Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Feds “invests” $20 million to stop the unregulated trade in tobacco: Natives and the smoking poor disproportionately affected | Main | Is Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a libertarian? »

Friday, August 29, 2008

Commander-in-Chief announces the creation of a new military medal: Sacrifice Medal

Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, announce that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II approved the creation of the Sacrifice Medal. The medal will be awarded to military personnel, members of allied forces or Canadian civilians working under the authority of the Canadian Forces, who suffered wounds or death caused by hostile action, on or after October 7, 2001, the start of the war in Afghanistan.

“Our soldiers deserve our utmost respect and deepest gratitude,” said the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada. “This medal recognizes the valued contribution of those who sacrificed their health or their lives while serving Canada.”

“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” – Ayn Rand (1905 – 1980)

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 29, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e554b84d518833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Commander-in-Chief announces the creation of a new military medal: Sacrifice Medal:

Comments

In other words it is the Purple Heart.

For all your supposed 'independence' from the US, you people sure do mimic everything they do. Maybe that explains your success. I always thought it was in spite of your bungling, or having Toronto people in charge.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-29 6:28:27 PM


Rand's had a point about the real motives of those who call for sacrifice, but I don't think she would
object to honouring those who put their lives at risk to keep us safe.

Posted by: Craig | 2008-08-29 6:32:06 PM


For all your... you people...your success...your bungling....
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 29-Aug-08 6:28:27 PM

The Punk is from Alberta yet refers to Canadians as though he is an American. The Punk thinks that by pretending to be an American he's now morally superior to "us" people. What an asshole.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-29 6:54:06 PM


Bring back the Victoria Cross.
Plenty of Canadians have given the ultimate sacrifice and been awarded the VC.

It's time to reclaim our history.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-08-29 7:12:07 PM


It's time to reclaim our history.
Posted by: Speller | 29-Aug-08 7:12:07 PM

Absolutely. And lets put the Royal back into the forces and get rid of those asinine American ranks in the Air Force like General and Colonel amongst others. It's Air Chief Marshal and Group Captain.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-29 7:25:46 PM


Craig wrote: “Rand's had a point about the real motives of those who call for sacrifice, but I don't think she would object to honouring those who put their lives at risk to keep us safe.”

You’re absolutely right, Craig. She was a strong supporter of the military.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-29 7:34:24 PM


Speller: they already did; curse Trudeau the Devil for replacing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Cross_for_Canada

Absolutely. And lets put the Royal back into the forces and get rid of those asinine American ranks in the Air Force like General and Colonel amongst others. It's Air Chief Marshal and Group Captain.

Posted by: The Stig | 29-Aug-08 7:25:46 PM

I agree.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-29 7:54:36 PM


Absolutely. And lets put the Royal back into the forces and get rid of those asinine American ranks in the Air Force like General and Colonel amongst others. It's Air Chief Marshal and Group Captain.

Posted by: The Stig | 29-Aug-08 7:25:46 PM

Stig, Loud cheers and applause over here! :)
Problem is, our armed forces are ours in name only. They are NATO forces now...(Globalism rears its ugly head again?) Heck I've seen NATO on the riot shields of Calgary City Police. Makes me wonder.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 2:54:21 PM


Why not forget the medal and get our troops out of there?

Posted by: peter radzio | 2008-09-01 9:25:22 AM


We haven't won yet, so no withdrawal.

If Dion ever came to power, he'd bring the troops home and deploy them to the High Arctic to protect Hans Island against - gasp - the deadly Danish "menace".

If Layton came to power, he'd keep it close to Toronto in case of snow.

God help us if May ever came to power.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-01 9:48:58 AM


We haven't won yet, so no withdrawal.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Sep-08 9:48:58 AM

Just curious, what is it you think we're going to "win"?

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-01 10:00:07 AM


Victory = The elimination of the Taliban as a threat to Afghanistan and the request for NATO forces to withdraw.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-01 10:07:58 AM


Victory = The elimination of the Taliban as a threat to Afghanistan and the request for NATO forces to withdraw.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Sep-08 9:48:58 AM

Fair enough I suppose. But wouldn't it be nice if the US would stop training people like the Taliban in the first place?

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-01 12:12:18 PM


Who said the US trained the Taliban? Afghanistan is practically a community college for war. If anything, we're trying to stop that.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-01 12:17:55 PM


Its not "who said" so much as when and where?

The US supplied arms and training via Pakistan to the Taliban during its war with Russia. In fact it is what turned the tide of that war. The Taliban were supplied with rocket launchers among other things that could take down Russian helicopters. This isn't theory...its fact.
And this most certainly isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened either.

http://www.soaw.org/type.php?type=8

Over its 59 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people. Among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins.


This is just one site...there are many.
The US and particularly the CIA are knee deep in the "terrorist threat" biz.

I'd like to see it stop.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-01 12:58:03 PM


PS
I should have mentioned that the School of the America's is located down in your neck of the swamp at Fort Benning Georgia.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-01 12:59:39 PM


Who said the US trained the Taliban?
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 1-Sep-08 12:17:55 PM

The CIA has. They funnelled money and weapons to the Taliban for years directly, and indirectly through the Pakistani ISI. Read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-01 1:31:27 PM


The Taliban never fought the Soviets. They are distinct from the various groups calling themselves the Mujaheddīn. Ergo, the US could not have supported them. The Pakistani ISI, on the other hand, did.

I am aware of the School of the Americas. Your own statement contains a fatal contradiction: it trained exclusively Latin Americans, not Afghanis or anyone else.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-01 1:31:59 PM


"The CIA has. They funnelled money and weapons to the Taliban for years directly, and indirectly through the Pakistani ISI."

Correction: they aren't doing it now, nor have they done it since 2001.

Second, you have supported my point that the US never trained the Taliban. Thank you.

Third, even if they did, neither the CIA nor the ISI have any control over the Taliban. If they did, then things would have been easy. At worst, this is another sin from the past. Heck, why not blame the British for their involvement in Afghanistan in the 19th Century?

Let's fight and win the current war.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-01 1:41:10 PM


Let's fight and win the current war.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Sep-08 1:41:10 PM

There's nothing to "win".

And all I'm saying us that the pattern of interference in foreign affairs is well established. And when it blows up in our faces we respond by blaming everyone else, taking no responsibility and going "over there" to kill people.
And I can counterpoint everything you've just said but fact is that its all so obvious its actually boring.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-01 2:26:23 PM


Correction: they aren't doing it now, nor have they done it since 2001.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 1-Sep-08 1:41:10 PM

Irrelevant. The US funded the Taliban until almost until Sept.11/01.

Second, you have supported my point that the US never trained the Taliban. Thank you.

Wrong again Punk. The CIA did train some elements of the Taliban. And as for US support of the Taliban just google Unocal, Enron, pipline, Afghanistan and you'll see that the US was more than willing to have the Taliban in power.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-01 2:59:30 PM


Nope. See UN Security Council resolutions 1267, 1333 and 1363 - each sponsored by the US to curtail the Taliban regime. Each was before 9/11.

The Unocal pipeline idea is a charming theory at best. The real proof is in the Clinton and Bush administrations' leadership efforts against the Taliban. They were, and remain to this day, the Taliban's most energetic opponents. Only the theater of war changed from the UN building in NYC to the Twin Towers to the mountains of Afghanistan.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-01 3:23:49 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.