# Majority of Afghans want ISAF soldiers to stay!



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2007)

Let's see how the anti-war lobby takes this -- shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.  I'm looking forward for more details from Environics (nothing on their site yet as of this posting).

Note also the difference in tone and approach between the two accounts of the same numbers.....

*Poll shows Afghans want NATO troops to stay*
ALAN FREEMAN, Globe & Mail, 18 Oct 07
Article link

A strong majority of Afghans approve of the presence of NATO-led troops in their country, including from Canada, and want the foreign soldiers to remain to fight the Taliban and support reconstruction efforts.

In a public opinion poll of Afghans conducted by Environics Research on behalf of The Globe and Mail, the CBC and La Presse, respondents expressed optimism about the future, strong support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and appreciation for the work being done by NATO countries in improving security.

In Kandahar, where the Taliban is stronger and violence more pervasive, support for the foreign troops was weaker, but respondents still want the soldiers to stay.

According to the survey, conducted in person across the country between Sept. 17 and 24 with a representative sample of 1,578 men and women, *60 per cent said that the presence of foreigners in the country was a good thing.* Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing, while 22 per cent said it was equally good and bad.

*In Kandahar, where the Canadians are centred, Environics added to the number of respondents and asked a series of special questions; there, 61 per cent said the foreign presence was good while 23 per cent responded that it was a “bad thing.”*

While a majority of Canadians oppose the military mission in Afghanistan and are anxious to see it end in February, 2009, if not sooner, Afghans are considerably more sanguine about the NATO presence and want it to continue.

*Nationally, 64 per cent of respondents said they believe the foreigners have made a lot of progress or some progress in the fight against the Taliban. In Kandahar, where the insurgency is still raging, 58 per cent still say the foreigners are doing a good job fighting the Taliban.*

When asked about the future of the foreign soldiers, only 14 per cent said they should leave right away while 11 per cent said they should leave within a year. Another 27 per cent said the troops should stay between two and five years but *the biggest group by far—43 per cent—thought the foreign military presence should last ``however long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order.”*

In Kandahar, the heart of the Taliban movement, there was less enthusiasm for the foreign presence with 32 per cent saying the soldiers should leave right away or within a year, but 18 per cent said the Canadian and other foreigners should stay for two to five years and 31 per cent for as long as it takes to defeat the Taliban.

*The survey pointed to a general sense of optimism in the country with 60 per cent of the national sample and 61 per cent in Kandahar saying they were better off than five years ago. *When it comes to the status of women, 73 per cent of respondents nationally said that the women are better off now than they were in 2002.

“It's the first poll ever done by a Canadian organization (in Afghanistan) and the first one that has asked about the Canadian mission and has focused on Kandahar,” said Keith Neuman, group vice president at Environics.

When it comes to Canada's presence in the country, it has a relatively high profile, ranking fourth in public awareness after the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. Asked which foreign countries are present in Afghanistan with soldiers, aid workers and businessmen, 95 per cent named the U.S., Germany 63 per cent, Britain 52 per cent and Canada 46 per cent.

*But virtually no Afghans are apparently aware that Canadian soldiers are involved in fighting the Taliban. Asked which foreign counties are involved in battling the Taliban, 89 per cent of Afghans mentioned the United States and none mentioned Canada.*

Even in Kandahar, 90 per cent said the U.S. was fighting the Taliban while only 2 per cent identified Canada. On the other hand, 25 per cent of respondents in Kandahar said that Canada was providing reconstruction assistance, compared with 27 per cent for Britain and 28 per cent for Germany.

Yet when the question was asked differently, awareness of the Canadian role was higher. When respondents in Kandahar were asked what the main purpose of the Canadian presence was in the province, 47 per cent responded that the main goal was to fight the Taliban, while 16 per mentioned reconstruction and 10 per cent answered that Canada was there to support the Karzai government.

Mr. Neuman said that because the U.S. has by far the most troops in the country, respondents immediately identified American forces as the major fighters against the Taliban but in Kandahar, awareness of the Canadian presence was high and their role was well-regarded, particularly when it comes to reconstruction work.

*Support for the Taliban also was surprisingly low, with only 14 per cent of respondents nationally said they had very positive or somewhat positive views of the Taliban. In Kandahar, those positives rose to 20 per cent.*

Respondents also were overwhelmingly opposed to suicide bombings, with 71 per cent nationally saying they were never justified.

Despite the enmity towards the Taliban, 74 per cent said they supported negotiations between the Karzai government and Taliban representatives as a way of reducing conflict. In Kandahar, support for talks jumped to 85 per cent. 



*51% of Afghans feeling good about country's direction: poll*
CBC.ca, 18 Oct 07
Article link

A new poll of nearly 1,600 Afghans shows the majority feel safer than they did five years ago, and approve of the direction their country is taking, thanks to the presence of international security forces from countries such as Canada.

Results from the Environics Research poll, conducted in partnership with the CBC, show 60 per cent of Afghans surveyed believe the presence of foreign troops has been good for their country.

As well, 51 per cent said they feel their country is headed in the right direction, compared to 28 per cent who responded that it's headed in the wrong direction. The remaining interviewees saw no change or didn't know.

Most Afghans said they believe their lives are better than they were five years ago, citing increased security, as well as better roads and schools because of reconstruction efforts. Those who feel they are worse off say they don't feel safe in the face of continuing violence.

*"There's no consensus. It's not everyone [who] has a positive view," said Keith Neuman of Environics. "But more often than not, people feel that things are better than they were."*

The Ottawa-based research company oversaw the Sept. 17-24 survey of 1,578 Afghans, whom pollsters from the Afghan Centre for Social and Opinion Research interviewed in their homes throughout the country's 34 provinces. 

The results have a margin of error of 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20, except in Kandahar, where the smaller sample size leads to a 5.9 per cent margin of error.

Support for troops to stay

Among the poll's other results:

    * Forty-three per cent of all Afghans surveyed say that foreign troops should stay as long as it takes to get the job done. Only about 15 per cent of all Afghans surveyed want foreign troops to leave their country immediately, and the rest want time limits.
*    * In the troubled southern province of Kandahar, where the former Taliban government has its roots and where the vast majority of Canadian troops are based, only 31 per cent  of respondents want to see foreign troops stick around until stability is restored. In comparison, 32 per cent of those asked would like to see the troops gone within a year, and many had no opinion at all.*
    * A full 60 per cent of those surveyed in Kandahar have a somewhat or very positive attitude toward Canada's soldiers. Those with a negative opinion cite civilian casualties and the fact that they see the soldiers as infidels.

Janice Stein is director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, another of the poll's sponsors. She sees grounds for optimism in the results.

"I think Afghans are asking for continued assistance," she said. "They are asking for a continued foreign presence in the short term. They are asking for help in order to avoid a return of the Taliban to Afghanistan. These are the fundamental messages that come out of this poll."
U.S. cited as chief source of troops

When asked who is responsible for fighting the Taliban, an overwhelming majority named the United States. Even in the south of the country, where Canadian forces have lost most of the 71 soldiers who have died in the country so far, 90 per cent of Afghans polled believe it is the United States that is trying to protect them.

On the bright side, when it comes to reconstruction, Afghans named Canada as one of the top countries trying to help rebuild Kandahar.

"Here are the Canadians in Afghanistan, seen as the people building civil society, helping reconstruction, helping to train, helping to build a democracy so that some day we can leave," says Michael Adams of Environics.

"It's interesting — even our military are seen in that role there, rather than in the role of fighting the Taliban."

Some NATO countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, have been debating whether to pull their troops out of Afghanistan. But despite political opposition within Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made his position clear: He wants Canadian troops to stay in the country until at least 2011.

High marks for Karzai

On another front, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government received approval ratings other world leaders can only dream of.

More than 70 per cent of Afghans surveyed said they think Karzai is doing a good job. In his home province of Kandahar, the positive reviews jump to 77 per cent.

That's significant because Karzai is often seen from the outside as a weak leader who, among other criticisms, hasn't managed to clean up corruption in his own governmental ranks.

"I think what people forget is there is a lot of challenges in this country," Arif Lalani, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, pointed out in an interview. "But there's a lot of progress [too], and the Afghans that I see, see the change and he's the face of the Afghan government. So it wouldn't surprise me that they still have faith in him."


----------



## Armymedic (18 Oct 2007)

Globe and Mail usually has comment boards after their articles decrying the mission. But this one did not....

Perhaps the Liberal friendly editorial board though it would not be a good thing?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Oct 2007)

I'm preaching to the choir here, but we must not abandon these folks.  It ain't pretty over there, but the alternative is so much worse.


----------



## larry Strong (18 Oct 2007)

Lest we forget:

Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the: 

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul. 

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband). 

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers. 

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors. 

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.) 

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe. 

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram. 

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles. 

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule). 

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off). 

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males. 

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice). 

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.) 

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram. 

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind. 

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club. 

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams. 

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors." 

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose. 

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place. 

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden". 

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses. 

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes. 

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes. 

25- Ban on female public baths. 

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only"). 

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa. 

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women. 

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2007)

More things to post over at rabble.ca. I will also be checking my mutual funds to see if makers of hypertension medication are represented....... ;D


----------



## Falange (19 Oct 2007)

I agree with all you regarding the normative reasons behind the mission, as I truly beleive the Afghan people deserve to finally live in peace after 300 years of almost constant warfare. But the thing that worries me the most is how all the hippies and "soft-power will safe the world liberals" do not understand the strategic implications of the mission in Afghanistan. Central Asia is extremely relevant not only for its resources but also because of its close proximity to Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and even China. People think that whatever happens in one country is just their problem and is going to stay there. However it is possible to see that spill over effects occurr all the time, and having the Taliban with total control of that area it is just dangerous. I am really glad that the Afghan people are reacting positive to the ISAF and international community doings in their country as it is not only important for the country but also the whole region.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2007)

As promised, here's Environics Research Group's news release on the stats, with a permalink in .pdf.

*2007 Survey of Afghans:  Summary Report *
Environics Research Group, 18 Oct 07

* Background*
Canadians are clearly divided on our country's role in Afghanistan and not optimistic about the outcome. The latest Environics' FOCUS CANADA survey numbers (from September-October) show that fewer than half (45%) of Canadians support the current mission, only one in three believe it is very (8%) or somewhat (24%) likely to be successful in the end, and a plurality (43%) want to see our troops return job).

Foreign countries are doing a good or bad job of....


Awareness of foreign countries in Afghanistan. Which foreign countries are understood by the local population to be in Afghanistan with troops, aid workers or business people? Is Canada on the radar? In terms of public awareness of the presence of foreign countries (covering all functions and roles), Canada ranks fourth after the United States (95%), Germany (63%), the U.K. (52%) and then Canada at 46 percent. In Kandahar, Canada comes second with 58 percent recognition, well behind the United States (at 98%).

Awareness of foreign countries currently in Afghanistan


Who, top of mind, is fighting the Taliban? Nationwide, it is almost exclusively the United States (89%) that is seen as playing this role. Few mention any other country, including Germany (4%) and, the U.K. (3%), with virtually no mention of Canada. Even in Kandahar (where our forces have lost 71 soldiers and counting), it is the U.S. who is seen as the military presence (90%), with only two percent naming Canada. This result is in sharp contrast to the perspective within Canada, where the public is painfully aware of our troop casualties, the highest proportion of any foreign country.

Awareness of Foreign County Roles (Kandahar Subsample)


What about public awareness of who is providing reconstruction assistance? Do the Afghan people know of Canadians activity or are we invisible here too? On a national level, Canada has low visibility (at 4% awareness), well behind the U.K. (39%) and Germany (27%). But in Kandahar awareness of Canada's participation jumps to 25 percent, in a statistical tie with these other two countries. In the role of providing reconstruction assistance, the U.S. is much less visible (with only 1% awareness nationwide, and 2% in Kandahar).

And who do Afghans see as being involved in helping train the Afghan National Army and the National Police? Nationally, Canada (14%) comes second only to Germany (22%), and Canada earns the highest recognition in Kandahar (23%), followed by India (17%) and Germany (10%).

Apart from knowing which foreign countries are operating in Afghanistan, which stand out as being seen to be doing an especially good or bad job of helping the country where it needs it most? In being recognized for doing a good job, Canada comes fourth (20%) among Afghans across the country, behind the U.S. (64%), Germany (42%) and India (21%). In Kandahar, Canada is third-most mentioned (37%), once again behind the U.S. (64%) and India (43%) (which provides mostly goods and entrepreneurs).

Countries doing a good job of helping Afghanistan


And which countries stand out as doing a bad job in Afghanistan? Not Canada; which is cited by only three percent nationwide and even fewer (2%) in Kandahar where we have the greatest presence. Even the United States, perceived as leading the military effort, at 13% nationwide and 5 percent in Kandahar is not a target of widespread criticism. The principal external culprits in the eyes of Afghans are not the foreigners from other far away civilizations but their next door neighbours: Pakistan (64%) to the east and Iran (34%) to the west.

Canadian Mission in Kandahar. The survey posed additional questions to Afghans in Kandahar province regarding Canada's mission and presence. Close to nine in ten (87%) Kandahar residents are aware that Canada is active in their province (when prompted). When asked to evaluate the job the Canadian military is doing in Kandahar, six in ten residents give our troops a very positive (26%) or somewhat positive (34%) rating, compared with one in five who are negative (19%), and another 21 percent who cannot say either way. Those with a positive assessment say this is because they see the Canadians establishing security and helping to reconstruction clinics and schools. The minority critical of the mission emphasize the killing of innocent people and searching houses without permission.

Opinion of Canadian Troops in Kandahar


Are Canadians doing a better or worse job than other countries in helping Afghanistan? By a four-to-one margin, Kandahar residents say Canada is doing a better job (48%) rather than a worse job (12%); the remainder sees no difference (22%) or are unable to offer an opinion (17%).

Canadians versus other foreign countries in Afghanistan


Just over one in ten (13%) Kandahar residents report any direct experience with Canadians in the past 12 months, in most cases from military passing through their village or meeting aid workers. Of this group, close to half (46%) say this contact was a positive experience, compared with 35 percent who considered it to be negative (the remaining 20% couldn't comment either way).

THE OPPOSITION
The Taliban. What is public opinion of the Taliban, who ruled the country prior to 2002? When asked, almost three quarters of Afghans nationwide have a very negative (53%) or somewhat negative (20%) opinion of the Taliban, compared with only 14 percent who hold a positive view. Opinions are marginally less critical in Kandahar (67% negative versus 20% positive), and among Pashtuns (64% negative versus 26% positive). Moreover, the public is most likely to believe that the Taliban enjoys the support of only a few Afghans (50%), rather than some (24%) or most (7%), with Kandahar opinion only slightly more positive toward the Taliban.

Opinion of the Taliban


There is no consensus about the current unity within the Taliban today. One third (35%) believe the Taliban are divided into a number of different factions that do not agree on important issues, while 29 percent see them as a united political force; the remainder do not believe either characterization fits this group. In Kandahar there is greater likelihood of seeing the Taliban as divided (43%) versus united (14%). Across the country, however, it is Pashtuns who are most apt to see the Taliban as united (36%), as is also the case among residents of Eastern and South Central regions.

Taliban best described as


Al Qaeda. As for the infamous terrorist group that first inspired the post 9/11 American-inspired invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, sympathy among Afghans is very low. Fewer than one in five (19%) nationwide (and only 7% in Kandahar) believe Al Qaeda is a “positive Islamic force in the world today.” This sentiment rises to 28 percent among Pashtuns and residents of the Eastern (38%), South Central (36%) and Central/Hazarjat (37%) regions of the country.

Opinion of Al Qaeda as Islamic Force in the world today


Terrorist Tactics. How do Afghans feel about some of the harsh terrorist tactics currently employed by the Taliban and other insurgents? More than seven in ten express the view that both the use of kidnapping (72%) and suicide bombings (72%) are never justified, compared with just 13 percent who feel they are justified some if not all of the time. Opinions are somewhat softer in Kandahar, among Pashtun, and among residents of the Eastern region.

When are terrorist tactics justified?


FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL MISSION
Progress since 2003. Survey results show that the Afghan public supports the international presence in their country, but do they think are making clear progress since arriving in 2003? In terms of fighting the Taliban, a clear majority believe that a lot of progress (25%) or some progress (37%) has been made, compared with one in three who say little (20%) or no (16%) progress. In Kandahar (where the Canadian military is focused and fighting the Taliban continues), six in ten (61%) believe at least some progress has been made, compared with 40 percent who disagree.

Progress made by foreign countries since 2003


Has there been progress in providing reconstruction assistance since 2003? Two-thirds say a lot (26%) or some (42%) progress, compared with fewer than half as many (31%) who say little or none. Significantly, three-quarters (74%) of Kandahar residents see at least some progress in this area, compared with only 26 percent who believe otherwise.

And has there been progress in training the Afghan army and military? Once again, most Afghans see a positive trend, with three-quarters seeing a lot (37%) or some (36%) progress on this front, compared with only 24 percent who see little or none. In Kandahar, eight in ten (80%) residents see some or more progress in such training by foreign countries.

Overall, these results reflect both surprising and heartening numbers for Canadian troops and public when they reflect on the substantial sacrifices of our soldiers, as well as the significant financial and other investments our government and NGOs have made in this country over the past five years.

Likely Outcome of the Conflict. Despite this sense of progress over the past few years, Afghans remain divided about what the future holds for their country. A plurality (40%) are optimists and believe that with foreign assistance the Afghan government will defeat the Taliban, while half as many (19%) think the Taliban will prevail once foreign troops leave. The remaining 40 percent are currently unsure, indicating it is too early to say (29%) or are unable to offer an opinion (11%). Opinions are marginally more optimistic in Kandahar, where 45 percent believe the Afghan government will win in the end.

Who will prevail in the current conflict?


Should Foreign Troops Leave or Stay? How do Afghans view the timetable for foreign troop withdrawals from their country, which has been wracked by conflict for more than 30 years. There is no public consensus on this question, but given the positive influence most attribute to the international forces, the plurality (43%) of Afghans say that foreign troops should remain “however long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order.” By comparison, one-quarter are looking for a relatively quick exit, either immediately (14%) or within the next year (11%). Another quarter take the middle view of wanting them to stay either two more (12%) or three to five more (15%) years.

In Kandahar, there is somewhat greater desire for a quicker exit (31% want the troops to stay as long as necessary versus 32% would like to see the troops gone within one year), but also a greater sense of uncertainty (with 13% unable to offer an opinion, compared with 5% nationwide).

How much longer should foreign troops remain?


While these results do not reveal public consensus on this issue, it stands in stark contrast to current public opinion in Iraq, where 47 percent of citizens believe the U.S. led coalitions forces should leave now (based on an ABC News poll conducted in August 2007 by D3 Systems).

While Afghans do not all agree on a timetable for when foreign troops will leave their country, it is an issue that appears to be an important one to most. Almost seven in ten (68%) say the question of when they leave matters to them a great deal, a view most widely held among the Hazara (80%), and those living in the Central/Kabul (78%) and Northern (78%) regions.

Negotiations with the Taliban. In spite of the widespread negative feelings about the Taliban, a strong desire for peace and stability, a strong majority (74%) of Afghans nationwide (and 85% in Kandahar) to support negotiations between the Karzi government and the Taliban. Beyond negotiations, there is also modest majority support for the idea of a coalition agreement in which the Karzi government shares power with the Taliban. Just over half strongly (25%) or somewhat (29%) support such a coalition, compared with one-third (33%) who oppose it

Should the Afghan Government deal with the Taliban?


Support for both negotiations and a coalition government is strongest among the Pashtun, as well as among residents of Kandahar, and the Eastern, South Central and Southwestern regions of the country. Support for a coalition government is weakest in the Northern and Central/Hazrjat regions.

To download this press release as a PDF click here.

For further information contact:
Keith Neuman
Group Vice President – Public Affairs
613-230-5089
keith.neuman@environics.ca

Research Methodology


This survey was conducted for Environics Research Group by D3 Systems, Inc., with fieldwork by its subsidiary, the Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research (ACSOR-Surveys) based in Kabul. Interviews were conducted in person, in Dari or Pashto, among a random national sample of 1,578 Afghan adults from September 17 to 24, 2007.

The survey was conducted in all of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. A total of 177 sampling points were distributed proportional to population size in each province, stratified by urban/non-urban status to yield a national sample of 1,278, with an additional 25 sampling points representing 100 boosted interviews in Kabul and 200 boosted interviews in Kandahar. Sampling points were then distributed to randomly selected districts within provinces, also proportionate to population size; and lastly to randomly selected villages or neighborhoods within those districts, by simple random sampling. Sources for population parameters were United Nations population estimates and population projections from the Afghan Central Statistical Office.

The data are not weighted, but are reported separately for national sample of 1,278 interviews, total Kabul interviews of 270, and total Kandahar interviews of 260. The margins of sampling error (at the 95% confidence level) are as follows: Total sample of 1,578 (+/-3.8%); national sample of 1,278 (+/-4.1%); Kandahar subsample (+/- 7.3%); Kabul subsample (+/-7.3%).

Male respondents were interviewed only by male interviewers and female respondents only by female interviewers, ensuring that half of the sampling points were designated for male interviews and half for female. Residences were selected within each settlement by random route/random interval and respondents were selected within residence by Kish grid. Ten interviews were conducted per sampling point in 114 of the 202 sampling points, and 5 interviews were conducted per sampling point in 88 of the sampling points. Having 88 sampling points with 5 interviews in each was part of an effort to further expand geographic coverage in the survey.

Interviews were conducted by 178 interviewers in 34 supervised teams. All interviewers were trained and most had experience on previous ACSOR administered surveys. Ten percent of interviews were directly observed by field supervisors, and an additional 17 percent were back-checked after the interviews, with further logical controls on all questionnaires conducted at the ACSOR offices in Kabul.

The survey had a contact rate of 91 percent and a co-operation rate of 85 percent.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2007)

The Afghans are no different than Canadians.

When we see a military uniform, we see the CF.....period. The public, and even myself, never distinguishes anything other than the difference between civilian and military. When Germany was in Shilo, quite often German military personnel could come into Winnipeg for a weekend, and other than a slight difference in uniform and a definite difference in language, people made no distinction.

The same thing happens in Afghanistan....A uniform is a uniform is a uniform....


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2007)

Just listening to the Liberal Defence critic on CBC newsworld trying to justify his party's position in light of the poll numbers. A pretzle has fewer twists, but I guess he is just channeling his leader.......

I noticed he is now saying we need to continue the combat mission, and somehow is claiming his party did not push for an end to the mission in 2009.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (19 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Just listening to the Liberal Defence critic on CBC newsworld trying to justify his party's position in light of the poll numbers. A pretzle has fewer twists, but I guess he is just channeling his leader.......
> 
> I noticed he is now saying we need to continue the combat mission, and somehow is claiming his party did not push for an end to the mission in 2009.



I know many Liberals who support the mission in Afghanistan.  There is a bit of a "demographics" problem inside of the Liberal camp.  Those that are left leaning Liberal/NDP don't want the mission to continue past 2009.  Those that believe in the mission tend to be Liberal center/Tory.  The Grits looked at the numbers and thought they had more to loose to the NDP - how wrong they were.  

There is a major push to get Dion out,  and one of the three reasons I hear all the time (after "then my guy XXX can get in" and 'Quebec') is that he's wrongheaded about Afghanistan.  

I want to see a poll with public opinion on the afghan mission, split by region and voting tendencies ;-)


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2007)

Zell, what made the CBC clip so funny is M Coderre is also the person who frelanced on a "fact finding" trip earlier this month, and is also quoted as saying at that time the Liberal position on the mission wouldn't change. The clear position of the Afghan people supporting the mission and the Canadian Forces leaves him and his fellow travellers going into contortions to square what they had said in the past as agreeing with and supporting the Afghans.

I can hardly wait to hear Jack Layton's response to the poll.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Oct 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> While *a majority of Canadians oppose the military mission in Afghanistan * and are anxious to see it end in February, 2009, if not sooner, Afghans are considerably more sanguine about the NATO presence and want it to continue.



THERE'S the spin.  Where does the G and M get that info?


----------



## Jaydub (19 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> More things to post over at rabble.ca. I will also be checking my mutual funds to see if makers of hypertension medication are represented....... ;D



You check out that place too, eh?

You know, it's like a car wreck.  I'm disgusted with what I see posted there, yet I can't look away.

If anyone here there has an account there, they should definatly post it!


----------



## Flip (19 Oct 2007)

This is fascinating!
Too much info to go through quickly, but I want to see the resposes from the left.... 



> Just listening to the Liberal Defence critic on CBC newsworld trying to justify his party's position in light of the poll numbers. A pretzle has fewer twists, but I guess he is just channeling his leader.......
> 
> I noticed he is now saying we need to continue the combat mission, and somehow is claiming his party did not push for an end to the mission in 2009.



Time and time again the liberals are having these "22 minutes" moments
without the help from Rick Mercer et al.

Taliban Jack will just call the whole poll thing a conspiracy and continue 
on with the dialogue in his head.

But the liberals are going to give us some real entertainment I think.....

Up next....Dion starts his election campaign in Kanadahar....... ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (19 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I can hardly wait to hear Jack Layton's response to the poll.


 With respect,   you'll likely be waiting a while.   He'll dismiss the poll as biased - people are afraid of the pollers therefore they gave positive feedback or the sample size is to small or even "It doesn't matter what they think,  we know they don't want us there" (I have heard that one, expressed in better terms)


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> THERE'S the spin.  Where does the G and M get that info?



Actually I preferred Neuman's line that the CBC used as an example of spinning. 



> "There's no consensus. It's not everyone [who] has a positive view," said Keith Neuman of Environics. "But more often than not, people feel that things are better than they were."



Consensus.  Apparently the state of affairs where everybody agrees with everything and the desired end-state in the CBC and the left-wing universe (Women reach consensus.  Men agree to disagree or are just disagreeable   ).

I wonder what pollsters would do with "Consensus".


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually I preferred Neuman's line that the CBC used as an example of spinning.
> 
> Consensus.  Apparently the state of affairs where everybody agrees with everything and the desired end-state in the CBC and the left-wing universe (Women reach consensus.  Men agree to disagree or are just disagreeable   ).
> 
> I wonder what pollsters would do with "Consensus".



Based on Neuman's quote as posted, it would be interesting to see what the question was to elicit this response?  In spite of all the positive messaging inherent in the numbers, if a reporter kept pressing on, say, "is everybody happy?", that might be the kind of answer that would be elicited.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Based on Neuman's quote as posted, it would be interesting to see what the question was to elicit this response?  In spite of all the positive messaging inherent in the numbers, if a reporter kept pressing on, say, "is everybody happy?", that might be the kind of answer that would be elicited.



Yep, I'm not faulting Neuman on this one.  I hadn't thought of the reporter digging to get the "right" quote.  But now that you brought it up.....

I just assumed that the reporter/editor extracted the appropriate quote from a long interview in order to get the "correct" balance.  You wouldn't want to be too positive would you?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Oct 2007)

They are not my favorite source but the Toronto Sun editorial this morning is bang on.
reprinted with the usual disclaimers

October 20, 2007 

*No one's surprised, except CBC * 
By Licia Corbella

What's most surprising about a new CBC/Environics poll that shows that the Afghan people overwhelmingly want foreign troops to stay in their country is just how surprised the CBC is. 

The CBC has had a steady stream of reporters almost constantly in Afghanistan since regular Canadian forces were stationed there in January 2002. 

So why haven't CBC reporters reported on the thoughts of ordinary Afghan citizens before now? 

On Thursday night The National's host Peter Mansbridge mentioned that viewers might be "surprised" by the poll results. No kidding. 

After all, if those viewers primarily get their news from the CBC, most of what they've seen and been told about Canada's mission there and what Afghans say and think about that message, is negative. 

Indeed, Mansbridge has been to Afghanistan himself. Why didn't he go out and speak to Afghans and ask them directly what they thought of foreign troops being in their country? 

Had he and the countless other CBC staff members done that -- like some Sun Media journalists have -- he and the CBC would have been reporting five years ago that the Afghan people want foreign troops in their country, that they don't want them to leave any time soon, that they support and admire their own government led by President Hamid Karzai and that the vast majority of them absolutely detest the Taliban. 

Time after time Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Karzai himself, Afghan government officials in Kandahar, Canadian generals and rank-and-file Canadian soldiers have all been quoted in other media saying that the Afghan people want us there and appreciate the help we are giving them. 

Why weren't we hearing the real news out of Afghanistan on our tax-funded national broadcaster? 

More importantly, why were we so often hearing the exact opposite of the real news? 

The CBC's ombudsman should investigate how a news organization that is supposed to provide the country with unbiased news has so badly skewed it for so long. 

Now that would be really surprising!


----------



## sboatright (20 Oct 2007)

Another positive editorial in the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/268736

Afghans see progress that we ignore
Oct 20, 2007 04:30 AM 
Rosie DiManno 


Here are but a few stories from Afghanistan that you won't have read in the past couple of months:

New bridge built over the Kokcha River, connecting the only major road in Badakshan.

Dozens of injured civilians transferred by NATO helicopters to military hospitals after a massive suicide bombing in Spin Boldak.

Senior Taliban commander captured in Gereshk.

An orphanage for 200 children, boasting the luxury of running water, opened in Farah province.

Ribbons cut on three skills development centres in Khak-e Jabbar and Bagrami.

Raid of a massive weapons and drugs cache in Uruzgan.

Insurgent mortar position destroyed in Kunar province.

New hospital and separate health clinic completed in Tarin Kowt.

Village medical outreach services provided to civilians by the provincial reconstruction team (PRT) in Qalat.

Press releases of this nature, from the International Security Assistance Force, drop into my email basket every few days. They never make it into print. But accounts of Western soldiers killed, and most especially our own, are given elegiac cover, understandably so.

Military commanders and grunts on the ground are torn about this. They want sacrifices given proper respect. Yet they fret over how the tragedy of loss is disproportionately depicted, every death exploited in some quarters to undermine the mission.

Canada remains conflicted about the combat deployment to Kandahar, although public opinion appears to be slowly shifting as more people come to understand the complexity of the undertaking, how incremental and fragile the successes, what a long slog the reversal of Afghanistan fortunes is destined to be. As a wedge political issue, Afghanistan has also lost opposition party traction through some finessing of the portfolio by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Afghans are not conflicted.

That central fact – disarming critics – comes through loud and clear in an extensive and nuanced Environics Research poll released on Thursday.

Listen up.

Sixty per cent of Afghans whose views were sampled in the survey, conducted between Sept. 17 and 24, said the presence of foreigners in the country is a good thing. Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing. Even in volatile Kandahar, whence the Taliban emerged and a province where civilians have suffered horrifically from both the collateral damage of combat and suicide attacks, 61 per cent of respondents favour the foreign presence.

Some results fly in the face of received wisdom, as so often argued by a faction bitterly opposed to the mission: Eighty-four per cent have "a lot" or "some" confidence in the often-ridiculed Afghan National Army; 64 per cent say foreign countries are doing a good job fighting the Taliban; 59 per cent believe beleaguered President Hamid Karzai represents their interests; 73 per cent think women are better off now; and 65 per cent say foreign countries are doing a good job of providing reconstruction assistance.

NDP leader Jack Layton wants Canadian troops out now and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wanted them out by early 2009 (although I'm not really sure what he favours at the moment). They've argued, from various perspectives – some informed, some not – that the assignment isn't working, the overall approach to Afghanistan ruinously unbalanced, the insurgency impervious to military intervention and the citizenry increasingly disillusioned, pushed by NATO further towards the neo-Taliban.

Anyone who's been to Afghanistan, spent time in the company of ordinary Afghans, knows this to be emphatically untrue. It's heartening that a detached poll has borne that out.

Afghans get it. Weary of war and the hard-fisted neo-Taliban, they yearn for something a little better for their children, just as Canadians do. They may not distinguish much between Canadians and Americans. But they know enemy and they know friend.


----------



## Kendrick (20 Oct 2007)

Well this is heartwarming and encouraging to read.  And I can vouch for it.


----------



## Leigh Patrick Sullivan (20 Oct 2007)

Results from an unprecedented public opinion poll of the Afghan people taken by Environics Research couldn’t have come at a worse time for Canadian Liberal leader Stephane Dion, NDP chief Jack Layton, and all others in Canada calling for our troops to leave Afghanistan post-haste.....http://lpsullivan.blogspot.com/2007/10/afghanistan-opinion-poll-silences-cut.html


----------



## medicineman (20 Oct 2007)

I'm sure they and or their spin doctors will find a way to put the results in a negative light or discredit the data.

MM


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2007)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I'm sure they and or their spin doctors will find a way to put the results in a negative light or discredit the data.
> 
> MM


They already have
"NDP defence critic Dawn Black, whose party favours an immediate pullout of Canadian troops, said *the poll doesn't match what she's been hearing out of Afghanistan.*

"I find some of the numbers quite shocking and surprising," she said."
(source:  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/19/poll-reaction.html)

Doesn't match what SHE heard, eh?  Hmm.....I guess she hears a lot from "over there"......:


----------



## medicineman (20 Oct 2007)

My MP is an NDP regurgitator as well - the two together are neck in neck for Linda Blair look a likes of the year with the stuff that comes out of their mouths.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2007)

Opposition Key Messaging:

"Don't  confuse us with the facts polls - our minds are made up."


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2007)

And another example, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Afghan poll not as clear as it seems*
Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, 21 Oct 07
Article link

Do ordinary Afghans want Canada to stay in Kandahar until the Taliban is defeated?

Initial reports of an Environics survey released Thursday suggest the answer is a strong yes. "Majority of Afghans want foreign troops to stay and fight" was The Globe and Mail's headline.

Analysts argued that the poll results, based on interviews conducted last month in the war-torn country, would bolster Prime Minister Stephen Harper's efforts to keep Canadian troops fighting in Kandahar past February 2009.

But when the poll is examined more carefully (it's available at http://erg.environics.net), its findings become far less definitive. Indeed, it is not clear that they provide solace to any of the politicians now debating Canada's Afghan mission.

First, let us be clear about what the survey did not find. It did not find that a majority of Afghans want foreign troops to stay and fight. It did find that a majority of those polled approved of the "presence of foreign countries" in Afghanistan.

But that term "presence" included everything foreigners are doing in the country, from aid to business to soldiering.

In Kandahar, for instance, India was rated more highly than Canada. But, as the survey notes, India's main contribution there is not troops but goods and entrepreneurs.

On the question of foreign troops, the poll concluded that Afghans are split down the middle – with 52 per cent calling for a full withdrawal within five years versus 43 per cent who want NATO to stay until the Taliban are crushed.

In short, the vast majority of Afghans don't want us to keep fighting in their country until, as Harper puts it, the job is done. Yet neither, it seems, do they favour those, like the New Democrats, who would pull out Canadian troops immediately, or even those, like the Liberals, who would have us end our combat role by 2009.

Elsewhere, the poll results are equally murky. On the one hand, the survey shows that close to three quarters of Afghans do not like the Taliban – thereby strengthening Harper's pro-war argument.

Yet at the same time, 74 per cent say they want their government to negotiate with the Taliban, which is the NDP position.

And more than half say they want to be ruled by a coalition government that includes the Taliban.

Assuming that it is possible to carry out a scientific poll in a country wracked by civil war, what then does this survey tell us?

One, it demonstrates that Afghans do not want to be abandoned by the world again. Hence the overwhelming desire for a continued "foreign presence." Two, while they do not like the Taliban, neither do they demonize them – which is why most would prefer a negotiated end to civil war over continued violence.

Three, they are deeply ambivalent about the presence of foreign troops. They don't want to throw them out. But, at the same time, they are not sure they want them to remain indefinitely. There is a limit to their patience and hospitality.

Finally, the survey provides a rather humbling insight into how Afghans view Canada's military role. The short answer is that they don't. Even in Kandahar, just 2 per cent of those polled knew that Canada was fighting the Taliban. Germany got a bigger mention and it has no troops there.

When Afghans were asked specifically about Canada, most were delightfully complimentary. But first they had to be reminded we were there. One hopes they weren't just being polite.


----------



## observor 69 (21 Oct 2007)

Reality check: Yes the Afghan people want us to stay. Everybody in this forum and those with knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan know how valuable our work and sacrifice is. 
But...how long will the Canadian people accept the casualties and cost?

I can't see this going on for the 10 to 15 years some say is needed.


----------



## Munxcub (21 Oct 2007)

So when a poll favours their agenda it's unshakable fact, and when it doesn't they rip it apart like you could any other poll ever conducted? Gotta love the friggen media... oh wait, no I don't.


----------



## Flip (21 Oct 2007)

In Hoc,



> More importantly, why were we so often hearing the exact opposite of the real news?
> 
> The CBC's ombudsman should investigate how a news organization that is supposed to provide the country with unbiased news has so badly skewed it for so long.



+1

I have not seen a significant skew in what I have seen on CBC.
What skews perception is what we don't see.

The reason I started spending time here is I suspected I wasn't 
getting the whole story.........Boy was I right.

Yes, I think the media and the CBC in perticular have some soul
searching to do.  Their own commercial interests are at stake.
I wouldn't do to miss the parade on Main st. would it? ;D

Sboatright,



> NDP leader Jack Layton wants Canadian troops out now and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wanted them out by early 2009 (although I'm not really sure what he favours at the moment). They've argued, from various perspectives – some informed, some not – that the assignment isn't working, the overall approach to Afghanistan ruinously unbalanced, the insurgency impervious to military intervention and the citizenry increasingly disillusioned, pushed by NATO further towards the neo-Taliban.
> 
> Anyone who's been to Afghanistan, spent time in the company of ordinary Afghans, knows this to be emphatically untrue. It's heartening that a detached poll has borne that out.



What this demonstrates is a "values" based platform and set of 
beliefs rather than a "facts" based platform and set of beliefs.

The rhetoric sounds noble - it's not.  Particularly in the case of  Stephane Dion.
The only reason Dion wants out is because Harper wants in.
This is a policy reversal without a purpose. - real leadership eh?


----------



## Flip (21 Oct 2007)

> But when the poll is examined more carefully (it's available at http://erg.environics.net), its findings become far less definitive.



I don't think I've EVER seen a poll result that someone couldn't 
say that about.  It's what get published on the subject, the 
analysis that's important. If the G&M are willing to say what
they said in their headline then that's the truth for many of us.

What's simply amazing to me is how this result has produced
so much embarrasment for CBC, the Liberal party etc. 
Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside............ ;D


----------



## Leigh Patrick Sullivan (22 Oct 2007)

It's amazing how the anti-war left is in full manic mode over this opinion poll.  This, added to the downward spiral of the career of one Mr. Dion has the usual suspects in a tizzy.  Check out the latest from the articles comment section:

http://lpsullivan.blogspot.com/2007/10/afghanistan-opinion-poll-silences-cut.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2007)

Munxcub said:
			
		

> So when a poll favours their agenda it's unshakable fact, and when it doesn't they rip it apart like you could any other poll ever conducted?



Option 3:  Ignore it.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2007)

(*)warning - this is a light hearted post, I repeat this is a light hearted post.  (*)

Have you ever seen a show called Family Feud?  I just had a thought for a funny skit on 'This hour has 22 minutes'.  

The host asks "Question: how are are troops viewed in Afghanistan"

NDP buzz in "Immoral foreign invaders who are there only to serve the right wing political agenda of Bush and the military industrial complex"

Host replies "I'm sorry Jack,  that answer is not on the board.  Dion it is your turn"

Liberal "Foreign invaders who have no Business in Iraq."

Host replies: " Okay... that wasn't on the board either... but 12 % do view us as foreign invaders so I'm giving that to the Grits"

.... the show continues on for 20 minutes without another point being scored.  It climaxes with both sides screaming at the host because they refuse to accept the poll results.


I still love how the CBC was "surprised" by the results.  And I love how the NDP's solution to the "problem" that we're spending more on military missions than humanitarian aid is to reduce the amount we're spending on the military mission. (rather than increasing the amount of aid we give - which I think would be usefull)

(*)warning - this was a light hearted post, I repeat this was a light hearted post.  (*)


----------



## Gronk (23 Oct 2007)

The local left leaning paper's (Yukon News) editor wrote an editorial saying that a poll in a backward country couldn't possibly be accurate, then insinuated that it was done at gunpoint, and finished by calling it "national propaganda by the public broadcaster". Utter crap.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Oct 2007)

Here's a survey done for the arch-imperialists (USAID) that has results rather similar to the Environics poll.  Environics must be in a conspiracy with the Asia Foundation.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/23/asia/AS-GEN-Afghan-Survey.php

Survey itself here:
http://www.asiafoundation.org/Locations/afghanistan_survey2.html

A couple of points from the story about the Foundation survey:



> Despite the rise in violence, about four in 10 responding to the survey said they felt the country was heading in the right direction [Environics said 51%]...
> 
> Over 80 percent of the respondents said they have confidence in the Afghanistan's National Army and the country's troublesome police force [almost the same as in the Environics poll; one just hopes the results simply reflect accurate polling]...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2007)

I caught Scott Taylor commenting on the issue on CTV when I woke this morning.  I won't get into his point about the public rarely hearing the badnews out of Afghanistan around all of the good news.  However, I do wonder if he understands polling.  He criticized this one for being talking to a small random cross-section of Afghans.  Well, smaller means that there is less accuracy but random is exactly what you want.  However, he accepts previous polls which show higher acceptance of the mission & then declares that ISAF is rapidly falling in favour.  However, how can he accept older polls conducted the same way as the current poll he rejects?  Additionally, this was the first poll to get to all parts of Afghanistan.  All the previous polls would have been like polling Canada while leaving out a province or two, but still declaring the poll to be representative of the nation.  There is nothing to suggest support has dropped, because we know the parts of Afghanistan which were previously excluded are also the parts of Afghanistan with the most TB supporters.


----------



## bilton090 (24 Oct 2007)

Gronk said:
			
		

> The local left leaning paper's (Yukon News) editor wrote an editorial saying that a poll in a backward country couldn't possibly be accurate, then insinuated that it was done at gunpoint, and finished by calling it "national propaganda by the public broadcaster". Utter crap.



    How about a backward paper, and an editor that's a hick.  :-[

          +1 on Utter cr@p


----------



## Flip (24 Oct 2007)

MCG,

Could it be the guy has an agenda?



> I caught Scott Taylor commenting on the issue on CTV when I woke this morning.  I won't get into his point about the public rarely hearing the badnews out of Afghanistan around all of the good news.



What you said here hints at it all right.



> However, how can he accept older polls conducted the same way as the current poll he rejects?



What he's trying to do is obfuscate the very things pro-mission commenters would say
directly.  If two talking heads say the exact opposite then both are discredited.

He's not trying to win an argument so much as trying not to lose one.
Pretty weaselly tactic if you ask me.

Is "weaselly" a word? Is it the right word?    ;D


----------



## GAP (24 Oct 2007)

Afghan poll opened eyes
Positivity no surprise to soldiers 
By PETER WORTHINGTON, TORONTO SUN
Article Link

If the CBC had known that a public opinion poll it co-sponsored in Afghanistan would turn out the way it did, you can be assured the CBC wouldn't have had anything to do with it. 

Conducted by Environics, the poll probes the attitude of Afghans towards Canadian troops -- both in the Kandahar region, where our guys are fighting the Taliban, and throughout the country. 

Only 15% of Afghans wanted Canadian troops to leave immediately; the greater proportion of 80% wanted them to remain until the Taliban was crushed. 

Among those admitting surprise in a CBC interview at the favourable opinion towards our soldiers was Janice Gross Stein, professor of conflict management in the University of Toronto's political science department and co-author of The Unexpected War: Canada on Kandahar. 

The CBC and others also seem surprised that Afghan women were more positive about the future than men and appreciated the Canadians. Women were also more "negative" about the Taliban than Afghan men. 

That's a surprise? Under the Taliban, women couldn't go to school; weren't allowed to be seen in public; were condemned to the burqa; could be beaten if they showed flesh; under Sharia law, adultery entailed stoning to death. In short, the Taliban, like Islam, is male oriented and male dominated. 

The only ones not surprised at the poll were ... wait for it -- Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and, possibly, members of the Harper government who have been to Afghanistan and tested the mood of the country. 

UNENCUMBERED  

And, of course, journalists if they are unencumbered with preconceived notions --unlike Jack Layton, the NDP and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. 

As if hoping to deflate poll results, a Toronto Star story under the headline "Afghan poll not as clear as it seems," noted that the majority of those polled approved of the presence of foreign troops, but not necessarily in a fighting role. India was rated higher than Canada in Kandahar --maybe because it was supplying goods and business opportunities, not soldiers. 
More on link


----------



## old medic (25 Oct 2007)

Wed, October 24, 2007
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/10/24/4600990-sun.php

Truth surprises CBC
Corporation's reporting from Afghanistan distorted reality

By LICIA CORBELLA



> I had been back from Afghanistan for a few months when I saw a television news report on the CBC that had me screaming at the TV set.
> 
> Somehow, a veteran CBC reporter had found the proverbial needle in a haystack -- a Kabul shopkeeper who said he didn't like having foreign troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flip (25 Oct 2007)

Thanks Old Medic - missed the Sun yesterday..........



> "It's basic reporting. Ask a question and let people talk. Instead, I think they're going there with an agenda and only airing the views that back that agenda."



Yup, they've taken several positions lately.  The CBC should not take a position at all.


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2007)

For the CBC to have harped over and over again about the deaths of Canadians & Afghans - with only the glancing comments of our doing CIMIC work - you wonder where they get the impression they have been airing a balanced and impartial picture of what is going on - half a world away.

I should point out that, 95% of ALL MEDIA have been hammering away with a negative message - is it a wonder that the Canadian public is either ignorant or confused by the impartial reporting being done by MsM?


----------



## Bane (25 Oct 2007)

This is simply not true. If we pulled out of Afghanistan it would turn into a paradise with magical flowers and gum-drops for all! How come people don't get it?


----------



## Greymatters (25 Oct 2007)

Nice article oldmedic, good post!


----------



## Dare (25 Oct 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> This is simply not true. If we pulled out of Afghanistan it would turn into a paradise with magical flowers and gum-drops for all! How come people don't get it?



The magical flowers are called poppies. What a fully controlled narco tyranny it would be too. Maybe we can ship the CBC there.


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2007)

Nah... we have our magic mushrooms in BC / Lotus land.  CBC wouldn't like to be distanced from their sources


----------



## Marshall (25 Oct 2007)

Oh yes thats just what the army needa. More Media outlets showing a stupid clip of one person saying that, with companies like CBC they only need one little thing like that to convince and fuel half the nation into the wrong assumptions.

We need more reports on the things the troops are doing GOOD over there, not the occasional thing they might do bad or some person saying negative things about us. Theres more good then bad the CF has done over there, too bad the Media cant realize that and let the civilian world know.


----------



## Spencer100 (25 Oct 2007)

What really gets me going is that CBC does it agenda on MY tax dollars to the tune of about One Billion a year.   If it was private at lest it could have its agenda not paid for by me (and every other taxpayer)  urgh!

One other thing, the people in the CBC are so far removed from the real world that they honestly believe the they are "impartial".  They have never been exposed to anything other than socialist and "Liberal" or "Dipper" thought.  To them Liberal is on the right and Dipper to the left.  It starts in high school or before and goes to the "J" school they went to.  After that the Corp hires the them.  Like hires hires like.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Oct 2007)

Well I like to think (wishfully that is ) if we were to get a Harper majority, that the CBC would be sold off, and the savings would be passed on in the form of tax cuts, or more money for the CF  , but now I will go have my coffee and wake up.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2007)

Good catch OM!


----------



## bilton090 (26 Oct 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> What really gets me going is that CBC does it agenda on MY tax dollars to the tune of about One Billion a year.   If it was private at lest it could have its agenda not paid for by me (and every other taxpayer)  ugh!
> 
> One other thing, the people in the CBC are so far removed from the real world that they honestly believe the they are "impartial".  They have never been exposed to anything other than socialist and "Liberal" or "Dipper" thought.  To them Liberal is on the right and Dipper to the left.  It starts in high school or before and goes to the "J" school they went to.  After that the Corp hires the them.  Like hires hires like.



    +1 Spencer, it makes me sick to know my tax dollar is paying for that garbage. And there job security. Lets sell it off, and take the billion or so and get more new kit, ( to bad we can't send them over to AFN. to work in the welfare kitchens, giving food to Afgn's),   F---em !!!
     
   
      If not for hockey night in Canada, CBC would not be seen in this house !


----------



## McG (30 Oct 2007)

I see someone is still trying to sell the idea that older polls which canvased less of the country prove we are loosing support, and at the same time is selling the idea that no poll results can be trusted out of Afghanistan.


> *Ottawa determined to make polls justify Afghan mission*
> Scott Taylor
> The Chronicle-Herald
> 30 Oct 2007
> ...


btw: is ad hominem considered healthy journalism now?  There seems to be a decent chunk of that (including the name calling) in this.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2007)

I'm speechless.  I thought that Mr. Taylor was too busy giving "military advice" to the Mothercorp for "Aghanada" :


That's it: I'm going to find an island, call it a country and get drunk.  It won't be productive, but at least I won't care.


----------



## Haggis (30 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I'm speechless.  I thought that Mr. Taylor was too busy giving "military advice" to the Mothercorp for "Aghanada" :
> 
> 
> That's it: I'm going to find an island, call it a country and get drunk.  It won't be productive, but at least I won't care.



Can I submit my resumé for the position of Defence Minister?  Oh, wait... I'm from NDHQ... I'd never qualify.


----------



## Flip (30 Oct 2007)

I'd love to interview Scott Taylor.

I'd like to know what he wants.
What does he expect if he gets what he wants.

Would he step up and take responsibility for the mess that happens next?
Would he be accountable or would he try to foist responsibility on others?

There's a defining differance between Government and media.
The Government can lose their jobs at election time.
It's employees can lose their lives when they do their work.

Talking heads are safe from both perils and can say "told you so"
from the sidelines with impunity.  Media only really need to be popular.

Hmmmm.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Can I submit my resumé for the position of Defence Minister?  Oh, wait... I'm from NDHQ... I'd never qualify.


The only qualification you would need would be a healthy enough liver to withstand daily Cuba Libre attacks on your system!  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Oct 2007)

Quote,
_According to the tub-thumpers, the most commonly claimed measure of our troops' success in Afghanistan is the fact that women are no longer required to wear their burkas. Free from the iron-fisted rule of the evil Taliban, Afghan girls are now able to bare their faces and sport the latest fashions. Thus, a rather surprising finding in the Asia Foundation study was that 60 per cent of Afghans still believed "a woman should usually wear a burka." The number of women surveyed who felt this rule should apply? Fifty-four per cent.

When one factors in that only urban-dwelling Afghan women actually wear traditional burkas (rural and semi-nomadic females wear more practical head scarves), it would seem our "liberation" was less than successful_. 

Does ST even think before he hits the send button?..............Scott, listen up, ...if you don't see the difference between "required", and what it entailed, and "should", than you are even waaaay stupider than the original estimation I had.


----------



## Teflon (30 Oct 2007)

> I'd love to interview Scott Taylor.



The last thing I want is another chance for Scott Taylor to speak!

Why can't he just shut up, I'm just so F-en tired of that clown


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (30 Oct 2007)

Hey come on he's an expert...wasn't he an infanteer for all of about 3 or 4 years? He seems to think that that has qualified him to second guess everyone from the rank of Sgt and above for the last 20 years or so and he seems to be making a good living at it. He used to fancy himself as an upholder of the downtrodden NCMs but I don't think he's winning too many points lately.


----------



## Spencer100 (30 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I'm speechless.  I thought that Mr. Taylor was too busy giving "military advice" to the Mothercorp for "Aghanada" :
> 
> 
> That's it: I'm going to find an island, call it a country and get drunk.  It won't be productive, but at least I won't care.



Thread hijack!

Is there not a man island near England off the Thames that is its own "country"   I think it was an WWII RN defence platform.  I also think it is For Sale.    Let's all pool our money together and buy it.  We can rename it Army.ca Land.  But we would need the navy.ca to get us there   

Plus Tax Free Beer!!!


----------



## McG (30 Oct 2007)

All,
As much as Scott Taylor may be liked or disliked for the messages he has given the Canadian public, do not sink below the level of Army.ca by engaging in ad hominem.  Feel free to attack his messages but leave the messenger alone.  The last thing this site needs is a public personality taking legal action for a personal slight.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2007)

Bruce - maybe Scott wants us _ the preferred solution _ is to adopt the same "enlightened" standards as the late unlamented Jacques Chirac and Kemal Ataturk and _require_ that they NOT wear burkas.

I thought this whole thing was about freedom: expression, religion, want, fear.... that stuff.  (Always had a problem with that WANT thing - a bit too socialist for me.   Opportunity works better for some of us, I dare say.  Still).

I didn't understand us wanting to turn Afghanistan into a country of depressed, post-modernist atheists.  Comme "Les Autres".  

Edit:  Sorry MCG. You are correct.  Modified accordingly.


----------

