# POLL: Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan?



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2007)

From CTV Montreal

http://montreal.ctv.ca/

Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan? 
Yes
 61%  
No
 39%


----------



## Strike (23 Aug 2007)

Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan? 
Yes
 60.97%  
No
 39.03%


----------



## 3rd Herd (23 Aug 2007)

Talkback Montreal
Poll Results  

Poll Start Date: 2007-08-23  
Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan? Yes   61.07%  
No   38.93%


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Aug 2007)

Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan? Yes   60.57%  
No   39.43%


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (24 Aug 2007)

I voted yes...  at 02:01
Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan? Yes   60.84%  
No   39.16%


----------



## Nieghorn (24 Aug 2007)

I don't think we need to debate the answer to this here, but I want to pull my hair out every time the media puts someone on who questions this like they've not heard one balanced news broadcast, listened to the radio or a serving member/vet, or even paid attention to what the government says in the last five years.  But then again, it would seem people are more concerned with American Idol outcomes than the stability of a nation that deserves to live in peace.  

... sigh.


----------



## US_ARMED_FORCES (25 Apr 2008)

they should be in iraq. they need to join our fight against terror... if canada got hit as hard as our twin towers did in one of their famous areas, they would be asking everyone to join em in the fight against terror..... United we stand


----------



## armyvern (25 Apr 2008)

US_ARMED_FORCES said:
			
		

> they should be in iraq. they need to join our fight against terror... if canada got hit as hard as our twin towers did in one of their famous areas, they would be asking everyone to join em in the fight against terror..... United we stand



Agenda please?

And, where did you say you were again?

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Agenda please?
> 
> And, where did you say you were again?



"Courriel:  	 networkingdefence1@Hotmail.com"

Could always ask him/her more directly then in P.M. ...


----------



## Mike Baker (26 Apr 2008)

US_ARMED_FORCES said:
			
		

> they should be in iraq. they need to join our fight against terror... if canada got hit as hard as our twin towers did in one of their famous areas, they would be asking everyone to join em in the fight against terror..... United we stand


I think that we are more bogged down in Afghanistan now, let alone being in Iraq as well.

Back on topic.

Baker


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Apr 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> "Courriel:  	 networkingdefence1@Hotmail.com"
> 
> Could always ask him/her more directly then in P.M. ...



Well, judging how he has spelled defence (US spelling is defense), I would say that this person is in Canada or another commonwealth country, and not American has he is trying to lead us to believe.

Also with the quality of his wording, I would say about 14 yrs old to boot.

Can anyone confirm by ISP?


----------



## Sigs Pig (26 Apr 2008)

Did a quick simple search and found this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/networkingdefence1

Read the fifth comment down... the style is similar. i.e. lowercase 'c' on Canada/Canadian

WEB


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> Did a quick simple search and found this:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/networkingdefence1
> 
> Read the fifth comment down... the style is similar. i.e. lowercase 'c' on Canada/Canadian



Well, the fifth poster doesn't seems to know that races don't exist (doesn't seems to know how to hold his temper 
or argue properly, either) ...


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> "Courriel:  	 networkingdefence1@Hotmail.com"
> 
> Could always ask him/her more directly then in P.M. ...



You're just noticing that??

Why do you think I posed him the question I did? 

PMs already occured ... right after I asked him.


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You're just noticing that??



Huh, no.

Just though that by making a post of it , _more_ people would have the idea .


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Apr 2008)

Here is our friend's quote

Mods, feel free to punch this out if you desire.

I have edited where its obvious

networkingdefence1| September 03, 2007 

"dumb f***** canadians. and if ya try to burn our white house down now, the canadians will be crushed by us Americans. and fuck you to the dumb american dude talking shit about us Ricans. we don't care if u like us, in the United State f*** us Latinos are the fastest growing race in the world! so befor you talk s*** white trash read facts. America is a great country and I love it here, f*** dumb white trash who talks s*** about Ricans or latins in general. go back to your preppy hood and hide behind your garbage can like you always do. dumb white bitches.
and also canada sucks! u will never be able to beat America!"


-----------

Gee, full of compliments isn't he. I still don't beleive he is 28, or for some reason, in the US.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Here is our friend's quote
> 
> Mods, feel free to punch this out if you desire.
> 
> ...



Surprise!! Neither do we. That much should be obvious to you all by now.

I'm just waiting for him to come back to answer the questions, facts, & details I've put to him in PM --- if that's OK with you.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Apr 2008)

Maybe he's from the AHRC...?    >


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Maybe he's from the AHRC...?    >



Nah. LMAO.

He's great actually. Seems to originally be from the "North East Newyork, City", and "I was thinking about heading down southwest for some good weather." (<--- Info publicly available on the internet).

Apparently now, he's changed his mind from Austin, Texas and headed south east to live instead, where he is now, according to his response to me. I'll just say, for now, that he has extremely long arms to be able to reach his keyboard.

He has some 'splaining to do when he comes back.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He has some 'splaining to do when he comes back.




If he comes back  ;D


----------



## Shiraz (11 May 2008)

Can I go back to the original question?

Yes, they are there and need to be there.


----------



## gun runner (23 Aug 2008)

To this question I will say " yes " everyday of the week, and twice on Sundays !! Our soldiers are the best example of what we represent in  in terms of national pride and resolve!! Give'em hell troops!! Ubique


----------



## MCpl. Burwell (15 Sep 2008)

Canada  should definetaly be in Afghanistan. If Canadian soldiers do not protect us abroad, the War on "Terror" will come to Canada. Canada definetaly has to be in Afghanistan.


----------



## Haggis (15 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Here is our friend's quote





> "dumb f***** canadians. and if ya try to burn our white house down now, the canadians will be crushed by us Americans. and frig you to the dumb american dude talking crap about us Ricans. we don't care if u like us, in the United State f*** us Latinos are the fastest growing race in the world! so befor you talk s*** white trash read facts. America is a great country and I love it here, f*** dumb white trash who talks s*** about Ricans or latins in general. go back to your preppy hood and hide behind your garbage can like you always do. dumb white bitches.
> and also canada sucks! *u will never be able to beat America*!"]/quote]
> 
> Clearly, he missed the 2004 Winter Olympics.


----------



## Niteshade (15 Sep 2008)

Get over it kiddies. Back to the TOPIC.

I most whole heartedly believe we should be in Afghanistan. Helping people is what we do, and by removing the Taliban from power we do some great things. We help the afghan people live lives free of fear, and give them new rights and freedoms they would not have enjoyed. We also eliminate the support system the Al Queda have enjoyed. By eliminating these threats, Canada is also better off.

I think we should be there, and I think we are doing a great job at it to boot.

Nites


----------



## gaspasser (15 Sep 2008)

1. I guess our infamous US'er missed the point that 65 countries lost civilians on 9-11 in theTowers.
2. I fully believe our troops should be in A'stan.  We got pulled in by the states and when they pulled out, we stepped up to the plate and covered thier tracks.  Originally, we were there for humanitarian aid, only to discover that we needed to defend the aid and people recieving it.  If we pulled out now, when the people need us there, we would not be fulfilling our "peacekeeper" attitude and worldly reputation.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

Hmm, while certainly this question is a fine one, however I wish they were more specific in their questioning. Many Canadians are opposed to the War in Afghanistan because of the way our troops are being employed, not just for the mere fact that we are there. So with that in mind I am not surprised with the results. I know many friends who are against the War, however they would see nothing wrong with a different deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is a different way so even though they are anti-war, they would vote Yes on this poll.

However, granted there are those who say we shouldn't be there period so I guess then this poll has its purposes.

-C/D


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Hmm, while certainly this question is a fine one, however I wish they were more specific in their questioning. Many Canadians are opposed to the War in Afghanistan because of the way our troops are being employed, not just for the mere fact that we are there. So with that in mind I am not surprised with the results. I know many friends who are against the War, however they would see nothing wrong with a different deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is a different way so even though they are anti-war, they would vote Yes on this poll.
> 
> However, granted there are those who say we shouldn't be there period so I guess then this poll has its purposes.
> 
> -C/D



And how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?

Many Canadians are opposed because they live sheltered lives and are blissfully unaware of world affairs, methinks your friends belong to that particular faction. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Nov 2008)

They need to read this.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81259/post-780873.html#msg780873


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> They need to read this.
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81259/post-780873.html#msg780873



By why let facts interfer with a pre-concieved idea based on emotions and ignorance of the "real' situation on the ground. 8)


----------



## PAT-Platoon (22 Nov 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> And how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?
> 
> Many Canadians are opposed because they live sheltered lives and are blissfully unaware of world affairs, methinks your friends belong to that particular faction. :



Well I cannot speak for them, but my various friends live far from sheltered lives and are actually very aware of world affairs. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean its proper to demean them or assume that they are simply misinformed. Its very simple, and black and white to paint someone as misinformed instead of asking and discerning why they hold their particular beliefs. As for the attack on the girl with acid, I'm sorry but even with the tragedy and abhorrent acts such as those, using such microlevel "evidence" is simply not proper. Its manipulative of people's initial emotions are constantly used to evoke knee-jerk reactions. While such a disgusting attack like that is naturally so very moving and powerful, to us it to justify force escalation and force projection in another country is unethical. 

What is better is to use rational and logical arguments, which there are many, for the mission in Afghanistan. Emotional cases like that as arguments are manipulative and are simply designed to get a rise out of people so that almost anything could be justified. By using rational and logical constraints we can apply proper force projection and retaliation. Emotional outbursts only lead to heavy handed retaliation with no regard for greater concerns. 

-C/D


----------



## Monsoon (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Its very simple, and black and white to paint someone as misinformed instead of asking and discerning why they hold their particular beliefs.


I may be mistaken, but I believe he asked you three questions, none of which you saw fit to answer. You are being a troll.


----------



## stealthylizard (22 Nov 2008)

US_ARMED_FORCES said:
			
		

> they should be in iraq. they need to join our fight against terror... if canada got hit as hard as our twin towers did in one of their famous areas, they would be asking everyone to join em in the fight against terror..... United we stand



I know this is dated, but the US isn't the only country to ever be hit by terrorism.  Air India bombing, FLQ, attack on Cuban embassy in Ottawa, several bombings of Cuban trade delgations in Canada, Cuban official killed by explosion in Montreal, Croatian Freedom fighters hijacking a plane, Squamish 5, Marc Lepine (serial killer or terrorism?), Iranian embassy in Ottawa.


----------



## mjc_1812 (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> While such a disgusting attack like that is naturally so very moving and powerful, to us it to justify force escalation and force projection in another country is unethical.



While using a single isolated case may be "unethical", the fact is that attacks like these continue to happen throughout Afghanistan. Albeit maybe not as heinous as acid on people, but nonetheless, the Taliban continue to blow up schools and have resorted back to "terror" tactics to scare the population back into supporting them. These tactics are reprehensible and should (and CAN) definitely be used as justification as a need to increase security. If we cannot maintain the level of safety in the eyes of the Afghan population, who is to say that they won't soon see us as obsolete?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2008)

C\D,

You've been warned once about lecturing the members here. You do not have the level of expertise, nor the real world experience to presume yourself their better. You won't be warned again.

The members here have been more than patient listening to you espouse your 'theories' as opposed to you taking heed of their real world, tried out, physical solutions. You talk about a fair exchange of ideas, and refuse to answer questions put to you, probably because the best answers don't fit your stance. Yet you have no problem belabouring the same points from yourself and your faceless friends. We will not take at face value your vouching for their experience. They might as well be nothing more than your classmates or members of the Young Communists of Canada for that matter. In short, quit regurgitating the same old tired stance, answer the questions put to you, as the members here answer and debate yours and back your stance with solid, tangible research, not something your classmates have discussed.

You've been given more than enough time to get used to the way we do things here. If you continue to push the members buttons without changing tact, your time here is going to be very limited. 

You're on the clock.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## pict (22 Nov 2008)

This question is really annoying.  Of course we should be there.  And if one more person asks if I'm going to Iraq, i'm going to snap!


----------



## PAT-Platoon (22 Nov 2008)

mjc_1812 said:
			
		

> While using a single isolated case may be "unethical", the fact is that attacks like these continue to happen throughout Afghanistan. Albeit maybe not as heinous as acid on people, but nonetheless, the Taliban continue to blow up schools and have resorted back to "terror" tactics to scare the population back into supporting them. These tactics are reprehensible and should (and CAN) definitely be used as justification as a need to increase security. If we cannot maintain the level of safety in the eyes of the Afghan population, who is to say that they won't soon see us as obsolete?



Fair enough, I am perfectly fine with that sort of argument but more than not I see people simply posting that link and using it as an isolated case of evidence, and not explaining that these sort of attacks are on the rise or whatever else. Your argument however is fair



> nd how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?



My apologies, I missed these questions. Well, it depends on who you ask. A few friends would simply wish that our troops would be withdrawn, another few would employ the CF outside the current structure it's employed in (i.e. no longer in command of Kandahar, and not in aggressive operations). Basically I believe they wish that the Combat Brigade we have there would be pulled out an we would only utilize basically PRTs instead. I don't think they would have an issue with troops defending themselves, though I assume under some standard of ROEs that espouses limited responses (I believe the Green party for instance wishes to ban airstrikes except in the most extreme cases). As for carrying weapons, yes I assume they would allow that. I think you are trying to paint people who are against the war as "hippies" or something else but many against the war simply wish it was fought in a different way, not in absolutist terms withdrawn. 

Though to be fair, just because I missed your questions doesn't mean I'm a troll. Your questions are aimed at my friends who are not on this board, you cannot ask me to read their mind, and I stated that I cannot speak for them in my other post. Still though, some of my friends yes are "mis-informed" but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.

-C/D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Fair enough, I am perfectly fine with that sort of argument but more than not I see people simply posting that link and using it as an isolated case of evidence, and not explaining that these sort of attacks are on the rise or whatever else. Your argument however is fair
> 
> My apologies, I missed these questions. Well, it depends on who you ask. A few friends would simply wish that our troops would be withdrawn, another few would employ the CF outside the current structure it's employed in (i.e. no longer in command of Kandahar, and not in aggressive operations). Basically I believe they wish that the Combat Brigade we have there would be pulled out an we would only utilize basically PRTs instead. I don't think they would have an issue with troops defending themselves, though I assume under some standard of ROEs that espouses limited responses (I believe the Green party for instance wishes to ban airstrikes except in the most extreme cases). As for carrying weapons, yes I assume they would allow that. I think you are trying to paint people who are against the war as "hippies" or something else but many against the war simply wish it was fought in a different way, not in absolutist terms withdrawn.
> 
> ...



So simply stated, you don't have a plan, or explanation. Simply a difference of opinion, of which you can't convince people here to accept. Ergo, never the twain shall meet. You have now expended your ammo. Time to withdraw. You're offering nothing new and creating a circular information flow, which has been repeated too often. Thanks for coming out. If you have nothing further to offer, please refrain from posting and using our bandwidth.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Nov 2008)

What is it about Military operations that make groups of fools think that they are competent or qualified to comment on the conduct of battle?

Cog-Dis, let me ask you this:

Do you walk around building sites, bugging engineers or architects that, in your opinion, they used too little or too much structural steel?  How about doctors- do you question how many stitches your doctor puts in your arm when you are cut?  How about your pharmacist? Or Dentist?

Basically, I call into question the education/training/experience of you or your friends to comment intelligently on the conduct of military operations- you have not, in the course of your posts to date, indicated that you have the first clue how and why we fight as a professional military force.  Therefore, your "opinion" on how we do things is as valueless to most of us here as your opinion on cancer treatment protocols would be to an oncologist.

I would like to close this comment by noting that, in no way do I deny that you or your friends to have a right to an opinion on whether we should be in Afghanistan in the first place.  This is purely a political question and, I believe anyway, need not necessarily be subject to a logical or even informed opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.



So these friends of yours have multiple tours under their belts,...cause most of the people you are arguing poorly with have.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (23 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So these friends of yours have multiple tours under their belts,...cause most of the people you are arguing poorly with have.



Combat tours are in no way a substitute for public and foreign policy decisions. It's like saying you have to be a director or have made a film to critique a movie. As to the above comments regarding architects, doctors etc. that question is dubious at best. As a fellow member of the CF I am merely pointing out valid criticisms, which frankly aren't so controversial at this point. People outside of the military can be competent or qualified to comment on the conduct of battle because the _results_ of that battle effect them. That's the missing point here. By looking only to how competently conduct a battle, one gets tunnel vision and doesn't see the whole picture. That's why we have different levels of command in the military, and that's why we have a civilian controlled (thank goodness) military. They have every right to comment on how we conduct battle because we represent Canada, them, and we are civil servants in a sense. If you think they are such "fools", instead of antagonizing them by demeaning them and calling them misinformed, how about we start informing them instead? Throwing your hands up in the air and declaring them to be idiots won't solve anything, and will only make us look even worse in their eyes. 

Start to understand that their concerns are valid. That is what I did, I say that their concerns are valid and I now attempt to combat them with my own opinions regarding what we should or should not be doing (within my experiences of course). You're not going to win over anyone by calling them fools.

As to what I personally believe is right? Well, I look at it this way now. The public wants us out. The Canadian Forces is a tool of the government, and thus the public. All parties currently in Canada want us out by at least 2011. So with that in regards, I think, to use a cliche, "the people have spoken". So, as it is my job to do, as it is everyones, I will carry out my duty respectfully and to the greatest of my abilities.
-C/D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Nov 2008)

Cog-Dis,

You clearly missed the last sentence of my previous post where I stated that I have absolutely no issue with your opinion on the whether of the mission in Afghanistan- that is a purely political matter (although that I would parenthetically note that, just from what I have seen from your posts, I question your choice of vocation as a soldier- even in a part-time role).

Nothing I have said speaks against the civil control of the military in a democratic society.  You clearly misunderstand, either willfully or ignorantly, what civil control of the military means.  What is means (basically), is that Parliament decides what the CF does and for how long.  The CF (basically) decides how a thing is done.  You do not see cabinet Ministers posted to Kandahar on the BG staff to decide how Operations are conducted, do you?  Why?  Because they are not competent to do so and it would violate the other half of the bargain we have with our civilian leadership- though shalt not mettle in purely military affairs.  Now, it can be argued that a COIN operation has a civilian nexus, because the victory in Afghanistan will not come from a NATO gun barrel- it will come, frankly, from a Afghan politician in Kabul, ultimately.  We merely allow those victory conditions to come into play.

And my analogy about professional expertise is not off the mark.  The CF is the institution in Canada which houses the professional expertise on military and, specifically COIN, matters. Therefore, the CF's opinion on how to conduct COIN Operation had better carry the most weight with the Government.  Clearly, by the contents of your posts, over 700,000 posts on this site have not educated you, so why should I expect anyone else outside to "get it"?  Frankly, you can have an opinion on how Operations are conducted- I just don't have to give your opinion any weight, because in my professional opinion (backed by a degree in military studies and over 23 years of uniformed service), you haven't the foggiest clue about what you are posting.

Good Day to you, Sir.


----------



## Flip (23 Nov 2008)

> As to what I personally believe is right? Well, I look at it this way now. The public wants us out. The Canadian Forces is a tool of the government, and thus the public. All parties currently in Canada want us out by at least 2011. So with that in regards, I think, to use a cliche, "the people have spoken".



But what does this mean?
Canadians would like the job to be finished? fine...
Canadians would like someone else to step up? arguable......
Canadians would like a return of Taliban rule? certainly not!

I think what it really means is that Canadians don't really know or care to know what's going on and would like to feel like the "nice guy" in all this.

It also seems to indicate that we have a minority government that has been cornered on this issue by three other parties and some special interest groups.


----------



## thunderchild (23 Nov 2008)

I'm not very political and it's been a long while since I was in uniform but here is my thoughts,   I'm proud of what our solders have done and are doing,  my son saw 911 happen he was young and home after getting his toncils out.  we let him watch T.V. in his room as a treat, as we had only 1 TV my wife was listening to CD's she didn't know it was happening till it was all over and my  son told her.  Now my son is an aircadet and has plans to join the forces.  He doesn't want kids to see what he saw again so thank you for what you have done.. He feels safe that's thanks to you guys.  That is a debt that I can't repay but my son means to do the same for somebody Else's kids.
That makes me proud and scares me too because I know that he will.  So do I think we need to finish the job then yes I do.  Our Allies do need to step up, be it equipment, troops,resources for the PRT's, money what ever is needed in this NATO has failed especially our Afan allies it is their country after all it's there war too.

  I just have to think that had we geared up the home front as they have done before would we be asking these questions?  After all what are we afraid of ....gutting our economy...DONE.... or win the war Not done yet.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

Flip

I am glad that I am not the only one to find this statement offensive and false:



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> .......... Well, I look at it this way now. The public wants us out. The Canadian Forces is a tool of the government, and thus the public. All parties currently in Canada want us out by at least 2011. So with that in regards, I think, to use a cliche, "the people have spoken". So, as it is my job to do, as it is everyones, I will carry out my duty respectfully and to the greatest of my abilities.
> -C/D



C/D

I can't add much more to what SeaKing Tacco said.  I just question your statement and obvious opinion that the Canadian Public wants Canadian Troops out of Afghanistan.  What statistics have you to back that up?  I'll also stipulate that, by askng for "credible" statistics.  

I know darn well that if one lives in an enclosed environment, and goes through life with blinders on, such as someone in a small commune of pot smoking aging Draft Dodging hippies, they may feel that ALL Canadians are against us having Canadian Troops anywhere.  Unfortunately, not everyone in this country is so naive.  Many actually research their facts and broaden their horizons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2008)

Well, C\D has presumed, on a number of occasions, to speak for us. I guess it's just natural progression that he now speaks for most everyone in the country


----------



## mjc_1812 (23 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can't add much more to what SeaKing Tacco said.  I just question your statement and obvious opinion that the Canadian Public wants Canadian Troops out of Afghanistan.  What statistics have you to back that up?  I'll also stipulate that, by askng for "credible" statistics.



In his defence, \statistics have shown that the majority of Canadians are losing support for the War. I found this article on the Globe and Mail website (I haven't found the actual poll, but the Globe is a legitimate paper).



> A Canadian Press-Decima Research survey shows 67 per cent of those asked believe the number of casualties has been unacceptable, a five-percentage-point rise from a poll taken a little over a month ago.
> 
> Only 25 per cent of respondents said the number of killed and wounded was acceptable, in a survey taken following the most recent deaths of six soldiers in a roadside bomb attack.
> 
> Bruce Anderson, CEO of Decima Research, said Canadians are clearly becoming more doubtful about whether progress is being made, in light of the deaths of 66 soldiers and one diplomat in Afghanistan.



Taken from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070712.wafgpoll0712/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Take this as you will, whether you want to believe that this translates into the Canadian people want us in, but think other NATO countries need to step up or that the bulk of them want us out. Regardless, the stats are there and please note that these do not reflect my personal opinion.

PS these numbers are from 2007. Whether support has increased, I am not sure.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (24 Nov 2008)

With the amount of support they have provided, the amount of lives they have improved by introduing innovative irrigation systems and whatnot along with removing the tyrannist stranglehold of the Taliban, I think it's great that our Forces are providing Pres. Karzai the assistance he wanted. I support the mission however, if they continue to perform in Afghanistan the death toll will rise but quality of life will be improved; but when they are removed from A-stan, I have a feeling that the Taliban will return and all of the hard work that the Forces put into that country will disappear almost as if they had never even set foot on their soil.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2008)

The simple anology is that you can't make an omelete (OMLT, POMLT  ;D) without breaking eggs.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The simple anology is that you can't make an omelete (OMLT, POMLT  ;D) without breaking eggs.



I think the argument is that while that may be true, is the omelet we're making, worth the eggs that we are breaking? The public doesn't seem to think so.

The public, by and large now, don't support the mission in Afghanistan.

"The majority 61% of Canadians oppose sending troops to Afghanistan" (Strategic Counsel 2008 Pre-Election Poll)
 Found Here

"59% of adults disagree with the mission's extension till 2011" (Angus Reid Poll)
 Found Here

"Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever" (CBC poll conducted by Environics)
 Found Here

Strategic Counsel, Angus Reid and CBC are all legitimate sources, as well, the margin of error and majority are so high for the one side that I don't think its realistic to argue poll-tampering or anything else that really discredits these sources. 

So, personal opinions aside, I think the public have spoken on our mission there. Not only has the public spoken, but also all major parties in Canada have also agreed with this sentiment. As well, many professionnal opinions (for example the Manley report) support the current plan of action we have. These are all very persuasive elements to the argument, so its now more than ever difficult to argue for the extension of the mission. I don't think we should extend the mission simply because the public disagree with it, and that is what the CF is for, an extension of the government's will. Therefore, we have done our time there, its time to rebuild, refit and move on.

-C/D
-C/D


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

And the Strategic Councel are:

Hugh Anderson, Senior Associate 
Derek Brasier, Analyst 
Sébastien Dallaire, Senior Associate

Peter Donolo, Partner 
Ellen Eastwood, Senior Associate

Ira Glasner, Associate 
Nancy Gottlieb, Director of Operations

Christie Jamieson, Associate 
Mike Jewer, Associate 
Christopher Kelly, President

Anne Kilpatrick, Partner 
Mindy Little, Senior Associate 
Donna Nixon, Partner

Gloria Roheim, Associate 
Micheline Ross, Associate

Patrick Rouselle, Principal 
Warren Shiau, Senior Associate 
Michael Sullivan, Partner 
Anjali Varughese, Associate 
Pam Ward, Senior Associate

Tim Fisher, Associate 
Timothy Woolstencroft, Managing Partner 


I don't have a clue who any of them are.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the Strategic Councel are:
> 
> Hugh Anderson, Senior Associate
> Derek Brasier, Analyst
> ...



The Strategic Counsel is a polling company cited by CTV news and the Globe and Mail. Do you believe that both CTV News and Globe and Mail are using illegitimate sources? Do you deny the legitimacy of Angus Reid and CBC News as reputable sources? How about these:

Harris Decima
Envirionics,
Ipsos Reid
SES Research

All of these polling companies have the same thing in common. Majority of Canadians disagreeing with the war in Afghanistan. Can you show me even one polling company right now that has a different result? I sure can't. It sounds like you are grasping at straws here.

-C/D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I think the argument is that while that may be true, is the omelet we're making, worth the eggs that we are breaking? The public doesn't seem to think so.
> 
> The public, by and large now, don't support the mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


Let's go back to the basics. The question was:

Do you think Canadian soldiers should be  in Afghanistan? 

The question wasn't:

Should we remain after 2011?

The Canadian gov't is elected by the people, to run the country for them. Whether they always agree or not is decided at the polls.

The previous gov't sought and received House approval to stay until 2011. What happens after that is again up to the people, implemented through the Government and House.

BTW, for the neophytes amongst us. You can't run a counrty based on poll results. It's been tried many time and always proves to be an abject failure. Polls simply record the whims of the people interested enough to answer and seldom reflect the true popular undercurrents.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The Strategic Counsel is a polling company cited by CTV news and the Globe and Mail. Do you believe that both CTV News and Globe and Mail are using illegitimate sources? Do you deny the legitimacy of Angus Reid and CBC News as reputable sources? How about these:
> 
> Harris Decima
> Envirionics,
> ...



You better settle down sunshine. George simpply said he didn't know who they were. Get off your high horse. You're already in enough trouble without baseless accusations.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's go back to the basics. The question was:
> 
> Do you think Canadian soldiers should be  in Afghanistan?
> 
> ...



It's not decided by the polls no, but certainly you cannot argue that polling is not a legitimate tool to gauge the public opinion of a country? Because every party certainly uses it to gauge their public policies. 



> Polls simply record the whims of the people interested enough to answer and seldom reflect the true popular undercurrents.



Can you back that up? This is certainly an interesting comment.



> You better settle down sunshine. George simpply said he didn't know who they were. Get off your high horse. You're already in enough trouble without baseless accusations



He was certainly implying that he didn't find the Strategic Counsel a reputable source. There's no use trying to claim ignorance here.

-C/D


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Can you back that up? This is certainly an interesting comment.



In addition, (since I cannot edit my post), I wish to add a follow up question. What is a good way then to reflect the true popular undercurrents?

-C/D


----------



## Redeye (24 Nov 2008)

Well, since they aren't clear at all, there's not really a good way to.  The popular opinion is a function of how the question is asked.  Since most of the public no idea what's going on in Afghanistan they haven't really got a clear, informed opinion on it.

But carry on all the same, it's amusing.



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> In addition, (since I cannot edit my post), I wish to add a follow up question. What is a good way then to reflect the true popular undercurrents?
> 
> -C/D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> It's not decided by the polls no, but certainly you cannot argue that polling is not a legitimate tool to gauge the public opinion of a country? Because every party certainly uses it to gauge their public policies.
> 
> Can you back that up? This is certainly an interesting comment.
> 
> ...



There you go, thinking for us again. I think it's about time, after numerous warnings, that you said goodbye.


----------



## thunderchild (24 Nov 2008)

Here is a thought ....lets take a camera to Vimy Ridge after the germans got their buts kicked off and take a picture of the Canadian cemetery from the battle how much support would there have been back home if the battle played out in real time on TV?  Not much I would think even though we were right and did an awesome job to say the least there would be 2 factors playing out, 1, not my son..what parent would want there kid in the trenches(national pride aside.) 2, most newer Canadians came here to escape wars  not to fight in one so go back to factor 1.  WE are right to be there, WE are making things better, WE are going to have to fight the "terrorist" so better to fight in their back yards than in ours.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> In addition, (since I cannot edit my post), I wish to add a follow up question. What is a good way then to reflect the* true popular undercurrents*?
> 
> -C/D



Well, you seem to be representing yourself as the only valid source here.     :


----------



## Gasplug (25 Nov 2008)

The other angle to this debate is: 

If we were not in Afghanistan, we would certainly be gainfully "employed" in the plethora of other "sunshine" resorts around the planet, like Chad with the EU, or Kosovo with the other 17,000 NATO troops... Seems to me that in Afghanistan at least we have an impact! 

Cheers,

Gasplug


----------



## Marshall (27 Nov 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Many Canadians are opposed because they live sheltered lives and are blissfully unaware of world affairs, methinks your friends belong to that particular faction. :



Truth. And what exactly did he mean by another way of employment? Did he want a draft or something  :blotto:


----------

