (good on you, Forgotten).  My point is, no one wanted this "recognition" this badly until it was shinny.  I understand the want to have family members recognized for their sacrifice, but we have plenty of other citations for that (Memorial Cross, MID, Campaign Medals, Wound stripe, etc.).  To be quite honest, I'm satisfied with my Wound Stripe and the only improvement I could want for it would be to have it made from brass, like the WW1 era wound stripes.

Anyway, that's enough ranting for me today.

 

[the 48th regulator]

WRT the posthumously awarding of the Sacrifice Medal; Why hasn't anyone ever tried to get the Wound Stripe awarded posthumously?  Would the same people who are fighting so hard to get the criteria for the Sacrifice Medal, and awarded posthumously , fight just as hard if there was no medal, just the wound stripe?  Meaning that; is it the recognition that people want, or is it just a shinny gong? 

This is what bothers me so much about this; it seems as though people are fighting for this thing 'cause it's a medal... No one ever fought to have the wound stripe awarded posthumously to people who don't fit the criteria.  In fact, the only person I've ever heard of fighting to get the wound stripe they're entitled to is Forgotten, who, in my humble opinion, deserves to wear it (good on you, Forgotten).  My point is, no one wanted this "recognition" this badly until it was shinny.  I understand the want to have family members recognized for their sacrifice, but we have plenty of other citations for that (Memorial Cross, MID, Campaign Medals, Wound stripe, etc.).   To be quite honest, I'm satisfied with my Wound Stripe and the only improvement I could want for it would be to have it made from brass, like the WW1 era wound stripes.

Anyway, that's enough ranting for me today.

psst.

People are not arguing about the posumouth part, but how the dead incurred the death. 

The Government added the Posthumous part, not the families demanding the reviews of awarding it to their dead loved ones.

dileas

tess

 

[RHFC_piper]

psst.

People are not arguing about the posumouth part, but how the dead incurred the death. 

The Government added the Posthumous part, not the families demanding the reviews of awarding it to their dead loved ones.

dileas

tess

I'm aware.  But to clarify a bit;  Has anyone ever argued to have the wound stripe awarded to non-combat related injuries?  or even awarded posthumously?

And, my argument is also against the general idea of posthumous award, specifically if this medal is to replace the wound stripe.  As previously stated; we have a great number of other citations for those who have fallen in combat, as well as their families, and now the one citation which directly recognizes those who have been injured, in combat, and survived, has been altered.  I personally believe this diminishes the citation quite a bit... and as with the date, where is the line drawn?  I agree with predating this citation back to '38, but how expansive is the criteria going to get?  Will this be awarded to a soldier who tripped in KAF and broke their ankle while running for a bunker when the sirens went off 10 min after a rocket attack on the far side of the base?  'cause, if you argued it enough, that would qualify; Enemy fire: check, injury related to actions on enemy fire: check, in an operational area: check. 

In my own experience, I believe I barely qualify for the wound stripe; I was injured by friendly fire during an Op (Medusa), but it's not like I was doing anything... I ate breakfast...  I've been considering taking my stripe down, simply because I know there are people out there like Bullet Magnet who actually got shot, by the enemy, during combat... and by wearing my stripe I diminish the "value", if it can be called so, of his, which he earned in battle. 

I guess the real question I have is; if the Sacrifice Medal is to replace the wound stripe, why is the criteria so different.  And if is to enhance the meaning of the wound stripe and expand it to include everyone; why not keep the wound stripe to recognize those who have been wounded in combat by the enemy. (yes, I do realize I'd be taking down my stripe... but at least I'd know those who wear it have truly earned it.)

I know this rant seems a little bitter, but the whole idea of the WS was to recognize those who were injured by the enemy's doings. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

I'm aware.   But to clarify a bit;  Has anyone ever argued to have the wound stripe awarded to non-combat related injuries?  or even awarded posthumously?

And, my argument is also against the general idea of posthumous award, specifically if this medal is to replace the wound stripe.  As previously stated; we have a great number of other citations for those who have fallen in combat, as well as their families, and now the one citation which directly recognizes those who have been injured, in combat, and survived, has been altered.  I personally believe this diminishes the citation quite a bit... and as with the date, where is the line drawn?  I agree with predating this citation back to '38, but how expansive is the criteria going to get?  Will this be awarded to a soldier who tripped in KAF and broke their ankle while running for a bunker when the sirens went off 10 min after a rocket attack on the far side of the base?  'cause, if you argued it enough, that would qualify; Enemy fire: check, injury related to actions on enemy fire: check, in an operational area: check. 

In my own experience, I believe I barely qualify for the wound stripe; I was injured by friendly fire during an Op (Medusa), but it's not like I was doing anything... I ate breakfast...  I've been considering taking my stripe down, simply because I know there are people out there like Bullet Magnet who actually got shot, by the enemy, during combat... and by wearing my stripe I diminish the "value", if it can be called so, of his, which he earned in battle. 

I guess the real question I have is; if the Sacrifice Medal is to replace the wound stripe, why is the criteria so different.  And if is to enhance the meaning of the wound stripe and expand it to include everyone; why not keep the wound stripe to recognize those who have been wounded in combat by the enemy. (yes, I do realize I'd be taking down my stripe... but at least I'd know those who wear it have truly earned it.)

I know this rant seems a little bitter, but the whole idea of the WS was to recognize those who were injured by the enemy's doings. 

You and I are in the same line of thought, and I have stated my opinions about the Government haphazardly created a medal, to appease their own minds about the mission, as I stated here;

The challenge I see with the medal, was the fact that the Wound Stripe was only considered a dress distinction, not a recognition.

Further, it separates members serving, and veterans that are still living to those that were wounded in the Sandbox, as if this is a special war that we are fighting.  To me, no consistency.

Either give it to all that were wounded, or keep what we already have in place, the Wound Stripe.

dileas

tess

With regards to you taking down the stripe, I understand how you feel as I too was in that position once, however, this is how I believe we should look at medals and awards;

I will tell you why I feel we should fix this, based on my experience.  You know how many times I have had to relay my story of when I was wounded, to civilians, you and I know each other.  Every single one of those times I was asked what medal did I get for those wounds.  I had to explain Canada does not issue a "Purple heart" type medal, but a wound stripe which is sewn on ones sleeve.  Each time those Canadians, offering respect for me mind you, cursed our nation for being so petty.

Now, imagine how I felt.  Canada.  Petty for giving me a cloth patch.  For what I have given up (i.e. Sacrificed....).

Now, I was not upset by the civvy, or my nation.  But this is the way I look at it, our actions in uniform must be carefully thought out, as we represent our country.   I too am a  billboard for the achievements of my country.  My medals tell a story, not about me and what I have achieved, but what Canada has done and achieved.  All the medals that I wear is a story of where Canada has been.  When one wears a medal, that signifies that they were wounded, it shows that Canada had the muster to send its soldiers in a dangerous area.

You would be doing a disservice to you, and your nation.  You earned it, and deserve to wear it proudly.

dileas

tess

 

[Starlight31]

I will tell you why I feel we should fix this, based on my experience.  You know how many times I have had to relay my story of when I was wounded, to civilians, you and I know each other.  Every single one of those times I was asked what medal did I get for those wounds.  I had to explain Canada does not issue a "Purple heart" type medal, but a wound stripe which is sewn on ones sleeve.  Each time those Canadians, offering respect for me mind you, cursed our nation for being so petty.

Now, imagine how I felt.  Canada.  Petty for giving me a cloth patch.  For what I have given up (i.e. Sacrificed....).

Now, I was not upset by the civvy, or my nation.  But this is the way I look at it, our actions in uniform must be carefully thought out, as we represent our country.   I too am a  billboard for the achievements of my country.  My medals tell a story, not about me and what I have achieved, but what Canada has done and achieved.  All the medals that I wear is a story of where Canada has been.  When one wears a medal, that signifies that they were wounded, it shows that Canada had the muster to send its soldiers in a dangerous area.

Quote from 48th regulator

Really well said!!!  Sorry, I didn't know how to insert this quote!  lol...

 

[tristismilitis]

psst.

People are not arguing about the posumouth part, but how the dead incurred the death. 

The Government added the Posthumous part, not the families demanding the reviews of awarding it to their dead loved ones.

dileas

tess

I agree and I believe the best way to resolve the argument is to remove 'posthumous' from the equation entirely. I know this will make some families angry, but some families are already angry. The intent of the new medal was to replace the Wound Stripe, there was no need to add 'died honourably' to the criteria.

I can only hope the committee that will be reviewing the criteria for the medal reads these posts.

 

[geo]

I agree and I believe the best way to resolve the argument is to remove 'posthumous' from the equation entirely. I know this will make some families angry, but some families are already angry. The intent of the new medal was to replace the Wound Stripe, there was no need to add 'died honourably' to the criteria.

I can only hope the committee that will be reviewing the criteria for the medal reads these posts.

For the posthumous presentations ..... their families received the silver memorial cross.

 

[the 48th regulator]

For the posthumous presentations ..... their families received the silver memorial cross.

Which is presented to the families, the new medal is presened to the fallen.

dileas

tess

 

[geo]

Yes, very much tess... but how far back do you go ?
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Montreal during the US invasion in & around 1776
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the war of 1812
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the Fenina raids
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Batoche during the Riel rebellion
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in South Africa during the Boer war
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed get killed at Verdun
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in Vladivostok in 1919
etc, etc, etc

 

[the 48th regulator]

Yes, very much tess... but how far back do you go ?
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Montreal during the US invasion in & around 1776
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the war of 1812
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the Fenina raids
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Batoche during the Riel rebellion
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in South Africa during the Boer war
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed get killed at Verdun
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in Vladivostok in 1919
etc, etc, etc

No,

But that is my argument.  They Changed the name of the medal and the way it is given, and saved their asses by issueing it to every only as far as the begining of this war.

I am for a medal, however the Government screwed this one up royaly.

A Sacrifice medal.   They really put thought into that. Died (Therefore the mention of posthumous) or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action.  Who decides an honourable circumstance?

The date of issue.  Yep, only those after as of  October 7, 2001.  Because anyone before that do not deserve their actions to be considered a "Sacrifice".

So although this is another call for the merrigold round to start again, we can all agree that this medal was not very well thought out.  Good thing that they included Civillians, being it took the death of one Diplmomat to bring this about....

dileas

tess