# *TIME SENS* Is the media being responsible in it's portrayal of the war in Afg?



## GO!!! (16 Oct 2006)

GO!!! is doing a speech to an academic audience in pursuance of higher education.

This is a purely academic endeavour, and does not reflect the opinions, views or positions of the CF, the DND or the Canadian Government. It is not given from the standpoint of a military member, but that of a political science student.

This is to be a 15 minute speech, with a 5 minute Q and A. The following are presented in "broad strokes" with the requisite information presented and elaborated on verbally.

What I would like from the readership of this site is any additions, deletions or modifications that YOU would make to this if you were giving it. Don't hold back - I can take it.

*The Question:* Has the Media been responsible in it's portrayal of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The painfully obvious answer is a resounding "NO"

(The "main effort" is the war in Afghanistan, Iraq is touched on first though) 

*In Iraq*;

-it started with the accusations of the US being "bogged down" 14 days into the offensive. This is laughable, given the time required for military conquest of a nation with modern weapons and defenses, which happens to be located on the other side of the earth of the attacker.

-moved on to media implications that the war was nationwide, and has been since the invasion, when in reality, the overwhelming majority of the attacks happen in the contested "sunni triangle" centered on the capital, Baghdad.

-largely ignored the efforts and successes of the Kurds in northern Iraq in their fight for an independent Kurdistan.

-Extremely high turnout for Iraqi elections - higher than Canada - could Iraq be more democratic than Canada?

-A large percentage of the violence in Iraq has been blamed, by various commentators on foreign agitation, from national governments, like Iran and Syria, to terrorist groups comprised of foreigners, including various Palestinian organisations and AQ. 

*In Afghanistan*:

-If it bleeds, it leads. The media concentrates fully on the inevitable body count in Afghanistan, but interestingly, only ours. The DND has released that it suspects about 2000 taliban have been killed by Canadians, providing a measure of success, yet one would be hard pressed to find this information presented as readily as our own (very important 42) casualties. If we had achieved a 50:1 kill ratio in either of the World Wars or Korea, they would have been very short contests!!

-Very little information on the billions of dollars in FA spent by Canada, the US and other allies in Afghanistan in development of infrastructure, creation of industry and on NGOs to maintain and raise the QOL for the Afghan people.

-Circumstances surrounding soldier's deaths ignored. It does'nt make it any less worthwhile or painful, but does'nt the public have the right to know that Cpl. X died in an intense urban engagement in which he was killing numerous enemy in pursuance of our larger goals?
Conversely, the last 4 casualties have been sustained as they guarded the construction of infrastructure - yet media reports repeatedly said they were "ambushed" - this creates the perception that we are hapless targets - disregarding the fact that the attackers in these situations (direct fire attacks in daylight) rarely escape with their lives. 

-Repeated assertations by various left leaning public figures that the only way to build Afghanistan is through development and aid, disregarding the fact that most NGO's have now pulled out due to the poor security situation. You simply cannot have development or aid without security. These figures are given prime soundbites on the evening news.

-Referral in the press to Afghanistan as a "failed state" when more accurately it is a state that never was, being a violent patchwork of tribal allegiances, a fact alluded to by the British in the first and second Anglo Afghan wars. Once again, you can't build a nation in the presence of a band of religious zealots, intent on spreading their version of government on a road of decapitated government officials, burned girls schools and kidnapped and murdered aid workers. No development without peace.

-Referral to the war in Afghanistan as "Bush's War" or a "war for oil" when Afghanistan has no oil reserves to speak of, and the only plausible explanation is the three decades old plan for the Trans Afghan Oil pipeline a possible link to caucasus oil. The idea that we would go to war to secure a pipeline route is laughable.

-Little media coverage of the fact that the Taliban harboured AQ, and AQ attacked our best and strongest ally on 9/11, killing 33 of our own citizens.

-Taliban atrocities against NATO troops are ignored or presented as rumour, while NATO's killing of enemy combatants or civilians reasonably thought to be so are presented as suspicious acts of murder, despite CF/NATOs full disclosure of all relevant information not compromising OPSEC.

-Little attention given to the nationalities of many "taliban", in defiance of intelligence stating that many are mercenaries, foreign jihadists, coming from as far away as Chechnya, and in the employ of ostensibly friendly nations such as Pakistan.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Oct 2006)

Very few embeds with forces in Afghanistan would explain why the story isnt getting out. For most journalists its too dangerous. In Iraq the newsmedia is concentrated in Baghdad and pretty much make their reports based on military press conferences/press releases. Not alot of desire by the media to get out with the troops.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2006)

Find a verifiable, generally accepted standard  of reporting for a media organization of sound reputation to abide by [1 slide] and compare/contrast how the reporting has deviated from those standards -[no more than 3 slides]. Otherwise, you are going to be torn apart. Where the reporting has fallen below those standards, then point that out [1 slide each instance] and point out how they could have more accurately reported the story [1 slide each instance]. Don't get into a lot of detail- just 2 or 3 bullets per slide. Make them readable.  

I would also make sure you find good examples where the media has met or risen above the standard to at least show you are not biased and that they are at least capable of doing a good job.  A couple of slides will do.

For humour, for no more than 2-3 quick slides, you could also take the same story and demonstrate how different media organizations take the same facts and spin them one way or the other. in other wrods, do a 'Reality Check" segment on the CBC. 

Even if you can't use slides, make them anyway and use them as talking points.

Good luck Go!!

[You must be in 3rd year now?]

W601

edit to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards


----------



## boondocksaint (16 Oct 2006)

I agree Tomahawk6, true embedded media was rare over there. Most would 'embed' for a couple of days to try and force a story.

Lisa Laflemme ( CTV ) and Scott kestereson ( independant ) were 2 that took an approach of getting to know the soldiers and not 'getting to know the story '. There may be others, these were two that were with our PL and stood out.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Very few embeds with forces in Afghanistan would explain why the story isnt getting out. For most journalists its too dangerous.



This may or may not pertain to GO!!!'s project, but would you not say this is a sign of the true state of affairs?  If it is too dangerous for a reporter to venture out of a fortified Western camp, what does that say for the stability of the region?

GO!!!, you may want to look at what the media is given by the government?  When someone speaks of "reaching an important milestone of stability" or "breaking the back of the insurgency" (I remember that happening in Iraq in Nov. 04) and yet it is simply too dangerous for them to visit villages in the countryside, can you blame them for being skeptical of any real signs of progess?


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Oct 2006)

Covering wars has always been dangerous. During Vietnam if reporters wanted to find out what really was going on they could hop a bird and get into the field. Reporters got killed no question. In WW2 a host of journalists reported on the war from the HQ but a few went out with the troops and gained their respect. Thats why guys like Mike Yon get big respect from the troops. They join a unit and stay with them for extended periods of time. The reporter has to share the danger with the troops for them to respect and trust the journalist. Lacking that the journalist is wasting time and money.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2006)

How much coverage have we seen  of the fact that this is a UN-sanctioned mission?  Re-affirmed as recently as last week by the UN Security Council:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/517/70/PDF/N0651770.pdf?OpenElement

PM or e-mail me for the .pdf of the resolution if you can't open it up from the link (not all the UN document links work).

Also, re:  journalists staying behind the wire - someone smarter than me wrote in another thread that another reason journos may be encouraged to stay on base is because if the editor calls, asking about something that's happened, there's no story to send if the journo is out in the boonies. Yeah, ideally, it should be the reporter telling the editor, "here's what's up, how much do you need on it?", but sadly, based on my experience (reporting, but not while being shot at), sometimes the herd instinct takes over.  A good example of this, from a journalist in country end of October 2001:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so06chayes

''. . . .it proved a difficult time and place to be an American journalist. But not for the reasons I had foreseen. The difficulty lay not in local hostility but in reporting back to a traumatized nation. 

"The worst period in my entire career," a friend and revered colleague confided to me as we compared notes afterward. He sent me a list of story ideas that his editors had rejected. 

"Our people simply didn't want us to do any reporting," my friend, a Pulitzer Prize-winner, complained. "They had already decided on the story they wanted and just assigned us to dig up some stuff to substantiate it." 

A CNN correspondent told me that she had received written instructions not to film civilian casualties. And I remember confabbing in the marbled hall of the opulent Quetta Serena Hotel with BBC reporter Adam Brookes in mid-November 2001, the weekend Kabul fell, listening to how he'd had to browbeat his desk editor to persuade him that Kandahar was still standing.

It was as though, because the 9/11 attacks had taken place in New York City and Washington, D.C.--the American nerve centers--they had blown out the critical-thinking apparatus in the people I had trusted to have one: the editors, the experienced journalists . . . . ''

Let us know how it went - good luck!


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This may or may not pertain to GO!!!'s project, but would you not say this is a sign of the true state of affairs?  If it is too dangerous for a reporter to venture out of a fortified Western camp, what does that say for the stability of the region?
> 
> GO!!!, you may want to look at what the media is given by the government?  When someone speaks of "reaching an important milestone of stability" or "breaking the back of the insurgency" (I remember that happening in Iraq in Nov. 04) and yet it is simply too dangerous for them to visit villages in the countryside, can you blame them for being skeptical of any real signs of progess?



Tomahawk beat me to it, reporters have been going right into the thick of it for some time.  I chalk up their lack of williness of going out and about with the troops, as simply they are either a) lazy, and prefer using the cut and paste feartures of their word processors, or b) they aren't willing to give up thier creature comforts (what little they have in base camp), and this is more indicitive of consumer culture society where we can't live without cellphones, mp3 players etc.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2006)

If it fits anywhere, Joe Galloway (you remember him from Mel Gibson's _We Were Soldiers Once_) was the only reporter to be awarded a Bronze Star with "V" device (for valour) during Vietnam.

His citation reads as follows:


> This is to certify that the President of the United States of America by Executive Order, 24 August 1962, has awarded THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL with "V" device to JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY for heroism while accompanying the 7th Cavalry Regiment.
> 
> During the afternoon of 14 November 1965 a furious battle had been fought between the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, and the 66th Regiment of the Peoples Army of Vietnam. Mr. Galloway voluntarily boarded a helicopter which landed at night on a hazardous resupply run into an active combat situation where he was determined to report to the world details of the first major battle of the Vietnam War. Early on 15 November 1965 in the fury of the action, an American fighter bomber dropped two napalm bombs on the Battalion Command Post and Aid Station area gravely wounding two soldiers. Mr. Galloway and a medical aid man rose, braving enemy fire, and ran to the aid of the injured soldiers. The medical aid man was immediately shot and killed. With assistance from another man, Mr. Galloway carried one of the injured soldiers to the medical aid station. He remained on the ground throughout the grueling three-day battle, frequently under fire, until the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry was replaced by other forces of the 1st Cavalry Division.
> 
> Mr. Galloway's valorous actions under enemy fire and his determination to get accurate, factual reports to the American people reflect great credit upon himself and American War Correspondents.


He ended up going back to Vietnam four times before the war was over, and also covered the first Gulf War.


Now for you real trivia freaks out there......in real life, Joe Galloway married the daughter of Capt. Tom Metsker (played by actor Clark Gregg in the movie), who was killed during the Ia Drang op.


----------



## GO!!! (17 Oct 2006)

Thanks to all for your points.

The embeds were a subject that completely slipped my mind, and will take an important place in the finished product.

Whiskey,  I like the idea of "setting a standard" and then showing deviations from it. Also, showing different media organisations reporting on the same event will have a profound effect.

This creates a problem in itself though. I was thinking about it, and I am struggling to think of a well balanced, factually correct clip from any of the major news outlets. Whether it is CBC interviewing a Col. while the subtitle identifies him as a Lt. Col, or CTV calling Cdn troops in Afghanistan "Peacekeepers" as recently as Oct 12, the reporting is either shamelessly positive (Christine Blatchford, Nat. Post) or profoundly negative (Allan Woods, CanWest), and neither give a good picture on the ground.

The best (or least worst) option seems to be to combine two accounts of an event and reach your own conclusions with the information provided.

As time is growing short, I will finish working on the finished product tomorrow, and provide a link to the video or audio (I'll be recording it, for little else than my own self - improvement)


----------



## DBA (17 Oct 2006)

I tend to grade articles on accuracy of facts, any color added to the text, information about a larger context and consistency of standards for that source. A hot off the press single sourced account without corroboration, strong emotional language, no context and straight conclusions before all the facts are in when other stories have the we shouldn't jump to conclusions line gets the lowest score. A story with multiple sources that are fact checked, neutral language, background information on the longer term story including related stories in the past with more than one viewpoint on how to take the event get a high score. 

The problem is by these measures a good article isn't entertaining and doesn't try and push or lead public opinion. The sad truth is a lot of 'news' is written for both those reasons and other media outlets go for them whole hog.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Oct 2006)

This comment from another topic may be relevant:

One reason why many Canadians are confused about Afstan.  A letter just sent to the Globe and Mail, Oct. 17:



> It's odd that one finds more accurate reporting in the Globe's editorials than in a front-page news story. Doug Saunders writes, in "Blair says bond with Canada is forged in battle" (Oct. 17),
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061017.AFGHANBLAIR17/TPStory/Front
> 
> that "Other than Canada, Britain is the only country that is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization fighting in the dangerous southern provinces of Afghanistan."
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Oct 2006)

These guest-posts at "Daimnation!" might also help:

A good start here:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006094.html

Following starts with most recent.

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007375.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006880.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006752.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006719.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006644.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006592.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006545.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006442.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006368.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006236.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006222.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## probum non poenitet (17 Oct 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> *The Question:* Has the Media been responsible in it's portrayal of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?



Good question - which leads to the question, has the media been responsible in its portrayal of any war?

It might be interesting to add some historical context if you have time. There are some CBC WW2 newsreels here.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-1471/conflict_war/italian_campaign/

Interesting descriptions of newspaper coverage early in WW1.
http://w3.westernfrontassociation.com/thegreatwar/articles/sourcesofinfo/newspapers.htm

In the days before TV, e-mail, and digital cameras, information from the front could be tightly controlled.
TV coverage in Vietnam was a huge change to 'the medium is the message.'
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/V/htmlV/vietnamonte/vietnamonte.htm

Now we've got blogs, forums, podcasts, 24hr news networks, public affairs corps, sat trucks, and Geraldo, and the home front still has a fuzzy picture of what's happening.

Has anyone ever done it right? --- Who has come closest? 

Food for thought.


----------



## patrick666 (17 Oct 2006)

Make sure you post your final draft once it's all said and done. I would be, after reading through this thread, very interested to read it. Good luck on your speech.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Oct 2006)

So GO any news, did the presentation go well?


----------



## paracowboy (25 Oct 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So GO any news, did the presentation go well?


he's busy doing Soldier stuff, and will be off these means for a few more weeks, I'm afraid.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2006)

The presentation went very well!

I found out public speaking is'nt nearly as hard when you prepare and present a topic in which you are somewhat well versed and have a strong belief in. I believe my case was also helped somewhat by an unprepared opposition.

Each point below was on a recipie card, and had an accompanying powerpoint slide with the main idea in large letters, white on a black screen, used purely for emphasis. Points were elaborated on with a 45 second to one minute elaboration on the points, questions held until the end.

This is a purely academic endeavour, and does not reflect the opinions, views or positions of the CF, the DND or the Canadian Government. It is not given from the standpoint of a military member, but that of a political science student.

The Question: Has the Media been responsible in it's portrayal of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The painfully obvious answer is a resounding "NO", and in the next 10 or 15 minutes I will tell you why.

The main effort of this presentation is the Canadian war in Afghanistan, but I will also touch on the other major theatre in the GWoT, Iraq.

In Iraq;
It was widely reported that the US was "bogged down" being 14 days into the offensive. 
The media was irresponsible because:
This is laughable, given the time required for military conquest of a nation with modern weapons and defenses, which happens to be located on the other side of the earth of the attacker. Even France did’nt fall to Germany that quickly in WW2, and they were neighbours!


The media has given the perception that the war in Iraq is nationwide, This is irresponsible because, in reality, the overwhelming majority of the fighting happens in the hotly contested "sunni triangle", roughly centered on the capital, Baghdad, and has more to do with sectarian violence than anti – american sentiment. 

The media has largely ignored the efforts and successes of the Kurds in northern Iraq in their fight for an independent Kurdistan, which has been largely peaceful and continues in Iran, Turkey and Syria.
This is irresponsible because the media continues to concentrate on the sensational attacks in the triangle while largely ignoring the great strides made elsewhere in the country.

Extremely high turnout for Iraqi elections (61%) – almost higher than Canada (64.9%) - could Iraq be more democratic than Canada? The media is irresponsible because the legitimacy of this government is undermined by repeated references to the “US backed” government, when it was democratically elected. Iraqi civilians shot, bombed and kidnapped for voting.


The media fails to report that a large percentage of the violence in Iraq has been blamed, by various commentators on foreign agitation, from national governments, like Iran and Syria, to terrorist groups comprised of foreigners, including various Palestinian and Lebanese organisations and AQ. 
This is irresponsible because it gives the impression that there is a strong resistance among common Iraqis to the US, when many of the nations surrounding it have a vested interest in seeing it remain unstable.


In Afghanistan:

-If it bleeds, it leads. The media concentrates fully on the inevitable body count in Afghanistan, but interestingly, only ours. The DND has released that it suspects about 2000 taliban have been killed by Canadians, providing a measure of success, yet one would be hard pressed to find this information presented as readily as our own (very important 42) casualties. If we had achieved a 50:1 kill ratio in either of the World Wars or Korea, they would have been very short contests!!
This is irresponsible because it is lazy reporting. The media takes info and visuals from the CF, which discloses all information possible, while the Taliban nearly always gives false information in an effort to minimise defeats and maximise any coalition misfortune.

-Very little information on the billions of dollars in FA spent by Canada, the US and other allies in Afghanistan in development of infrastructure, creation of industry and on NGOs to maintain and raise the QOL for the Afghan people.
1 billion for development, half already spent.
This is irresponsible because of, once again, lazy sensationalism. A village with water or a sewage drainage system is not nearly as good a story as one about Canadian troops sending a comrade home in a box to the wail of bagpipes.

-Circumstances surrounding soldier's deaths ignored. It does'nt make it any less worthwhile or painful, but does'nt the public have the right to know that Cpl. X died in an intense urban engagement in which he was killing numerous enemy in pursuance of our larger goals?
Conversely, the last 4 casualties have been sustained as they guarded the construction of infrastructure - yet media reports repeatedly said they were "ambushed" - this is irresponsible because it creates the perception that we are hapless targets - disregarding the fact that the attackers in these situations (direct fire attacks in daylight) rarely escape with their lives. 

-Repeated assertations by various left leaning public figures that the only way to build Afghanistan is through development and aid, disregarding the fact that most NGO's have now pulled out due to the poor security situation. 
This is irresponsible because you simply cannot have development or aid without security. These figures are given prime soundbites on the evening news.

-Referral in the press to Afghanistan as a "failed state" when more accurately it is a state that never was, being a violent patchwork of tribal allegiances, a fact alluded to by the British in the first and second Anglo Afghan wars, which still holds true today. Once again, you can't build a nation in the presence of a band of religious zealots, intent on spreading their version of government on a road of decapitated government officials, burned girls schools and kidnapped and murdered aid workers. No development without peace.

-Referral to the war in Afghanistan as "Bush's War" or a "war for oil" This is irresponsible because Afghanistan has no oil reserves to speak of, and the only plausible explanation is the three decades old plan for the Trans Afghan Oil pipeline a possible link to Turkmenistan /Uzbekistan/Tajikistan oil. The idea that we would go to war to secure a pipeline route to a resource we are swimming in is laughable.
This is irresponsible because three governments, two liberal, one conservative, committed Canadian troops to Afghanistan and not to Iraq. This is not Bush’s war – it is our war, we voted for it.

-Little media coverage of the fact that the Taliban harboured AQ, and AQ attacked our best and strongest ally on 9/11, killing 33 of our own citizens.
This is irresponsible because it gives context to the reasons for Op Apollo (2002) and the defeat of the Taliban in the first place.

-Taliban atrocities against NATO troops are ignored or presented as rumour, while NATO's killing of enemy combatants or civilians reasonably thought to be so are presented as suspicious acts of murder, despite CF/NATOs full disclosure of all relevant information not compromising OPSEC.
This is irresponsible because, once again, laziness. Why would a reporter seek the whole, story when they can get a soundbite from a CF PAffO and twist it?

-Little attention given to the nationalities of many "taliban", in defiance of intelligence stating that many are mercenaries, foreign jihadists, coming from as far away as Canada, the US and Chechnya, and in the employ of ostensibly friendly nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or their delegates. 
This is irresponsible because it gives the continued impression that the Taliban (or what remains of it) is some sort of national resistance, when it is not. 

The Taliban is not an ideologically driven, ethnically homogenous national resistance, it is a paid force of mercenaries and foreign agitators, many participating in what can arguably be referred to as a “right of passage” for arab/muslim youth.

By extension and by virtue of their strong connection to Afghanistan, the infamous Khadr Family. The media reports on these Canadians as victims of discriminatory investigations by DFAIT, RCMP and CSIS, in defiance of the facts.
The Khadr family “lost” their passports 23 times in two years while living in Pakistan.
The patriarch was killed smuggling weapons over the Afghan-Pakistani border.
All four boys have trained at AQ terror camps in Afghanistan, and have participated in fighting against the coalition. One now lies paralysed in a TO hospital after murdering a US medic (protected by the GC) with a grenade.


Embed-In-Bed
Embedded reporters are often unable to see the war objectively, just like their non – embedded peers – only their pro-army stance is just as irresponsible. 
For the public to draw their own conclusions, the media must be unbiased – a strong inclination to support or discount either side is a serious breach of journalistic integrity. 

Mindless support is just as harmful as subversive slander, as it discredits the media outlet and the subject of the reporting.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your questions.

End.

I wanted to put alot more information in this presentation, and many of you brought up excellent points, but time was my biggest constraint, so I went with what I had.


----------



## spud (19 Nov 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The presentation went very well!
> 
> I found out public speaking is'nt nearly as hard when you prepare and present a topic in which you are somewhat well versed and have a strong belief in. I believe my case



Go!!,

I'm sure it was a great presentation, sounds like you beat them into submission with <gasp>...the facts!!

But it makes for great reading as well. Good job, and thanks a lot!  


potato


----------



## GAP (19 Nov 2006)

Clear, concise, to the point and short. To many people belabour their favorite points that they lose the audience....I really enjoyed reading yours.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2006)

Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity - well done!


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2006)

An interesting take from the Americans, as reported in the Billings, Montana "Outpost"

http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=21523&issue=361



> Paratroopers discuss fight in Afghanistan
> By ADRIAN JAWORT
> 
> 
> ...



These "ground truth" observations are probably not what people want to hear, but unless this sort of information and preceptions from the forces on the ground get heard, the discussions about Afghanistan or any future operation are essentially being held in a vaccum.


----------



## Haggis (27 Nov 2006)

Since the French are withdrawing their SF from Afghanistan, I guess we've just moved up a notch.


----------



## boondocksaint (27 Nov 2006)

We RIP'd with them, they supported us in everything we needed. In email's with some of them during and after our tour they all expressed that they were impressed and thankful for Canadian contribution.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (27 Nov 2006)

The French SF guys were great. I loved there stories of being deployed in the South Pacific fighting the Green Peace people!


----------



## Yrys (29 Nov 2006)

silentbutdeadly! said:
			
		

> fighting the Green Peace people!



fighting may not be the better term for that : ).


----------

