# First Canadian killed in gun battle since Korea????



## FateumetMeum (4 Apr 2006)

Our national news (CTV) announced that the last soldier that perished in a gun battle in Afghanistan was the first soldier killed IN BATTLE
since the Korean war.  Is this correct?? I am sure the JTF-2 boys would have somethin to say about that. What about the vets of Vietnam that didn't come home to their Canadian famalies? My dad was there but we were lucky. I feel as though the statistic is wrong! And when a number or fact is stated to represent a nation of soldiers from all conflicts and wars, it should be accurate.

Many Canadians gave their lives in battle, and in my opinion a mortar round, IED, or bullet from an AK doesn't distinguish ANYTHING.

WHOAAAA Canucks, just needed to vent, thoughts and prayers to the famalies missing their loved ones and remembering their heroes.

Our fate is our own,
Mike the maritime medic.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Apr 2006)

I believe the distinction the press is trying to make (a death is a death to me) is that it was the first soldier to die in a GUN battle.  I don't think any JTF have died as result from hostile gun fire (we may never know).


----------



## x westie (4 Apr 2006)

I believe several members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment were killed during the 1974 invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces


----------



## Franko (4 Apr 2006)

Sounds like the media is splitting straws just to get a story in the headlines    :

Pure and simple...they are trivialising his sacrifice.

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Apr 2006)

The press also reported that the four Patricia's killed in Afghanistan represented the worst case of "friendly fire" in Canadian military history, completely forgetting that the 3rd Canadian Division was carpet bombed in Normandy by Allied bombers.  The press has no corporate memory of military history.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Sounds like the media is splitting straws just to get a story in the headlines    :
> 
> Pure and simple...they are trivialising his sacrifice.
> 
> Regards



See my rant here: What recceguy thinks of journalists. I can't write it again or I'm going to kick in my television and set fire to every newspaper I find.


----------



## lostrover (5 Apr 2006)

Died in a gun battle..................does the media somehow think its different if we have the opportunity or the ROE's to return fire........................if we don't return fire...does it somehow become a "suicide bomber"??  I can think of one fallen friend whom got introduced to a rpg round in yugo.............sounds like combat to me,  guess for the media we need to be performing a frontal attack in order for a death to be deemed in combat..............


----------



## Nicholas2004 (5 Apr 2006)

Splitting hairs. Ever notice that the press never gets unit titles correct?


----------



## Journeyman (5 Apr 2006)

x westie said:
			
		

> I believe several members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment were killed during the 1974 invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces



The Canadian Airborne Regiment lost Tpr J.L.Gilbert PERRON (6 Aug 1974) and Tpr J.J.Claude BERGER (10 Sep 1974) at Nicosia, with 30 other paratroopers wounded. 

Airborne Regiment soldiers received two Stars of Courage and six Medals of Bravery, while an additional five Members of the Order of Military Merit were awarded to sappers of 1 Airborne Field Squadron (Engineers).1

----------
1 See Rob Prouse's site: http://www.commando.org/


----------



## GO!!! (6 Apr 2006)

It would appear that there is truly a "niche market" in this country for a reporter who;

1) writes in a factual and well researched manner regarding the Canadian Military, past and present and;

2) Proofs or verifies other reporters stories, to prevent such obvious fallacies as this one from being published.

Aside from the top notch miltary and Canadian history writers, like Dr. David Berscuson and JL Granatstein, is anyone aware of a member of the press who fits this bill?

Please, God, nobody suggest Scott Taylor....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

The Ruxted Editor??
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,68.0.html


----------



## GO!!! (6 Apr 2006)

Is the Ruxted editor a journalist though? I was under the impression that it was a collection of persons, writing editorials in relation to military affairs exclusively for this medium.

This person, in the current operational environment, would have to devote a significant amount of time and near instant turnaround on military consulting issues, given the tight timelines involved and the lightning pace of print, television and electronic media.

I would think that most major news outlets would be willing to pay a nominal fee to such an organisation if they could be spared the embarrassment of the headline that is this thread's title.

I am, of course assuming that the Canadian press is indeed interested in accuracy in military affairs, but given the apathy of the Canadian public towards said affairs, *is this type of consulting service a necessary and potentially profitable service? Or is it the answer to the question that no - one asked*?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (6 Apr 2006)

Nice point Journyman that incident had slipped from my memory.

We and I mean the collective we must correct the press, I never saw any CF PA people correcting the press and if memory serves me correct during the Friendly incident the PAO never corrected the press and agreed it was the first combat lose since Korea. Further the same office and the CDS never corrected the media when they said the initial mission in support of the US (Op Anaconda) was the first time Cdns were in combat since Korea. Many times the CF PAOs and senior officers in the public light could have corrected this, they did not and have not yet, it falls on everone to ensure the media gets it right after all they are just gold fish sucking up the crap that we stir up be it right or wrong.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> It would appear that there is truly a "niche market" in this country for a reporter who;
> 
> 1) writes in a factual and well researched manner regarding the Canadian Military, past and present and;
> 
> ...



Market?  No civvie paper would pay for one.


----------



## Maybee (11 Apr 2006)

Really no market? I bet you that said reporter would have to link but one article to this page to get a reasonable following going. I know that I would buy any media publication that could correctly identify and/or factually report about the CF. On a related note how many times have you hurled something at the TV when they use film of Brit/US/Other F**king country's Army in a piece about the CF?


----------



## conoshan (11 Apr 2006)

When it comes to combat since korea there is the little knoen Medac Pocket in 93 nobody wants to talk about


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (12 Apr 2006)

The media can't seem to get over the fact that Canada is no longer (if it ever was) a blue-helmet-wearing peacekeeping country that cradles babies overseas. Every tragedy that happens is the first (fill in the blank) since Korea. Every mention of Afghanistan seems to always begin with the words "The Afghanistan mission isn't the peacekeeping mission Canadians are used to." They seem obsessed with clinging to this peacekeeping illusion. I think that's the explanation for all this "first time since Korea" garbage. Canadians like to be unaware of the realities of military missions, peacekeeping or otherwise. This is the first time they've ever actually been partially aware that people are risking their lives on the behalf of Canadians. When are they going to get over it and accept current realities?

What's next? "This is the first time since the Korean War that a Canadian soldier has been shot exactly four inches above his left elbow," or maybe, "This is the first time since the Korean War that a Canadian soldier has shot an enemy directly through the spine AND through the head."
Or, when World War Three comes will they be saying "This nuclear apocalypse is not the peacekeeping mission Canadians are used to" ?


----------



## Scipio (15 Apr 2006)

You mentioned NAM (addressed to topic starter).  I didn't know Canada fought in NAM.  I know Canadians did, but they fought for the US which probably doesn't count as a Canadian soldier.  Did Canada send over a Canadian unit, maple leaf et al? 



> The media can't seem to get over the fact that Canada is no longer (if it ever was) a blue-helmet-wearing peacekeeping country that cradles babies overseas.



No they can't, because the liberals did a splendid job when it came to emasculating the Canadian Military.  They did it very well for over 30 years.  The image of a Canadian boy scout over seas is what sold to our public.  Liberals love feeling like peace makers.  They love the idea of peace keeping, but hate the idea of combat soldiers.  

During the 90's our army was mocked by our own comedians, film makers, and even Premiers and PM.  Nothing hurts a Canadian male more than "the US will protect us, don't worry".  It's embarrising.


However, I don't think the medias affection for the floppy-eared Peace Keeping Canadian is what prompted the paper to issue the article or the Korea comment. It's a cute little factoid and also highlights that we've been absent form dangerous warfare for a long time.

I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2006)

Quote,
_Nothing hurts a Canadian male more than "the US will protect us, don't worry".  It's embarrising._

Sure.
Well I guess it all goes back to the "Jan Brady" syndrome for ya then............[ where are you Paracowboy? :'(]


----------



## GO!!! (16 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> No they can't, because the liberals did a splendid job when it came to emasculating the Canadian Military.  They did it very well for over 30 years.  The image of a Canadian boy scout over seas is what sold to our public.  Liberals love feeling like peace makers.  They love the idea of peace keeping, but hate the idea of combat soldiers.



Wrong.

Conservative governments collected their "peace dividend" with equal fervor, and the any of the UN led peacekeeping missions could have been cancelled or "opted out of" by Mulroney or Campbell. The fact that those governments were so foolish as to saddle the CF with white elephants (nuclear subs), and useless vehicles (LSVW) speaks to the cold war mentality in which capital purchases, regardless of utility, rule the day. The Tories could have "re-masculated the forces, but  chose not to - following the liberal lead. There is more than enough blame to go around on this issue.



> However, I don't think the medias affection for the floppy-eared Peace Keeping Canadian is what prompted the paper to issue the article or the Korea comment. It's a cute little factoid and also highlights that we've been absent form dangerous warfare for a long time.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with it.



What I see wrong with it is that it is FALSE.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but a number of posters here have listed several occasions in which Canadian Troops exchanged fire with hostile elements of foreign militaries, militias and criminals. Some of them paid with their lives for the privilige, unfortunately, no - one cared what the CF was doing in those days, and it was poorly publicised.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> You mentioned NAM (addressed to topic starter).  I didn't know Canada fought in NAM.  I know Canadians did, but they fought for the US which probably doesn't count as a Canadian soldier.  Did Canada send over a Canadian unit, maple leaf et al?



We served on the ICCS - one of those "peace" missions that people here would like to pretend never happened.


----------



## Franko (16 Apr 2006)

Well...I'm glad you remembered it Micheal, because I was looking through book after book of it.

There was a medal issued for it as well by the Canadian Gov't of the day as well.

ICCS:
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmvn



> The ICCS medal was awarded for 90 days service with the Commission between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973. The 1,160 personnel of the commission were from Canada, Hungary, Indonesia and Poland and their role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam as per the Paris Peace Conference. The Commission arranged the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war.
> 
> *Canada contributed 240 Canadian Forces personnel and 50 officials from the Department of External Affairs. The ICCS operated until 30 April 1975, two years after the Canadians withdrew.*



ICSC:
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmic

Regards


----------



## Gunnerlove (17 Apr 2006)

Canada sent troops to the US as part of an exchange program. Those same troops were rotated to Vietnam (Canada cut their checks the US provided Uniforms). 

Those who came back have huge JTF2 style holes in their record of service. Chances are some didn't make it back and we will never know.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Apr 2006)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Canada sent troops to the US as part of an exchange program. Those same troops were rotated to Vietnam (Canada cut their checks the US provided Uniforms).
> 
> Those who came back have huge JTF2 style holes in their record of service. Chances are some didn't make it back and we will never know.



Meet one of these guys in the bar, did you?

"What colour is the boathouse in Hereford?"

Seriously, you're kidding, right?


----------



## Scipio (18 Apr 2006)

Dear GO!!!

The Liberal government did the damage for 3 decades prior.  Mulroneys Government wrote cheques the economy could not cash.  

The Conservative Govenment that wrote the white papers were seen as the first sign of hope for the CF. Of course they did not meet one of their objectives and afterwards when the Liberals came back in power the CF hit an all time low.

Liberals stuffed what was left of the CF into a coaltion of UN PeaceKeepers and shipped them off all over the place during the 90's.  It was not until Harper's government that Canadian Troops went into combat in sizable numbers under Canadian Managment, not UN Peacekeepers.

So when you look back at it, the Liberals did the destruction, the Conservatives let down and merely added to it. Harper is the first person to use Canadian soldiers as such and not Peace Keepers.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Apr 2006)

> So when you look back at it, the Liberals did the destruction, the Conservatives let down and merely added to it. Harper is the first person to use Canadian soldiers as such and not Peace Keepers.



Rhetorical question, Scipio...  Who deployed the 3 PPCLI Battle Group to Afghanistan in 2002?  Who authorized Canadian airstrikes in Kosovo?

 :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Apr 2006)

C&P Crusader said:
			
		

> Well...I'm glad you remembered it Micheal, because I was looking through book after book of it.
> 
> There was a medal issued for it as well by the Canadian Gov't of the day as well.
> 
> ...



Kind of funny - and not the first time it happened - that NATO and Warsaw Pact soldiers would be serving side by side on the same mission.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> So when you look back at it, the Liberals did the destruction, the Conservatives let down and merely added to it. Harper is the first person to use Canadian soldiers as such and not Peace Keepers.



Are you suffering from acute aluminium poisoning?  These Troops were deployed way before Harper came to power.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Apr 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you suffering from acute aluminium poisoning?  These Troops were deployed way before Harper came to power.



Somalia wasn't a "peace" mission either, and as I recall, the Canadian Airborne flexed some muscle in 1974 in Cyprus as well, in case those haven't been mentioned yet.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Apr 2006)

I don't think Kosovo qualifies as a group hug exercise, either.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2006)

> Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 00:00:45 » Quote
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Canada sent troops to the US as part of an exchange program. Those same troops were rotated to Vietnam (Canada cut their checks the US



Any more information on this...I never heard of it before, after joining USMC, while in Nam for 26 months, after....nada


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Apr 2006)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Canada sent troops to the US as part of an exchange program. Those same troops were rotated to Vietnam (Canada cut their checks the US provided Uniforms).
> 
> Those who came back have huge JTF2 style holes in their record of service. Chances are some didn't make it back and we will never know.



I call bullshit on this one.


----------



## GO!!! (18 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> The Liberal government did the damage for 3 decades prior.  Mulroneys Government wrote cheques the economy could not cash.


If we want to go back to the time of the dinosaurs, the tories cancelled the Arrow...

The economy (as I'm sure you know) does not cash cheques. They come from general revenues, and as the last few federal surpluses have indicated, there is often a significant deviation in the balance sheet.



> The Conservative Govenment that wrote the white papers were seen as the first sign of hope for the CF. Of course they did not meet one of their objectives and afterwards when the Liberals came back in power the CF hit an all time low.


....and I wrote a paper on why Quebecois separtists should be tried as traitors. Both papers are irrelevant if not acted upon. "Defence time" in terms of procurement and funding is often not indicative of the present government but of the governments in power a decade or more previous due to the long timelines, so the intentions of one government are hardly indicative of a general trend in this respect. 

If one were really to argue, they could point out that the Liberals presided over the purchase of new helicopters, submarines, LAVs, LUVWs, MGS and the CTS project, whereas the tories have produced nothing better than hot air. 



> Liberals stuffed what was left of the CF into a coaltion of UN PeaceKeepers and shipped them off all over the place during the 90's.  It was not until Harper's government that Canadian Troops went into combat in sizable numbers under Canadian Managment, not UN Peacekeepers.


Not really.

Don't forget that Peacekeeping missions were initiated on the tory watch too, and that the troops we sent to Afghanistan in 2002 were under liberal control, as is the current mission. The fact that the conservatives inherited a popular mission is hardly indicative of a "pro military" set of defence, procurement and foreign policy objectives, but rather to the foresight of the libs as to what would be a good choice. 

Also, unless I am mistaken, all of the troops in theatre with the exception of the PRT and some "other" assets were and continue to be part of US led task forces. There is Canadians in the command structure, but we are not capable of mounting missions under "candian management"



> So when you look back at it, the Liberals did the destruction, the Conservatives let down and merely added to it. Harper is the first person to use Canadian soldiers as such and not Peace Keepers.


I would say that both "did" the destruction, and that the conservatives are now benefitting from choices made long before they came to office.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Apr 2006)

> Also, unless I am mistaken, all of the troops in theatre with the exception of the PRT and some "other" assets were and continue to be part of US led task forces. There is Canadians in the command structure, but we are not capable of mounting missions under "candian management"



Ummm, a small caveat.  Canada led two rotations of ISAF, including the brigade HQ - something no other nation has done.  This was "Canadian management" - even if it took deploying the Commander of the Army to pull it off!


----------

