# Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2006)

I wonder if we, here on Army.ca, are _in step_ with our fellow citizens.

This is from today’s _Globe and Mail_.  It is reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060224.wxpoll0224/BNStory/National/home


> Majority opposed to Afghan mission
> 
> BY BRIAN LAGHI
> 
> ...



I agree with Gregg when he says, _”I think you've got a knee-jerk against doing anything with the Americans, especially on the military front …”_  That being said the antipathy towards participating in the so-called _global war on terrorism_ is disturbing.  It appears that nearly ½ of Canadians feel we ought not to be trying to subdue and defeat the terrorist movements which have, explicitly, declared war on the secular, liberal-democratic _West_.  I wonder if our real _drift_ towards being a multicultural society means that we (or 40+% of ‘we’ anyway) no longer see Canada as part of that _West_.

I also agree with the overwhelming majority of Canadians in believing that troops should not be deployed and sustained on overseas missions – not on allied _coalition_ missions, not on NATO missions and not on UN missions either - without, at least, a _take note_ debate in parliament.  (I am not suggesting that parliament should usurp the sovereign’s right and duty (guided by her Privy Council) to send her army to pursue her vital interests but parliament is the keeper of the purse and it should _pass_ on all adventure, including military ones.  HM (the cabinet) doesn’t need parliament’s *approval* to deploy armed forces but it should explain its actions to parliament and, eventually, _take note_ of parliament’s views.)


----------



## BetterThanTheBest (24 Feb 2006)

So, according to this, most Canadians feel we _should_ take part in the war on terror. We just shouldn't have to send troops to do it. That doesn't really make sense.


----------



## DG-41 (24 Feb 2006)

I think that the real problem here is that the Americans poisoned the well with Iraq.

After 9/11, the requirement to go into Afghanistan was real, undeniable, and understood. Appropriately, public support for the Afghan mission was high.

Then the Yanks went into Iraq, ostensibly over chemical and biological weapons stockpiles destined to be supplied to terrorists and used on US soil (remember the whole "wrap your house in plastic sheeting and duct tape" thing?) and then, after the fact (for whatever reason) that turned out to be false justification and may well have actually made things worse.

That burnt all the moral currency accumulated by 9/11 and worse, equated the mission in Afghanistan with the mission in Iraq. I bet Johnny on the street cannot differentiate between them any more. I would not be surprised at all to find Canadian civilians who think that we are in Afghanistan to "search for WMDs".

So then, it seems to me that our government (who clearly *can* differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi missions, given that they committed to the former and avoided the latter)  need to get the message out about why it is we are in Afghanistan and to further communicate that Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same mission, and that we will work with the Americans when their interests align with Canadian interests (and vice versa) and that we will stand aside when Canadian and American interest do NOT coincide.

How they would go about doing that... I'm no PAO. But it seems clear to me that the message is NOT getting out and it needs to be addressed.

DG


----------



## KevinB (24 Feb 2006)

This is just one of the reasons I am embarassed at occassions to have a Canadian Passport...

  By my count about 70% of the Canadian public are too dimwitted to tie their own shoes.


----------



## Gunnar (24 Feb 2006)

I'm willing to bet t hat of the 62% who are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, 50% are completely unaware that our troops are actually IN Afghanistan, and that the poll wasn't just asking the question out of the blue....

I mean, I could probably get a high majority of people to be against sending Canadian troops to Greenland if I just started asking people about it without any point of reference....

Other questions that might be fun....

Do you think Canadian troops should carry guns?
Do you think Canada should have an army?
Do you think Canada should do anything to protect its own sovereignity and national identity?
Do you think that Canadian ideals are worth fighting for, including your own idiotic opinions?
Do you think there is enough respect for and/or support for the cultural needs of suicide bombers?
Do you think that Canadian troops should use the Hokey Pokey as a way of communicating our peaceful intent to everyone in the world who should automatically love us?


----------



## Haggis (24 Feb 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> So then, it seems to me that our government (who clearly *can* differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi missions, given that they committed to the former and avoided the latter)  need to get the message out about why it is we are in Afghanistan and to further communicate that Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same mission, and that we will work with the Americans when their interests align with Canadian interests (and vice versa) and that we will stand aside when Canadian and American interest do NOT coincide.



The Americans and the media further cloud the issue by linking our increasing commitnment in Afghanistan with US troop reductions there.  The US and Canadian media is then quick to point out that our Afghan commitment allows more US troops to re-deploy to Iraq, thereby implying that we now support the Iraq war.



			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> How they would go about doing that... I'm no PAO. But it seems clear to me that the message is NOT getting out and it needs to be addressed.



You're correct and I think the following is a start.  This is an excellent explanation of why we are in Afghanistan.  I received it in an e-mail aty work.  Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere already (yes, I used the search function...):



> Why We Are In Afghanistan
> Sean M. Maloney, PhD
> 
> The assassination of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry and the grievous wounding of Pte. William Edward Salikin, Cpl. Jeffrey Bailey and Master Cpl. Paul Franklin by a terrorist suicide bomb cell in Kandahar Sunday is a personally shocking but not unexpected event. I have recently returned from Kandahar, where I spent a month with the Canadian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. As a military historian, I usually don’t deal with diplomats and aid workers but the nature of Canada’s war in Afghanistan put me in contact with Glyn and his counterparts: we had many fruitful conversations on our progress in the region and the new relationship between National Defence, Foreign Affairs, and the Canadian International Development Agency. I also had extensive contact with the soldiers from Patrol Company, who I accompanied on numerous patrols throughout Kandahar Province: theirs is a dangerous job in an unforgiving environment and Canadians need to know how professional and dedicated their soldiers are in the face of this. Those dangers were driven home for me personally when I arrived on 4 December right after a coalition patrol in Kandahar was hit with a suicide bomber, and then again on 12 December 2005 when I changed my plans at the last minute to attend a briefing. The G-Wagon I would have been traveling in on a long-range patrol was blown up by a Taliban road side bomb, seriously wounding Pte. Ryan Crawford and Capt. Manuel Panchana-Moya.
> ...


----------



## Bobbyoreo (24 Feb 2006)

You have to remember this was probly a question asked to 100 people. So dont let it get you mad..the press as we all know likes to blow things up to look like Canada has a whole has voted for the removel of troops from Afgan. The only few I've ever heard say we should not be there are the few that have no idea what we are doing there or whats going on in the world. 

The term Yank.......should really just get use to it....I've been called worse in the USA..lol..Plus I dont think most of us use it in a bad way....Just a short form for American!!!


----------



## Haggis (24 Feb 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I know on the forum I read about the CDN military's superior training, however, how many CDN troops are in Afghanistan?  ~ 2200, I hardly think that increasing US troop levels by ~2000 in Iraq are going to make much difference.



I would daresay that just one Canadian soldier, properly equipped and fuelled by a mix of Timmies and Red Bull, would have the operational impact of a full SF ODA!

... but that's just me. ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Feb 2006)

Of course it isn't The Evil Americans™ poisoning the well, no such thing exists. The blame lies squarely with <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500950/site/newsweek/>the incompetent leadership of Bush and Rumsfield</a> for destroying all world support for TWAT and with <a href=http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html>the Neocons in general</a> for turning Iraq into a disaster when it didn't have to be. In light of recent events, even my continued support for the occupation is starting to weaken.

Oh yes, I have returned, friends. Did you miss me?



EDIT: Spelling.


----------



## geo (24 Feb 2006)

BS.... you forgot to include "dead eye" Chainey and his alma matter Haliburton


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2006)

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:                                                                 :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

Yumpin' yimminee's folks, 
sometimes we are just as stupid as the responders to these questions. I would double dog-dare the makers of this poll to redo it with the word "peacekeepers" instead of "troops" and laugh at the near 100% approval rating we would have........

Not worth the paper...etc.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Feb 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> You have to remember this was probly a question asked to 100 people. So dont let it get you mad..the press as we all know likes to blow things up to look like Canada has a whole has voted for the removel of troops from Afgan. The only few I've ever heard say we should not be there are the few that have no idea what we are doing there or whats going on in the world.
> 
> The term Yank.......should really just get use to it....I've been called worse in the USA..lol..Plus I dont think most of us use it in a bad way....Just a short form for American!!!



We have had our own questionable polls where the results are intentionally skewed to favor the democrats. Pollsters call up a majority of democrat voters with a sprinkling of independent and republicans respondents. They do this with Bush's popularity numbers. They did this with exit polls in the 04 elections. If the majority of canadians were against the Astan mission there would be hundreds of thousands in the streets. If the majority of americans were against Bush and the war we would have demonstrations rivaling the Vietnam war peace demonstrations.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (24 Feb 2006)

SO true Bruce,

You also have to wonder where they did the polls.  ??? ???


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Feb 2006)

> sometimes we are just as stupid as the responders to these questions. I would double dog-dare the makers of this poll to redo it with the word "peacekeepers" instead of "troops" and laugh at the near 100% approval rating we would have........



Well, maybe you, the CDS, and BGen Fraser should go out back for a huddle and come back when you've agreed on some consistent terminology then.  



> We have had our own questionable polls where the results are intentionally skewed to favor the democrats.



Cite?



> If the majority of canadians were against the Astan mission there would be hundreds of thousands in the streets.



When was the last time that happened for ANYTHING? 



> If the majority of americans were against Bush and the war we would have demonstrations rivaling the Vietnam war peace demonstrations.



Absurd. The Iraq war has ZERO direct effect on 99% of Americans. Why not bring in the Draft like Vietnam and see what happens?

Most Canadians and Americans don't care enough, even though <a href=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm>most oppose the war in Iraq</a>.


----------



## Jaxson (24 Feb 2006)

> If the majority of canadians were against the Astan mission there would be hundreds of thousands in the streets.




Not likely, those liberal ads probably still have everyone scared that harper will send the millitary in after them.  ;D

Okay, that was maybe a little uncalled for but i had to say it.

Edit: If the troops are in afghan fighting terrorists, they cant be in our cities


----------



## wongskc (24 Feb 2006)

Haggis,

That piece you provided written by Sean M. Maloney, PhD is quite good.  Do you have any source information for it?


----------



## Haggis (24 Feb 2006)

wongskc said:
			
		

> Haggis,
> 
> That piece you provided written by Sean M. Maloney, PhD is quite good.  Do you have any source information for it?



Unfortunately, no.  I received it as a paste into an e-mail from my Directorate CWO at NDHQ.


----------



## camochick (24 Feb 2006)

In my experience the majority of Canadians dont even have a clue about what we are doing in afghanistan. Most people are appauled to learn that my husband may actually be doing something other than building schools and handing out blankets. I think the news needs to focus more on what they actually do over there. It seems the news only shows them when someone dies or there is some charity case that needs help (not that these things shouldnt be covered). I think the Canadian public has been lured into a false ense of security and its time they wake there asses up.  >


----------



## Babbling Brooks (24 Feb 2006)

I wouldn't place too much faith in anything coming out of Strategic Counsel.  They haven't the best record for accuracy even within an industry not known for it.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Feb 2006)

wongskc said:
			
		

> That piece you provided written by Sean M. Maloney, PhD is quite good.  Do you have any source information for it?



It was printed originally in an editorial in the 16 Jan 06 _Ottawa Citizen_. 

Sean also has an online copy of it on his website: http://seanmmaloney.com/OC16jan06.pdf


----------



## Glorified Ape (24 Feb 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Well I can't comment on CDN's mental capacity, but I do think RecceDG that it is intellectually dishonest to say that it was the "YANKS" who poisoned the well!
> 
> IMHO it is the majority of CDNs who participated in the poll who would rather stick their head in the sand and hope that Terrorists and Islamists will pass them by.  Well they might, if CDNs are willing to live a life of diminitude.  i.e. non-printing of cartoons because of a so called respect for someones faith and belief.  Well what about my beliefs?  I have yet to see a mutual respect shown to the US and its institutions, ah, but that is in a perfect world.
> 
> ...



Be sure to e-mail the NY Yankees telling them the offensiveness of their team name. Oh, and don't forget to lodge a grievance over the NATO phonetic alphabet's usage of the same term. A personal war against Connecticut for having Yankee Doodle as their state anthem is also advisable.  :



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Of course it isn't The Evil Americans™ poisoning the well, no such thing exists. The blame lies squarely with <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500950/site/newsweek/>the incompetent leadership of Bush and Rumsfield</a> for destroying all world support for TWAT and with <a href=http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html>the Neocons in general</a> for turning Iraq into a disaster when it didn't have to be. In light of recent events, even my continued support for the occupation is starting to weaken.
> 
> Oh yes, I have returned, friends. Did you miss me?
> 
> EDIT: Spelling.



Great articles... amen brother/sister/androgynous fellow poster.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2006)

Quote,
_Blah, blah, blah....._

Exactly, A stupid question.       "Do you support the war in........"

What is one supposed to say? I don't "support" any friggin war, I'd give my left nut for world peace, so even though I think TWAT is a necessary evil, no I don't put friggin' pom-poms and leotards on and lead cheers for it and even though I think that the men and women laying it on the line for mine and my children's benefit are hero's, I guess thats a "No, I don't support......

Just fucking stupid...................."Here buddy,let me help you with that clipboard...."


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Feb 2006)

> Exactly, A stupid question.       "Do you support the war in........"
> 
> What is one supposed to say? I don't "support" any friggin war, I'd give my left nut for world peace, so even though I think TWAT is a necessary evil, no I don't put friggin' pom-poms and leotards on and lead cheers for it and even though I think that the men and women laying it on the line for mine and my children's benefit are hero's, I guess thats a "No, I don't support......
> 
> Just ******* stupid...................."Here buddy,let me help you with that clipboard...."



I don't understand what you are getting at. The questions from the survey were:



> Polling on Afghanistan
> 
> Should a decision to send troops to Afghanistan require parliamentary approval?
> Yes: 73%
> ...



Are you getting your threads confused or something? None of them begin with  "Do you support the war in........" Which one do you think is stupid?   ???

Love the sig line, BTW.


----------



## Armymedic (24 Feb 2006)

My responses:
Polling on Afghanistan

Should a decision to send troops to Afghanistan require parliamentary approval?
Yes:
Any deployment that is expected to carry on (lets say) past 12 months should have parliamentary approval after debate after the initial 6 month deployment.

If you were an MP would you vote in favour of sending troops to Afghanistan?
Yes: 
of course, I understand why we are there, and what we are doing.

Would your position change if you knew it might lead to significant casualties?*
Yes:
Because if we get significant casualties, then possibly we are doing something wrong. But first, lets discuss significant...is that 1, 5, 25, or more?

Do Canadians think Canada should be participating in the war on terrorism?
Yes: 
If we do not fight terrorism elsewhere, we will be forced to fight it in our own country.


----------



## HDE (24 Feb 2006)

I don't have much respect for the whole "a poll shows...", particularly given their dubious accuracy.  Pollsters were tripping over each other last election to determine whether the Tories would have a large minority or a small majority.  Turns out they got it all wrong.  Then there's the inability of those being polled to answer anything other than yes or no; a pretty serious issue whenever the topic has any sort of complexity.  No doubt most Canadians would be strongly against Afghan women being stoned to death in the soccer stadium.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2006)

> so even though I think TWAT is a necessary evil,.....



Actually Bruce I find myself more warmly inclined to the concept.  Hard to come by.

FWIW I think at least 50% of our citizenry just doesn't care that much.  TWAT is a distraction from beer, curling and hospital beds.   And besides it may be hazardous.

As to a parliamentary debate - no for immediate commitment, yes for sustained operations requiring stand-alone funding.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (24 Feb 2006)

I was actually going to quote that very sentence.  The Liberals have all but scared the Canadian public when it comes to foreign operations associated with the US.   In some cases with good reason, but in most others, out of vote grabs.



> Well I can't comment on CDN's mental capacity, but I do think RecceDG that it is intellectually dishonest to say that it was the "YANKS" who poisoned the well!



I respectfully disagree.   The US campaign in Iraq has been shrouded in controversy and lies.   The Iraqi's are no safer today than they were under Saddams rule (Some would speculate even less so)

This will probably get me crucified on this forum, but I believe the current state of Iraq today is far worse than what it was under Saddam.  The right wing nut cases have trumpeted the number of dead under Saddam under his rule as thousands a year, but the fact remains, the number of Iraqi dead this year alone far exceeds the number who were murdered under Saddam during any year of his reign of power.  If you want to take the current trend more long term, then more Iraqi’s will have been killed under US occupation than during the rule of Saddam.   The country is in chaos and on the brink of civil war.   I know many will come and counter this claim with pictures and stories of US forces accepting flowers and praise from the "Iraqi government" and Iraqi civilians, but for the majority on the ground, the situation is quite different.

I also know that a bunch of you will jump on me asking me if I have been there, and how I know.   I have not been there.   I have a friend from Washington who works for ABC news.  He has been there for 3 years now.  He went over during the beginning of the war, and returned home.  He went back about a year ago to cover stories there.  He told me the country is in a mess.  

Do I know better than to accept hear say from second hand sources?   Of course I do.    Should I accept the opinion of someone who is there?   Probably, but I usually take things with a grain of salt.   The driving factor is the constant band news reports we have grown accustomed to when it comes out of Iraq.    "70 people have been killed by a road side bomb in Baghdad today"     This is the kind of news we look at now and say "meh...so what else is new"     

This kind of chaos should not be taken for granted.   

I praise the efforts of our Southern Brothers in arms, but this war has gotten out of hand.  No fault on their part however.  They have fought the good fight.   Its their leaders who must take responsibility for this mess now known as Iraq.

Sorry for the rant.    Enter insults here.  I understand this forum is privately owned and freedom of speech does not count here.  Delete this thread as you feel fit.   Debate it if you will.


----------



## HDE (24 Feb 2006)

Agreed!

     I always find it amazing that there's probably more sources of information available to the public than ever before and yet there's a pretty amazing lack of interest in anything not directly impacting on the individual.  I'm also pretty unimpressed with the media; anything that can't be explained in a 30 second sound bite dies a quick death.  I wonder if the problem is that people are being so bombarded with the "crisis of the day" that there's a desire to simply drop out.


----------



## HDE (24 Feb 2006)

It appears fairly large numbers of Iraqi deaths are caused by the so-called "resistance"; presumably the people of Iraq are able to put the blame where it should go.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (24 Feb 2006)

Agreed.    But this wasn't something the US fully planned on.   The large number of Iraqi deaths obviously didn't come from the US, but can be considered a related action to the occupation.

If Saddam was still in power, this would not be happening.

Not to say Iraq would be better under Saddams rule but rather they would be better off had the US planned for this sort of situation and took action before hand.

The argument can be made that they had "no way of knowing" but many Liberal (shudder) pundits have predicted this very situation, and at the time they predicted it, they were called "anti American" and "communists"

Look who's laughing now unfortunately....


----------



## Armymatters (24 Feb 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I was actually going to quote that very sentence.  The Liberals have all but scared the Canadian public when it comes to foreign operations associated with the US.   In some cases with good reason, but in most others, out of vote grabs.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.   The US campaign in Iraq has been shrouded in controversy and lies.   The Iraqi's are no safer today than they were under Saddams rule (Some would speculate even less so)
> 
> ...



I remember a Middle East specialist came by our university to talk about the political situation in the Middle East for a lecture in one of my classes. When asked about Iraq and the prospects for civil war, he responded that the question of civil war in Iraq is not a matter of "if" (meaning that he felt there is going to be a civil war), but "when".


----------



## Lost_Warrior (24 Feb 2006)

On a side note, this looks like the sort of thing the Liberals will ride all the way to the ballots in order to win next election.

"Vote for us and we will bring the troops home, the evil Conservitaves want to keep them there"

Don't be suprised...


----------



## Lost_Warrior (24 Feb 2006)

> I remember a Middle East specialist came by our university to talk about the political situation in the Middle East for a lecture in one of my classes. When asked about Iraq and the prospects for civil war, he responded that the question of civil war in Iraq is not a matter of "if" (meaning that he felt there is going to be a civil war), but "when".



As much as I hate to admit it, that’s very correct.  What most Westerners don't understand is that Iraq is made up of a number of Muslim Sects.  Each with a claim to power.  Under Saddam, that claim was suppressed under an iron fist.   Now that they are "free", each sect is open to battle against the other.   Freedom from tyranny is unfortunately tearing the country apart.

Some would argue that they have their first parliamentary election.   The fact remains that that election and that government does not represent the best interests on all Iraqi's and one the interests of the ruling sect.

This is what they are fighting about.   Call them insurgents and "freedom haters" all you want.   A good number of Iraqi's fighting just don't want to be ruled by another parties secular leader.  They would not have their best interests in mind.

What Iraq needs is a government with multiple parties, each keeping the interests of it's respected population in mind.   This would end much of the bloodshed.

But again, this is just IMHO, and is open to scrutiny.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2006)

Britney,
I think if one wished to  , one could see that my question was purposefully generic and well you should be able to figure out the rest.

And for the byline,yea the "product" had even me worn down today....thankfully I have a hockey game tonight to shake them off my nerves.......


----------



## Armymedic (24 Feb 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> On a side note, this looks like the sort of thing the Liberals will ride all the way to the ballots in order to win next election.



I concur, and would not be surprised.


----------



## Armymatters (24 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I concur, and would not be surprised.



And expect the voters to have a short memory... the Liberals will conviently neglect to mention that they were the ones to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan in the first place...

The Canadian Electorate = A man with long term memory loss. Damn convienient for the politicians that want to be elected, but screws over the electorate later on, and the electorate forgets it...


----------



## Genetk44 (24 Feb 2006)

Ok...i'm going to put my 3 pennies in .......1)people in general, are only concerned with what affects them directly...its unfortunate but after 50 years of liveing on this planet thats my general conclusion. 2)Until 2001 99% of the people in the west had no idea what Afghanistan was, couldn't find Afghanistan on the map and cared even less 3) the Canadian public, in general and for various reasons has no concept of the military,its reason for being, its needs etc., in any way, shape or form. 4) I think that the majority of Canadians don't have a clear understanding of the reasons for mission in Afghanistan or the mission itself.  So I believe that the poll is meaningless and the results are based on alot of misinformation and  ignorance.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## Lost_Warrior (24 Feb 2006)

I agree Gen.   The Conservitaves have a big job ahead of them.  The Liberals have all but destroyed the fact that our troops are Soldiers and NOT "peacekeepers".   We have a lot to do in our current mission.  Hopefully those is power won't see it as "peacekeeping" (as there is no peace to keep) but rather war fighting against a force who does not have the best interest of those in their country at mind.

But like I said earlier.   Dont be suprised if the Liberals take full advantage of this and declair the Conservitives as war mongers and vow to pull our troops from A-Stan just to gain power again.   Its a sleazy plot not uncommon to the Liberals.


----------



## Jaxson (24 Feb 2006)

> But like I said earlier.   Dont be suprised if the Liberals take full advantage of this and declair the Conservitives as war mongers and vow to pull our troops from A-Stan just to gain power again.   Its a sleazy plot not uncommon to the Liberals.



Paper speaks better then words, Would there not be papers issued by the liberals for the start of deployments before the conservitives came into power? Or am i hoping to much? it would be easy to argue, with a paper trail.


----------



## Glorified Ape (24 Feb 2006)

Jaxson said:
			
		

> Paper speaks better then words, Would there not be papers issued by the liberals for the start of deployments before the conservitives came into power? Or am i hoping to much? it would be easy to argue, with a paper trail.



I don't think anyone's trying to argue that the Libs, if so inclined, could actually convince the populous that they weren't the ones to deploy the CF to Afghanistan. I think the point is that the Liberals could campaign on a "we'll get our troops home" ticket and the electorate would fail to recognize the irony, since the Libs sent them in the first place. 

As for short-memory/uninformed electorates, that goes for just about every country. Such is the nature of democracy - people far overestimate the knowledge of the average citizen and thus are constantly disappointed/mystified by their voting habits.


----------



## sapper69244 (24 Feb 2006)

???   I'm not sure I agree with Pres Bush's reasoning for being in Afghanistan &/or Iraq.
We are there>>>  therefore, I deem it necessary to stand "strong".
It may not be our fight, but it could be relative to our "freedom" that our ancestors fought & left lots of blood in europe for.


----------



## onecat (24 Feb 2006)

I read the poll and the list of replies on the globe with saddness.  the Liberal party has taken canada so far out into left field and filled so many canadians with Anti-americanism; and they can even see the real reason why Canada is there.  Its not support Bush and not to help to the war in iraq, its to build a new nation where there was really noe before.  to keep Afghanistan from felling back to the terrorist state it was before 2001.

the Liberal party has canadians thinking they can just about peace and a better world and it happen, without doing any work or sending in the troops to help it happen.  its sad to say but i doubt even an attack here in canada would do much to change the 40 years Liberal party spin.


----------



## HDE (25 Feb 2006)

S_Baker

   I agree with you.  Living with the threat of being killed for doing anything the regime doesn't approve of doesn't appear to be the sort of world I'd choose to live in.  I do think we have to keep in mind that the vast majority of Iraqis, a nation of 25 million, aren't involved in either the "resistance" or getting hit by IEDs.


----------



## Pencil Tech (25 Feb 2006)

I would really like to add to Lost_Warrior's comments, with which I agree. I really don't understand why the US let their relationship with Saddam deteriorate to the level that it did. Here was a secular non-Islamist Sunni tyrant totally in opposition to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. Now you have this chaos and a virtual civil war in Iraq that the Shiites, by sheer force of numbers, are bound to win. In any case, thanks to imported democracy, they will dominate Iraq one way or another. From the US point of view, what strategic interest did this serve? ???


----------



## HDE (25 Feb 2006)

Strictly speaking the majority of the population probably should hold the balance of power; certainly a Sunni minority ruling over a Shiite majority flies in the face of things.  I don't know that Iraq will descend into a civil war if the vast majority of people don't go along with those who are trying to start one.    I was always amused at how Saddam tried to portray himself as a devout Muslim while bringing about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people.   :


----------



## Armymatters (25 Feb 2006)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I would really like to add to Lost_Warrior's comments, with which I agree. I really don't understand why the US let their relationship with Saddam deteriorate to the level that it did. Here was a secular non-Islamist Sunni tyrant totally in opposition to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. Now you have this chaos and a virtual civil war in Iraq that the Shiites, by sheer force of numbers, are bound to win. In any case, thanks to imported democracy, they will dominate Iraq one way or another. From the US point of view, what strategic interest did this serve? ???



The Americans were in short playing with both Iran and Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Americans were giving support to both sides of the conflict. The Americans sold TOW missiles and other weapons to the Iranians, and then gave money and weapons to the Iraqis. The Americans did not want one country to be stronger than the other, so as one side looked like they were winning, the Americans propped up the other side until things were equal. The Americans did not like either Saddam or the Ayatollahs in Iran, so the in Washington came to the conclusion that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils, so they gave more visable and direct help to Iraq while doing under the table dealings with Iraq first through Israel then directly. All this directly lead to the various Iraq-gate and Iran-Contra affairs in the US.


----------



## Armymatters (25 Feb 2006)

Note: It should be "doing under the table dealings with *Iran* first through Israel then directly" than "doing under the table dealings with Iraq first through Israel then directly"... my bad...


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (25 Feb 2006)

I agree, where were the polls conducted? 
A poll done in highly socialist, left wing areas would totally throw off the results of the survey,
especially since most Canadians arent left wing.


----------



## Cannonfodder (25 Feb 2006)

Surveys are done to accomplish a desired effect , so with that I view this statistic as engineered . I do not subscribe however to this notion of War on Terror , the western world is under no threat from a terrorist attack for islamic fundamentalist Taliban . It is a nation rebuilding  mission and it is worth it as long as you stick within those boundaries , of course you need to protect yourself but conducting operations against beligerants should be well thought out .


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2006)

Here is a follow-up (from the poll) editorial from today’s _Globe and Mail_ (reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060225.EAFGHAN25/TPStory/Opinion/editorials


> Why Canadian troops have gone to Afghanistan
> 
> It is perhaps not surprising that a Globe and Mail poll reveals that an astonishing 62 per cent of Canadians oppose the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. There was, after all, no parliamentary debate last year on the nation's heightened commitment to that fragile state. The issue of our increasing deployment barely surfaced in the recent election, even though 2,300 Canadian soldiers were then preparing to move into the perilous southern province of Kandahar. As General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, ruefully acknowledged yesterday, "Many Canadians do not know or understand the complexities of what the Afghan mission is about, why we are there and its critical importance to Canada. The number . . . indicates we have a significant challenge."
> 
> ...



In an editorial published here http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33760.0.html in September of 2005, Army.ca took the (Liberal) government-of-the-day to task for a _”Lack of leadership.”_  Now it is the turn of Prime Minister Harper’s government and, I, at least agree with the _Globe_:  Mr. Harper needs to *lead* Canadians to an informed understanding of and support for the mission in Afghanistan; he needs to *lead* Canadians to understand and support the _*requirement*_ to transform our armed forces by, _inter alia_, increasing the number of personnel by many thousands, tens of thousands, and giving them enough new, better equipment to do the job; in the process he can _strengthen_ our democracy by _taking note_ of Canadians’ elected representatives’ views on our operations – all over the world.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (25 Feb 2006)

> this may sound trite, but I would rather die free than die a slave, and that is exactly what the people are under a tyrants rule.  No one should ever have to apologize for being free!



Very true, and I agree.   The thing I do not agree with is when people say that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were under Saddam.   This is not correct.  They are still in danger of death, and their country is slowly spiraling into chaos.   It all depends on what someone’s view of better off is.   The country held together under tyrannical rule, or the country tearing itself apart under a false veil of freedom.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2006)

> Now you have this chaos and a virtual civil war in Iraq that the Shiites, by sheer force of numbers, are bound to win.



If "sheer force of numbers" guaranteed a win how is it that the Shiites were subjugated by the Baathists for the last 30 years, or the Sunnis for the last 1400 years?  How did the Brits thrive in India with a presence numbered in the 10s and 100s of thousands in a population numbered in the 10s and 100s of millions?

There have been many examples of minorities ruling over majorities historically.  The Liberals and the Normans come to mind.  In fact it seems arguable that that is the norm, even in democratic societies.

In all this talk about failure in Iraq and troubles in Afghanistan the point that seems to be missed is not how easily the extremists and the young can be engaged but how worn out the majority of the population is.  It's hard to motivate tired people.  That actually gives the forces of order their best chance for success.

In the aftermath of the recent bombing of the Shia temple in Samarra some hot-heads from Sadr's neighbourhood beat up on easily accessible Sunni mosques in Baghdad.  Meanwhile Sunni and Shia paraded and prayed together in opposition to the terrorists in Samarra and Kut and in Basra Shia stood guard outside Sunni mosques to protect them.

Not everybody over there is 19 or a fanatic and itching for a fight.


----------



## Acorn (25 Feb 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> this may sound trite, but I would rather die free than die a slave, and that is exactly what the people are under a tyrants rule.  No one should ever have to apologize for being free!



Not trite, however the vast majority of people really want "security" not "freedom," and that includes Americans.


----------



## Glorified Ape (25 Feb 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> this may sound trite, but I would rather die free than die a slave, and that is exactly what the people are under a tyrants rule.  No one should ever have to apologize for being free!



Not to sound insulting (which I seriously am not trying to be) but it really doesn't make a lick of difference what YOU want, it's what they want. I won't speculate as to what "they" wanted prior to the invasion, after, or at any other point. It's dangerous to think that because you believe/want something, everyone else must too. Unfortunately, that kind of autocentrism seems to characterize the current US administration's attitude.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2006)

Freedom or Security.

Individual or Collective.

Country or Town.

Do it yourself or hire a tradesman.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (25 Feb 2006)

In the short term what ever President Bush and his supporters do on the Eastern Front may seem demagogic.

Over the long term - since the late 80s - its more understandable.

If you disagree with Bush et al and think we should stay out - then thats great. But I challenge the naysayers to check out the CURRENT EVENTS FORUM for Thomas Barnett`s 305  MEG Video briefing that will jolt you. 

What the briefing called "Shrinking the Gap — Globalization and US National Security," is all about 

Since the end of the Cold War, the biggest threats to America and its allies come from underdeveloped, chaotic regions of the Third World. He calls these regions the "Gap," a zone disconnected from the economic and technological advances of globalization. 

The briefing downlink http://www.sandia.gov/ACG/videos/TBarnett_June605_1123791436_457kbps.wmv

Note where there are no current deployments AFRICA - guess where your kids will be going.

You can`t give the Coaches Corner take on this as it ain`t a game.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Feb 2006)

> The mission was to get rid of Saddam



No.  The mission was to find WMD and dis-arm Saddam.   Had Saddam had no suspicion of having WMD's, he would be just another 3rd world dictator on the US map...   It was only after no WMD were found did the "reasoning" for invasion shift to "removing Saddam".



> stabilize the country (what we are doing) and then leave.



No, US forces are NOT stabilizing the nation.  The nation is at the brink of a civil war.  Insurgents are everywhere.  Bombs go off every day.  Not a day goes by without fear and bloodshed.  Unfortunately the latter might come before the former is complete.



> I don't give a rats *** what kind of government they elect, that is up to them



Actually that’s quite the opposite.  Many Islamic leaders were blocked from the election campaign because their views were not considered "Western friendly"   The fact remains, Iraqi's only have the choice to vote for who the US approves to run a campaign.   Not really much freedom there.  "You can vote for who you want as long as we tell you who to vote for"


----------



## George Wallace (26 Feb 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> No.  The mission was to find WMD and dis-arm Saddam.   Had Saddam had no suspicion of having WMD's, he would be just another 3rd world dictator on the US map...   It was only after no WMD were found did the "reasoning" for invasion shift to "removing Saddam".


And you will place all your credibility on this statement?


			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> No, US forces are NOT stabilizing the nation.  The nation is at the brink of a civil war.  Insurgents are everywhere.  Bombs go off every day.  Not a day goes by without fear and bloodshed.  Unfortunately the latter might come before the former is complete.


After over sixty years, we still have troops 'of occupation' in Europe and Japan.  There is no "Magic Wand" that can be waved and make everything 'honky dory' afterwards.


			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Actually that’s quite the opposite.  Many Islamic leaders were blocked from the election campaign because their views were not considered "Western friendly"   The fact remains, Iraqi's only have the choice to vote for who the US approves to run a campaign.   Not really much freedom there.  "You can vote for who you want as long as we tell you who to vote for"


A truly biased comment and totally false.  You have skewed the facts to give a very prejudiced view of what is actually happening.  It may not be perfect, but it is a lot better a start than nothing at all in an area of the world that is rot with corruption.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2006)

Just curious Lost Warrior, how did you know what Iraq was like before?.........maybe the free press? :


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Feb 2006)

> And you will place all your credibility on this statement?



Well, if you think some years back, Bush got in front of the UN and demanded action be taken if the weapons inspectors are not allowed to do their jobs.  Never once did he say "We have to go into Iraq because Saddam is a madman"   Bush got in front of the UN and said either you enforce the UN resolutions regarding WMD or we will invade to disarm him.  

Now if you look at when Bush said *"Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"* and then look back at the UN resolutions against Iraq with specific regard to resolution 1441.  This essentially gave the US the green light to attack if Saddam didn't "come clean" (as Bush called it) on it's weapons programs.    The deadline passed and the US invaded.   So given what Bush had presented as a reason to attack before the war, then yes.  I will place all my credibility on that statement.   It is after all, what Bush himself said.



> After over sixty years, we still have troops 'of occupation' in Europe and Japan.  There is no "Magic Wand" that can be waved and make everything 'honky dory' afterwards.



Ok, that's nice and all, but it really has nothing to do with Iraq now does it.   It is very clear now that the US administration had no defining exit strategy.  They didn't plan for these sorts of things, and now that it's happening, and support back home is dwindling, they are looking for the fastest way possible to leave the country in the hands of the new "government" to deal with.

Japan and Europe were two very different wars, and two very different times in history.  World War 2 was a legal, justified war.  The US was attacked and had to defend itself.  Last I recall, Iraq never attacked the US and was not even a direct threat to it’s closest neighbors… 



> Just curious Lost Warrior, how did you know what Iraq was like before?.........maybe the free press?



I don't know what it was like before.  I only know what it is like now.  I go by what I see and read in the news.   One can claim that the media is run by Liberal leftists out to make the Bush administration look bad all they want.  The fact remains, what is happening in Iraq today cannot be denied with a silly picture...

On a side note, do you know what it was like in Iraq before?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Feb 2006)

And to give you the honest truth, at the beginning of the war, I was all for it.  I believed the "WMD threat" as well.   I checked under my bed every night for terrorists with WMD like the rest of them.   With the info we have now regarding the faulty Intel, and the invasion stance changes, and all the other political crap that has piled up since the invasion, I just can't agree with the war anymore.    

All I want to see now is the US administration clean up the mess they started.  Do I want them to pull out tomorrow?  Of course not.  That would only put the Iraqi people into more pain.  Do I think the US should not have been there in the first place?  Yes


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2006)

Quote,
_On a side note, do you know what it was like in Iraq before?_

Nope, can't say I did, but judging by all those people pulling down statues, hitting pictures with their shoes and generally dancing in the streets, it couldn't have been very good.

I do admit the insurgency was a wild card factor that no one saw coming.[ and probably should have] But, whom would have thought the hatred and the sheer brutality of Iraqians killing Iraqians would have been so intense?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Feb 2006)

"would have thought the hatred and the sheer brutality of Iraqians killing Iraqians would have been so intense"
Take out Sunnis and Sheas (sp) and Kurds and put in Serbs, Croats and Muslims


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Feb 2006)

> I do admit the insurgency was a wild card factor that no one saw coming.[ and probably should have] But, whom would have thought the hatred and the sheer brutality of Iraqians killing Iraqians would have been so intense?



The US administration and their platoon of think tanks should have known.   The harmony (and I use that word very lightly) that Iraq experienced even with its religious sects each just looking for an excuse to lash out at one another was held together by the brutal dictatorship that Saddam ran.

Now that he's gone, these people can fight it out among each other.  This is something I even saw coming, but had confidence the US administration already had planned on.

The sort of civil war we are seeing right now would have never been possible under Saddam's rule.  He would just as easily cut their heads of in public executions than let it get this bad.

IMHO, the only way to save the country from itself is to divide it.   Give the Shiites and the Sunnis (and the Kurds to the north) their own territory and allow them to govern themselves.   The way it is now, one side will always have more representation than the other, and this is something they apparently can't live with.


----------



## teddy49 (26 Feb 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I was actually going to quote that very sentence.  The Liberals have all but scared the Canadian public when it comes to foreign operations associated with the US.   In some cases with good reason, but in most others, out of vote grabs.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.   The US campaign in Iraq has been shrouded in controversy and lies.   The Iraqi's are no safer today than they were under Saddams rule (Some would speculate even less so)
> 
> ...



I think I understand where this perception comes from.  But it is false.     http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=26

From the CIA World Fact Book via this sight.  The death rate in Iraq has been going down steadily.

6.40 Deaths per thousand in 2000
5.84 Deaths per thousand in 2003
5.49 Deaths per thousand in 2005

For what it's worth
France
9.08 Deaths per thousand in 2005
Netherlands
8.68 Deaths per thousand in 2005
Switzerland
8.48 Deaths per thousand in 2005
Canada
7.73 Deaths per thousand in 2005
Australia
7.44 Deaths per thousand in 2005


Now then Lost _Warrior, as for your assertion that only American approved candidates stood for election, this is an utter falsehood.  I know that I'm offended by it and I'm sure that the clients I protect here would be as well.  I've been in Iraq for the last 14 months.  The client I presently work for and have worked for the last 5 months, is an NGO that is working on Iraq's political restructuring, with all the parties and coalitions thereof in the country.  They've worked with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the 555 party, The Iraqi Women's party, The Kurdish coalitions.  I've had representatives from Shia parties, Sunni parties, Secular Parties, and Kurdish parties in my compound on the same day.  As well my clients were instrumental in writing the constitution that was voted in by referendum last year.

I must respectfully ask that you check your facts a little more carefully and not just take the tripe offered by the BBC, CNN, CTV, CBC as gospel.  Or as the whole story.  It is not.

That said, I'm under no illusions that the reconstruction of this place is going at all well.  Part of the problem is that Iraq's infrastructure was in serious disrepair before the invasion.  Saddam spent copious amounts of money maintaining the facade that all was well, when in fact the infrastructure of this country was crumbling from underneath it.  The Americans have just inherited these problems and are now dealing with them.  Should they have forseen the insurgency?  Sure.  If only because nature abhors a vacuum.  Is a civil war inevitable?  That depends on the commitment of the Americans to stay the course, and have the flexibiltiy to take a long critical look at what's working here and what isn't.  I don't have a lot of faith in Bush Administration or the American people, in that regard.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Feb 2006)

> From the CIA World Fact Book via this sight.  The death rate in Iraq has been going down steadily.
> 
> 6.40 Deaths per thousand in 2000
> 5.84 Deaths per thousand in 2003
> 5.49 Deaths per thousand in 2005



Actually you took what I said out of context.   The number of innocents dead has been going up as opposed to how many innocents were being killed at the hands of Saddam per year.  

And how many of those were actually Saddam's doing, and not caused by the UN sanctions on the country.

On a side note teddy, thanks for the input from someone on the ground.  It was very informative.


----------



## Pencil Tech (26 Feb 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> The harmony (and I use that word very lightly) that Iraq experienced even with its religious sects each just looking for an excuse to lash out at one another was held together by the brutal dictatorship that Saddam ran.



Kind of like Yugoslavia under Tito, or the USSR.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Feb 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Actually you took what I said out of context.   The number of innocents dead has been going up as opposed to how many innocents were being killed at the hands of Saddam per year.


Amazing.  You are shown the figures that state that they numbers are dropping, and you don't believe them.



			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> And how many of those were actually Saddam's doing, and not caused by the UN sanctions on the country.


One could argue that it was all Saddam's doing, even during UN sanctions, as he kept supplies and medicines from reaching those in need.  He filled his own needs and disregarded those of the people of Iraq.  The fact that there were UN sanctions is just a mote point.  He would have done so anyway, perhaps on a less grand scale, but still he would have deprived the people of what he could direct to his own family and needs.  

Lost Warrior, you are proposing an American conspiracy where there is none.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2006)

Very good point about Tito and the Stalinists Pencil Tech.

An argument can be made WRT Iraq, Cuba and North Korea that it is a "pay me now or pay me later" situation.  These "strong men" societies are not inherently stable.  When the strong man dies, the society crumbles, chaos reigns and innocents die in their thousands, if not their millions.

Saddam had to be redirected, and many interests were not interested in re-directing him, or replaced so as to reduce the chaos.  The only real question was how much chaos and on whose time table.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Feb 2006)

> Amazing.  You are shown the figures that state that they numbers are dropping, and you don't believe them.



I never said I did not believe the figures.  Please do not put words into my mouth.



> Lost Warrior, you are proposing an American conspiracy where there is none.



I am proposing no such thing.   What I am doing however, is stating my dismay with the way the US went to war in Iraq, how they have conducted themselves and their lack of planning for the current chaos.   Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2006)

WRT Iraq - seeing as how we have moved off Afghanistan:

When the US was asking its own soldiers how many bodies the Army would require to secure Iraq it seems to me that the Army proposed a number that effectively denied the US any opportunity to involve itself in Iraq at all.  The Army effectively came back with a "you can't do that, you can't get there from here" solution.  

Whether the US was right or wrong to involve itself in Iraq (I think it was right) thus ultimately became immaterial.  If the US Forces, the most powerful such organization in the world, was saying that "there ain't nothing I can do" then the entire world order was put at risk.  That order is ultimately built on the basis of coercive force.  If the US wasn't powerful enough to coerce a place like Iraq how likely was it that the EU, Russia, China or India were going to be effective ( even if we wanted them to be so ).  

At the same time the US army, IMHO, really didn't want to get into the game that they are in.  It could be seen as a self-serving statement, "we can't help you" from an Army in which many did not want to get into the Small Wars/Constabulary/Co-In/Peace Support/Peace Keeping/3-Block War/Imperial Grunt business.

Unfortunately the US administration, the UN and the world at large need that capability ( not just from the US and not solely from the US ).  If the US Army could beg off as being incapable then that allows every other army to beg off.  That ultimately isn't good for international security, for the average citizen or for commerce.  Then we quickly run down hill to the post-Tito Yugoslavia on an international scale.

Whether the US Army wanted the job or not, or whether it was capable of the job or not, the US needed the US Army to do that job.  Just as we need the Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Dutch, Indians and all other armies to do that job.  

It is possible to argue about where and when and how and under whose authority such troops should be deployed.  But that capability must be held by the international community.  "We can't.  We don't want to." can't be allowed to stand as an answer.

The fact that the US Army then has had to learn on the job and adapt in place has resulted in mis-steps but the shift in that Army was necessary.  Iraq was as good a place as any for it to make the adjustment.  It could have been any of a number of other countries.  

I have heard the argument "Why pick on Saddam?  There are plenty of other targets out there."  The answer is the same in any target-rich environment.  You have to start somewhere.

He was victimising his own people, was a proven threat to the neighbourhood, had some nasty friends with vicious tendencies, was looking for opportunities to make a big splash on the international scene by buying up some nasty technologies and failed to honour his commitments - all these seem perfectly rational reasons for acting on him first.  It was his misfortune that, if he truly had no WMDs and didn't ship them back to his suppliers via Syria, he lied so many times that nobody believed him when he said he didn't have them.  NOBODY believed him.  Not the Yanks, Brits, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Canadians or the UN.  They disagreed on what to do next but nobody believed him.

The fact that Iraq sits smack-dab in the middle of the lines of communications connecting Pakistan and Afghanistan to Algeria and Morocco, not to mention Turkey and the Caucasus also made it a critical target that needed to be in the hands of a benign, if not friendly, government.

The role that Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan play currently is more akin to the role that Port Royal, Jamaica; Chesapeake in the Carolinas; and New Orleans played in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were havens for pirates and smugglers that occasionally operated under a commission from any government that would by their services during times of tension.  Not everybody operating for the Islamists is operating out of religious conviction.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate

Is the possibility of Canadian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan worth the cost of bringing stability to a region of the world that has been embroiled in warfare for decades?


Yes   7182 votes     (47 %) 

No   7958 votes     (53 %) 

  
Total Votes: 15140


----------



## The Gues-|- (1 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Is the possibility of Canadian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan worth the cost of bringing stability to a region of the world that has been embroiled in warfare for decades?



The way the question is structured implies that the chances of bringing stability to Afghanistan is very slim.  At least that is how I perceive it.  Why not, "With the possibility of Canadian lives being lost in Afghanistan, do you think it's worth bringing stability to a war-torn country?"

We hesitate to use the word "kill" whenever we are referring to "kicking the enemy", but it doesn't slow us down when referring to our own lives being lost in doing something that goes beyond self interest.  Get off the god damn high horse!


----------



## Thirstyson (1 Mar 2006)

I don't think the wording is that bad. I still read it as Afghanistan being a country in need of help, the poll question itself implies that it would be somewhat difficult to do.


----------



## vanislerev (1 Mar 2006)

they had a pole almost identical to that on global national too... last i checked it was like 67 percent in opposition or something. but with any public pole, the way you word it will completely change the outcome


----------



## Strategic (1 Mar 2006)

I don't think no life could have a price put on it ,but are great country is in a position to help whether its a positive or negative out come and that I am grateful for. Unfortunately there may be some loss of life friend or foe. And this is the risk our armed forces take. In the words of Ray (the guy in the chair) " Thats the way she goes."


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> The way the question is structured implies that the chances of bringing stability to Afghanistan is very slim.  At least that is how I perceive it.  Why not, "With the possibility of Canadian lives being lost in Afghanistan, do you think it's worth bringing stability to a war-torn country?"
> 
> We hesitate to use the word "kill" whenever we are referring to "kicking the enemy", but it doesn't slow us down when referring to our own lives being lost in doing something that goes beyond self interest.  Get off the god damn high horse!



The poll question implies to me that Canadian soldiers can bring stability rather easily - the opposite of what your interpretation was. I think the question was worded the way it was to imply how badly they need our presence there - ie cannot do it on their own without Canadian help.


----------



## The Gues-|- (1 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I think the question was worded the way it was to imply how badly they need our presence there - ie cannot do it on their own without Canadian help.



Seen, but respectfully disagree.  I think most of the concern was emphasized on the possibility of losing more Canadians for a hopeless country.  And if it's worth it?  At least that is how I believe the majority of Canadians would view it and have interpreted it.


----------



## Jaxson (1 Mar 2006)

A better question:

Is bringing stability and peace to Afghanistan worthy of Canadian help?.

If yes

Do you Support Canadian Soldiers going over to help stabalize Afghanistan, if it means the danger of them being Injured or killed is present?.

Or how about this:

If the danger in afghanistan is our problem as well as our allies, should we not be over seas to help stabalize the area if it means preventing a possible attack on our country? 

If yes:

What if it means Canadian Soldiers may be injured or killed, over seas while doing this?

So is there really a difference between these questions? except for the fact one points out were protecting canada and the other says were trying to help afghanistan.


----------



## RangerRay (1 Mar 2006)

Here's a new poll that shows the complete opposite...I'm confuzzed.  ???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060301/wl_canada_nm/canada_afghan_canada_poll_col



> *Most Canadians back expanded Afghan mission: poll *
> 
> Wed Mar 1, 12:46 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2006)

Probably went to Army.ca to poll the members.  LOL


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Mar 2006)

Quote,
_Ekos polled 1,002 people between February 6 and February 14 and the results are considered to be accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20._


Maybe because this is the BS they have to sell to the masses.......all that matters is who pays.
1000 people can predict what 30 million are thinking?........awww,bite me!!!!


----------



## HDE (1 Mar 2006)

There are all sorts of issues at play in discussing our mission to Afghanistan and I'd wager very few random Canadians have given much thought to the issue so, no surprise, their first response would be "no" to anything that involves dead soldiers.

I'd like to see something along the lines of "Do you think Canadians have an obligation to be fully supportive  of young Canadians sent into dangerous situations by the government?" 

Polls are mildly interesting but I don't think they make a good basis for any sort of serious policy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2006)

I think it would be interesting if you could go back in time just before WW2 and ask the population a similar question.


----------



## nULL (2 Mar 2006)

It was a loaded question.



"Is the possibility of Canadian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan worth the cost of bringing stability to a region of the world that has been embroiled in warfare for decades?"

or

"Is bringing stability to a region of the world that has been embroiled in warfare for decades worth the cost of Canadian soldiers being killed?



The first variant makes it seem an exercise in futility, the latter a noble cause.


----------



## 2 Cdo (2 Mar 2006)

Polls can say whatever you want them to say! Ask 1000 Canadians if Canada should stay in Iraq or pull out and you would probably be very surprised at the results!


----------



## MdB (2 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Polls can say whatever you want them to say! Ask 1000 Canadians if Canada should stay in Iraq or pull out and you would probably be very surprised at the results!



That's a nice one! ;D

How about that?

Is the possibility of Canadian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan worth the cost of crashing our exportation revenue AND probably your job when the US close their border and shutting off 85% of our exportation as a result of multiple attacks on US and Canadian soil?

Hmm, hit the pocket, they'll flock to your cause. :'(


----------



## Sabre1918 (2 Mar 2006)

BANG ON !!!



			
				nULL said:
			
		

> It was a loaded question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## raymao (8 Mar 2006)

Those of you that have taken a course in research or survey development well know bias can be designed into each and every question of a survey if the designer of the survey is not careful. Obviously we can see the influence media can have by skewing the questions from the start.


----------



## chris_502 (11 Mar 2006)

I have been reading and watching the news and lately I've been seeing a lot about Canadians shift in support for our role in Afghanistan, I've been seeing a lot of "We're against the war" And so on and so forth but I see very few "I support our Troops" Well this is another one of those rare and few "I support our troops." Bloggs.  So here it goes. 
  
    I was in the Army for four years I left as a Corporal with the RCR's out of Gagetown, NB.  I have served my country with deep and sincere Pride and great Honour, I did serve in Afghanistan I have lost a few fellow Royal Canadians over there, they were Brothers to all of us and it is a great total loss to the Military Family especialy to they're family's that they are gone.  However is the cost of war.   It is a sad but true fact of war.  

    In war men go into battle and men die, it's a fact. In war there are sometimes accidents that are not a result of the enemy and men do die as they would here at home.  If a Soldier were killed while crossing the street in Toronto and got hit by a city bus or cab, does that mean we have to keep all military personel on base so they don't get hurt? Does that mean we have to pull all City buses and taxi's off the road so that in the event they MIGHT kill a Soldier? NO.  It's a fact of life.   You live you die.  
     So when our Troops goto Afghanistan and ket hurt, injured or God help us, get killed in action does that mean we have to pull out men out of a WAR ZONE? No it's war man that's what the Army is all about, it's about traning and someday if the call goes up then we go to war and defend our Country and uphold our national intrests overseas.  Canada is more than a "Peacekeeping" country, Our military is a tool of war and if it comes to it than our country has the proper tools to fight a war.     If we pull our troop out of Afghanistan because of a few casualitys than *WHY THE HELL ARE WE THERE IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE?*    Or better yet. Why do we even have a military if we're not going to use them in a combat area?  Why?  I'll tell you why, because Canada has a Military because we have intrests that must be upheld and our mission in Afghanistan and our Main intrest is to provide and deliver Democrocy to them.  That is our job.  

    All this squabbeling about pulling our troops out of Afghanistan because men are dieing is nonsense.  *IT'S A BLOODY FRIGGING WAR PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN A WAR.*  We're there so now let's finish the job that we went there to do.  
   In a war things offten don't go as we planed and I'm sorry it has to be like that but that's just how it is.

   My fellow Canadians both Military and Civilian, Support our Soliders over there, they are doing a fine job, War is a horriable thing I know I lived it for six months.  We have a job over there and if there is anything I have learned durring my time in the Army is this, "You start something, and you Finish it."   *I SUPPORT MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN AFGHANISTAN, I SUPPORT OUR ROLE THERE AS WELL.*  My Mother and Father who's only two sons have served in Afghanistan and support our being there and our role.  I don't support war it self but I support our men there.   

    So if you have anything to say about that message me, e-mail me.  Do what ever makes you feel good about your self, I'll always support my guys over there.


----------



## Trinity (11 Mar 2006)

I think he forgot the 

[Rant]  [/rant}   

I don't think you'll get any arguments here about what you said. 
Most of us are in agreement.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (11 Mar 2006)

"The safest place for a ship is at Port, but thats not what ships are built for".


----------



## Trinity (11 Mar 2006)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> "The safest place for a ship is at Port, but thats not what ships are built for".




Cough.. Pearl Harbor...


----------



## chris_502 (11 Mar 2006)

I know I won't get any disagreements here, but I'm just so sick and tired of hearing this on T.V. and reading it in the paper, I'm just so damn sick of it.  Again, It's a friggen war man that's what happens in war.  But thanks though.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Mar 2006)

"We are against the War"...huh?

Were there any women at those protests? I imagine there were. Tell them if they are against having troops in Afghanistan then they are against defending womens rights. Tell them they are against free speech, tell them they are against freedom of choice.

If it is a woman you are speaking to, ask her:
Do you think women should be educated? Do you have a job, do you have any female children, do you like being able to go out of the house without a male escort?

I am sure she will say yes to one of those questions, then tell her she is in favour us having soldiers there because if we take our troops out, and the Taliban return to power, they will once again put in laws that:

Women must be completely covered....or they will be beaten,
Women must be escorted by a male member of the family everywhere outside the home, and not talk to another male.....or the escort will be beheaded,
Girls are not allowed to be educated...or they be beaten and then would be sold off at public auction,
Women are not allowed to have a job....or they will be beheaded,
If the all the males of a family die, then the women starve to death.

To speak out would cause you to be beaten, to listen to music would get you beaten, to help another mans wife would get you beheaded.

Then after you explain all this, ask them again are they in favour of our troops helping to create a western style moderate Islamic government in Afghanistan. I am sure at this point they might be.


----------



## MikeM (11 Mar 2006)

Chris,

I think I speak for all of us when I say we understand your frustration, I myself feel the exact same way you do. I'm deploying on the next rotation in Aug, and it would be nice to have the support of our citizens and politicians, but the citizens of this country can't get past the peacekeeping image we've had, and can't fathom troops being in harms way.

We as soldiers need to soldier on, do our jobs professionally, and continue with our mission focus.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

chris_502 said:
			
		

> I know I won't get any disagreements here, but I'm just so sick and tired of hearing this on T.V. and reading it in the paper, I'm just so damn sick of it.  Again, It's a friggen war man that's what happens in war.  But thanks though.



No argument here my friend...here's the problem. the Canadian public were told for the last 50 years that our Armed Forces were peacekeepers; lovers not fighters.
The People who were in power, the Liberals wanted to save money on Defence and put it toward social programs that made them look good and got them votes so they gutted the military budget and did stuff to make themselves look good. after 50 years of neglect and rust out they now have to poop or get off the pot. They made efforts under the Martin minority government to start the rebuilding. Harper will continue it I think but he is in a tenuous minority situation.

The liberal left leaning press who manipulate public opinion in Toronto and our large cities have had a hand in stoking the perception of peacekeeping as the only role for a Canadian military and they are now in shock that we are actually doing what Armed Forces are meant to do..."close with and destroy the enemy!"
They cannot and will not admit that we have any other role and so they still keep harping on that in all their news reports....they love it when they find a poll that suggests Canadians don't support the military...no matter how unscientific a poll or how the questions was asked.

Hopefully the Government will stay the course and not be tempted to govern by public opinion polls as the last gang did for so long. They need to get the word out on our role there with a bit more forcefullness me thinks.


----------



## Cannonfodder (11 Mar 2006)

The media has to put a spin  on  a story , good or bad , that is what they do . Telling accurate truthful stories does not get much attention so they spin it , look at yesterdays events as a perfect example . These surveys are done to achieve a desired result so there not very credible .  Maybe it is the medias desire to create controversy  believe me Astan is not on everyone in Canadas radar , for the most part people are generally ambliviant . If you let them get under your skin they will , they have little regard for your plight .


----------



## chris_502 (11 Mar 2006)

However so, It would be the best thing for Stephan Harper and his Government to stand in front of the Canadian People and educate them about the cost of war, I figured after all these years of knowing about Canada's involvment in Both world wars and in Korea that we would know what war is all about.  I think it's just what you said, the Candian people don't want to know, they don't want to even begin to think that our troops are ment for more than Peacekeeping.  Don't get me wrong though, peacekeeping is a good thing I'm not ragging on that, it's the "Make lov not war" ideots who think we shouldn't have a Military in the first place that I'm ragging on. 

    the best thing I can say for those people is, "If you don't like what you see, than pick up a rifle and stand a post.  Otherwise sit the F*&% down and shut up.  We're doing the best job we can with what we have." And Cannonfodder, Your right.  Absolutly right.  However if it is the thought of the average Canadian or not, it is still  worse than a slap on the face of those men and women who are currently on patrol over there.


----------



## chris_502 (11 Mar 2006)

Just one more thing I wanted to say about my first post.  I'm sorry if I sounded harsh about those who were killed over there, that was not my reason.  I am (Just like anyother person who has stood a post) very moved by every soldiers death over there.


----------



## Trinity (11 Mar 2006)

I see "A channel" written all over this thread...

(not the person who posted it)

but in general...  I think the sentiments are understood.

Do we need all need to post and repeat the same comments?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I see "A channel" written all over this thread...
> 
> (not the person who posted it)
> 
> ...



Hey Trinity we all have to get our 2 cents worth in...just like the Parish Council...lol :boring:


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Mar 2006)

Gents,

let's cool the jets.

I have seen a very positive angle both in the media ,and with the Canadian citizens in general, regarding the ' stan.

Don't take the slant of a few news outlets, and some misinformed people as the norm.

dileas

tess


----------



## HDE (12 Mar 2006)

48th has a good point.  So far it looks like the "usual suspects" quoting the same, typically wrong, pollsters.  How many people approached out of the blue and asked for their views on anything complicated have actually given the issue much thought?   I really do hope that results of the latest poll don't become a driver of public policy, particularly given how often polls bounce all over the place, depending on what is asked and how.  It'd be nice to go on the premise that gov't actually governs on careful thought and not by how the wind is blowing on any given day


----------



## Tyrone_88 (12 Mar 2006)

If we pull the men out of Afghanistan because of a few accidents the Canadian Army will be the laughing stock of the world. Way more people die back home in Canada every day just in car accidents on their way to or from work, but people still go to work, they don't just board themselves in their houses. They have a job to do just like our soldiers have a job to do. So I say STOP BITCHING AND LET THEM DO THEIR JOB.


----------



## aluc (13 Mar 2006)

It's soooo chic to be anti war now a days. The general populace is soft and weak...oh of course they don't support war." Like...ya know... like ...war is bad yo"...lets keep watching reality television- dog, spend all of our money shopping - yo, let's keep rotting our brains with images of decadence, ill repute.....hmm what else. Well you get it.  As long as the masses continue worshiping the likes of celebs and musicians and other sorts of riff raff whio sing and dance for a living (barely) you're not getting much support from them. Not to say that all celeb types are horrible people, I just think some over step their boundires by endorsing certain political views, when they haven't the foggiest idea of how the world works...kinda like Sir Paul and his windbag wife. It 's troublesome to realise just how much influence these media types have over most of our youth, and a large portion of older ignorants who value sparkling jewlery and flashy clothing as their sole purpose for living.  It seems that today's youth, and some older people worship and adore whatever is force fed to them by the television. The only opinions that matter are the one's they see their celeb's endorse. I know I've gone a bit off topic, yet (I'm a young guy 26) the fact that the honour and glory of battle has been deminished to almost next to nothing (except on Nov 11 when everyone is forced to honour the fallen). The soldiers that have left us, past and present, are an example of real heros and role models. Allas , in this "do what you please, sunshine and lollypops" society we live in, admiring the fact that wars do have to be waged in order to maintain this position that we, as North Americans do not cherish anymore , is long gone. People have become soft and decadent - no sacrafice - no discomfort- no honour - dignity, or glory- just live blindly, and keep consuming, because accumulation of possessions is the measure of a man today. Dignity, self respect, honour, modesty, caring, hard work and sacrafice seem to no longer exist in a man's  character. In fact, the aformentioned qualities seem to be looked down upon as weekness today.  I don't mean to get historical here but I will.....take a look at other societiies and civilisations before us...what happened when they became too soft, too decadent.... I think you get it.

(Monday rant off)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Mar 2006)

Why don't we start a grass roots movement (disguised as hippies) to DEMAND that Jack Layton be allowed to travel around with a unit in Afghanistan (not initially strapped to the trim vane like the refinery hostages from Mad Max on Humongous' car) he can PROVE once and for all that we don't need to be there.  
Yaaaa!  Stick it to the man, Jack! :crybaby:


----------



## Pencil Tech (14 Mar 2006)

Well, actually CTV has a poll out today that says 55% support having our troops there and 41% opposed, so already that's a change, as people get more information about the mission.


----------



## gnplummer421 (14 Mar 2006)

I have to chuckle when I read comments in the newspaper about Canadians that are against our mission in A-stan. The words that come to mind as I read are: naive, uneducated, treehugger, braindead, head in the sand....you get the drift. 

I believe the majority of these people have absolutely no clue as to what happens outside their own blackberry using, cellphone chatting, cozy little world.

Gnplummer


----------



## monika (14 Mar 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> I have to chuckle when I read comments in the newspaper about Canadians that are against our mission in A-stan. The words that come to mind as I read are: naive, uneducated, *treehugger,* braindead, head in the sand....you get the drift.



Hey, I'm a tree-hugger! We're not all out to tofu-ise the world. I'm a tree-hugger who's not averse to hugging the troops when needed. I think that in time, "the average Canadian" will come round like I have in support of our Afghani involvement. I think Canadians, especially women, who are dead against it have never spoken to Afghanis about the land they left. I have and what they told me is they would rather live  life with CAD troops running the show than the Taliban and their minions. I just think most Canadians have never thought of it in those terms.

One aspect that most people I've spoken to are unaware of is the massive drug trade in Afghanistan. They have no clue about the opium/heroin trade. Gee, drugs, money laundering, nope, no potential for financing terrorism here : In general we are woefully ignorant of third world nations. I really believe that once info gets out, public opinion will change.

No one like to see coffins coming home. Soldiers are trained for it, we aren't. We will need time to adjust.


----------



## Pike (14 Mar 2006)

Public opinion will change. People misunderstand the war. It is perceived as just an extension of the American war on terrorism, and for that reason alone people reject it. If people truly believe that Canadians are in control I am sure they will change their minds.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (14 Mar 2006)

sorry i can't rant on here anymore because i was report by someone on this fourm to the TF RSM but i do feel the frustrations first hand!


----------



## Lost_Warrior (14 Mar 2006)

Updated Tue. Mar. 14 2006 8:48 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Just weeks ago, most Canadians said they didn't support putting troops in harms way in Afghanistan. But a new poll finds a majority of Canadians now back the mission.

The poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail found that a modest but clear majority of Canadians -- 55 per cent -- now support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.

An earlier poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel on Feb. 23 found that 62 per cent of Canadians would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan should a vote be held in Parliament. Only 27 per cent said they would vote in favour of the mission.

Furthermore, 73 per cent of respondents said the decision to send troops to Afghanistan should require parliamentary approval, while 20 per cent said it should not.

However, since Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser assumed command of the multinational brigade in southern Afghanistan on Feb. 28, opinions have changed with one exception.

"There is a fair amount of ambivalence, principally in the province of Quebec, about the whole mission and mandate," Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of The Strategic Counsel polling firm, told CTV.ca on Monday.

The poll found 78 per cent of Canadians surveyed believe the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will improve the lives of people there, while 14 per cent don't.

Also, 59 per cent of respondents think that casualties are an acceptable price to pay while 39 per cent disagree.

Seventy-three per cent of respondents said they are emotionally attached to their troops, while 26 per cent are not.

Of those who are emotionally attached, the vast majority, 83 per cent, are proud of them, while 13 per cent are not.

Overall, 55 per cent of Canadians support sending troops to Afghanistan, while 41 per cent do not.

Canada's role

The support comes with some caveats, and some misunderstandings of Canada's role.

"Canadians haven't been conditioned that Canadian forces are going to be asked to take more aggressive combat roles," Woolstencroft said.

For example, 70 per cent of respondents think Canadian troops are in Afghanistan as peacekeepers, rather than in a combat role.

In July 2005, Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, said Canada will be taking "a three-block war" approach, where troops will focus on small pockets within communities to avoid getting involved in large conflicts.

"We're going to prosecute some operations there and we're going to go after the Taliban in some cases," Hillier said.

He also acknowledged that Canada's special forces unit, Joint Task Force 2, would be sent to conduct combat operations against the Taliban and other enemy targets.

"That notion (of combat) hasn't permeated broadly," Woolstencroft said.

However, only 47 per cent of respondents think Canadians should not be involved in a combat role in international conflicts, compared to 51 per cent who think they should.

But in Quebec, that opposition shoots up to 65 per cent.

Some military and political leaders have speculated that Afghanistan could require a long-term commitment.

When asked if they supported a 10-year commitment in Afghanistan, 52 per cent said no and 44 per cent said yes.

Meanwhile, 69 per cent supported the idea of a debate on whether Canadian troops should be kept there beyond next year.

The current mandate expires in February 2007.

Troop reaction in Kandahar

Over in Afghanistan, word of the shift in public opinion spread quickly through the ranks.

"It means that back home people are starting to notice what we are doing -- that there's actually people noticing the change that is coming into affect," said Cpl. Jason Pargeger on Monday.

The polls shows Canadians are torn on whether help comes from firepower or friendship-building.

Soldiers on the ground, operating in a world of unidentified enemies, say it must be both.

"It's a complicated mission. People sometimes like to define it as a combat mission, or a peacekeeping mission, it's really all of those at the same time," said Maj. Scott McKenzie.

While Canadian soldiers are generally enthusiastic about their mission, some wonder whether their work will have a long-term impact.

"You look over the course of history, (Afghanistan's) always had big, big problems, and you kind of wonder. It's human nature to say some things just never change," said Air Force Capt. Trevor Judd, who flew the prime minister to Afghanistan.

But he also said the Canadian military must try.

Technical information

Interviews for this poll were conducted between March 9 and 12, 2006.

Nationally, 1,000 people were sampled. The sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The following questions were asked:

1. Thinking about security problems and conflicts around the world, do you think Canada has a major responsibility, a minor responsibility or no real responsibility to join other countries and play a role in trying to improve these situations?

2. Overall, would you say you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose the decision to send these troops to Afghanistan?

3. From what you know, would you say the main purpose of the Canadian troops in Afghanistan is more peacekeeping than combat or more combat than peacekeeping?

4. And do you think Canadian troops in Afghanistan will significantly improve the everyday lives of the people there, improve their lives somewhat, worsen their lives somewhat or significantly worsen the everyday lives of people who live in Afghanistan?

5. The head of Canada's Armed Forces, Rick Hillier has said he thinks it may take up to ten years to rebuild and stabilize Afghanistan. Would you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose Canada having troops stationed in Afghanistan for the next ten years?

6. Some people say that Canada's role in international conflicts should be limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions - that is, we should not be actively engaged in combat situations. Others say that this is unrealistic and that our armed forces have to be prepared to participate in active, armed combat duty. Which one of these two views best represents your own?

7. There has also been some discussion about whether or not there should be a debate and vote in Parliament to decide if our troops should stay in Afghanistan beyond next year. Some people say that holding this type of debate hurts the morale and undermines the efforts of our troops overseas. Others say this kind of decision is too important not to be debated and that all Canadians need to fully understand the challenges facing our troops in Afghanistan. Which one of these two views best represents your own?

8. When you think of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, do you have any emotional feelings one way or another?

9. (Among those you answered yes to Question 8) Do you tend to feel very proud, somewhat proud, not very proud or not proud at all?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060312/afghanistan_poll_060313/20060314?hub=TopStories




On a side note, has anyone noticed how they refered to the CF as the Canadian *Armed* Forces?   Twice no less?  I guess the public is no longer disgusted with the fact that our military is actually armed...


----------



## westie47 (14 Mar 2006)

It's nice to hear that we are generally supported, however I think Canadians need to be educated about out military and it's operations. I have been out many times in uniform and people don't know I am in OUR army!!!!!! They always ask if I am American!!!!! Also, I agree with the article when it states that most people don't know what we do in A-Stan, that has to change. When the people get educated, there will be more support. Just my two cents.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (14 Mar 2006)

> I have been out many times in uniform and people don't know I am in OUR army!!!!!! They always ask if I am American!!!!!



I guess the red and white maple leaf on the shoulder really throws them off  :


----------



## 3rd Horseman (14 Mar 2006)

Let us keep on focus and educate every one we meet who wishes to discusse the subject and ensure they know the good work we are doing in A Stan. Most important is to educate them that the media blows our accidents out of proportion and the real death / danger in A stan is similar to  Bosnia was at this time. The vast majority of deaths in A Stan have been accidents and the three combat deaths have been mines or suicide bombers. There have been no direct combat deaths in meeting the enemy, let us hope it stays that way.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Mar 2006)

So we have a rat here do we.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Public opinion will change. People misunderstand the war. It is perceived as just an extension of the American war on terrorism, and for that reason alone people reject it. If people truly believe that Canadians are in control I am sure they will change their minds.



Public opinion is changing.  Changing to support.  Maybe people do misunderstand the war.  That is what the PM and CDS are working on.  
Go ahead and perceive it as an extension of the war on terror.  IT IS.  I think what you are hoping is that people will be fooled into believing that this is a uniquely American problem.  
Canadians are in control of the government.  Remember the "vote" thing a while ago?  The orange sign on your window that got laughed at?  Canadians are not in control of the military.  Canadians are not in control of a great many institutions.  Get over it.  This is a country, not a commune.  
Besides, did you not just say in another thread that you support the war in A'stan?????  Inter-thread flip flops are not too hard to pick off.  Unlike the needle brains on your site, people around here read quite a bit.


----------



## raymao (15 Mar 2006)

If everyone were as informed as all of you, I think the numbers would be even higher for the YES vote.

I think the tide is chaning...

globeandmail.com poll results: How you voted
Globe and Mail Update

On Monday and Tuesday, we asked globeandmail.com readers: Should Canadian troops be leading NATO combat missions in southern Afghanistan? Here's how you voted:

YES: 53%

NO: 47%


TOTAL VOTES: 32,499


----------



## monika (15 Mar 2006)

The more information Canadians get the greater the support will be. I can't fight this war in the trenches so to speak all I can do is pipe up with info when people talk about this around the water cooler. The misinformation is mind boggling.

As a civi one thing I want to stress is that most of the distrust regarding this mission is not and never has been for those on the front line but the politicians. Let us know what's going on, don't sugarcoat. We're a tough people and can handle a lot more than some bureaucrats think we can. Tell us what the cost will be and we'll deal with it.

Hang in there and keep slogging it out; you're appreciated more than you realise.


----------



## Tyrone_88 (15 Mar 2006)

aluc said:
			
		

> It's soooo chic to be anti war now a days. The general populace is soft and weak...oh of course they don't support war." Like...ya know... like ...war is bad yo"...lets keep watching reality television- dog, spend all of our money shopping - yo, let's keep rotting our brains with images of decadence, ill repute.....hmm what else. Well you get it.  As long as the masses continue worshiping the likes of celebs and musicians and other sorts of riff raff whio sing and dance for a living (barely) you're not getting much support from them. Not to say that all celeb types are horrible people, I just think some over step their boundires by endorsing certain political views, when they haven't the foggiest idea of how the world works...kinda like Sir Paul and his windbag wife. It 's troublesome to realise just how much influence these media types have over most of our youth, and a large portion of older ignorants who value sparkling jewlery and flashy clothing as their sole purpose for living.  It seems that today's youth, and some older people worship and adore whatever is force fed to them by the television. The only opinions that matter are the one's they see their celeb's endorse. I know I've gone a bit off topic, yet (I'm a young guy 26) the fact that the honour and glory of battle has been deminished to almost next to nothing (except on Nov 11 when everyone is forced to honour the fallen). The soldiers that have left us, past and present, are an example of real heros and role models. Allas , in this "do what you please, sunshine and lollypops" society we live in, admiring the fact that wars do have to be waged in order to maintain this position that we, as North Americans do not cherish anymore , is long gone. People have become soft and decadent - no sacrafice - no discomfort- no honour - dignity, or glory- just live blindly, and keep consuming, because accumulation of possessions is the measure of a man today. Dignity, self respect, honour, modesty, caring, hard work and sacrafice seem to no longer exist in a man's  character. In fact, the aformentioned qualities seem to be looked down upon as weekness today.  I don't mean to get historical here but I will.....take a look at other societiies and civilisations before us...what happened when they became too soft, too decadent.... I think you get it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> If everyone were as informed as all of you, I think the numbers would be even higher for the YES vote.
> 
> I think the tide is chaning...
> 
> ...



That poll is poorly worded.  Maybe people don't want us leading it, for whatever misinformed reason, but still want us there.  It should be straight forward:  Do you want the Canadian Forces to help the people of A'stan?


----------



## scm77 (16 Mar 2006)

> We asked you what you think of Canada's combat role in Afghanistan. Here's what you had to say.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1142291083474

Interesting how many people still believe the "We shouldn't be in Afghanistan because we are peacekeepers" theory.


> I am against the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. We are peacekeepers and the government has no business placing us as combat forces anywhere in the middle east.
> Gail Gadsby, Hamilton, March 14, 2006


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Mar 2006)

It would appear that the public opinion tide regarding our deployment in Afghanistan may be turning.  This article is from Tuesday's Globe and Mail:

 Canadians get behind Afghan deployment

MICHAEL DEN TANDT

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.

A modest but clear majority -- 55 per cent of respondents to a nationwide poll taken for The Globe and Mail and CTV over the past four days -- now broadly support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.

In late February, more than 60 per cent said that given a vote in Parliament, they would opt against sending troops to the war-torn country. Only 27 per cent said they would vote in favour.

That was before Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser assumed command of a multinational brigade in southern Afghanistan on Feb. 28.

It was also before two soldiers were killed by an armoured vehicle rollover, another nearly lost his arm in a suicide bombing, and yet another was badly hurt when he was attacked with an axe at a meeting with village elders.

But the latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests that intense print and broadcast media coverage of the recent casualties, as well as the handoff of control to Canadians, has had the effect of solidifying public support rather than eroding it.

"It looks like there is a modest level of support," said Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of the Strategic Counsel.

"Four weeks ago, people would have voted against it if they were an MP. Today, they're conceptually, broadly, supporting the mission."

Of 1,000 Canadians surveyed, nearly 90 per cent said they are aware of the mission, and 63 per cent said they are "very/somewhat" knowledgeable about it. Only 37 per cent said they are not knowledgeable. A strong majority, 78 per cent, think Canadian troops will have a "positive impact" on the lives of Afghans. Only 14 per cent believe the deployment will make matters worse for local people.

Perhaps most surprisingly, a clear majority -- 59 per cent -- said they are willing to tolerate Canadian casualties to "help achieve security and stability in the region." At the same time, 73 per cent of respondents said they have a "strong emotional connection" with the 2,200 troops based in Kandahar.

Nearly 50 per cent said they are "very proud" of the soldiers and their work, while another 36 per cent said they are "somewhat proud."

The poll results suggest that a concerted public campaign in defence of the mission by senior military officers, as well as political figures from both the Conservative government and Liberal Opposition, has had an impact.

At the same time, there are warning signs for the government.

For one thing, most Canadians still appear to be confused about the nature of the deployment. About 70 per cent of respondents said they think the troops' main role is peacekeeping, whereas only 26 per cent said they think their primary function is combat.

In fact, neither view is right. The mission combines humanitarian work with combat in a way that, for the Canadian military, was unprecedented until six months ago. Though supporting Afghan institutions is the primary objective, in practice that requires battling a determined insurgency that, of late, has turned to Iraqi-style tactics, including frequent roadside bombs and suicide attacks.

Canadians remain sharply divided on the strong combat element of the new deployment. A bare majority -- 51 per cent -- think the military should be prepared to see more active combat. Another 47 per cent oppose Canadian soldiers having this role.

In contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has dismissed calls for a parliamentary debate on the mission as corrosive to troop morale, Canadians overwhelmingly like the idea of a debate. Sixty-nine per cent said parliamentary debate will not hurt troop morale.

Likewise, opinion is decidedly mixed on the desirable duration of the mission. General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, has spoken of a 10-year commitment while being careful to say that the nature and degree of that commitment are for politicians to decide.

Most Afghan experts say an international military deployment will be required for many years -- at least 10, possibly more -- for civil society to take root in Afghanistan.

But 52 per cent of Canadians say they are against a 10-year mission, while only 44 per cent are in favour.

On every question in the survey, support for the mission appeared softest in Quebec. In that province, which is key to Conservative hopes of winning a majority mandate in a future election, only 43 per cent support sending the troops to Afghanistan, whereas 53 per cent are opposed.

Canadian troops in Afghanistan

A small majority of Canadians say they support the military mission in Afghanistan, despite mounting troop casualties.

Do you support or oppose sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan?

CANADA OVERALL

Yes 55%

No 41%

Don't know 4%

LIBERAL VOTERS

Yes 56%

No 39%

Don't know 5%

CONSERVATIVE VOTERS

Yes 72%

No 25%

Don't know 3%

NDP VOTERS

Yes 47%

No 51%

Don't know 2%

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS VOTERS

Yes 39%

No 58%

Don't know 3%

Should there be a debate to decide if our troops should stay in Afghanistan beyond next year?

Yes 69%

No 27%

Don't know 4%

What should Canada's role be in international conflicts?

QUEBEC

Prepared for active armed combat duty 65%

Not actively involved in combat 33%

Don't know 2%

REST OF CANADA

Prepared for active armed combat duty 41%

Not actively involved in combat 57%

Don't know 2%

Do you support or oppose having troops in Afghanistan for the next ten years?

QUEBEC

Support 38%

Oppose 58%

Don't know 4%

REST OF CANADA

Support 45%

Oppose 50%

Don't know 5%

Canadian casualties: Is it the price we have to pay, or is the price too high?

QUEBEC

This is the price we have to pay 47%

Price is too high; we shouldn't be there 51%

Don't know 2%

REST OF CANADA

This is the price we have to pay 63%

Price is too high; we shouldn't be there 35%

Don't know 2%

What do you perceive to be the purpose of our troops in Afghanistan?

More peacekeeping than combat 70%

More combat than peacekeeping 26%

Don't know 4%

How will the Canadian troops in Afghanistan impact the everyday lives of the Afghan people?

Improve 78%

Worsen 14%

Don't know 8%

Do you have any emotional feelings about Canadian troops being in Afghanistan?

Yes 73%

No, 26%

Don't know 1%


----------



## Pikache (16 Mar 2006)

When you post an article, please post a link for reference.

Thanks


----------



## chris_502 (16 Mar 2006)

scm77 said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1142291083474
> 
> Interesting how many people still believe the "We shouldn't be in Afghanistan because we are peacekeepers" theory.


 Well I'm going to risk myself here.  Since the days of the Rt Hon Lester B Pearson Canada has been a Peacekeeping country and I will not doubt that.  However even as a peacekeep we sometimes have to be the Peacemaker.  It sounds brute and hororable to the weak kneed people in this country I know but let us remember this.  Canada was not a Peacekeeper from Day one.  We were a tool of the British Empire yes that I do know, however the point still stands.  We were not always a peacekeeper nation.  Canada's roots (Like many nations if not all of them) has it's roots steming from war.  I agree with most people on this thread and as far as our country goes on not supporting the war....Well I'm sorry we are already there and as Soldiers we must carry on and do the job that is tasked in front of us with the best tools we have at our disposal.  As a country we must carry on and support our troops/Airmen/Sailors as members of a Military force that is trained to defend a nation first and peacekeeper seconed.  God it sickens me to think that there are people out there in Canada to this very moment who beleave that our Military is only a peacekeeping force.  For the love of God man....If that's the case then I will have to ask this question one more time....WHY DO WE HAVE A MILITARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?  If we Canadians don't want to send them to war.


----------



## Spr.Earl (16 Mar 2006)

This crap over Canadians not supporting us is crap,the Canadian people have alway's supported us on all our deployments,it's the present Government and press saying this. 
What the people are against is deploying with out debate.
We are the only country in the world where the P.M. can just send off troop's with out debate our consensus of the House.Our PM is the envy of World Leader's due to the power he hold's which no other National Leader has.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Mar 2006)

chris_502 said:
			
		

> Well I'm going to risk myself here.  Since the days of the Rt Hon Lester B Pearson Canada has been a Peacekeeping country and I will not doubt that.  However even as a peacekeep we sometimes have to be the Peacemaker.  It sounds brute and hororable to the weak kneed people in this country I know but let us remember this.  Canada was not a Peacekeeper from Day one.  We were a tool of the British Empire yes that I do know, however the point still stands.  We were not always a peacekeeper nation.  Canada's roots (Like many nations if not all of them) has it's roots steming from war.  I agree with most people on this thread and as far as our country goes on not supporting the war....Well I'm sorry we are already there and as Soldiers we must carry on and do the job that is tasked in front of us with the best tools we have at our disposal.  As a country we must carry on and support our troops/Airmen/Sailors as members of a Military force that is trained to defend a nation first and peacekeeper seconed.  God it sickens me to think that there are people out there in Canada to this very moment who beleave that our Military is only a peacekeeping force.  For the love of God man....If that's the case then I will have to ask this question one more time....WHY DO WE HAVE A MILITARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?  If we Canadians don't want to send them to war.




Sorry mate but "peacekeeping nation since Lester B.." is hooey.

Gulf War 91.....War
Bosnia late nineties .....under NATO was not peacekeeping
Somalia....not peacekeeping
Kosovo 2000...War...Canadian planes dropped bombs and killed people.
Kandahar 2001 and Ships blockading at sea....not peacekeeping.

It's all media and liberal propaganda.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (17 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Sorry mate but "peacekeeping nation since Lester B.." is hooey.
> 
> Gulf War 91.....War
> Bosnia late nineties .....under NATO was not peacekeeping
> ...



Gulf War 91....*we did not attend the war sorry*
Bosnia late nineties ....under NATO was not peacekeeping*....the war ended in 95 sorry again*
Somalia...*OK I give ya that one*
Kosovo 2000 ....*we did not attend this one either*
Kandahar 2001 jurys still out on that one I have crdable sorce for Cdns in action thier in 01

I agree with the propaganda comment though


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

Gulf War one: Deployed a Canadian Field Hospital, Charles Company of RCR(?) as security and several ships patrolling the Gulf. CF 18s participated in CAPs over the gulf and eventually joined the "Desert Storm" air campaign. If you mean no CF ground units participated in "Desert Sabre", then you are correct.

Former Yugoslavia: Multiple actions in Bosnia and Croatia, under the UN (Remember MGen Lewis McKenzie? Sarajevo? ring any bells?) and  under NATO. NATO PSO efforts ongoing to this day (I returned from Bosnia in Feb 2004).

Somalia: PSO 

Kosovo: I suppose those CF-18s in Aviano were there for an airshow? I suppose you don't remember the crapstorm the Air Force caused when Canadian pilots claimed they were not interoperable with the rest of the NATO force over Kosovo because their on board computers were like "Commodor 64's"

Canadian troops participated in "Operation Anaconda" in the Sha i Kot valley in 2002 and OP Harpoon on the "Whale's back", and this was also the area the "Friendly fire" accident took place.

Scrolling farther back into history, our operations in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Rwanda and Haiti have very little resemblance to "classical" peacekeeping, often one or more factions did not want us there, or simply ignored the presence of ineffectual "International Observers" etc.

*Amazing whatyou can find on the DND.ca website, or Google, isn't it?*


----------



## 3rd Horseman (17 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Gulf War one: Deployed a Canadian Field Hospital, Charles Company of RCR(?) as security and several ships patrolling the Gulf. CF 18s participated in CAPs over the gulf and eventually joined the "Desert Storm" air campaign. If you mean no CF ground units participated in "Desert Sabre", then you are correct....  *I do know that since I participated in writting the op order...Ships to far from the batle to have any en contact RCR provided rear area security and POW tasks out of war zone field hospital was again rear not in war zone. Air force flew CAP outside the war zone after the battle was over they flew in on some raids of empty sand castles.*
> Former Yugoslavia: Multiple actions in Bosnia and Croatia, under the UN (Remember MGen Lewis McKenzie? Sarajevo? ring any bells?) and  under NATO. NATO PSO efforts ongoing to this day (I returned from Bosnia in Feb 2004). ... * The chap was talking about late 90s not the Gen Lewis age, I say again war ended in 95. * Somalia: PSO
> 
> Kosovo: I suppose those CF-18s in Aviano were there for an airshow? I suppose you don't remember the crapstorm the Air Force caused when Canadian pilots claimed they were not interoperable with the rest of the NATO force over Kosovo because their on board computers were like "Commodor 64's*".......Correct thats why they did not engage the EN*.
> ...


----------



## CommonSenseNCO (18 Mar 2006)

>Canadians get behind Afghan deployment

>MICHAEL DEN TANDT

>From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

>OTTAWA — Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over >the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.

It's really amazing what effect a  concerted  effort to educate the canadian public, why we're there, what we're doing and what it means for them, can have  on public opinion. Imagine if everyone in the CF took as much responsability.


----------



## QV (18 Mar 2006)

CommonSenseNCO said:
			
		

> >Canadians get behind Afghan deployment
> 
> >MICHAEL DEN TANDT
> 
> ...



I hate that sentence


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Mar 2006)

Interesting enough. My friends and family are behind the CF and they are now understanding (because I tell them the truth) what the Canadian Army is and is not (i.e. we are not a peacekeeping force).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Mar 2006)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> This crap over Canadians not supporting us is crap,the Canadian people have alway's supported us on all our deployments,it's the present Government and press saying this.
> What the people are against is deploying with out debate.
> We are the only country in the world where the P.M. can just send off troop's with out debate our consensus of the House.Our PM is the envy of World Leader's due to the power he hold's which no other National Leader has.



WRONG.  That was the whole point of why so many people are pissed with Pres. Bush.  He acted on his own as Commander In Chief.  
Here ya go:

*The Constitution of the United States*

Article. II.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

GOOGLE continues to be a tool of wonder.  I don't really need to post a link to the Constitution of the United States, do I?  I'm betting there are plenty of other countries, but the point doesn't need to be flogged.

What is there to debate?  Who would even decide what the issues are?  In the absence of those answers, I have humbly come up with my own referendum.   Here is my "useful" contribution.  Any viewing bureaucrats or media can feel free to reprint this in the paper of their choice or post it to a web site.

"Please take a few minutes to complete this survey:

1.  As a Canadian citizen with regards to Afghanistan do you care about; 

a)  Human rights atrocities
b) Women's rights
c) Nations that sponsor terrorism
d) Nations that ignore drug cartels for cash
e) None of the above
f) All of the above
g) Is there a Starbucks there?

2.  If you answered any of the options other than e) then do think, as a nation;

a) We should send our valuable troops possibly into harms way to assist a nation to rebuild
b) Use terse phrases in the media and in printed letters like "we condemn" and "are most displeased"
c) Throw aid dollars at them ad infinitum because money can fix anything
d) b + c
e) All of the above

3.  If you answered a) or e) then should the troops in Afghanistan;

a) Should be armed with the best available equipment in order to do the job effectively
b) Should be issued saffron robes and appear as Buddhist monks trying to spread divine peace
c) Saffron is expensive, so let them wear their uniforms, but no guns (especially handguns)
d)  Can wear uniforms and have guns, but need to have the decision of a future referendum in order to fire a shot.

4.  If deployed in a stabilizing role in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces should stay;

a) Until the job is done or can be turned over to someone who can do it as well
b) As long as no one gets mad at us, or does anything to make an unpleasant picture in the Toronto Star
c) Until someone gets hurt.  We have had our fill of "hurting wars" and we are only supposed to be "peace keepers"
d) Provided that public opinion doesn't falter, despite petty partisan sniping, regardless of how badly off the Afghani people will be if we "cut and run".  
e)  b + c.
f) All of the above, but a).

5.  Should Canada even have a military?

a)  Yes   b)     No     c)    Can't the US or the UN just take care of it?

6.  Should the Canadian Forces be expanded in anticipation of greater roles in the world?

a)  Yes.  We should be pulling our own weight in the world security picture.
b)  No.  We should keep the Force the same size it is now, but keep them flexible to go to new areas as our interest in a region falters.
c)  Hell No.  Pierre Trudeau had it right when he started shredding those warmongers.  
d) Maybe.  Can't we just ask George Bush to tack on a couple of areas that we are interested in instead?

Thank you for taking time to complete a Stats Can survey.  Your input is valuable to us, as it will create many committee's and subcommittee's in order to analyze it and create "fact finding" boards to disseminate the information to a group appointed to determine how to best advise the staff of the Minister of National Defence after consulting with the PMO's think tank.


----------



## raymao (21 Mar 2006)

I am currently in the process of writing a paper that deals with this topic. Please read, it is a short paper. Leave your comments on how you feel about the material.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Mar 2006)

Only a university student would consider ten typed pages to be "short"


----------



## raymao (22 Mar 2006)

In greater detail I'm sure it requires much more than ten pages to discuss the debate on why some Canadians are in support and why some Canadians are against our involvement in Afghanistan. Even the length of this thread indicates how much everyone has to say in regards to this subject. You may notice I included some of the popular sentiments I gathered from Army.ca in my paper. (thanks Mike)

The debate begins on why we went, to why we should stay, our objective while we are there, the cost of being there, and also the level of accountablity within government to make these decisions.


----------



## Mick (22 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> WRONG.  That was the whole point of why so many people are pissed with Pres. Bush.  He acted on his own as Commander In Chief.
> Here ya go:
> 
> *The Constitution of the United States*
> ...



ALSO WRONG.  Spr Earl was correct in pointing out the PM's considerable power to deploy troops compared to US Presidents (and many other heads of state / govt.)

The PM can deploy troops (whether declaring war or not) acting in his executive role without any input or real oversight from the legislative branch (House of Commons / Senate).  No debate is required within Parliament.

The President, on the other hand, needs the consent of Congress in order to make any troop deployment of any real duration.  While the President may be the Commander-in-Chief, he still needs a CONGRESSIONAL declaration of war or authorization to use military force to commit troops to any given conflict:

"Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly [throughout] until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force, within 60 days (Sec. 5(b))."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

So, its true that the Canadian PM has a relatively large amount of executive power compared to other leaders.  Furthermore, people aren't "pissed at Bush" because he "acted on his own as Commander-in-Chief"... Bush couldn't have acted alone as Commander-in-Chief because he needed Congress' support.  People are "pissed" because many see the official arguments for invading Iraq as unfounded.

Wikipedia is just as useful as Google.


----------



## NavyGirl280 (22 Mar 2006)

I would just like to say a great friend of ours is in Afganistan right now. We pray for a safe return home to you and the troops. Cant wait to see you Dale 


S.Bradbury


----------



## raymao (22 Mar 2006)

NavyGirl280 said:
			
		

> I would just like to say a great friend of ours is in Afganistan right now. We pray for a safe return home to you and the troops. Cant wait to see you Dale
> 
> 
> S.Bradbury



I'm sure I speak for all Canadians when I say we pray for all of their safe returns.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Mar 2006)

mick said:
			
		

> ALSO WRONG.  Spr Earl was correct in pointing out the PM's considerable power to deploy troops compared to US Presidents (and many other heads of state / govt.)
> 
> The PM can deploy troops (whether declaring war or not) acting in his executive role without any input or real oversight from the legislative branch (House of Commons / Senate).  No debate is required within Parliament.
> 
> ...



I wasn't saying that he was wrong in that the PM can deploy troops.  It was his comment that NO ONE else in the world has that power.  I was the unqualified nature of that statement I was pointing out.  The United States was the first example that came to mind.  As far as your Wiki info, "consult with congress" does not mean "get permission from".  Since you are so fond of that info source:

*War Powers Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war.

However, beginning with the Korean War, American presidents have not sought formal declarations of war, instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for "police actions".

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never been tested as Congress has always passed the required authorization when requested by the president.

Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

So he can wheel around the troops for 60 days without anyones permission.  
Perhaps if you had been paying attention to the beginning of this conflict instead of pressing your bell hop uniform or polishing your dorm floor, you would have seen on the news all the people upset from the POTUS using this unilateral power to start the conflict after it was obvious that the UN were going to be useless spectators.  
Hope you can at least fly half decently.


----------



## chris_502 (22 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Sorry mate but "peacekeeping nation since Lester B.." is hooey.
> 
> Gulf War 91.....War
> Bosnia late nineties .....under NATO was not peacekeeping
> ...



What I was trying to say is that Canada since Pearsons creation of the Peacekeepers and since the war in Afghanistan (With the exceptions of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and others we might have missed) we have been known only as that.  Let's face it the goodie goodie look that we have is stuck with us like white on rice.  It is a sad fact that we are trying to shake off like a bad cold.    
   However I do not want Canada to be a the world police either.  It's to find that happy medium I guess where we can flex our military muscle and yet still be the calm passive people we are.  Screwed up I know.  However I do see the wrong in my last post and I stand corrected though I just wanted to further explain myself.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Mar 2006)

chris_502 said:
			
		

> What I was trying to say is that Canada since Pearsons creation of the Peacekeepers and since the war in Afghanistan (With the exceptions of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and others we might have missed) we have been known only as that.  Let's face it the goodie goodie look that we have is stuck with us like white on rice.  It is a sad fact that we are trying to shake off like a bad cold.
> However I do not want Canada to be a the world police either.  It's to find that happy medium I guess where we can flex our military muscle and yet still be the calm passive people we are.  Screwed up I know.  However I do see the wrong in my last post and I stand corrected though I just wanted to further explain myself.


     World police is the UN raison-d'etre.  We do supply them troops in that role.  We came to Afghanistan under NATO to fight a war in support of our sworn ally, much as we did for Britain in '39-45.  Just as we rebuilt Europe after 45, now we are rebuilding Afghanistan.  Unlike Europe, Afghanistan has a tradition of anarchy, and rule by local strongmen.  Obviously this requires a far different style of occupation.  On one hand we are there to aid in rebuilding of Afghanistan, and in support of the elected govt and international agencies in humanitarian efforts.  On the other hand we are there to stomp flat petty warlords, drug smugglers, bandits, and religious militants who seek to use violence to prevent the establishment of order. 
    There was no point in debate about going to war in Afghanistan. Parliament had its chance for debate when we ratified the NATO treaty.  If parliament wished not to be bound by the NATO treaty, then it should have been called to debate ere now.  I don't think we would have to wait for the US Congress to debate either if the 9-11 planes had taken out the CN tower rather than the twin towers; neither nation will stand by and allow the other to be attacked by a foreign power.  That is what makes us allies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2006)

chris_502 said:
			
		

> What I was trying to say is that Canada since Pearsons creation of the Peacekeepers ...



Pearson did not create or invent modern, late 20th century _peacekeeping_, nor did he create _peacekeepers_.  That’s a Canadian _myth_ – which is a nice way of saying a lie we tell ourselves.

If we must credit someone with _inventing_ peacekeeping, as Canadians consistently misuse the term,  it has to be Ralph Bunche (US) and his sidekick Sir Brian Urquhart (UK).  Both were at the UN in 1948 and they _invented_ modern peacekeeping (and peacekeepers) with the creation of the observer missions in Palestine and Kashmir in that year.

Canadian _educators_ and journalists have a lot for which to answer.  They have, perhaps through simple ignorance, misled a couple of generations of Canadians.


----------



## chris_502 (23 Mar 2006)

OK...Well thanks for the lesson on Peacekeepers. Appreciate it.  Alot of things mention in here make a lot of sense and I thank everyone for they're feed back on this topic, what turned out to be my blind ranting and raveing turned out to be a pretty good disscussion and thanks again to everone who has contrabuted they're thoughts on this topic.    I must say I did learn a lot.  thanks again.


----------



## bboyintown (23 Mar 2006)

In these times of "educating" the public on why were are in Afghanistan, I bristle at the inference that some members of the CF's should also get behind our cause over there. Granted, we have changed our role as peace keepers to include one of military control, if necessary.  So  these are the times when new talent rises in the CF's. Let us hope these proven personell are not bogged down in bureaucratic BS and blocked from taking heir rightful place as the new commanders when their day comes. The rest will take care of itself.  As long as innocent people are being exploited by insurgent terrorists, there can be no doubt why were are there. Our fathers and grand fathers that fought in conflicts before us, had no doubt about why they were there and what they were doing.  These times are no different in that regard.  I am extremely proud of my brothers that are in the line of fire over there. Their bravery and commitment to success and the courage to meet the objective has legendary roots.  Our military can hold their head high as they carry our democratic freedom &  ideals to the Afghan people.


----------



## Cliff (24 Mar 2006)

chris_502 said:
			
		

> I have been reading and watching the news and lately I've been seeing a lot about Canadians shift in support for our role in Afghanistan, I've been seeing a lot of "We're against the war" And so on and so forth but I see very few "I support our Troops" Well this is another one of those rare and few "I support our troops." Bloggs.



I'm not much of a proponent for nation building, for many reasons which I won't get into, but with the world situation today unstable as it is, not being involved in regions like Afghanistan and Iraq, would leave a vaccum ripe for terrorists elements. I now think it's imperative for a stronger military presence in both those regions.


----------



## rcrgruntsgirl (25 Mar 2006)

I want to say to all our troops out there having served and going to serve overseas I am truly proud of everyone. I am a very proud military wife. My husband is a MCpl with 1 RCR and will be leaving for deployment in August. It scares me to have him leave but I know how much he loves serving his country and he truly believes in this mission. He has lost friends in Afghanistan but that still doesn't deter him from doing his job. It is truly amazing and I will support him no matter what. 
I to am frustrated with the lack of support from Canadians and it saddens me to think that people are doubting our troops role. I get frustrated when I here our soldiers being called peacekeepers, I just don't know why Canadians can't get past the 'peacekeeper' image. Afghanistan is a war zone and soldiers can die there. No matter what more support needs to be shown for the troops. Thank you for doing what you do. God bless you.  

Melissa
Proud Military Wife


----------



## bbbb (26 Mar 2006)

The Canadian people have the right to voice their opinion and it is not the place of the CF to say otherwise. They will support the CF when they feel the CF is doing the right thing and will withdraw their support when they feel it is not deserved.

I have no doubt in my mind that the CF will remain strong and professional regardless of how the Canadian public feels about its military. Public opinion will not phase the members of the CF in any way, shape or form. That is the quality of military professionalism.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Mar 2006)

"Public opinion will not phase the members of the CF in any way, shape or form."

Sure it will.  Its called morale.


----------



## Thompson_JM (26 Mar 2006)

BBBB you might want to switch over to recieve for a bit...

 alot of what youre saying can be and is getting shot down. 

as we were told by the PAFO in our media brief:

1. Engage Brain
2. Engage Mouth
3. It is not your job to fill the silence with words.

As "GO!" (i belive) has in his sig. block "Many times I have regretted my Speech. Never My Silence" 

Its Profound, and a lesson I hope I am slowly learning.

Regards
    Josh


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (26 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> The Canadian people have the right to voice their opinion and it is not the place of the CF to say otherwise. They will support the CF when they feel the CF is doing the right thing and will withdraw their support when they feel it is not deserved.
> 
> I have no doubt in my mind that the CF will remain strong and professional regardless of how the Canadian public feels about its military. Public opinion will not phase the members of the CF in any way, shape or form. That is the quality of military professionalism.


     Always nice to hear from the officer cadets ;D.  It's true that the CF will remain dedicated professionals, but Napoleon wasn't talking out his a$$ when he said that "morale was to the physical what three is to one".  I was in during the first gulf war, kitted out and ready on 24hr notice to move when Saddam collapsed the first time.  The Canadian public was not behind us, the Canadian public was marching against us.  I got crap every time I was out in uniform during that period.  If you don't think that has an effect, I admire your innocence, but my own died a long time ago.  To serve the CF in uniform makes you proud, when that pride is attacked by scorn, you do get angry at the very public you serve, you do start to question why you are risking your butt for these people.  Given support from the public, you feel more centered, and its easier to face the struggles of the mission at hand.  Without that support, you will still do your job, but it gets harder.


----------



## raymao (29 Mar 2006)

My 2 cents on public opinion. Public opinion has no business feeling one way or the other for CF except for gratitude. If someone feels like the CF is somewhere the Canadian public would rather not see them, they can protest the politicians that sent them there.


----------



## pbi (30 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> I have no doubt in my mind that the CF will remain strong and professional regardless of how the Canadian public feels about its military. Public opinion will not phase the members of the CF in any way, shape or form. That is the quality of military professionalism.



bbbb: You might want to include recent Canadian military history as part of your professional studies. If you do that, you will see that we were very seriously harmed as a force by the result of public opinion. You will also see that this situation was made even worse by stupid, narrow-minded 19th century miitary attitudes towards the media. Information is a weapon: it will either be used by us, or against us. Before you receve your commissioning scroll and embark in our profession of arms, before you receive the great privelege of leading Canadians, I hope you absorb this lesson.

Cheers


----------



## Sabre1918 (30 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> No argument here my friend...here's the problem. the Canadian public were told for the last 50 years that our Armed Forces were peacekeepers; lovers not fighters.



Right......now tell me the last time _you_ trained for war........
Unfortunately, the Canadian soldier's that we are sending over to this country are neither ready or
prepared for the shit that is being thrown at them.

Lets be honest, we are not training our soldiers for war.........

I have done the work up training prior to deployment to Afghanistan.
I don't recall anyone telling me we were going off to war.
So we must be on a peacekeeping/making mission...........right !

Just my 2 cents.....


----------



## Franko (30 Mar 2006)

Well your 2 cents worth are worthless buds.

For Roto 4/0 we were training for combat plain and simple.

Roto 1 even more so...the guys who are getting ready for the next one are training like never before, for obvious reasons.

I don't know where you're getting your info but it's wrong....and outdated. You haven't been reading the other topics on the preperations that are currently underway.

Regards


----------



## scoutfinch (30 Mar 2006)

Franko:

I am hoping to deploy on one of the 2008 Task Forces (after I have completed my training).  Do you mind if I PM you with questions regarding the pre-deployment work up training?

Thanks

SF


----------



## Sabre1918 (30 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Well your 2 cents worth are worthless buds.
> 
> For Roto 4/0 we were training for combat plain and simple.
> 
> ...



Why is my two cents worthless..........buds !
My opinion is from my own personal experience....Roto 2 Kabul.
I don't know what fantasy world you are living in....Or what you have been told, lead to believe !
Please, explain training for combat........I would like to hear what you know on the subject.
I admit I don't know very much about killing.........you must have went to some special 
Canadian Forces school that taught you all about it ! 

I didn't know one existed in the CF.


----------



## Walrus (30 Mar 2006)

You tell them Franko !

! Franko for Prime Minister !


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Mar 2006)

OK, just to throw some oil on the water...

ATHENA 2 was not, strictly speaking, a combat mission.  The training was very specifically tailored to activities in Kabul and to a "secure environment"-type operation.  I know, as I was an observer controller on the final ex and eventually deployed on the Roto myself.  "Combat" training was not required for this mission and personally I thought the final ex was a fairly decent simulation of what we actually encountered in theatre.

You cannot compare the training conducted in this context with the preparation for ARCHER.  1 PPCLI and the Bde HQ completed a full BTE prior to validation, something ATHENA 2 certainly did not do.  I did not participate in this training, so cannot comment on its effectiveness, although others certainly can.  I also know that if you deployed on ATHENA 2 with Recce Sqn, you had very little to do with 1 PP's workup as well, so blanket comments on "trainnig for Afghanistan" are uncalled for.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Mar 2006)

> Please, explain training for combat........I would like to hear what you know on the subject.
> I admit I don't know very much about killing.........you must have went to some special
> Canadian Forces school that taught you all about it !


 :crybaby:

If the Strats aren't training for war then it's time to get rid of them! You sound like a young disgruntled troopie who probably gets jacked up every thirty seconds for whining about something or another. You are in the Canadian Forces, who funny enough are a military, a military that trains for war/combat. 
As for that special school that taught about combat and killing, the PPCLI Battleschool 1982!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Mar 2006)

Sabre-

Remember going to "Battle School" after basic training?  I'll give you three guesses as to why it's called "Battle" and not, oh, say, "peacekeeping school"...

Killing might have been brought up once or twice during your crewman course...


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Mar 2006)

> Killing might have been brought up once or twice during your crewman course...



He missed those lectures as he was at the MIR!


----------



## Sabre1918 (30 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> :crybaby:
> 
> If the Strats aren't training for war then it's time to get rid of them! You sound like a young disgruntled troopie who probably gets jacked up every thirty seconds for whining about something or another. You are in the Canadian Forces, who funny enough are a military, a military that trains for war/combat.
> As for that special school that taught about combat and killing, the PPCLI Battleschool 1982!


WOW..........how many people have you killed 2 Cdo ? 

I remember "Battle School". However, I don't recall ever being taught how to kill someone. I remember shooting at targets and pretending they were fantasia fucking forces.........but no I don't recall having someone teach me how to kill someone. I can't believe how naive you all are.........were talking about Afghanistan gentleman ! A country that has been killing for generations, and trained to do so........with live bodies of their enemies.

I will leave you with this last thought......Do you think their soldiers suffer from PTSD ?
I say _NOT_! They probably laugh every time someone tells them about it !


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2006)

I fail to understand your point about killing. I have never fired a shot in anger, even through three armed operational deployments, but I was never under any misapprehensions about what my role was, nor the (literally) god like power of life and death I commanded through the use of my personal firearms, commanding my section or acting as part of a larger formation.

Training throughout my career instilled this recognition into me and prepared me mentally and physically to use armed force as required to accomplish my mission. Training is a form of education. I can recall learning physics and math using questions involving calculating the trajectory of an object orbiting the earth or a shell fired from a cannon, I was being taught general principles and how they could be applied, not how to become a satellite tracker or artilleryman! Similarly, your time on the range and on EX teaches you general principles which can be ultimately applied to taking another person's life.

If you believe you will be unable to use your training to protect yourself, the soldiers around you or on order to accomplish your mission, then I suggest a taking a long time to sit down and reflect what you are doing in the Armed Forces, and if you are able to contribute to the forces in your current capacity. *This is not a slam, but a serious suggestion.* Take it as such.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Mar 2006)

> will leave you with this last thought......Do you think their soldiers suffer from PTSD ?
> I say NOT! They probably laugh every time someone tells them about it !




Do you know what casues PTSD? Obviously you don't sound like you do,  I suggest you stay in your lane regarding that.

As for the targets, what figure was on it?  Are you saying we use live bodies for training so we can get blodded before going to battle?

I don't know why I even bothered to wade in here, I promised I wouldn't.

Saber, Talk some sense please

dileas

tess


----------



## RangerRay (30 Mar 2006)

When I did my reserve QL2/3 in Wainwright 12 years ago, the DS left no doubt in my mind that they were training myself, and the rest of the platoon, how to kill the enemy...


----------



## Sabre1918 (30 Mar 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Do you know what casues PTSD? Obviously you don't sound like you do,  I suggest you stay in your lane regarding that.
> 
> As for the targets, what figure was on it?  Are you saying we use live bodies for training so we can get blodded before going to battle?
> 
> ...




You know what I don't understand......why whenever PTSD is mentioned everyone automaticaly takes the defensive.
Or they are told not to touch on the subject etc. What the fuck are you all scared of ?

As far as my previous posts above. My service is not in question here !
I'm proud of my country and all the soldiers I have served with and the soldiers that are serving today.....

Thought provokoing as it is I'm not in agreement with our comittment in Afghanistan........time will tell.

Thanks.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Mar 2006)

> My service is not in question here !
> I'm proud of my country and all the soldiers I have served with and the soldiers that are serving today.....


With your attitude i doubt if the feeling is reciprocal!



> Thought provokoing as it is I'm not in agreement with our comittment in Afghanistan........time will tell.


Good thing nobody asked for your personal input! :

As for killing someone, that is between me and my maker! I would suggest that if you weren't instilled with a warriors ethos during your basic and still maintain that we are not training for war maybe it's time for you to clear out and open a position for someone not so jaded! 
I still stand by my bitter troop comment, clear out, you sound as if you would be a morale drain for any unit you belonged too! :threat:


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Mar 2006)

> You know what I don't understand......why whenever PTSD is mentioned everyone automaticaly takes the defensive.
> Or they are told not to touch on the subject etc. What the frig are you all scared of ?



No, it is not the fact that you mention it, it is the fact you do not understand the disorder, and use it as some flippant comment to emphasize your argument about "War hardened"Soldiers.

What I am scared of, is people like you, who think they know what they are talking about posting comments regarding the training level of us soldiers, how we can not handle war, that PTSD is something battle hardened troops would laugh off, and to top it all from someone who claims to have served.

That is what I do not understand, and scares me Sabre.


dileas

tess


----------



## scoutfinch (30 Mar 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> WOW..........how many people have you killed 2 Cdo ?
> 
> I remember "Battle School". However, I don't recall ever being taught how to kill someone. I remember shooting at targets and pretending they were fantasia ******* forces.........but no I don't recall having someone teach me how to kill someone. I can't believe how naive you all are.........were talking about Afghanistan gentleman ! A country that has been killing for generations, and trained to do so........with live bodies of their enemies.
> 
> ...



Hmmm.  I am on my BMQ and when I am instructed to "double tap" with the first to the centre of visible mass, I am assuming that they are talking about killing the enemy.  :

 I didn't perceive *double tap* as a new tap dance step nor was *centre of visible mass* a physics terms.   :  Moreover, when the freakin' target has a human face and body, I assume it is intended to condition me to not hesitate to put a few rounds in somebpdy should the conditions present.  (shouldn't there be a *DUH!!* gemlin for things like this?).  I am assuming there may be a prohibition of getting real live people to run across the range for training purposes.  (Damn I need the DUH gremlin again!)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> Thought provokoing as it is I'm not in agreement with our comittment in Afghanistan........time will tell.
> 
> Thanks.



Do tell. I thought I might have missed that in your posts : However, I'm sure you'll participate when told, as a twenty year Corporal would know. Now, if your doubting yourself, I suggest you take A Majoors advice and sum yourself up.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Mar 2006)

Quote from Sabre1918,
I remember "Battle School". However, I don't recall ever being taught how to kill someone. I remember shooting at targets and pretending  they were fantasia ******* forces.........but no I don't recall having someone teach me how to kill someone. 

Well the Battle School sends its apologies,.....it seems we must have ran out of the "live volunteer targets" just before you got there...... :clown:


----------



## Sabre1918 (30 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Sabre1918,
> I remember "Battle School". However, I don't recall ever being taught how to kill someone. I remember shooting at targets and pretending  they were fantasia ******* forces.........but no I don't recall having someone teach me how to kill someone.
> 
> Well the Battle School sends its apologies,.....it seems we must have ran out of the "live volunteer targets" just before you got there...... :clown:



LOL.......I think you are all somewhat confused. I wasn't suggesting we use "LIVE" targets for training. Allthough I see were you might have got that impression from my statement above. What I'm trying to get across is Canadian soldiers don't have the apparent instinct to kill.

I'm not a hunter and because of the society that I live in it's not required of me to do so. If I want a steak, I can pick one up at the grocery store. I wouldn't go into the woods and shoot a deer for one. In Afghanistan families wouldn't survive if they didn't hunt for food. I shot my first deer when I was 12 years old. I will never forget that day..........I haven't hunted since. I guess you could say I just didn't have the stomach for it.

Could I kill someone if I had too.....a life or death situation, perhaps if it was justified.

Take a look at the average Afghanistan soldier.....He has experienced death in more ways than you and I can imagine. He has likely lost parents, children, seen/participated in genocide, lost his home, has nothing but his rifle and someone sreaming kill the fucking infidels in his ear.

Take a look at our average Canadian soldier......What does he hold dear to him at home. 
Now take all those things away...... What type of person would he be then..........Do you suppose he would become a killer ?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Mar 2006)

"What I'm trying to get across is Canadian soldiers don't have the apparent instinct to kill."

I disagree 100%.  In Bosnia my Pl Cmdr and I were walking down a one vehicle wide path.  We passed a car that was seen in a lot of the recent trouble spots.  We eventually turned around and passed the car again on our way to our Iltis.  (forgot to mention this car tried to get past us earlier but with the Iltis there it backed off).  Anyways the driver gets in, young guy, starts the car (we are about 30 feet away now) and revs is engine and lurches forward like he is gonna run us down.  The Pl commander and I BOTH instinctively turned in wards drawing our prospective wpns on the vehicle with no hesitation or thought.  The driver backed off immediately and lucky for him because 1-2 seconds more and he probably would have had a few 5.56 in the head.
The point of this babble is I am no hunter but the training as it is provided to me was enough for me to instinctively draw upon a perceived threat with no hesitation.


----------



## Franko (30 Mar 2006)

Normally I don't get drawn in by a troll but this time I'll take exception    :




			
				Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> My opinion is from my own personal experience....Roto 2 Kabul.



Exactly....it's 2 years outdated. As it was explained before, different tasks. Kabul was secured by the time you hit the ground and you were trained to deal with a semi-secure environment. Kandahar is not even close to being what Kabul is nor will it be for the near future. When we changed from Athena to Archer it was like someone switched on a light in a darkened room in regards to the ROEs we were given and brought up to speed on in theater. Our SOPs immensely changed as well. We have fired in self defence....and notably a young soldier killed a civilian in self defence.



> I don't know what fantasy world you are living in....Or what you have been told, lead to believe !



The same black hatted one as you. 



> Please, explain training for combat........I would like to hear what you know on the subject.




Incase you haven't already figured it out....those man shaped target you go on the range and shoot at is a simulation of a person. What about the AFV shaped targets on the ranges in Wainwright that you shoot at with the tanks or Coyotes?

Incase you haven't figured out what your training has been teaching you over your 20 years in the Armour Corps is to take someones life, swiftly and effectively.



> I admit I don't know very much about killing.........you must have went to some special
> Canadian Forces school that taught you all about it !



Man you must have been out of it for over 20 years....in Battle School (Remember going through Gagetown?) on your TQ3 on a gunnery course or basic crewman course you were taught basic skills to cover your arse on the battlefield. 

It was also alluded to in an Earlier post by scoutfinch:



> Hmmm.  I am on my BMQ and when I am instructed to "double tap" with the first to the centre of visible mass, I am assuming that they are talking about killing the enemy.



He's on his friggin basic and _*he's already figured it out*_!!!

*Also the guys that were involved in the firefight one day ago figured it out*

You must have the worse case of APS I've ever seen.    :



> Take a look at our average Canadian soldier......What does he hold dear to him at home.
> Now take all those things away...... What type of person would he be then..........Do you suppose he would become a killer ?



You don't have much of a choice if your on patrol and some guy comes screaming up on you on a motorcycle that was described exactly in the latest INTREP. Your confusing what is normal at home with what is normal in the sandbox.

Thankfully you aren't on tour nor going in the next few....thinking like that can get someone killed, namely everyone in your crew.

_CFL said_, excellent point BTW      


> The point of this babble is I am no hunter but the training as it is provided to me was enough for me to instinctively draw upon a perceived threat with no hesitation.



Do us all a favour....retire from the CF. You obviously have no idea of what you were getting into when you joined.

/rant




Now onto something else....

<Mod mode _on_>

You have consistently come on to this site since you joined and have spouted off without little information and challenging persons on their experiences IE: 2Cdo

As A Majoor said "Sum yourself up"....before it's too late.

Keep this up and your on the ramp without a chute....and I won't be doing the dirty deed either.

<Mod mode _off_>


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Mar 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> Take a look at the average Afghanistan soldier.....He has experienced death in more ways than you and I can imagine. He has likely lost parents, children, seen/participated in genocide, lost his home, has nothing but his rifle and someone sreaming kill the ******* infidels in his ear.
> 
> Take a look at our average Canadian soldier......What does he hold dear to him at home.
> Now take all those things away...... What type of person would he be then..........Do you suppose he would become a killer ?



OK, you've "defined" the problem, from your personal point of view. What is your solution?

Otherwise it's just venting.  As others have ably described, it may also be out of date.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (30 Mar 2006)

The Canadian soldier doesn't (snicker) have the instincts (snicker) to kill (ROTFLMAO) ;D.  Who did you serve with?  I have to admit, I never had that problem.  Whenever the issue has come up (professionally or informally with the criminal element), reflexes and adrenaline did the driving, and let the chips (and opponents) fall where they may.  Do you think my having a wife and three beautiful daughters will keep me from my "double tap, drop, roll, engage"?  Having a family means that you are more willing to do what you have to to get home alive.  Having something to live for makes you less inclined to worry about why the other person is fighting, and more concerned with making him safely dead before he can threaten you or your comrades further.  The enemies willingness to die does not trump our desire to live, it just makes it simpler for us to swiftly grant both wishes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> Could I kill someone if I had too.....a life or death situation, perhaps if it was justified.



Those that can...do. Those that can't.....go to work in museums.


----------



## couchcommander (31 Mar 2006)

Anywho (Sabre1918... I hope it's not my tax dollars that are going to paying your salary), 

I have to say that recently I have come very much to believe in the point that has been made on this thread in regards to the public lacking education about the Afghan mission, and this leading to opposition. 

Just today, in speaking with several people, and bringing up the mission there, the initial response was negative in nature. The proceeding conversation was amusing, as one of them at first got Afghanistan and Iraq confused, and both thought we were there on a peacekeeping mission.

When asked as to why they didn't support the mission, the answers ranged from a shrug, to "it's not out type of thing"... ie the usual.

The interesting bit, and the bit that supports the actions of the Government and the CDF in trying to "sell", or more appropriately inform the Canadian public, was that when they were informed of what we are actually doing, opposition turned to support. And these are your usual left leaning university aged students. 

The point that seemed to turn their opinion was actually our "3D" marketing campaign if you will. 

When it was pointed out that due to the insurgency in Afghanistan, which was led by persons seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government, security was required in order to provide humanitarian assistance, which was indeed also part of the mission, opinions started turning. 

As well, another effective point was that the Taliban (let us just group the insurgency together) is trying to bring about another rights abusing, tyrannical, murderous state, and these "combat" missions are to stop this. 

In the end, my point, is that the message the government was trying to get out hasn't reached a significant portion of Canadians, and further, that this message should be tuned to highlight the "security to bring about stability and help deliver assistance" aspect of the mission. 

And a question, are you guys still encountering many civilians that are uninformed about the mission? And further, what do you think can be done to help turn opinions?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Mar 2006)

Couch-

In answer to your question- 



> are you guys still encountering many civilians that are uninformed about the mission? And further, what do you think can be done to help turn opinions?



I think that you have already answered the question.  It sounds like you did some outstanding work, just being polite, reasoned, logical and sticking to the facts.

I'm not sure that it is the CF's job to be shills for the Government (after all, the decison to be/or not to be in Afghanistan is a strictly political one), but I do think that each of us, in our capacity as citizens of this country, can do alot to help educate the public.  There are what, about 85,000 uniformed reg and Res force members in Canada?  If each of us corrected the misconceptions of just one person per week about what we are doing in Afghanistan (or just the purpose of the CF in general), that runs out to about 4.5 million Canadians opinions whose opinions are affected- in one year.  That ain't nothing...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (31 Mar 2006)

> And a question, are you guys still encountering many civilians that are uninformed about the mission? And further, what do you think can be done to help turn opinions?



The level of disinformation and the number of downright fallacies being spouted is incredible.  For some reason, likely due to internal party politics, the Liberals tried to sell our previous deployment into Kabul with ISAF as a "peacekeeping" mission and this has created no end of confusion and has led to accusations that the underlying mission has changed over the past few months.

The reality is that ATHENA (the Kabul ISAF mission) wasn't all that much different than what the TF in Kandahar is doing right now.  ISAF exists (albeit under NATO rather than a Coalition) to support the Afghan government, including through the provision of military action if required.  When I was deployed with ATHENA, we undertook a number of highly successful "direct actions", some in concert with the Americans, that netted a variety of Taliban and HIG players.  The ATHENA ROE were very robust indeed (I cannot - and will not - comment on current ROE) and certainly bore no relation to the ill-conceived UN ROE of the bad old "peacekeeping" days.

There's a reason why Canadian soldiers serving on ATHENA never received the Peacekeeping Service Medal:  it wasn't a peacekeeping operation.  We have never conducted a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan.

The problem stems from the fact that the Government, for its own reasons, sold the NATO side of operations in Afghanistan as "peacekeeping".  Indeed, even as I type, the CBC website is headlining the expansion of NATO "peacekeeping" to all of Afghanistan by August.  This misuse of terminology has allowed naysayers and the left to claim that our mission in Afghanistan has "changed", when nothing could be further from the truth.  The location and chain of command has changed, but the underlying mandate and _raison d'etre_ certainly has not.  Nor will our presence revert to happy "peacekeeping" if we transfer to NATO command this summer.

In other words, I believe that the misinformation was part of a deliberate strategy here in Canada to soften our previous commitment in Kabul and to make it more palatable to the "peacekeeping" cheerleaders that are rife in Ottawa.  Now that our mission is being seen for what it really is (and always has been), suddenly questions are being asked.

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Mar 2006)

Sounds like a good editorial piece to me.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Mar 2006)

Try as i might, I don't remember any media asking me what I think, but then I have a somewhat informed opinion and we know what they think of people with those.  :


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2006)

Jack Granatstein has provided some interesting "sound bites" in a recent _Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century_ publication.
http://www.ccs21.org/articles/granatstein/2006/jlg29mar06OnCasualties.pdf 

I think the bottom line is, the Canadian Forces are at war while the Canadian public and government is not.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Apr 2006)

That is an excellent article, Journeyman.  Probably one of the better ones that the media will not publish and allow the citizens to read.


----------



## couchcommander (2 Apr 2006)

Heh, time to stir the pot *gets big stick*...

I am forced to wonder whether or not we are actually in a war. I mean by the traditional definition, of course not. There has been no formal declaration of war and we are not engaged in hostilities against another state.

Of course, a persuasive argument can made that a declaration of war is not necessary, in the modern day and age, in order for there to be a "war". This is a position I am inclined to accept. Hardly a person with at least the remotest sense of history would call the American involvement in Vietnam anything other than a "war" in all of it's glory and sadness. 

Are we engaged on a "War on Terror"? In regards to this line of thinking I am skeptical. As much as the US Administration would like the world to believe, the Wars on Drugs, Illiteracy, Poverty, and other such nouns hardly qualify as "wars" such as the word has come to mean over the centuries. 

What about a War in Afghanistan, a la America in Vietnam, of course minus all of the negative associations that such a connection would bring up? Of course, an argument can be made. Canadian troops, in cooperation with other states, are engaged in an active counter insurgency operation against a threat who seeks to strike us on home soil. 

However, at what point does "involvement", in what could easily be called an internal Afghan affair (of course having repercussions elsewhere, but that is not much different from many other "internal" situations), turn into Canadian involvement in a "war"? If we only had a platoon of men, maybe a few advisers, would we consider it a war?

Indeed we have several thousand troops in Afghanistan. These troops have killed insurgents, and been killed by insurgents. We are risking the lives of some of the finest men and women in Canada for a cause thousands of kilometers away. Would it not be fitting, given this, and as was pointed out before, to at the very least say the Canadian Forces are at war, if not the entire county?

However, at the same time there has been no mass mobilization of industry on a wide scale. Equally damning to such a conclusion, there has been no mass mobilization of reserves, or even airpower. Can it be considered a war if the Nation, and even the Forces, are, as a whole, only putting forth a fraction of their capabilities? Vietnam saw conscription on a wide scale in the States, and the expenditure of massive amounts of resources. 

What cannot be denied is that Canadians are engaged in combat. Men and women in Afghanistan are risking their lives, and loosing their lives, to crush an active insurgency, and to try and rebuild the nation. As for the question of whether we are at war, even a limited one; I'd have to leave that up to you at this point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

You asked the question in the first paragraph:



> I am forced to wonder whether or not we are actually in a war. I mean by the traditional definition, of course not. There has been no formal declaration of war and we are not engaged in hostilities against another state.



Proceeded to answer it, with the rest of your missive, up to the last sentence. Then reiterated your confusion, previously answered by yourself, in the last question.



> What cannot be denied is that Canadians are engaged in combat. Men and women in Afghanistan are risking their lives, and loosing their lives, to crush an active insurgency, and to try and rebuild the nation. *As for the question of whether we are at war, even a limited one; I'd have to leave that up to you at this point. *



Quite possibly the most eloquent and thought out troll I've seen in some time, or the best reasoning for bi-polar medication that I can think of at this juncture.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quite possibly the most eloquent and thought out troll I've seen in some time, or the best reasoning for bi-polar medication that I can think of at this juncture.



Recceguy, you kill me 

I think that the word "war" got pretty beat up in the 90's with is meaning a program that was "gonna get all serious".  And declared War, that doesn't seem to happen any more.  Thank God we got away from calling it a "policing action".  Makes my life easier.  
IMO calling Afghanistan a "war" is a way to continue to keep people from letting their minds and expectations from drifting back to "Peacekeeper" lala land.  War means shooting, dying and hurting on both sides.  
There is no need to ramp up some "war machine" because it is not needed yet.  Some might argue it may never be needed like it was in WW 1 and WW2, since precision arms is the standard now, and you don't have to throw 5000 bombs at one factory or bridge to get a job done.  
Let's keep it simple.  We have a war.  We will win a war.  The terrorists will sure to hell know they were in a war.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

Technology, and skill, has replaced quantity, and manpower.


----------



## gnplummer421 (2 Apr 2006)

The subject title states that the Canadian Public doesn't want our troops in A-stan. I just joined the "Globe and Mail" website's forums.The reason? Too many people slamming our mission, and I wanted a say. I seem to be outnumbered and need your help. If anyone can spare the time, please read the editorials and stories on the G and M website about our involvement in A-stan and help me "educate" the naysayers. By the way, I don't mind when someone has an opinion about our mission in A-stan, it just bothers me when the opinion is a misinformed one..shooting from the hip without a revolver sort of speak.  

Thanks for your help in advance

Gnplummer


----------



## DG-41 (2 Apr 2006)

I wonder if the time hasn't come to take back the term "peacekeeping".

Peacekeeping, when it was first envisioned, didn't mean throwing unarmed and impotent soldiers between belligerents. Instead, it was intended that the UN organize task forces made up of troops supplied by member nations who could intervene in conflicts when it was right to do so. 

As I recall, Pearson argued long and hard for the UN to maintain a standing rapid reaction force that could go into trouble spots and impose a peace if need be. His primary opposition was the Americans, although I can't remember if the American opposition was due to a desire keep their forces free of UN control (so they could invade or not as they saw fit) or due to the once-traditional American reluctance to serve as the global police force.

One could make the case that the mission in Afghanistan is a *properly conducted* "peacekeeping" mission, as the concept had originally been intended.

DG


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

Peacekeeping denotes the United Nations. The UN is nothing but a bureaucratic, corrupt & impotent shell of the organization it's supposed to be. As long as the two terms are tied together, they diminish the importance and impact of the other. Another term has to be coined to indicate the task 'Peacekeeping' was supposed to do and distance it from the self righteous gangsters. It also has to be redefined, we don't do 'peacekeeping'. We do 'war' including all it's permutations and tentacled tasks.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quite possibly the most eloquent and thought out troll I've seen in some time, or the best reasoning for bi-polar medication that I can think of at this juncture.



Definitely rates amongst the top-10 one-liners to date.   ;D


----------



## William Webb Ellis (2 Apr 2006)

One of the points that has been touched on is education (Gnplummer).  When I came back from Yugo in the early 90's I remember being in a university class on international peace and conflict resolution.  My "classmates" could not understand why you would need things like TOW, or M113s on a peacekeeping mission. They also had no idea that soldiers died on these missions. They were also dumbfounded that the locals may not have wanted the peacekeeper around, and were confrontational. 

I guess my poorly thought out point is there needs to be a better "PR" job by the CF.  I know the last gov't went across Canada on the "here comes the body bags" tour, but no one either understood or believed it was the case.  I was very proud to read the quotes from Hillier the the CF's job was to kill people, amongst other things.  I think the public chooses to forget this fact.  I know my wife (whom I did not know at  when I was in) can't get her head around me being willing to kill if situation arose.

One final point on Sabre1918, historically Canadians have produced soldiers that are extremely capable of killing.  When the Canadian army moved through Holland didn't they face a seasoned German army, one that had spent time on the Russian front.  As my knowledge of history is slim to none with slim having left town, I will not comment further.

Please be kind as I am still a FNG poster


----------



## couchcommander (2 Apr 2006)

Troll! !

Meant to inspire discussion, more like it. This seems to be an unresolved thought (or not?). 

The reason i did not answer my own question, is that I don't know the answer, at this point, and would like some input from you fellows as to what you think. I think I did forget the question mark in that opening line though...me go to university for edumacation, what can I say? 

However, thank for you calling it eloquent, I'm touched  :'(. As well, I think you mean dissociative identity disorder, rather than bi-polar (unless you're calling me a manic depressive??... the back and forth reasoning is meant to show that there are many varying viewpoints in this... once again an attempt to inspire discussion). 

But !!! Not a troll!


----------



## couchcommander (2 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Technology, and skill, has replaced quantity, and manpower.



Anywho,

Sure, good enough. However, as one of my rambling questions asked, then at what point does a "minor conflict" or a local isolated action turn into a war?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Apr 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Anywho,
> 
> Sure, good enough. However, as one of my rambling questions asked, then at what point does a "minor conflict" or a local isolated action turn into a war?



Does it really matter?  I don't think Afghanistan qualifies as a "minor conflict".  IMO I still think they are just labels that the media uses.  Maybe one of the historians has a bona fide definition of what actually constitutes war.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Editorial/2006/03/19/1494880.html

Let troops get on with mission

On the evening of Nov. 15, 2005 -- just four months ago -- at the urging of then-defence minister Bill Graham, Parliament held a debate over Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. 

That would be the current mission, by the way -- the dangerous one in Kandahar that some opposition MPs and pundits are demanding that Parliament must debate. 

We'll forgive Sun readers for not remembering the November debate since it's obvious that no one else does. Certainly not the MPs currently calling for another one nor the pundits in the parliamentary press gallery who can't be bothered to cover anything more than question period and scrums. 

Indeed, as Sun columnist Paul Stanway noted this week, when Parliament held its debate, only a handful of MPs managed to show up. 

Just because nobody paid any attention to the debate, however, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And reading over the transcripts in Hansard -- the official record of Parliament -- makes the current calls for another debate on the Afghanistan mission even more hypocritical.

For starters, none of the participants in the debate that night were under the illusion that this was an ordinary peacekeeping mission. Conservative MP Rick Casson said that the mission was "damn dangerous" and that there was a high possibility of Canadian casualties. 

Then-foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew acknowledged the risks, said that the government wasn't putting the troops in danger in any unnecessary way and added, "I don't think Gen. (Rick) Hillier would have accepted any such risk either if he had not been confident that we were taking the appropriate actions before sending our Canadian soldiers there." 

Tory MP Leon Benoit asked why the government changed the mission and moved the troops to the more dangerous Kandahar area, saying that the government "has not given the most basic explanation to Parliament and to the Canadian public as to why" the change was made. 

"I want to reassure the member that this is the reason why we are having this debate tonight," responded Pettigrew. 

Winnipeg NDP MP Bill Blaikie also raised that point, saying that he did not think that the government had been "fully up-front" with Canadians about the differences between the old Canadian mission in Kabul and the new one in Kandahar -- a mission Blakie termed "certainly not peacekeeping ... more like war fighting." 

Graham responded, "It is clear that it is not a peacekeeping mission of the Cyprus type ... we have to be prepared to fight ...." 

Later, during a speech in which Graham spelled out in greater detail the role of Canadian troops in Kandahar, he again acknowledged that the mission is "as other members have pointed out, a complex, challenging and dangerous environment and mission as the part we are going to in Afghanistan is the most unstable and dangerous in the country." 

Added Graham, "Members can be assured our troops are exceptionally well-trained, equipped and led for this mission." 

Obviously, we can't cover the entire debate in such a limited space. The MPs talked about the length of the Afghanistan commitment, landmines, prisoners of war, the role of NGOs and a number of other related topics during the course of the evening. 

But it was abundantly clear from reading through the debate that MPs had lots of questions to ask, and they were getting answers. Unlike the theatre of question period, this debate had a lot of substance to it. 

To sum it up, then, Parliament has already debated the new, dangerous mission in Kandahar. It was done at the request of the Liberals, and had participants from all political parties -- even if only a few MPs could be bothered to show up. 

Sixteen weeks later, no one can seriously argue that the mission has changed to such a significant degree, or that our soldiers are in much greater danger now than they were in mid-November, as to warrant another parliamentary debate. 

So let's end the shameless political grandstanding and let the troops get on with their mission. 

And any politician or pundit who wants to revisit the Afghanistan debate should feel free to read Hansard.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Editorial/2006/03/03/1471916.html

Why we are in Kandahar

Jim Davis, whose 28-year-old son died this week while serving with the Canadian military in Kandahar, knows why we’re in Afghanistan, even if some politicians don't. 

“I’m very proud of my son, Paul,” Davis said. “I believe Paul died serving his country and serving the free world.” He did. Davis, of Bridgewater, N.S., became the ninth Canadian soldier to die in Afghanistan. A Canadian diplomat was also killed in the line of duty. 

Davis wasn’t lost in combat. He died and six other soldiers and a local translator were injured when their armoured car collided with a taxi. But his sacrifice was no less significant. 

Davis’s father said his son turned down a promotion that would have let him stay in Canada because he wanted to serve with his comrades out of his profound “sense of duty.” 

With 2,200 Canadian soldiers now taking the lead role in hunting down Taliban fighters and al-Qaida terrorists in Kandahar, we also have a duty here at home to them. Especially since the Liberals appear to be going soft on the mission. 
  

Incredible. Sad. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted: “You do not send men and women into harm’s way on a dangerous mission ... and then decide, once they’re over there, that you’re not sure you should have sent them.” 

Exactly. Nor do you adjust foreign policy according to the polls, whether it’s this week’s Ekos survey showing 70% of Canadians support this dangerous new mission, or last week’s Strategic Counsel one that said 62% were opposed. Forget the polls. We’re in Afghanistan because it’s right. 

The time for the parliamentary debate the Liberals now want was before they deployed our troops. Why do we need it now? So we can hear more Liberal sucking and blowing like we did from Jean Chretien just before the Gulf War in 1991? Remember this Chretien gem when he was opposition leader? 

“Of course, if there is no war, our forces should stay there ... If faced with an act of war, we say on this side of the House that it is premature and that our troops should not be involved in a war at this moment, and our troops should be called back if there is a war, unless we decide to be in a war.” Blah, blah, blah. 

Forget the Liberals. As for Harper, a month ago we urged him to make a televised address to the nation explaining why we’re in Kandahar. We still think it’s the right thing to do.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> “Of course, if there is no war, our forces should stay there ... If faced with an act of war, we say on this side of the House that it is premature and that our troops should not be involved in a war at this moment, and our troops should be called back if there is a war, unless we decide to be in a war.” Blah, blah, blah.



Classic Shawinigan Shyster.  I still can't get my head around the Conservatives only having a *minority* government.  What is wrong with people?


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

Canadians in general (and the NDP/Liberals in particular) could do with a dose of reality. Here is a speech with important points for us all to consider. Tony Blair, speaking to the Australian Parliament:

http://freewillblog.com/  March 29 2006



> Speech Important
> 
> I haven't had time to write what I wanted about illegal immigration, but that'll be tomorrow night. In the meantime, a vaguely related note comes from Tony Blair, speaking to the Australian parliament: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18623344%5E7583,00.html
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (3 Apr 2006)

CFL: Good one with that post on the debate. I certainly didn't know about it, and I'll bet a whole lot of people in the rest of this country didn't, either. Sounds like maybe there are a few MPs who would like to pretend that that previous debate never happened (perhaps because they skipped it...? ??? ).

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick (3 Apr 2006)

Its amazing the cheap games that politicians play. They seem very good at exploiting "political oppurtunities". Whats worse are the die hard liberal/NDP/left leaning who only hear and comprehend the stuff the want to. Thats why the conservatives do not have a majority government, yet.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (3 Apr 2006)

I actually think it took place Nov 15, 2005, starting at 19:00

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/150_2005-11-15/toc150-E.htm#TOC-TS-1920

Sroll down.


----------



## ethan (6 Apr 2006)

Canada has never backed out of a war.  Usually some people are against the war but not this many IN my town i am the only person with a support our troups sign in my yard. Its time to start backing up our boys in the Military


----------



## scoutfinch (6 Apr 2006)

Ethan:

Do you mind if we support ALL of our soldiers in uniform and not just *the boys* as you so quaintly put it?

Thanks... from one of the non-boys.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

:rofl:  I owe you a soda pop........


----------



## scoutfinch (6 Apr 2006)

Thank you, Thank you very much... I'll be playin' here all week! 8)


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2006)

Mark Steyn should be an honourary member of the forum, he keeps coming up with lots of good stuff. Consider the final paragraph of this article (which starts and ends with Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but has some interesting turns in the middle):

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060327_123641_123641#



> Based on current trends, by mid-century, America, India and China will each be producing roughly 25 per cent of world GDP, with Europe down to 10 per cent. As the columnist John O'Sullivan points out, the three global powerhouses are all strongly attached to traditional notions of national sovereignty, so Europeans and others who've bet on transnationalism have the next 10 years to cement its existing institutions and expand its reach. A worldwide eco-tax? Global gun control? Meanwhile, back in the real world, from terrorism to tsunamis, effective multilateralism is now the province of "coalitions of the willing." I'd like to think the Prime Minister's trip to Afghanistan was a first step toward the side of real global leadership.



If people start seeing things in that light, well, maybe the horse will sing after all!

(I just realized the last line was a bit obscure, so here is the source of that one):



> Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
> 
> As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.
> 
> "And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."


----------



## grayrc (11 Apr 2006)

Is the current mission in Afghanistan in Canada's national interest?

http://www.ctv.ca//

Yes 	 6247 votes 	   (59 %)
No 	 4312 votes 	   (41 %)
Total Votes: 10559

/GC


----------



## monika (11 Apr 2006)

I believe there are far more things that are of greater national interest, but it is in our best international interest to be there.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (13 Apr 2006)

My opinion, as someone in uniform, is to make sure that my kit is all serviceable, my troops are good to go, and that I know the mission.  Is it in Canada's interest?  Dunno...not my job to decide...it IS my job to be ready to go if/when they say "go".  People that are WAY more educated but not necessarily half as smart as Canadian soldiers get to make those decisions... ;D  

The rest of it?  I got to have faith and trust that the powers that be know what they are doing.  Is that always the case?  Nope...but I would rather not lay awake at night thinking about that...and...thats not my job.  I have "the 3 M's" to get sorted out...(the mission, the men, myself )..after that...well there is better stuff to think about than stuff I have no control over...right?

Let me put it like this.  If you lived in a house, and your next door neighbor was beating his wife, or his kids, or not letting his wife out of the house, not letting his kids go to school, and assisting in the supply of drugs to kids in your neighborhod...would you call the police??  Sit back and let it happen??  "It's not my problem"?  Some would, some would not...I like to believe that those that were able would be willing able and ready to get involved.  

I also believer that, in uniform, your job is to make sure you have checked your equipment, sounded off, and are standing in the door waiting for the green light.  Its up to the country to decide when it is we "go"...and our job to go.  Nice and simple.


----------



## pbi (13 Apr 2006)

MudRecceMan: I certainly agree that focusing just on the "three M's" makes like simple. And, at the very most tactical levels, that works OK. But you also said:



> Let me put it like this.  If you lived in a house, and your next door neighbor was beating his wife, or his kids, or not letting his wife out of the house, not letting his kids go to school, and assisting in the supply of drugs to kids in your neighborhod...would you call the police??  Sit back and let it happen??  "It's not my problem"?  Some would, some would not...I like to believe that those that were able would be willing able and ready to get involved.



I agree, but I would extend the idea of "duty to get involved" to include "duty to educate". As professionals (Reg/Res, Offr/NCM) we are the keepers of a huge store of  specialized knowledge, both about soldiering itself, and about the many areas we deploy to and the ops we do there. We live in a country where (like most Western countries, including the US) there is a generally low level of understanding of this knowledge by the public. At the same time, this public has the power, either by electing certain parties or by expressing its opinion, to have a huge effect on us in the military(and on the country as a whole). This power should not be an ignorant power.

So, IMHO, sometimes we keepers of the knowledge have to educate Canadians. In order to do that, we have to be aware of issues. That (again IMHO) requires us to think beyond the tactical to the bigger issues. As you can see, we have lots of "tactical" folks here, both officers (like me) and NCOs (like, say, CFL). But we all think and dispute actively about everything under the sun. And so we should.

Cheers


----------



## Scipio (14 Apr 2006)

What are Canada's interests?

Aside from the US, I feel Canada is in Afghanistan for the same reason every body else is - image.  Which is not a bad thing.  Regardless of what Sprite tells you, Image is important for us.  Even now Canadian troops are hard pressed to get media points from any where outside Canada.  Having our troops there gives Canadians a sense of pride in knowing that we are affecting international events, something reserved for upper echelon power houses.  On an international scale, Canada is very irrelevant.  Being in Afghanistan is good for us, it shows that we do care and are able to support our friends, even if it's for a dead-end cause.

Cnn.com, BBC.com, French, and German news sites all use the same wording when describing land forces in Afghanistan.  "US and Britain led Coalition forces are currently blah blah...".  Last time I checked a Canadian held significant rank in Khandar and the largest body of troops in the region was made up of Canadians.  It's a bit of slap.  Why we only committed 2000 troops is beyond me.  I would have sent in 5.2 times that.  Over 10,000 and perhaps we'll get some recognition  

Do we share anything in common with Afghan?  Will helping them help us?  Are we friends?

Afghanistan is run by a strict law which condemns just about every thing other than Islam.  Women have 0 rights, the country is overwhelmingly illiterate, and for decades now the vast majority of the public show support for fundamental Islamic principles.  These are diametrically opposite to anything people in the West would call familiar.  While Western people feel the need to keep an open mind towards difference, fundamental Islam preaches the opposite, so right there we have nothing in common.  We don't do notable trade with them, with the exception of heroin, and I'm not sure if they'd 'be there' for us-if only in words.

The country is a mess.  The Soviets attacked them back in '79 out of fear that this extreme religion would start to migrate to Russia's lower belt and cause a chain of anti-Marxist sentiment and possible government overthrows.  The Reds lost and Afghanistan turned into what it is today.  With backing of foreign supplies, the Taliban took power and have had it since then.  Later on, in an act of repaying the kind favor to Europe and the US, the Taliban starts using government funds to support large terrorist regimes.  All the while their people suffer from unemployment and early death.

How do you go about helping them?

You put one guy in power by military and financial aid (Saddam, Taliban) and later you knock him off to replace him with another because it turns out he wasn't all that he was cracked up to be.

History has shown me that Middle Eastern countries are impossible to rebuild, with the exception of Israel, which was built largely out of Europeans.  Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist Russia, and Fascist Italy all conceded defeat after being ruled by very powerful and influential people.  These countries stood by their leaders. After defeat, they were given aid and through the strength and endurance of the citizens, repaired themselves.  People loved Hitler, but Germany soon got over him.  Ditto with Mussolini, the Emperor of Japan, and Marxism ideology.  When will Afghani’s walk away from their despotic governments and start building a secure system?
     
Opposition groups have displayed very little difference from that of the Taliban.  I don't think much will change with this new government.  The country will still be run by extreme Islamic laws.  Far right wing Conservatives, no matter what they worship, all seem to have a penchant for warfare.  But in this case terrorism would be the tactic of choice since conventional warfare is not within their reach.

The litmus test was when the current government we're protecting actually considered killing a guy for converting to Christianity.  They buckled under international pressure and the fear of losing their bodyguards (our army) but any body who actually thinks things will change is fooling themselves.

I do support our work over their and feel it's important for the Canadian Military to work along side our allies.  However, I’m also sure that our involvement probably won’t do much in the long run for Afghanistan.      

Which is funny because every soldier’s testimony or general’s impromptu speech I hear on the news are all convinced that Canadian military are helping the place.  And this will some how help Canada? If anything it's made us subject to terror bombings.   :skull:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Apr 2006)

Quote from Scipio,
_History has shown me that Middle Eastern countries are impossible to rebuild,_

Which ones have needed to be rebuilt?


----------



## Armymedic (14 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> Why we only committed 2000 troops is beyond me.  I would have sent in 5.2 times that.  Over 10,000 and perhaps we'll get some recognition



Because 2000 troops is 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire Army's deployable forces. We could never, ever get 10 000 troops overseas at this time without some major changes in the CF.

I agree the added positive exposure to the CF in the media is all good for us professional soldiers.

The rest is your opinion. I leave you to it.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Apr 2006)

Scipio,

It is extremely difficult to get mentioned in another country's press, unless it is bad news. This is especially true of the US and British media, which are very parochial. We woulld have to be virtually the largest troop contributor (impossible), or to kill or capture Osama bin Laden to rate more than a passing mention. The British are also good at getting their word out, far more than we, and as their army, while much reduced in size, is just over 100,000 strong, it is large enough to get the attention of the American military and media.


----------



## Scipio (14 Apr 2006)

* Which ones have needed to be rebuilt? *

Iraq today, Iraq 20 years ago, Afghanistan today, Afghainstan 20 so years ago,  Iran after it's war with Iraq.  Econmically and socially the countries I outlined above were destroyed.   

Every major war since NAM have taken place on Middle East soil.  And NOTHING good has come of it.  No resolution, no rebuilding, nothing.


----------



## Scipio (14 Apr 2006)

That's true, getting in other peoples media is hard.  However, it's not impossible to get small nods such as the one I mentioned above.

Go read some foreign newspapers online, I only recently noticed it.  Canada with all it's peace keeping clout is still pigeon holed into 'coaltion forces' or 'un peace keeping coaltion'.  While other countries such as Britain and US seem to get honourable mentions, regardless of where the newspaper is published.  

I still think the Canadian army needs all the attention it can get.  It's hard selling our own military to our own citizens let alone beyond the border.  US top brass speak highly of Canadian soldiers. (score!) And since I'm convinced this is why we are there, for the attention/experience why not go the full nine and deploy a large unit.  



> Because 2000 troops is 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire Army's deployable forces. We could never, ever get 10 000 troops overseas at this time without some major changes in the CF.



What changes?  Is it impossible to deploy 10,000? I though the changes in the CF made this sort of thing more flexable.  Hence the transformation (and a means to cut jobs and save money)


----------



## aesop081 (14 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> What changes?  Is it impossible to deploy 10,000? I though the changes in the CF made this sort of thing more flexable.  Hence the transformation (and a means to cut jobs and save money)



You are not swiming in your lane there chump, Sure we can deploy 10000 people but who's going to replace them then ?  How are you going to rotate your forces if you have already deployed them all ? Who is going to be left behind to train new soldiers ? You also have no clue what you are talking about when you mention transformation.

back to the kiddie pool for you  :


----------



## Armymedic (14 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> What changes?  Is it impossible to deploy 10,000? I though the changes in the CF made this sort of thing more flexable.  Hence the transformation (and a means to cut jobs and save money)



Yes, it would be impossible. 10 000 would mean deployment of almost every deployable soldier in the Reg F army. There would literally be no one left behind for secondary tasks.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Apr 2006)

...and 20 years is hardly history.......


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Yes, it would be impossible. 10 000 would mean deployment of almost every deployable soldier in the Reg F army. There would literally be no one left behind for secondary tasks.


....like training Recruits and QL3s.


----------



## Scipio (15 Apr 2006)

20 years is hardly history?  No comment



> You are not swiming in your lane there chump, Sure we can deploy 10000 people but who's going to replace them then ?  How are you going to rotate your forces if you have already deployed them all ? Who is going to be left behind to train new soldiers ? You also have no clue what you are talking about when you mention transformation.
> 
> back to the kiddie pool for you  Roll Eyes



You're right, troop rotation is something I never considered.  Thanks for the analogy to kiddie pools and calling  me a chump.  It's things like these which keep me coming back for more, no really it is.  But be fair, you've hung around here long enough to snag over 2,000 posts.  I'm sure you know more about the army than I do.  Your comment would have been just as effective if you left out the first bit and last bit.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> 20 years is hardly history?  No comment
> 
> You're right, troop rotation is something I never considered.  Thanks for the analogy to kiddie pools and calling  me a chump.  It's things like these which keep me coming back for more, no really it is.  But be fair, you've hung around here long enough to snag over 2,000 posts.  I'm sure you know more about the army than I do.  *Your comment would have been just as effective if you left out the first bit and last bit. *



But it was alot more fun


----------



## Scipio (15 Apr 2006)

Ok then, for the sake of fun I'll take a silver bullet.  Or an aquatic analogy, whichever.


----------



## monika (15 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> * Which ones have needed to be rebuilt? *
> 
> Iraq today, Iraq 20 years ago, Afghanistan today, Afghanistan 20 so years ago,  Iran after it's war with Iraq.  Economically and socially the countries I outlined above were destroyed.



The nations were not destroyed. Iraq 20 years ago was actually a prosperous, liberal land by Islamic and Western standards.



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> Every major war since NAM have taken place on Middle East soil.  And NOTHING good has come of it.  No resolution, no rebuilding, nothing



Do you consider Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Tamil non-existent wars?



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> I still think the Canadian army needs all the attention it can get.



Why? Last time I looked the CF was in the business of defense, *NOT* advertising. I cannot and will not speak for the troops, but from my civi lane, I bet it's easier for the soldiers to do their jobs without the media milling about. I know I can do my job better out of the limelight, when I can concentrate on my work, without thinking in the back of my head how it will look on the National or Lloyd Robertson.


----------



## monika (15 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> Having our troops there gives Canadians a sense of pride in knowing that we are affecting international events, something reserved for upper echelon power houses.  On an international scale, Canada is very irrelevant.





Irrelevant? Our small nation is in the G8, not something I would consider irrelevant. Nations from all over the globe come to Canada to study a nation that works; perfect we are not but we must have some relevance if nation builders allover the globe study how we do things so they can implement the info back home. In any case, I'd rather we stay the course as a model power than a power house.



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> Cnn.com, BBC.com, French, and German news sites all use the same wording when describing land forces in Afghanistan.  "US and Britain led Coalition forces are currently blah blah...".  Last time I checked a Canadian held significant rank in Khandar and the largest body of troops in the region was made up of Canadians.  It's a bit of slap.



They all have contact info on the web sites; tell them about their error.
  


			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> Opposition groups have displayed very little difference from that of the Taliban.



WTF? Are you seriously equating Canadian governmental opposition parties with the Taliban? Last time I looked they all had females and people with different skin colour in the party ranks. They all have the right to speak up. Sorry, but your analogy is off base; that's about as far from the Taliban as you can get.



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> While Western people feel the need to keep an open mind towards difference, fundamental Islam preaches the opposite, so right there we have nothing in common.



Really? Fundamentalism, including the Christian type preaches the same thing.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (15 Apr 2006)

I am always amazed at how quickly some assumptions sneak into our consciousness.  The idea that one needs to declare war to have one is a complete modern creation.  During ages of formalized warfare, like the Successor states period of post Alexander Greece, late middle ages to-19th century Europe where small professional armies fought limited wars for limited objectives, using largely the same weapons and militaries sharing common social, religious, and political philosophies, declarations of war, conventions of prisoner exchange and ransom, truce, parley, and surrender were common.  Without the parity of forces, and shared social conventions, formal declarations of war, or even of peace, were uncommon.  Prior to the twentieth century, people understood the basic fact that if your soldiers were engaged in killing people, and attempting not to be killed by them, then you are at war.  In Rome, the temple of Janus only closed its doors when Rome was at peace.  In the century before the rise of Caesar, the doors were closed twice.  In that same period there were only a couple of declarations of war (notably against the Belgae and Mithrades of Pontus), although the legions were constantly at war on the frontiers, and even in the Itallian territories themselves both against foreign foes, and in civil war.  Declarations of war have always been the exception, not the rule.  
       Take a good look at the death tolls of soldiers in the world since 1945, and then compare the rolls of the dead to the declarations of war.  How many dead have fallen in declared wars since 1945?  Certainly not the majority.  Outside of a few months of declared war involving Israel, almost all of the soldiers killed in combat have fallen in "policing action",  "peacekeeping",  civil insurrection, border clashes, tribal clashes, terrorist actions, counter-terrorist actions, ethnic cleansing.  To the people on either end of the gun (or machete, bomb, missile, mortar shell) it is war.  To the dead it was war.  Burned into the survivors are all the horrors of war.  It is only the press and politicians who seek other words.


----------



## Scipio (15 Apr 2006)

TTM

The Iran-Iraq war left 1 million causualites, two countries poorer than poor, weak militaries, and a very discontent public.  The US saved Iraq by funding them with guns and food (not for altruistic purposes).  I'd say both countries could have undergone a change and did recieve ample aid from foreign powers.  Iraq did change in many ways.  Saddam was a leftist, like you pointed out, and abolished Islamic laws and granted greater freedom to women.  Of course, he also supressed and kill his enemies but that's a side track.  



> Do you consider Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Tamil non-existent wars?



No, I'm not considering Africa since my topic was centered else where.  But we can talk about Africa if you like, as far as discontent, poverty, and warlords are concerend, It would be a good cross over.



> Why? Last time I looked the CF was in the business of defense, *NOT* advertising. I cannot and will not speak for the troops, but from my civi lane, I bet it's easier for the soldiers to do their jobs without the media milling about. I know I can do my job better out of the limelight, when I can concentrate on my work, without thinking in the back of my head how it will look on the National or Lloyd Robertson.



Well, I'm not so sure why the CF needs to be so 'cut and dry'.  They can do both - advertise and defend.  I don't understand what you mean about' the media miilling about'. Kudos from the press and better funding in advertisment does not need to encrouch on the soliders.  Don't worry, I was not talking about limelight, this isn't about indiviual fame.  Rather this could be about better relations between civillians and the milltary and better advertising of what we have.  I went my entire life without ever once running into a "CF recruitment" advertisment.  Infact, it was through the US military advertisments on the web that I became interested in joining up for the CF.  

During my post-secondary career, never once did I ever consider being a solider as an occupation, it was never around to be noticed.  The CF did not show up for carreer fairs, school events, or even parades.  I live in Vancouver, perhaps things are different elsewhere.  But I did spend time at UofA in Edmonton and did go to a carreer fair on campus.  I don't recall seeing the CF at a booth.



> WTF? Are you seriously equating Canadian governmental opposition parties with the Taliban? Last time I looked they all had females and people with different skin colour in the party ranks. They all have the right to speak up. Sorry, but your analogy is off base; that's about as far from the Taliban as you can get.



I was refering to opposition within Afghanistan. My whole point was how disconnected our two worlds are and that any party within Canada would probably have little stake, other than image, to commit troops in Khandar.  Yikes, I can't fathom how you came to your interpretation.  Maybe I need a lesson in writing~



> They all have contact info on the web sites; tell them about their error.



Oh, that's cute.



> Irrelevant? Our small nation is in the G8, not something I would consider irrelevant. Nations from all over the globe come to Canada to study a nation that works; perfect we are not but we must have some relevance if nation builders allover the globe study how we do things so they can implement the info back home. In any case, I'd rather we stay the course as a model power than a power house.



We're in the G8! What leverage do we have, and how powerful are Canadian players within the G8 community?  What I'm trying to say is that Canada's hand in world events (WTO, IMF) is very weak.  The soft wood lumber recent events is a good example.  We do not call shots on anything outside our borders and our involvement, or lack thereof, in international events is 'take it or leave it'.  We could be on scene or not.  Either way it would make little impact.  Keep in mind, I'm only refering to power politics.  Canada does do many good things and has many talented people, but politically on a global scale we rank very low.  Some see this as a good thing, "flying below the radar" and what have you.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Apr 2006)

Scipio.

gee.  I thought this thread was about "IS the Afghanistan mission in Canada's interest?".  Nice to see you can keep on target (as an example you are talking about softwood lumber.  Connection to this thread is??????).

Anyhow, while everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice it...remember that you are not and have never been part of the community in the country, and other countries, that fought for those rights, or protect them today. 

Perhaps the people who have taken (or wasted) their time trying to explain things to you in this thread who are in the Armed Forces "actually know what they are talking about".

You don't seem to appreciate Canada the way others do, using words like "irrelevant" to describe your country.  If so unhappy as a Canadian, please, feel free to leave.  I hear there are some job openings in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq that might be of interest to you.  

I, sir, have the flag of this great country tattooed on my left shoulder.  That's how much I believe in the country.  And I wear it proudly.  And I also wear it on the left shoulder of my uniform to work every day.  Proudly.

Please don't come back to my post with comments, I have spent enough time reading your thoughts and do not wish to waste more time on your opinion of this country.  I find your comments about Canada insulting as a Canadian and as a soldier, I think you need a good s**tkicking.
MRM


----------



## Hot Lips (15 Apr 2006)

Well now if the women have it so good over there...why the heck do they have to cover their faces and bodies...why does a woman starve to death in her own home if she loses her husband and has no other male relative to take her for groceries...she is not allowed out of the house without a family male companion...hello I think the women have a long way to go and I am proud to be part of a country that is trying to ensure they women have the same rights in that country as a Canadian woman has.
Saddam made it better for women did he????  Well I must have missed something there...

Stephen Harper's goals for Canada are refreshing and wanting to be more of a presence around the world militarily will ensure that my grandfathers don't roll over in their graves wondering what the heck they fought overseas for for four long years.

We have helped liberate more than one country in our (Canada) day...and that is part of being Canadian...and should always remain to be so...in Afghanistan and wherever others in a position of suppression exist.

HL


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Apr 2006)

> If so unhappy as a Canadian, please, feel free to leave.  I hear there are some job openings in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq that might be of interest to you.



Just to play devils advocate, don't we as Canadians have the RIGHT to question our government and their actions? Or do you subscribe to the "love it or leave it" camp! :


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Apr 2006)

hey 2Cdo,

yes...and  yes.   ;D

Question the intent, policies, direction and everything all you want...I do it myself BUT I don't go on forums and call Canada...irrelevant.

For those who know Stompin' Tom Connors...words from one of his song...

"If  you don't believe you country, should come before yourself...you can better serve your country...by living somewhere's else".

Not that Stompin' Tom is known for his intellect and insight into international events/Canada's foreign policy... :argument:


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Apr 2006)

> hey 2Cdo,
> 
> yes...and  yes.
> 
> ...



Even in jest I find this disturbing. Countries in the past that subscribed to this analogy(other than the US) were for the most part either dictatorships or communist. Which kind of go hand in hand! Sorry you don't think that citizens should voice their displeasure with things that their country does, but such is life in a democracy!
Personally I don't think Scipio was far off with his analogy. Canada isn't completely irrelevant, but it was getting close with the actions of our previous government. Canada, under our previous government, almost made it Canadian policy to insult our neighbour daily if for any reason. We are not a heavyweight power, and we do a disservice to ourselves by thinking we are.
 We can make inroads by acting like the middleweight power that we are, and not making it policy to insult our largest trading partner at the drop of a hat!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Apr 2006)

2Cdo,

Hmm, re-read what I wrote, not seeing where I said our citizens shouldn't voice their displeasure...I did say...question the intent and policies all you want.  I did also say what peeved me was the comments about Canada being irrelevant in the global community.  Perhaps what I should have said then was "feel free to live in one of the Relevant countries.

Alot of men and women have served in war and peacetime in Canada, some have laid their lives down very recently, and I think calling our commitment to the mission in Afghanistan irrelevant is a bad move, particularly on this website.  I have lots of buddies getting ready to start trng for TF1-07...I hope that what they do isn't considered "irrelevant".

I remember being told once "there are 2 types of people.  Ones that are part of the solution, and ones that are part of the problem".  All the, IMO, crap that Scipio said made me think he/she sure isn't part of the solution.

As far as "citizens voicing their opinions", I hope I never see the day in Canada where they CAN'T voice their opinions...and where I can't voice my own back...particularly if I think their opinion cheapens the image of Canada, or degrads the sacrifice of those who make it that folks like Scipio actually still have the ability to rant like he/she did, while never having the gonads to put it on the line and defend the freedom enjoyed in Canada and countries like ours.

It's the wonderful ability in great countries such as ours to be able to "agree to disagree" while still being on the (hopefully) same team.


----------



## Scipio (15 Apr 2006)

> You don't seem to appreciate Canada the way others do, using words like "irrelevant" to describe your country.  If so unhappy as a Canadian, please, feel free to leave.  I hear there are some job openings in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq that might be of interest to you.


 
I don't feel unhappy living in Canada, I don't want to leave, and I don't pine to live in war torn countries.  You came to all these conclusions based on the word 'irrelvant'?

I say agian, I was talking about interational politics, power politics, gun barrel politics.  You made it out as if I thought this country is intrinsically irrelvant, which of course makes no sense.  Please ask questions if you don't understand my comments. 





> Stephen Harper's goals for Canada are refreshing and wanting to be more of a presence around the world militarily will ensure that my grandfathers don't roll over in their graves wondering what the heck they fought overseas for for four long years.



I hear you loud and clear.  Harpers government is a nice change.  Being a conservative in a liberal country is not easy.  So it's nice to see it is possible to win over voters.



> Really? Fundamentalism, including the Christian type preaches the same thing.



I can't believe I missed this post, any way it's not the same thing.  Fundamentalist Christians lobby the government and stage protests like any one else.  Christian dogma can not be used as a means to try people in court.  But if you want to draw some comparrisons then go for it.   I can't see where you are going with that statement.


----------



## monika (16 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> I can't believe I missed this post, any way it's not the same thing.  Fundamentalist Christians lobby the government and stage protests like any one else.  Christian dogma can not be used as a means to try people in court.  But if you want to draw some comparrisons then go for it.   I can't see where you are going with that statement.



In an earlier post you had stated:

"While Western people feel the need to keep an open mind towards difference, fundamental Islam preaches the opposite, so right there we have nothing in common."

Fundamentalists, regardless of religion, at least in my own personal experience do not have "an open mind towards difference."


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2006)

Scipio:  Your arguments, although well articulated, seem in the end to fall into the same old camp of: "The Brits and the Russians screwed it up, and they're really weird and violent people over there in Afghanistan so why bother because we'll fail too".

This argument seems to be based on two falsehoods: that the military actually believes it offers the sole solution to the problems of Afghanistan, and that the Coalition/NATO forces there are not capable of doing any better than the British or the Red Army.

I was lucky enough to spend a tour in Afgh working directly with the US joint force HQ that was conducting Operation Enduring Freedom. (2004/2005). Despite the endless ignorant and utterly biased rubbish that has often appeared in Western media, the US forces and their leaders understood the situation very well, and knew quite clearly that they were only a part of the solution. So little credit has been given to US forces for their efforts in reconstruction, security sector reform, and development of Afghan capability  (far, far more than NATO's ISAF has done) that I really find it sickening. 

Just as the US forces realize that they are only a part of the solution, so do we. I don't know any Canadian soldier at any rank level, who doesn't understand that military force alone will not achieve any lasting measure of success in Afghanistan.

But, this understanding does not mean that there is no place for the use of military force as a tool in changing the situation. And, until Afghanistan can rebuild an Army (doing very well) and a reliable national police service(not doing so well) then we will be there to provide that security, to give the nation a chance. What is important is that all the other sectors (in which, by the way, Canada is involved and has been involved for a while, although we don't hear much about it) are equally well supported, and that ordinary Afghans begin to see some difference in their lives. I do know that in many parts of the country: the North, the West, the area surrounding Kabul Province (again, that we never seem to hear about) this is happening. To think that it will all happen overnight is ridiculous.

Comparisons with the British and Soviets are equally spurious. The First Afghan Expedition, and pretty much the entire Soviet operation, were hideous examples of incompetence and misunderstanding/disregard for the Afghan population. To suggest that either of those armies were working from the same perspective, or with the same objectives, as the Western forces there now is simply to ignore history and to draw convenient parallels.

The second British operation in Afghanistan, although it never "conquered" the entire country, was IIRC a much more successful affair, and resulted in a long period of British presence and relative stability. It did not produce the results that we are looking for today, but my point is that it is dangerous and false to dismiss foreign military intervention in Afghanistan.

And, if we are going to go out into the world and use force as a tool to try to better the lives of others, why not the people of Afghanistan? What makes people in Darfur or the African Great Lakes more deserving? Isn't that argument really not about who is "more deserving", but really about us going where those nasty Americans are not, so we can revert to that sickening Canadian moral pedestal-hopping that the Liberal dynasty was so fond of?

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Apr 2006)

PBI-

+1, sir.

Great post!


----------



## Hot Lips (16 Apr 2006)

PBI,

Thank-you for sharing that...not all of us civilians look to the media to become informed  

HL


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2006)

You are welcome. But, I should also say that I am not wired to Canada staying endlessly and mindlessly in Afghanistan should it become clear that we will not achieve sustainable success, in a time frame that our political culture can stomach. We need to "watch and shoot" (literally!) But first, we need to give it an honest try.

We were in Germany for forty years, Cyprus for thirty years, and we are still in FRY (albeit in reduced form) about 13 years later. Canadians died in all of those places, but we stayed because we saw some value. How  can we judge Afghanistan as a success or failure after not even five years, with an Afghan Govt that is only two years old?


Cheers


----------



## bbbb (18 Apr 2006)

ethan said:
			
		

> Canada has never backed out of a war.  Usually some people are against the war but not this many IN my town i am the only person with a support our troups sign in my yard. Its time to start backing up our boys in the Military



What about the Vietnam War?

All Canadians support their military involuntarily through heavy taxes. That's all the support the CF needs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Apr 2006)

"That's all the support the CF needs."
Like the US I seriously doubt that wrt the CF as well


----------



## Journeyman (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> *All Canadians support their military involuntarily through heavy taxes. That's all the support the CF needs*.



He's ba-aaack.   :


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> What about the Vietnam War?



I says pardon?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Apr 2006)

Makes one wonder what kids learn in school these days.  bbbb and Scipio seem to have gone to the same classes.  The only Canadian Troops to go to Vietnam were part of the ICCS.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2006)

> What about the Vietnam War?


It was the US that guaranteed the security of a "new" South Viet Nam when the country was divided...Canada did not "ever" have a role there except under the UN at the end. We never pulled out of what we were never in!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> What about the Vietnam War?
> 
> All Canadians support their military involuntarily through heavy taxes. That's all the support the CF needs.



       You should come out from under your rock more often, you might learn a bit more.  Firstly, Canada did not send troops to Vietnam either when the French or the Americans were bleeding over that cesspit. Secondly, Canada spends less of its GDP on its military budget than any of the other G-7 nations, a ridiculous proposition considering that we have one of the largest borders to defend, and heavy commitments to UN and NATO.


----------



## pbi (19 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> What about the Vietnam War?
> 
> All Canadians support their military involuntarily through heavy taxes. That's all the support the CF needs.



Excellent post bbb. Don't get discouraged by the mean-spirited attacks of other posters on this page, enraged as they are by their petty jealousy of your ability to reduce complex issues to pithy one-liners.

Cheers


----------



## Franko (19 Apr 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> Excellent post bbb. Don't get discouraged by the mean-spirited attacks of other posters on this page, enraged as they are by their petty jealousy of your ability to reduce complex issues to pithy one-liners.
> 
> Cheers



 :rofl:

I needed that....whew...brought a tear to my eye.

Regards


----------



## waters (27 Apr 2006)

Canadian media are way too selective in the news they report, even more when it comes to the role of the CF in Afghanistan. The only time we hear about it is when something went badly for our troops. I think it would be nice, at least once in a while, if the media would tell the canadian public all the positive aspects of what the CF are doing over there. That would help bringing everyone on the same page.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (27 Apr 2006)

Have only just seen this thread, and I only have the following comment........


If Canadian Public does not want Canadian troops in Afghanistan, maybe they would like the terrorists in Afghanistan to be here amongest the Canadian Public?


That's the way I see it.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 Apr 2006)

The Canadian public has been brainwashed since Lester Pearson that our soldiers are Peacekeepers.  The myth that for the last 30+ years our soldiers have been creating world peace by wearing blue berets and smiling at opposing armies to make them stop fighting.  Our peacekeepers have fought before, and many of them have died or been seriously wounded, but because this was under the UN it was ignored.  Now the Canadian public is having to deal with the twin thoughts; first-our soldiers kill people (good at it, too) and secondly people are trying (hard) to kill our soldiers.
      Peace is the result of the creation and maintenance of order.  Provincial reconstruction teams are helping the Afghan people create the structures to provide that order.  The Taliban and the drug lords have no place in this order, and are willing to kill to stop it.  Our troops are their to pound them flat if they try. There will be peace, and when we are done making it, the Afghans will be able to keep it themselves.


----------



## waters (27 Apr 2006)

I'm with you Apollo...for some Canadians, I guess it would take a 9/11 type of demonstration of terrorism on canadian soil to open their eyes...may be they will see things our way when the CN tower crashes down in Toronto after a 747 flies into it...!!!


----------



## military granny (28 Apr 2006)

Or Waters they will stand there scratching their heads wondering why the morning paper didn't say the city had decided to remove said tower.


----------



## waters (28 Apr 2006)

good point military granny


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2006)

Waters said:
			
		

> Canadian media are way too selective in the news they report, even more when it comes to the role of the CF in Afghanistan. The only time we hear about it is when something went badly for our troops. I think it would be nice, at least once in a while, if the media would tell the canadian public all the positive aspects of what the CF are doing over there. That would help bringing everyone on the same page.



I actually think that the media has been saying positive things of us over there.  Give me an example where the negative has superseded the positive aspects.

Every Major newspaper has reporters "embedded" with the troops, and I have not seen one negative article produced by them.  In fact I complimented the National Post for a very well written editorial..

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c3ecadd9-6081-4a2b-b177-53ba7796b96e


sniff sniff, Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,

You seem familiar in your posting style, maybe my spidey senses are tingling too much..

dileas

tess


----------



## waters (28 Apr 2006)

What I had in mind is really how we mostly hear about wounded or dead soldiers from the CF and not enough on the positive things we are doing in Afghanistan for its population.


----------



## monika (28 Apr 2006)

Waters said:
			
		

> What I had in mind is really how we mostly hear about wounded or dead soldiers from the CF and not enough on the positive things we are doing in Afghanistan for its population.



I have seen and heard positive reports on all stations. I listen to international radio and I have also heard good things along with the negative.

As a former journalism student, I often feel the media are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they report about troops giving kids candy they get accused of "perpetuating the peacekeeper myth."  If they report on deaths and dissent they get accused of focusing on the negative.

This is a difficult time for all of us.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2006)

Waters said:
			
		

> What I had in mind is really how we mostly hear about wounded or dead soldiers from the CF and not enough on the positive things we are doing in Afghanistan for its population.



I had the exact in mind myself, I have seen quite alot of amazing articles regarding the positive work we are doing.  Have you not seen them? Rosie Dimanno has done some very positive articles while over there.

If you have a reason to criticize the Media, do it properly.  You throw out some pretty broad and negative comments towards them, and you wonder why we get no "good" press.

Maybe you should spend a looney and pick up a paper, rather than assume..

dileas

tess

dunno, I have this itching feeling I know you from somewhere.....


----------



## waters (28 Apr 2006)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> dunno, I have this itching feeling I know you from somewhere.....



...small world


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Apr 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> The Canadian public has been brainwashed since Lester Pearson that our soldiers are Peacekeepers.  The myth that for the last 30+ years our soldiers have been creating world peace by wearing blue berets and smiling at opposing armies to make them stop fighting.  Our peacekeepers have fought before, and many of them have died or been seriously wounded, but because this was under the UN it was ignored.  Now the Canadian public is having to deal with the twin thoughts; first-our soldiers kill people (good at it, too) and secondly people are trying (hard) to kill our soldiers.
> Peace is the result of the creation and maintenance of order.  Provincial reconstruction teams are helping the Afghan people create the structures to provide that order.  The Taliban and the drug lords have no place in this order, and are willing to kill to stop it.  Our troops are their to pound them flat if they try. There will be peace, and when we are done making it, the Afghans will be able to keep it themselves.



I hear you. I make a pest out of myself over in another forum...Politics Canada where a lot of lefties hang out...gotta provide some balance. They are so brainwashed and uninformed it is a joke....well it's sad actually. Most of them just don't want to know. A lot of them want to thump the tub of us all being minions of George Bush....yada yada.
I think the media is finally getting the picture...they don't seem to be harping about "peacekeeping" as much now....mainly because the embedded reporters are getting a taste of what's really going on.
It's going to be a long tough slog though getting Canadians re-educated to the realities of the new world situation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2006)

http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=28807&catname=Queens%20Park&classif=Queens%20Park 
  
Voters Back Peacemaker Role For Military 

James Wallace for Osprey News Network 
Queens Park - Monday, April 24, 2006 

Ontario voters strongly support Canada's continued military involvement in Afghanistan, shows a poll by SES Osprey Research.

The poll suggests public support not only for stationing Canadian troops abroad as international peacekeepers but, as is the case in Afghanistan, in the more dangerous role of peace makers.
Almost three-quarters of voters polled in this province - 73 per cent - strongly or somewhat supported a peacekeeping role for Canadian troops, to restore order and help countries rebuild.

Meanwhile, 67 per cent felt the same about sending troops on missions to enforce peace and supervise truces among hostile or warring communities.
"Canadians know our troops are in Afghanistan and it's pretty clear from the poll that when our troops are at risk people will rally to support them," said Nik Nanos, president of SES Research.
"No one was surprised there was support for peacekeeping," Nanos said. "But one of the things that surprising was the support for peace making. 
"It may be indicative of a shift in attitude about our military and our international role," he said.

The poll was conducted before four Canadian soldiers died on the weekend on the way back to their base in Kandahar following a goodwill visit to the village of Gumbad.
It was one of the worst one-day combat losses for the Canadian military since the Korean War.
Taliban militants claimed responsibility for the attack and the Taliban has recently issued warnings that it will accelerate attacks against Canadians to pressure this country's voters and government to withdraw its troops from that country.

Cpl. Matthew Dinning, of Richmond Hill, Ont., Bombardier Myles Mansell, of Victoria, Lieut. William Turner, of Toronto and Cpl. Randy Payne from CFB Wainright, Alta, died after a home-made bomb tore through their lightly armoured G-Wagon.
"These men were working to bring security, democracy, self-sufficiency and prosperity to the Afghan people and to protect Canadians' national and collective security," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement.

"We will not forget their selfless contribution to Canada," Harper said.
Fifteen Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since the Canadian military was deployed there in early 2002 following the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban regime.

The death toll has included four Canadian soldiers were killed by friendly fire in 2002 from an American fighter jet during a training exercise and three others were killed in 2003 when their Iltis jeep struck a roadside bomb near Kabul.
Most of Canada's 2,300 troops in Afghanistan are based in Kandahar, where they have taken over security from American forces. 

The SES Research/Osprey Media poll suggests Ontarians are more prepared now than they may have been in recent decades to accept such tragedies as this past weekend's deaths as part of the cost of Canada's international military obligations.
"There's a new world post 911 and part of that new world involves countries around the world stepping forward and taking more risks to make peace," Nanos said.
Just 27 per cent of voters strongly or somewhat disagreed with having Canada play a role as an international peace maker while 23 per cent strongly or somewhat opposed even a peacekeeper role for this nation.

The telephone survey of 500 Ontario voters was conducted between April 11 and April 13. It is considered accurate within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 
A detailed breakdown of the poll can be obtained at www.sesresearch.com 

James Wallace is the Queen's Park bureau chief for the Osprey News Network.
Contact the writer at: jwallace@ospreymedialp.com or at www.ospreyblogs.com.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The poll suggests public support not only for stationing Canadian troops abroad as international peacekeepers but, as is the case in Afghanistan, in the more dangerous role of peace makers.
> Almost three-quarters of voters polled in this province - 73 per cent - strongly or somewhat supported a peacekeeping role for Canadian troops, to restore order and help countries rebuild.
> 
> Meanwhile, 67 per cent felt the same about sending troops on missions to enforce peace and supervise truces among hostile or warring communities.



And as everyone knows, once you have a peace maker, it's not long before you ramp it up to a peace maintainer, and god only knows if it gets bad enough they might end up being PEACE ENFORCERS.  
For the love of fudge, can't we get the media to say "soldiers"?  ???


----------



## Journeyman (1 May 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I think the media is finally getting the picture...they don't seem to be harping about "peacekeeping" as much now....mainly because the embedded reporters are getting a taste of what's really going on.



Maybe we should start embedding civilians. In the media sense, they could actually see soldiers making a positive difference. In the _other_ meaning of the term, it might at least broaden the gene pool.

Sorry, couldn't help it  ;D


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (1 May 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe we should start embedding civilians. In the media sense, they could actually see soldiers making a positive difference. In the _other_ meaning of the term, it might at least broaden the gene pool.
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help it  ;D


     The practice of embedding civilians.... so far has lead to three daughters.  So proceed with caution (he says ducking socks thrown by domestic 9'er) ;D


----------



## monika (1 May 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe we should start embedding civilians. In the media sense, they could actually see soldiers making a positive difference.



I realise this was a classic example of humour a la JM, but as a civvy(36 years strong!) I like it. When I was a kid there was a programme called "Katimavik" which allowed youth to spend a summer working in remote regions of Canada. Kids I knew who took part loved it.

I think it would be great to implement something similar in conjunction with the CF. I can understand that for OPSEC you can't have us civis running amok in theatre, but even having observers at training might be interesting.

It would really open up a lot of ears, eyes, minds, and hearts.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 May 2006)

The Globe and Mail seems to be taking a dim view of the mission in its reporting.   This front page headline May 6, "SUPPORT PLUMMETS FOR AFGHAN MISSION: Canadian opposition to troop deployment growing fastest in Quebec, poll finds"  (a poll the Globe and CTV commissioned):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060506.POLL06/TPStory/Front

And the story has this delightful quote from the pollster Allan Gregg: ""Active military combat is just not consistent with Canadians' self-image of what we should be doing abroad..."

There is no evidence in the story that this opion flows from the poll itself.  It appears only to be Mr Gregg's personal view--but the story omits to say that.

Mr Gregg goes on: "'For good or ill, we continue to see ourselves as kind of the Baden-Powell of the world community, doing good deeds, not getting killed or killing others.'

The boy scouts of the world indeed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## camochick (6 May 2006)

Why dont they do a poll and see who actually has a clue about the forces and the mission in Afghanistan?


----------



## Korus (6 May 2006)

That would be interesting... Throw in questions such as "How much have you researched, appart from the news, into the current situation in Afghanistan" and questions to actually TEST people's knowledge. I don't think the results would be too surprising, though..


----------



## TMM (6 May 2006)

camochick said:
			
		

> Why dont they do a poll and see who actually has a clue about the forces and the mission in Afghanistan?



Because people don't want to shell out to find out they're clueless?

I can see it now:

Q: What is the most important thing in Helmand?
A: I don't care; I use Miracle Whip.


----------



## George Wallace (6 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Mr Gregg goes on: "'For good or ill, we continue to see ourselves as kind of the Baden-Powell of the world community, doing good deeds, not getting killed or killing others.'
> 
> The boy scouts of the world indeed.
> 
> ...



I wonder if Mr. Gregg knows the history of the Scouting Movement?  Has he looked into Lord Baden-Powell's activities in South Africa at all?


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

I have no faith in the media’s “polls”.

Who were asked?
Where do they live?
What demographics were approached?
What questions were asked?
How were the questions phrased?
Were they leading questions?
Was Occam’s Razor employed?
Is it an on-line poll where-in people can make several replies?

And on, and on…

(Bear with me, it rambles a bit, but gets pertinent.) As for the public’s perceptions of what we’re doing in A-stan, people should spend more time focusing on who the real asshats are and how we can keep them from hurting all the non-asshats. Reporters, now. They seem to generally fall into the asshat category. I’ve found that most reporters haven’t done their research or are merely looking to promote their own agenda using the cloak of a reporter to do so. The reporters put everything into a broad stroke not giving us enough credit for knowing an asshat from an non-asshat. We’re smarter than they give us credit for. It’s about time we asserted that intelligence. We can do so by writing into the asshats that call themselves journalists and let THEM know that WE know they’re asshats.

We should also stop playing the politically correct card, and speak the plain, unvarnished truth. And demand that our media and especially our politicians learn to do likewise. Or we should start demanding more Statesmen, and less Politicians. The term, no the Myth of the Peacekeeper is the ultimate politically correct distortion. It attempts to portray soldiers as something fuzzy and cuddly.  I am not  fuzzy and cuddly. I am hairy and irritable.We should spend more time working on the asshat factor and less on the politically correct. Being politically correct is like whiskey. If you don’t have enough it’s bad. If you have too much it’s bad. A medium ground must be found for it to be of any use.

Every country on this planet has had asshats at one point in their history. I guess the best thing is to figure out who are the biggest asshats, today. Right now, the biggest asshats I can think of are the Taliban. They are truly excelling at asshatism. 

So, in conclusion I have two points:
1. the media are never to be trusted, believed, or fed.
2. we are doing Good work in A-stan, and killing asshats is part of that.


----------



## aesop081 (6 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I have no faith in the media’s “polls”.
> 
> Who were asked?
> Where do they live?
> ...



 :rofl:

You and me both........


----------



## Britney Spears (6 May 2006)

> Who were asked?
> Where do they live?
> What demographics were approached?
> What questions were asked?
> ...



It's not hard to find, if you actually looked.

Maybe you should heed your own advice before casting any stones about "doing one's research", eh?


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> It's not hard to find, if you actually looked.
> 
> Maybe you should heed your own advice before casting any stones about "doing one's research", eh?


nope. I wasn't speaking about that particular poll, my fine feathered friend, but rather all media polls in general.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 May 2006)

Well it seems to be a reoccuring theme around here. Any poll that says something we don't like is automatically poo-pooed as being inaccurate or biased without any supporting evidence. Statistics isn't a social science, if the poll's methodology has problems then it's not hard to find them. If you're not challenging the accuracy or methodology of the poll then why do you distrust the results?


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Any poll that says something we don't like is automatically poo-pooed as being inaccurate or biased without any supporting evidence.


I pooh-pooh all polls taken or used by the media, since I don't trust them (journalists) to be impartial. They begin a story with an agenda in mind, and utilize whatever they can find to support that agenda. The agenda usually being to sell the story if they are an independent, or to sell advertising and garner better pay, if they are on staff. Since they are looking at things from this perspective, they will also keep a weather-eye out as to the editor's personal stance on any given issue, and cater to those bias in order to sell their story, or get a better by-line.



> If you're not challenging the accuracy or methodology of the poll then why do you distrust the results?


I guess I haven't made it clear in previous posts. I distrust ALL polls run by, or published by the media. When I stumble across one by an independent, I believe it. The problem comes in when you realize that, in order to have done the poll, whomever was doing so, was doing it for a reason other than pure curiosity, and must have some sort of stake in the results.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust polls. Of any kind.

I do trust many Poles, however. By and large a trustworthy, hard-working lot.


----------



## Britney Spears (7 May 2006)

> The problem comes in when you realize that, in order to have done the poll, whomever was doing so, was doing it for a reason other than pure curiosity, and must have some sort of stake in the results.



Uh, is "accurate and useful information" not a reason? How do you think big companies figure out which new products to launch, for example? 

Dismissing ALL opinion polls as being biased because the pollsters may have ulterior motives is kind of like saying that since Bush has an ulterior motive for invading Iraq, then nothing he says regarding the Iraq invasion could possibly be the truth, is it not?

So aside from general paranoia, is there some specific aspect of the poll that you find troubling or problematic?  I admit I myself have not yet finished reading the report in its' entirety, so you may very well be right.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Uh, is "accurate and useful information" not a reason? How do you think big companies figure out which new products to launch, for example?



So.....That is why all my favourite products seem to disappear off the shelves......replaced by crap.....darn if I had only known.  Is that why my favourite Stouffler's dinners have changed recipes and are now made in the US, instead of Canada?


----------



## Britney Spears (7 May 2006)

Yes. Your only recourse is to spend more money until you become a statistically significant niche market all on your own. That way someone can start a business catering to your needs only, and sell you your favourite products at a 500% markup.


----------



## TMM (7 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I pooh-pooh all polls taken or used by the media, since I don't trust them (journalists) to be impartial. They begin a story with an agenda in mind, and utilize whatever they can find to support that agenda...I guess I haven't made it clear in previous posts. I distrust ALL polls run by, or published by the media. When I stumble across one by an independent, I believe it. The problem comes in when you realize that, in order to have done the poll, whomever was doing so, was doing it for a reason other than pure curiosity, and must have some sort of stake in the results.
> 
> Basically, I'm saying I don't trust polls. Of any kind.



The polls are not conducted by the media. I do agree that poll questions can be, and indeed are skewed by wording. However, the statistical polling itself tends to be well sampled.(sorry my sister is a statistican - don't blame me, blame my parents)

That said, I don't trust polls that much because I know that people lie when answering them.


----------



## camochick (7 May 2006)

My problem with the polls is that the media jumps on them right away. Since this mission began they have been going back and forth on it. Why make such a big deal about it? Especially when we have soldiers over there who have to read this junk. The Canadian public for the most part doesnt know the military or the mission , they only get the hyped up stories about the dead and the injured. Why don't they spend their time and effort on actually educating the public? It will never happen, because to the press the military is only interesting when there is controvery or death and destruction. Funny how those who fought and those who are trying to maintain our right to things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press are treated with such disregard by people whos very lively hood depends on that.


----------



## Britney Spears (7 May 2006)

> That said, I don't trust polls that much because I know that people lie when answering them.



Why? Do you have evidence that a statistically significant number of people lie in a statistically significant portion of polls, given a representative sample of both polls and people?  

It is fair to say that polls themselves can only reflect a very limited amount of information about the real world. That is to say, many polls conducted on September 10th 2001 quickly became irrelevent in the greater scheme of things, even if they were accurate  on the day they were conducted. Aside from that, there's no reason why a well run poll, and whether a poll is well run can be objectively determined, does not accurately prove or disprove a hypothesis. Statistics isn't voodoo, it's one of the cornerstones of the scientific method.



> Especially when we have soldiers over there who have to read this junk. The Canadian public for the most part doesnt know the military or the mission , they only get the hyped up stories about the dead and the injured. Why don't they spend their time and effort on actually educating the public?



1) A free press is a cornerstone of a democratic society. That's why I came to Canada. Don't knock it until you've tried the alternative. 

2) I think most soldiers are bright enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and form informed opinions as well as anyone else, and will ontinue to solider on despite the apparent calamity that is this report,  but thanks for the condescending comments, nothing like some patronizing remarks to liven up a ruckmarch through town.


----------



## camochick (7 May 2006)

I would like to know how my comments are condescending?  I live and work in the civilian world, where I am constantly having to explain things to them about the misconceptions they have regarding the military and this mission (which doesnt bother me in the least). I think the press should be helping to create understanding when it comes to our military. 

I never once said the soldiers couldnt form their own opinions on things and really, I have no clue where you got that in my post. I think you're pretty rude for even thinking I would be condescending to soldiers when my husband is over there right now risking his life to serve his country (and all the other great men and women in our forces). Perhaps you should think before you hit the post button.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 May 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> What about the Vietnam War?
> 
> All Canadians support their military involuntarily through heavy taxes. That's all the support the CF needs.



Ya, I know this guy is now banned, but I have to briefly respond.

What?

Really?

What about the home front? Do you not feel that its important for a soldiers morale to know that back home, the majority people are supporting them?

You need to have hope, faith and belief that things are okay back home where its safe and sound.

Summing up I can say, it's your governement, right or wrong in getting involved in an unpopular war, thats your decision and your democratic right (earned by over 100,000 Canadian lives in war in the 20th century) , but either way support the troops.


Wes


----------



## Pea (7 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> 2) I think most soldiers are bright enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and form informed opinions as well as anyone else, and will ontinue to solider on despite the apparent calamity that is this report,  but thanks for the condescending comments, nothing like some patronizing remarks to liven up a ruckmarch through town.



The last thing Camochick is, is condescending. She has been nothing but 100% supportive of the Military in general, and the troops in Afghanistan. Her husband is over there now, and she is one heck of an amazing person for being as strong and supportive of the CF when she is going through a lot back home.


----------



## aesop081 (7 May 2006)

Alright Britney Spears,

Time to come off your attude trip and hit hard reality.  I read and re-read Camochicks post and i see nothing condacending.  Maybe you just need to ease off on the trigger.  Her husband is over there so she is not talking out of her ass.  She was stating her opinion on media polls and your reaction was unnecessary.

If you feel the need to be the big man on the forum, try picking on me......Wont bother me one bit to set you straight


----------



## Britney Spears (7 May 2006)

> I would like to know how my comments are condescending?



By calling the article in question "junk" without substantiation, and implying that soldiers deployed should somehow be shielded from possibly unpleasant news/opnions at home, lest their delicate egos be bruised. 



> If you feel the need to be the big man on the forum, try picking on me......Wont bother me one bit to set you straight



You live in Winnipeg already, friend. I can't think of a worse fate to wish upon anyone.  Pick on you? I should send you a care package filled with touques and mosquito juice.......


----------



## camochick (7 May 2006)

Well considering you dont even know where aesop lives, I'm going to take your post with a grain of salt. I was not implying that soldiers should be sheilded from the media, no where in my post did I say that. I am just tired of these polls being published when really no one has thought to ask the people if they really know what the mission is all about. I think the media has the responsibity to show all sides of the story but jumping on every little poll that comes out and making it a headliner seems a little silly. To me it seems like they are trying to fuel yet another debate that no one showed up for in the first place.


----------



## Britney Spears (7 May 2006)

> Well considering you dont even know where aesop lives, I'm going to take your post with a grain of salt.



 ??? Ookay.



> I was not implying that soldiers should be sheilded from the media, no where in my post did I say that.



*Shrug* Fine, then I apologize for misunderstanding. In my defence:



> Why make such a big deal about it? Especially when we have soldiers over there who have to read this junk.



Pretty clearly implies that in order to shield the delicate sensibilities of our soldiers, the media should practice self censorship.



> I am just tired of these polls being published when really no one has thought to ask the people if they really know what the mission is all about.



(Back on topic) Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate the poll's methodology or it's results. The media is doing exactly the job it's supposed to : Giving me accurate(until paracowboy comes back with a verdict anyway) and timely information in order for me to make an informed decision. If people are too stupid and lazy to research their opinions in depth, then perhaps they are the problem and not the media? I'm the sort of person who believes that most people are smart enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and a clear head, but that's just my opinion, and hey, what's happened in the US in the last 3 years has basically proven me wrong.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> ??? Ookay.
> 
> *Shrug* Fine, then I apologize for misunderstanding. In my defence:
> 
> ...



You know it's always dangerous when a woman shrugs and says "OK Fine."
It usually means "It's not OK and it's not FINE!"
Just a little observations from an old Padre.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (7 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Why? Do you have evidence that a statistically significant number of people lie in a statistically significant portion of polls, given a representative sample of both polls and people?


      The problem is that the press makes a statement that is not supported by the evidence.  Polls of a representative portion of the public, provided they have a broad enough sampling, are reflective of the opinions of the public about the question asked.
      What the press seldom reports, and what the "think tanks" that run many of these polls fail to disclose, is what the actual question asked was.  I received a phonecall for a phone poll during Desert Shield, the question I was asked was how I felt about Canadians taking casualties in the Persian Gulf, did I strongly support Canadian casualties, moderately support Canadian casualties, or oppose Canadians taking casualties in the Persian Gulf.  The poll was later reported as showing Candians opposing the war in the gulf.  That was not the question asked.
     If a poll asking a question of specific wording on January 1st reports 65% support, the same question again on March 1st reporting 50%, and again on May 1st reporting only 45%, then you can safely say that it indicates declining support.  If the three polls asked different questions, then taken together they still only indicate the answer to three specific questions, at three separate dates.  If the questions asked, and the range of responses offered were not identical, and the sampling methods were not the same, then they cannot be used together to track a trend.
     Proper statistics are one of the cornerstones of science.  Sloppy statistics are the cornerstone of yellow journalism and special interest politics.


----------



## paracowboy (7 May 2006)

whats'a matta, Brits? Second pregnancy making you touchy?

I just don't trust polls or the media. What's the big deal? Like any good Infantryman, when I'm gathering info and I discover that a source is not giving me accurate info, I stop believing him. When he tells me something that is verified by other sources, then it becomes part of the Int picture. Otherwise, it's chaff to sort through. And our media has shown, quite plainly, that they do not give accurate info. So you cross-reference it with othe news sources (my CO has recently gotten me to read The Economist, for instance), the word of people currently on the ground, and any other source you can get hold of. Collect, collate, analyze, rinse and repeat.

As long as you recognize that whomever is telling you something has an agenda, (and everyone does) and you discover what that agenda is, you can then employ the info he's giving you, by placing it in context. Basic patrolling SOPs.

And paranoia? Dude, come on! Everyone in two different BNs know exactly who I am, including my current DCO and CO. I have placed enough clues that my ID is blatantly obvious to anyone with access to either the DIN or CFTPO. Old buddies I haven't spoken with for years have looked me up, recognizing my speech patterns. The only reason I don't use my actual name is because of an issue with two stalker-types - a girl I knew (briefly) before my marriage, and some kid who wants to use my online identity for some oddball reason. Any number of members here know my real name, and I've never been shy about telling folks who I am via pm, once I know they won't put it on the open boards.

Aren't you the one who has said that he fears reprisals from fellow CF members if he reveals his real name?


----------



## Britney Spears (7 May 2006)

> I just don't trust polls or the media. What's the big deal? Like any good Infantryman, when I'm gathering info and I discover that a source is not giving me accurate info, I stop believing him. When he tells me something that is verified by other sources, then it becomes part of the Int picture. Otherwise, it's chaff to sort through. And our media has shown, quite plainly, that they do not give accurate info. So you cross-reference it with othe news sources (my CO has recently gotten me to read The Economist, for instance), the word of people currently on the ground, and any other source you can get hold of. Collect, collate, analyze, rinse and repeat.
> 
> As long as you recognize that whomever is telling you something has an agenda, (and everyone does) and you discover what that agenda is, you can then employ the info he's giving you, by placing it in context. Basic patrolling SOPs.



Hey, as long as you're referring to healthy skepticism and not a blind comitment to ignorance, we're on the same page. You sure had me fooled when you asked a string of questions about polling and then didn't bother to look for any of the answers that were easily found. I guess I just got the impression you didn't _want_ to find out. 



> And paranoia? Dude, come on! Everyone in two different BNs know exactly who I am, including my current DCO and CO. I have placed enough clues that my ID is blatantly obvious to anyone with access to either the DIN or CFTPO. Old buddies I haven't spoken with for years have looked me up, recognizing my speech patterns. The only reason I don't use my actual name is because of an issue with two stalker-types - a girl I knew (briefly) before my marriage, and some kid who wants to use my online identity for some oddball reason. Any number of members here know my real name, and I've never been shy about telling folks who I am via pm, once I know they won't put it on the open boards.



I was referring to your seemingly irrational fear of "the media". No one said anything about your real name or identity. That's your business, as mine is mine.


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2006)

camochick: 





> Why don't they spend their time and effort on actually educating the public? It will never happen, because to the press the military is only interesting when there is controvery or death and destruction.



This story was not reported in our media--I wonder why:

"Britain takes over NATO's Afghan force"
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=667782006&source=somnia

Excerpts:

'Britain took command of NATO's Afghan peacekeeping force on Thursday as a tide of violence raised apprehension about the alliance's planned takeover of security duties across the country from U.S. forces...

"We aim to extend and deepen the areas in which the government of Afghanistan and the wider international community can safely and coherently operate in the interests of the people," the new British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards, said in a speech at a change-of-command ceremony...

ISAF now has about 9,000 troops in the relatively peaceful capital, the north and west.

Under its so-called phase three expansion, it will take over command of about 7,000 British, Canadian and Dutch troops who are moving into the south. The target date for that is July 31.

The expansion will take the numbers of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan to about 32,500 by July and August, the highest level since the Taliban were ousted.

The last phase of the expansion will see NATO taking command of U.S. forces now operating in the east, where Islamist insurgents are also active. No date has been set but it is expected late this year or early next.

NATO's move south should help the United States, stretched by the Iraq war, cut its troops in Afghanistan from 19,000 to 16,500 by around August...'

Note that a British general will be commanding US forces.

Mark
Ottawa

Exactly


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> NATO's move south should help the United States, stretched by the Iraq war, cut its troops in Afghanistan from 19,000 to 16,500 by around August...'
> 
> Note that a British general will be commanding US forces.
> 
> ...



I didn't read it the same way.



> The NATO force will focus on improving security so the government and international community can begin to develop the economy, while a separate U.S. force  will remain in charge of a counter-terrorist mission.


----------



## paracowboy (7 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Hey, as long as you're referring to healthy skepticism and not a blind comitment to ignorance, we're on the same page.


I am a troglodyte, not a Luddite. I am *incapable* of learning, I am not *averse* to it.



> You sure had me fooled when you asked a string of questions about polling and then didn't bother to look for any of the answers that were easily found. I guess I just got the impression you didn't _want_ to find out.


 so, you're diggin' where I'm comin' from now, then?



> I was referring to your seemingly irrational fear of "the media".


I don't 'fear' the media. I simply don't trust them. They are not the unbiased Fifth Estate they claim to be. They are an industry. Just as I don't trust the tobacco industry, (even though I am an addict of their products. Or perhaps because of it.), I similarly don't trust the media. In fact, I trust them less as they *claim* to be unbiased, whereas the tobacco scoundrels have since admitted that they are such.



> No one said anything about your real name or identity. That's your business, as mine is mine.


then don't throw the word 'paranoia' around, dude. 





> Simple suspiciousness is not paranoia--not if it is based on past experience or expectations learned from the experience of others.


my suspicions are.



> An unmistakable sign of paranoia is continual mistrust. People with paranoid personality disorder are constantly on their guard because they see the world as a threatening place.


I see it as a wonderful place, full of good people, with some real asshats runnin' around loose.



> persons with paranoid personality disorder...cannot accept blame, not even mild criticism...even when they are at fault


I have been proven wrong so many times I've lost count. I probably couldn't count the number of times I've admitted my mistakes on this site alone.



> In addition to being argumentative and uncompromising, the people with paranoid personality disorder are often emotionally cut off from other people. They appear cold and, in fact, often avoid becoming intimate with others.


 I am a fun-loving twit.

Kendler, K.S.; Spitzer, R.L.; and Williams, J.B.W. Psychotic disorders in DSM-III-R. The American Journal of Psychiatry 146:953-962, 1989. 

Munro, A. Delusional (paranoid) disorders. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 33(5):399-404, 1988. 

Opjordsmoen, S. Long-term course and outcome in delusional disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Vol. 78(5):576-586, 1988. 

Schizophrenia Bulletin Vol 7, No. 4, 1981 (available in most medical libraries). 

Sorensen, D.J.; Paul, G.L.; and Mariotto, M.J. Inconsistencies in paranoid functioning, premorbid adjustment, and chronicity: Question of diagnostic criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin Vol. 14(2):323-336, 1988. 

Williams, J.G. Cognitive intervention for a paranoid personality disorder. Psychotherapy Vol. 25(4):570-575, 1988. 


(Yeah, I'm doing some research on it. Maybe my book-learnin' is making me hypersensitive, and paranoid?)


----------



## Jungle (7 May 2006)

As of now, here are the results of an online CTV poll, found here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate:




> Have your feelings about the Afghanistan mission changed over time?
> 
> Yes, I'm less supportive   1183 votes     (13 %)
> 
> ...


Well, that's 61% of nearly 9000 people who took the poll that support the mission.
I realise it's not very scientific, but there are almost ten times as many respondents as most "scientific" polls... Feel free to vote !!


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2006)

George Wallace: As I understand it most US forces with be under NATO ISAF by next year, with some staying under US command and doing only hard-core counter-terrorism combat.

Excerpts from this story, "Briton takes charge of fight to tame warlords"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2160377,00.html

'A THREE-STAR British general who takes control of Nato operations in Afghanistan this week will have thousands of American combat troops under his command — the first time this has happened since General Bernard Montgomery took charge of the US 9th Army in late 1944.

Lieutenant-General David Richards’s command will cover every region of the country by September and include about 8,000 US combat troops ["by September" seems premature], who are engaged in counterinsurgency and reconstruction programmes in eastern Afghanistan. They currently come under US Central Command...

...The only soldiers who will remain strictly under the control of US Central Command will be American special forces and covert operators engaged against al-Qaeda in Operation Enduring Freedom...'

And this from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-04T100646Z_01_ISL111238_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AFGHAN-NATO.xml

'The NATO force will focus on improving security so the government and international community can begin to develop the economy, while a separate U.S. force will remain in charge of a counter-terrorist mission...

The last phase of the expansion will see NATO taking command of U.S. forces now operating in the east, where Islamist insurgents are also active. No date has been set but it is expected late this year or early next...'

And from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/world/europe/04cnd-afghanistan.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1146801600&en=b2dd0385a798da1c&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

'The arrival of 6,000 NATO troops in the south will allow the United States to reduce its force of 19,000 by 2,000 to 3,000 in August. American forces will remain in the border provinces of eastern Afghanistan and are expected to come under the NATO flag by November, giving General Richards command of the entire international military force across the whole country.'

And I think this seals it, from NATO ISAF itself, "Statement from Minister Cetin.  NATO Senior Civilian Representative."
http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/Update/Press_Releases/speeches/2006/speech_04may06.htm

"ISAF IX will face another crucial moment later this year. It is intended ISAF absorb most of the functions of CFC-A and COMISAF will be the senior NATO military commander of international forces in Afghanistan. CFC-A will continue however, to carry out some missions. We have created a command structure that will enable both missions to do their jobs in a fully coordinated way."

While the exact timing of NATO taking over command of US forces in the east, and how many will be outside NATO command, are not clear yet, the fact of the command transfer seems real enough.

CFC-A is US Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan:
http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2006)

MarkOttawa

The US is usually very stringent in their rule that only Americans command their troops.  We shall see how the actual breakdown of commands really are once the Press can stop speculating and find a reliable and accurate source.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 May 2006)

> As I understand it most US forces with be under NATO ISAF by next year, with some staying under US command and doing only hard-core counter-terrorism combat



IMHO, this is all political smoke and mirrors.  There is will be very little difference between NATO operating in Kandahar and the US under CFC-A, if only because the threat level is certainly going to remain the same.  There are elements within ISAF (France and Germany in particular) who are adverse to publicly taking on a "combat" role in Afghanistan, hence the hoary old "peacekeeper" terminology (that I despise, BTW).  Other countries - Canada and the UK, for instance, are less reticent to admit what they're actually doing in theatre....  Of course, one can ask what the French were up to in other parts of Afghanistan - alongside the Americans.   



> The US is usually very stringent in their rule that only Americans command their troops.



True, but ISAF has exercised operational control over US troops in the past.  Our QRF company during the Presidential election was American and reported in a similar manner to other ISAF troops.  Canada has the same rule - with very few exceptions, we never let another nation directly command our forces, but will permit "operational control".

My opinion?  I'll be shocked if NATO has its act together in time to meet this 31 Jul deadline.  I remember when ISAF was to take over the Western provinces (Herat, etc.); the wrangling went on for months past the much-touted timeframe.  There are still European countries who will not overtly support combat operations, and that is certainly what is to be required in the Southern part of the country for the foreseeable future.  Frankly, given past practice, the further we are from a (Continental) European influence on operations, the better.

TR


----------



## TCBF (7 May 2006)

" I think the media has the responsibility to show all sides of the story ..."

- The media have a responsibility to their shareholders - no more, no less. 

"They are not the unbiased Fifth Estate they claim to be. They are an industry. "

- Correct!

" The media is doing exactly the job it's supposed to : Giving me accurate(until paracowboy comes back with a verdict anyway) and timely information in order for me to make an informed decision."

- The media functions economically as a branch of the entertainment industry.  If accurate and timely information on current affairs appeals to us more than accurate and timely information on Madonna, then the media that convinces us that it can entertain us by providing for our needs gets our attention, and our (or through advertising - someone else's) money.  Thus, it survives to do more of the same.  Within this economic function, there exists a professional media, but it cannot exist as it is if it ignores the 'bottom line' focus of the entertainment industry to which it belongs.  Whereas, the entertainment industry can exist just fine without a professional media providing accurate and timely information.  Hence the good editorial on page two and the picture of a scantily dressed Liz Hurley on page one.  Ya gotta sell the product.

Tom


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 May 2006)

Ref US working uder Brits, there's being in command of US troops and being in command of US troops.  Just because a US officer salutes a higher rank doesnt mean they are under their command.  The US service members I worked with would salute any command given by an officer, but carrying out any command is another story all together.  I.e. They will not carry out any commands that involve risking the lives of their men unless they have been ordered by their own US superior officers to follow such commands as ordered, and only the orders of specific foreign officers, and will not obey commands that are contrary to previously issued commands from US officers. This would also include any acts that would reflect poorly on the US or its military.  

Some people dont get it, but its actually pretty simple and a lot of common sense.  We tend to follow the same reasoning; I.E. when I worked in NATO, an officer could give me an order, and I would salute him, but he couldnt MAKE me follow his/her orders if you get my drift, if I believed that following the order would reflect poorly on my country or my uniform, or if the order was contrary to a lawful order given by a Canadian officer.   

Generally, though, there is an unwritten rule (supported by formal MOU's and other inter-nation agreements) within the military that a Canadian soldier is expected to obey the lawful command of any allied US or Commonwealth officer.  They at times try to make this apply to all NATO officers or officers from an allied country on deployment, like saluting, but actual obeyance depends on the relations between countries at the time. 

Back to the starting point, in the end, you can give a US officer or soldier a command, but the only reason they are obeying is if they want to or are ordered to do so by their superiors prior to deployed under your command.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 May 2006)

OK, now that Centurian1985 has sufficiently muddied the waters ("some people don't get it"...heh), we must delve into command relationships.

In Canada (as in the rest of NATO), we recognize different command relationships, each of which has its own term.  In this context, we're dealing with Operational Command (OPCOM) and Operational Control (OPCON).

Operational Command (OPCOM):

The authority granted to a commander to assign missions or tasks to subordinate commanders, to deploy units, to reassign forces, and to retain or delegate operational and/or tactical control as may be deemed necessary. It does not of itself include responsibility for administration or logistics. May also be used to denote the forces assigned to a commander.

Operational Control (OPCON):

Operational control may be delegated and is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission. Operational control does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics or matters of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training.  OPCON does not permit (1) assignment of a separate employment to force components, (2) does not allow the redress of imbalances and shortfalls within the forces assigned, and (3) does not allow the reassignment of forces.

There is a huge difference between the two.  A unit under OPCOM could be split up, reassigned a different mission or placed under a different command entirely.  OPCON essentially allows the commander to assign a unit tasks, usually within very specific limitations.

Canada very, very rarely allows foreign powers to exercise OPCOM over our forces (although there are instances where this does happen).  Indeed, we typically assign a National Command Element (NCE) to each mission specifically to provide that level of command and control.  In addition, the CDS always exercises full command over the CF, which means he can give any direction to CF units at any time.  Thus in Afghanistan, the 1 PPCLI Battle Group is under full command of the CDS, OPCOM TFA NCE, and OPCON to CFC-A.  The terms are not mutually exclusive.

Similarly, any US forces assigned to ISAF in Afghanistan will likely be placed NATO OPCON to COMISAF, but remain OPCOM to their national authorities.  This allows COMISAF to use them as indicated above.  Again, my brigade HQ had US forces OPCON in Afghanistan a while ago with very few US national restrictions in place.  The US Commander said "yes sir" to the NATO chain of command, just like anyone else.

Within NATO, soldiers obey orders as assigned by their command relationship; an OPCON soldier has recourse to his/her national chain of command (OPCOM) if there are issues - a simple "I ain't doing that" isn't on.

One more thing.  Saluting is a matter of politeness - commissioned officers of any nation should be saluted by their inferiors in rank.

TR


----------



## chrisf (7 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Generally, though, there is an unwritten rule (supported by formal MOU's and other inter-nation agreements) within the military that a Canadian soldier is expected to obey the lawful command of any allied US or Commonwealth officer.  They at times try to make this apply to all NATO officers or officers from an allied country on deployment, like saluting, but actual obeyance depends on the relations between countries at the time.



Just out of curiosity (And I realise I'm probably pulling the thread further away from it's topic, and if a moderator feels the need to split me here, by all means, do so) but with officers of most of the other commonwealth nations, as they're comissioned by the same crown, would there be a legal obligation to follow their orders? (Not that I could see any, say, Australian officer giving any orders that would disparage Canada, and hence, no reason not to follow the order, but like I said, curiosity).


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2006)

The essential point I was trying to make is that the Canadian media chose not to cover a significant event--with at least symbolically important effects.  Because our media are not covering Afstan as a whole, though they do have an obviously justified bias towards Canadian stories.  They are rather looking for  stories in which Canadian military activities are juxtaposed against those of the US, while ignoring the many other countries involved.

An agenda is sniffed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2006)

The Globe and Mail continues its efforts to undercut the Afstan mission: "Liberals ponder role in Afghanistan"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060508.LIBERALS08/TPStory/National

This is the third paragraph of the story about a meeting of Ontario Liberals attended by all eleven federal leadership candidates:

"Comments and speeches by the candidates and interim leader Bill Graham focused on the environment, aboriginals, social justice, foreign aid and longer-term economic issues. Canada's Afghanistan mission, despite being one of the main political issues at the federal level, was barely mentioned."

The first paragraph, however, states:

"Canada's military mission in Afghanistan is shaping up to be the most sensitive issue in the Liberal leadership campaign, as public support declines for the mission originally launched when the party was in power."

The two paragraphs directly contradict each other. One cannot but suspect that the Globe and Mail is deliberately trying to sow doubt about the Afghanistan mission. That would be fine on the editorial page; it is not fine when it leads to clearly distorted news reporting.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Gunner (8 May 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity (And I realise I'm probably pulling the thread further away from it's topic, and if a moderator feels the need to split me here, by all means, do so) but with officers of most of the other commonwealth nations, as they're comissioned by the same crown, would there be a legal obligation to follow their orders? (Not that I could see any, say, Australian officer giving any orders that would disparage Canada, and hence, no reason not to follow the order, but like I said, curiosity).



Just a Sig Op, reread Teddy Ruxpin's post above and it will answer your question.  If you still don't understand, I will tell you the answer.


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 May 2006)

Thank you Teddy, very nicely summarized.  Works at high levels of command and in highly organized and structured environment.  

(edited - further response just muddied the water more for those unfamilair with highly flexible environments that lack an established command structure.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2006)

Susan Riley is a fairly well known ‘left wing’ columnist and commentator (a regular talking head on TVO, for example); she is also exceptionally well _plugged in_, I think, to the NDP and to the left wing of the Liberal Party.  She is probably saying, out loud, what NDP insiders (and more than half of Liberal insiders, too) are saying amongst themselves.

This article is taken from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=2a1c524e-cafc-4861-92be-1954a27e6668 


> The Afghanistan Wedge
> 
> *Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen*
> 
> ...



I think she is right that this can be a wedge issue: one which the Liberals and BQ will try to use to frighten Québecers away from the Conservatives and a wedge issue which the NDP and Liberals will try to use in Greater Vancouver and suburban Toronto.

The key points in the _wedge_ are, quoting Riley:



> Eventually, a federal political party will get ahead of this growing unease and make a compelling argument for helping Afghanistan in some other, more effective way than sending 2,000 troops to play cat and mouse with suicide bombers. What that way is has yet to be enunciated, but it will probably emphasize diplomacy and increased humanitarian aid, rather than a military presence.


and



> What we (by “we” Riley means the political left, in Canada, mainly the NDP) need is another way to help -- an intervention that will, at minimum, improve the daily lives of Afghans, and, at best, dampen anti-western terrorism by removing a provocation.



That will, I think be a card played by all three opposition parties.  The NDP and Liberals have already started (as reported, today, elsehwre on Army.ca (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42027/post-377198.html#msg377198 )) by suggesting that we should go to Darfur.  The NDP says _”withdraw from Afghanistan and go to Darfur”_ while the Liberals say _”go to Darfur now“_, presumably to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as we wake up and recognize that we haven’t the horses to do both.

I think that is Riley is telling us this, now, that the people who inform her have already planned their strategies and tactics.  They are using her – I suspect she does not object to being _used_ in this manner – to test drive their campaign*s*.  We can expect to see more and more:

•	Afghanistan cannot be ‘won’ by military means;

•	Canada *must* be in Darfur, now!

•	Canada should send money to Afghanistan and troops and money to Sudan;

•	Let the ‘real’ _axis of evil_ (America, Britain and Australia) fight in Afghanistan – Canada will lead a coalition of the boy scouts and blacks in good works – feeding babies in Africa.

Coming soon to a TV screen near you.  Watch for it!

The key thing, though, is that this is not an issue of principle.  It is, as Riley says, a wedge issue which the BQ, Liberals and NDP plan to use for purely partisan, domestic political reasons.  Few (not none, just few) care if black Sudanese in Darfur die in further tens of thousands – it is the hundreds of thousands of Canadian voters who might be attracted to Harpers “we don’t cut and run” rhetoric and might decide to vote Conservative that matter.

----------
PS - Moderators: any chance of changing the title to "Canadian public don't want troops in Afghanistan.?  :-*

Edit: typo


----------



## TMM (8 May 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> •	Canada *must* be in Darfur, now!
> 
> •	Canada should send money to Afghanistan and troops and money to Sudan;




If people think that Afghanistan is too great a risk I fail to see the logic in sending them to Darfur and Sudan, both of which seem far more dangerous than A-stan.

I'd love to get some feedback on that from those who have been to those locales. Feel free to take it to PMs if this constitutes a thread hi-jack.


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 May 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Susan Riley is a fairly well known ‘left wing’ columnist and commentator (a regular talking head on TVO, for example); she is also exceptionally well _plugged in_, I think, to the NDP and to the left wing of the Liberal Party.  She is probably saying, out loud, what NDP insiders (and more than half of Liberal insiders, too) are saying amongst themselves.
> 
> This article is taken from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...




Any chance of you spelling *Canada* correctly (hehe, I got caught spelling it wrong by Trinity, now its someone else's turn.    ;D)


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 May 2006)

Edward;

I must admit Im a bit confused by your post - are you predicting this is what they will do, or are you supporting the idea of going into Sudan?  Dont want to take a swipe at your opinion if you are only interpreting someone else's statement...  ???


----------



## scm77 (8 May 2006)

I didn't know if I should put this in the Sudan thread, or in here, if the mods feel it fits better somewhere else, please move it.

*Shift some troops from Afghan mission to Darfur*
Getting engaged in Sudan would help us return to our historic, moral role, says Haroon Siddiqui
May 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
HAROON SIDDIQUI

T he peace agreement in Darfur opens up an opportunity for Canada to get back to its trademark United Nations peacekeeping role and ease its way out of the ill-advised U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

Our initial deployment in Kabul in 2001 involved peacemaking. Our troops secured the city with force and tact, using little of the former but a lot of the latter, winning kudos worldwide.

But without telling Canadians the whole truth, Gen. Rick Hillier and the Paul Martin Liberals committed our troops in Kandahar to U.S. command and also the failed U.S. war on terrorism.

By most accounts, the Taliban are all over the south in greater numbers than at any time since they were toppled and are ambushing foreign troops and terrorizing the local population.

Foreign soldiers and their Afghan helpers may rule by day but it is the Taliban writ that runs at night, with the civilians caught in-between, pressed for "intelligence" by one side and squeezed for food, money and protection by the other.

This is the archetypal nightmare scenario of societies under siege, like Chechnya and Vietnam. We need to get out of it, not because it is dangerous but because it is of dubious value.

If the U.S. tactics were going to work, they would have by now.

Osama bin Laden would have been killed or caught and we would not still be reading the tea leaves in his taped messages.

Afghans would have known security and been hugging the Americans, not hating them.

The land would have been bearing fruit, not poppies.

Fortunately, most of the Americans are to depart soon — to, where else? Iraq — and our Afghan operations are to come under the NATO umbrella, under British command. The rules of engagement may improve. 

Our commitment ends in February. Instead of extending it, as Stephen Harper and Hillier want, we should plan to move half, if not all, our troops to Sudan, depending on the effectiveness of our Afghan operation.

Such redeployment would please George W. Bush, given his passion for Darfur. It would also be the right thing to do.

Both Martin and Harper have dodged this pressing moral issue. Canada did contribute humanitarian aid and some logistical support for the African Union's peace force in Darfur. Our envoy to the United Nations, Allan Rock, has been part of the peace talks. But, overall, Ottawa has been peripatetic.

The horrors of Darfur are stamped on our conscience:

In 2003, rebel groups attacked government targets to protest widespread neglect of and discrimination against the inhabitants of the arid region. Khartoum unleashed its proxy militia, which went on a rampage of arson, looting, rape and murder.

About 180,000 people were killed and 2 million displaced.

The intra-Muslim conflict has been portrayed as one between Arabs and non-Arabs. It is, but only in part, as the earlier one in the south was not just about Muslims and non-Muslims.

Ethnicity and religion are but two of many fault lines that have plagued Sudan since independence from the British in 1954.

The real conflict is between an authoritative central government, rich on oil revenues, and the remote regions that remain ignored and poor, leaving the people to, first, fight among themselves over the meagre resources and, then, the federal government.

Until that imbalance is corrected, no patched-up peace agreement, as welcome as it is, can lead to a lasting solution any more than the 2005 peace deal with the south has.

Canada can play a role in guiding Sudan toward a democratic and decentralized federation.

As a start, Senator RomeóDallaire, former commander of the ill-fated UN mission in Rwanda, suggests that Canada help translate the peace deal into a strong Security Council mandate for a peacekeeping force, with the power to penalize Khartoum if it does not fulfil its promises to Darfur.

Getting engaged in Sudan on those twin fronts would help us return to our historic role and also rediscover our moral core.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146865815526&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
--------------------------------------


> Our initial deployment in Kabul in 2001 involved peacemaking. Our troops secured the city with force and tact, using little of the former but a lot of the latter, winning kudos worldwide.


Wasn't our initial deployment to Kandahar (with operations taking place in other locatations as well)?  And wasn't that combat, not "peacemaking"?



> Fortunately, most of the Americans are to depart soon — to, where else? Iraq


Most?  All the info I can find says they will be reduced this year by 2500-3500, from around 20,000.  That's not "most".

Any more errors that I missed?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> If people think that Afghanistan is too great a risk I fail to see the logic in sending them to Darfur and Sudan, both of which seem far more dangerous than A-stan.
> ...



I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Canadians gave any thought at all to the human costs of Afghanistan.  The _campaign_ said <to the tune of “We’re off to Dublin”> “We’re off to Kabul because it isn’t Iraq and Bush’s _ugly Americans_ aren’t there, yet … not too many, at least … maybe.”  We moved to Kandahar with little fanfare and even less public discourse – we could have had a safer PRT but everyone else jumped ahead of us in the line because our government dithered, _comme d’habitude_.

One of the main reasons we have a debate right now is that there is a new government.  The Parliamentary Press Gallery consists, in my personal opinion, mostly of *stenographers* who are, by and large, accustomed and only to happy to _take dictation_ from Liberal Party of Canada press agents and spin doctors.

Real body bags and wounded soldiers – which had been coming home quietly, almost secretly from the Balkans – only became _public_ when to same spin doctors reckoned they could be used to solidify Canadians’ growing opposition to US foreign policy. 

As Susan Riley says, this can be a wedge issue.  I think we have seen all four of the points I suggested will be part of the loony-left's campaign *(and none of which I believe or propose, by the way – just to be clear)* in the press and on TV over the past few days and I think you will be absolutely bombarded with them very soon.

Canadians, as a group, do not think very much or very often – especially not about foreign/defence policy issues.  They will be shocked, SHOCKED when Canadian soldiers are killed in action in Darfur, if we are ever stupid enough to go to Sudan and withdraw from Afghanistan).

The Bloc, Liberals and NDP will lie about serving humanity and so on.  I repeat: they are in the business of trying to recover voters who have strayed from _the true path_; they care little for dead and dying Africans.  They will somehow manage to avoid talking about  casualties, too.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 May 2006)

I'll bite, scm77...Siddiqui's article is so full of holes that it's laughable...  My comments in red.



			
				scm77 said:
			
		

> *Shift some troops from Afghan mission to Darfur*
> Getting engaged in Sudan would help us return to our historic, moral role, says Haroon Siddiqui
> May 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
> HAROON SIDDIQUI
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2006)

Edward Campbell: Great stuff.  And if Mr Siddiqui thinks we went to Kabul in 2001...Does the Star do no fact checking?  Need I ask?  It's all about attitude, dude.  Our media are, as you say, stenographers for a certain point of view.

A relevant post at "The Torch":

"Afstan update: about four months late" (March 25)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/afstan-update-about-four-months-late.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Blue (8 May 2006)

Lets see who can answer this right...Who (meaning which country) participated in the first Peace keeping Operation ever??  Ask some civis and see what they say.  8)

"opportunity for Canada to get back to its trademark United Nations peacekeeping role." 

Someone needs to do some history classes.


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 May 2006)

I'll try to avoid comments already made by teddy...



			
				scm77 said:
			
		

> *Shift some troops from Afghan mission to Darfur*
> Getting engaged in Sudan would help us return to our historic, moral role, says Haroon Siddiqui
> May 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
> HAROON SIDDIQUI
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2006)

Navy_Blue: Would they be?

UNTSO
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=38

UNMOGIP
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=40

Mark (a civie)
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 May 2006)

Darfur sounds like Somilia all over again.   Could someone take Jake Layton oversea's and try to open his eyes.  Peace with superiour fire power.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (8 May 2006)

I'll cross post a copy of a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Province in response to the 8 May 2006 article outlining Jack Layton's brilliant NDP plan to get us out of a winnable Afghanistan, and into Darfur.  I had family with Gordon in Khartom, this plan sounds familiar........   
Quote:
     I am amazed that Jack Layton and the NDP think that we should not have our troops in Afghanistan, whose leaders and ambassadors have lobbied hard for continued and increased Canadian troop commitments, and where our troops are removing a proven threat to the security of North America (the Taliban).  In return, Mr Layton would have us send troops with the UN to Sudan, whose leaders have promised to turn it into a graveyard for foreign troops.  Mr Layton wants us to return to the lightly armed, thinly deployed blue berets we used to deploy to separate two stable warring nation states that now desired peace.  This is not the case in the Sudan, and the price of Mr Layton's fantasies can be seen in the UN mission to Rwanda.  Prevention of genocide by those willing to kill whomever gets in the way requires a proactive mandate, and the warfighting tactics that NATO has employed with success in Afghanistan, not the tactics of the disastrous UN efforts in failed African states.
                    John Mainer, Cpl (ret) Canadian Armed Forces
                    Maple Ridge
End Quote


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Navy_Blue: Would they be?
> 
> UNTSO
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=38
> ...



*1948!?! 1949?!?*  But that cannot be; that's before Lester Pearson invented peacekeeping!

This is _X Files_ level stuff 'cause Joe Clark said (today's _Grope and Flail_) that Mike Pearson invented UN Peacekeeping in 1956.  Joe can't be wrong, can he?  Not him and Haroon Siddiqui, too?  Say it isn't so!

What will we tell the children?

What's next?  Was _Saint Pierre_ Trudeau a puny, pompous, provincial, puffed-up, pseudo-intellectual poltroon?


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2006)

Edward Campbell: Actually, as I'm sure you know, PET was a fascist.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Byfield_Link/2006/04/14/1534057.html

UNEF was in fact the first  "peacekeeping" as opposed to "observation" mission.  Fat lot of good it did, since Nasser ordered it out in 1967 (a fact proponents of "traditional peackeeping" never mention or do not know), which resulted in the Six Day's War.  Peacekeeping rules.  Not.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Britney Spears (8 May 2006)

Meh, I'd go. 

Just as long as there's still a war going on after Layton pulls the tanks, heavy air lift, attack helicopters, transport helicopters, their operators and all the other kit we would need out of his ass.


----------



## paracowboy (8 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Meh, I'd go.
> 
> Just as long as there's still a war going on after Layton pulls the tanks, heavy air lift, attack helicopters, transport helicopters, their operators and all the other kit we would need out of his ***.


dude, I spewed my double-double. My wife is ticked.

It was worth it.


----------



## Britney Spears (8 May 2006)

It's always like this. I tell a joke and everyone get's all offended and politically correct and whiney. I say something serious (like above) and everyone laughs at me. I guess it's kind of like how I get better PDRs if I showed up for work drunk every morning.


----------



## TCBF (9 May 2006)

"...after Layton pulls the tanks, heavy air lift, attack helicopters, transport helicopters, their operators and all the other kit we would need out of his ***."

Is it big enough?

"can show you proof ......rational proof......but you have to be willing to listen....."

- We have serious attention span issues.  Do you own any Latex clothing?

"What will we tell the children?"

- Tell them that we knew all along that Afghanistan mattered and Darfur did not.  Tell them that their fathers who died in Darfur died in a continent that could drop 3000 feet under water tomorrow and the rest of the world would still unfold as it should.  Sad, but true.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 May 2006)

artsy,

Spam the site one more time with that amount of drivel and your gone.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 May 2006)

artsy and fans - go here - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43047.0.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Globe and Mail continues its efforts to undercut the Afstan mission: "Liberals ponder role in Afghanistan"
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060508.LIBERALS08/TPStory/National
> 
> This is the third paragraph of the story about a meeting of Ontario Liberals attended by all eleven federal leadership candidates:
> ...



This is from this morning’s _Globe and Mail_ and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

I am not spamming but I am posting this in two threads: here and in Politics in Liberal Leadership.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060509.wxmacgregor09/BNStory/National/home 


> Souring on Afghanistan will leave Liberal hopefuls anxiously testing the wind
> 
> *ROY MacGREGOR*
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 May 2006)

Why is this story not front page on the Globe or Star?  Or a lead item on CBC or CTV?

"Canadians back Afghan mission despite deaths-poll"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/12052006/6/n-canada-canadians-afghan-mission-despite-deaths-poll.html

'Fri May 12, 11:33 AM EST

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Support among Canadians for the country's military mission in Afghanistan has slipped but is still relatively solid despite a rash of recent military casualties, according to a new poll on Friday.

The Ekos survey -- provided to Reuters -- shows 62 percent of Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan, down from 70 percent in early February. The number opposed grew to 37 percent from 28 percent.

Canada has 2,300 troops based in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. Four soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb on April 22, bringing to 16 the number of Canadians who have died in Afghanistan since the September 11 attacks.

The troops are due back next February and the new Conservative government is under increasing pressure to outline whether it will extend the mission.

"In some ways, what is most remarkable here is how robust support for the mission has proven to be," said Ekos President Frank Graves.

"After all, for the first time in many years, Canadians are seeing significant casualties among their armed forces," he said in a statement.

The Ekos poll of 1,013 people was carried out between April 20 and 27 and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.'

It was, however, carried in the Gulf Times; go figure:
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=86288&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (13 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Why is this story not front page on the Globe or Star?  Or a lead item on CBC or CTV?



Rather simple really.  It would prove all their previous sensationalist Headlines to be false.  They would then have to waste space in their rag to print retractions.  It is easier to print the story, and hide it in the back pages.  That way, if someone like you found it and asked, they can reply that they did print it and no retraction is required.  Rather sly on their part, don't you think?


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 May 2006)

George Wallace: As far as I can find from Google And Yahoo news searches non/no Canadian media have picked up the story at all.  Nothing from Canoe.ca or Canada.com either.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 May 2006)

Why do all these clowns keep referring to all of the previous thrusts into A'stan when they talk about our mission?  Can't the CDS get up and just say "we are not there to conquer or tame this place, you jag offs!  We are trying to help them help themselves".  I was particularly enraged to hear LIBERAL SENATOR Romeo Daillaire's comments to support the thinly veiled attempt at the Sudan distraction.  What a pathetic, disloyal, partisan prick.  To fully know what is at stake, and use his influence as a previous military member to help lick up to his Lieberal string pullers makes me sick.   :threat:


----------



## gaspasser (16 May 2006)

Thanks Armymedic, that puts our mission there in perspective.  I had an interesting conversation (read arguement) recently with my mother who does not support our mission in Afghanistan, albeit she does support our Troops.  Maybe she (and others who don't support certain freedoms) needs to read your words because she is a great supporter of Women's Rights. Your post makes a great arguement for both.  
Cheers and Nulli Secundus


----------



## Ahkenaten (10 Jun 2006)

Everyone likes polls they can get behind. Im no different.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060609.wxterror-poll10/BNStory/National/home



> “The event unto itself seems to have had no galvanizing effect on the population in terms of turning it more anti-immigration or more anti-Muslim,” he said. “If anything, it appears that Canadians have accepted the whole event in stride.”
> 
> According to the poll, 71 per cent of Canadians say it's likely that an act of terrorism will take place in Canada within the next few years, up nine percentage points from August of last year. By contrast, 26 per cent say an assault is not likely, down 10 percentage points from the same period.
> 
> ...



They must have polled more adults.


.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2006)

Interesting, in light of ANOTHER poll just out (by the Globe's "competition")....

http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=598903

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3108


''As the facts continue to unfold in the media about the lead-up to the arrests of several alleged terrorism plotters in the Toronto area, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted for CanWest/Global News reports most Canadians (58%) feel the arrests represent the "tip of the iceberg" and there are likely many more potential terrorist groups in Canada not yet discovered.''

''...only a minority of Canadians (31%) offer the opinion that "terrorist threats like this one have everything to do with the fact that Canada's troops are involved in combat in Afghanistan" - most (61%) say "that even if Canadian troops weren't in Afghanistan we'd still be a target for terrorism because we are a Western Country".''

Hence, the risk of decision making by poll....


----------



## Ahkenaten (10 Jun 2006)

> Hence, the risk of decision making by poll....



I wasn't making any decsions based on it. But both that poll and the one you posted still surprise me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jun 2006)

They are sheep and if attacked will likely blame it on us being in Afghanistan.


----------



## Hot Lips (10 Jun 2006)

Right you are Quagmire...IMO

HL


----------



## HDE (10 Jun 2006)

"Tip of the iceberg"!? 

 I sense a little "which of the following over-the-top phrases..best describes what you think?" in the poll  :

How in the world can any randomly selected group of individuals possibly know whether or not this is proof of anything?  Time for the media to take a breather.

                                "Statistics lie, 14% of us know that"

                                                                H.J. Simpson


----------



## Ahkenaten (11 Jun 2006)

wow.

I gotta say this is probably the last place I'd expect to see a bunch of nerdy hissy fit posts over a simple post like mine, but as I look over the other threads I see this isn't the only one. Its all over the place. "That I-snotty-'comeback'-for-this-guy" mentality. Some of you guys are claiming to be men?

No problem. I'll take it on down the road.

L8r
.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2006)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## HDE (11 Jun 2006)

What in the world is he so twisted about?   The replies mostly commented on the dubious valus of "polls".  Pobably best if he moves on "down the road" to find a crew less likely to savage him  :crybaby:


----------



## ranger_1 (11 Jun 2006)

I believe as others that it wouldn't matter weather or not our troops are there or not, we would be a target anyway and  at the very least an attact on/in Canada would only be a tool of terror and propaganda, to make a point that no one is safe.

I only wish there was more I could do to support my countries troops   other then my words and a few stickers on my car or a fridge magenet. 
I was in, not a long time, but I valunteered and would again.   Canada is my family,  and I want to protect my family, all of it.


----------



## Scott (11 Jun 2006)

Ahkenaten said:
			
		

> wow.
> 
> I gotta say this is probably the last place I'd expect to see a bunch of nerdy hissy fit posts over a simple post like mine, but as I look over the other threads I see this isn't the only one. Its all over the place. "That I-snotty-'comeback'-for-this-guy" mentality.* Some of you guys are claiming to be men?*
> 
> ...



Gr8, seeya. :

Nice troll, buddy, if you do decide to grace us with your presence again you can check that attitude at the door or you will be leaving, on my accord.


----------



## IrishCanuck (11 Jun 2006)

Everyone knows polls can be made to suit ANY purpose.

It was a good attempt at trolling and starting a flame war though.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (11 Jun 2006)

Ahkenaten said:
			
		

> Some of you guys are claiming to be men?
> 
> No problem. I'll take it on down the road.
> 
> ...



Well I can only speak for myself, but I just claim to be a man.  There is only one of me.



Hey, maybe he is a "pollster".


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Hey, maybe he is a "pollster".



Keep it clean!

We know what statistics can do and how they are manipulated and questions worded in such a way that the answers are skewed.  I hope that is what kind of filthy pollster you were referring too?


----------



## GUNS (14 Jun 2006)

All I have to say about those so-called Canadians that don't support our soldiers is:

If you don't stand behind behind our troops,
Please feel free.
To stand in front of them.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2006)

The CanWest/Ipsos Reid  poll:



> In the end, only a minority of Canadians (31%) offer the opinion that "terrorist threats like this one have everything to do with the fact that Canada's troops are involved in combat in Afghanistan" - most (61%) say "that even if Canadian troops weren't in Afghanistan we'd still be a target for terrorism because we are a Western Country.



This is what The Globe/Strategic Counsel poll found:



> Canadians also appear to be convinced that Canada will be a target of terrorism because of its presence in Afghanistan. Fifty-six per cent say the Canadian presence there makes an attack more likely, up a substantial 18 percentage points from last year...



Note that these answers are not contradictory. They simply give very different impresssions as a result of different questions. It is actually quite reasonable to believe that our current mission in Afstan makes terrorist attacks more likely in the future (Strategic Counsel) while at the same time believing we would be a target even without our military presence (Ipsos Reid).

But the former poll produces much more negative-seeming results than the latter. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ready to go (16 Jun 2006)

http://www.newwave.net/~haught/Koran.html

For anybody who knows anything about these 'radical' Muslims and their faith it should be so blatantly obvious that they make no distinction between Canada and the U.S. that they should wonder what the hell is wrong with everybody else. It doesn't help when the Government tries to keep the war under wraps, but...that's a good thing. I think the people of Canada are so used to our 'traditional' role as peace-keepers that a sudden, dramatic change in our international role will startle them into forcing us to abandon our mission: exactly what the Taliban want. 
Now the other side of the double-edged blade, if the people of Canada are deprived of the truth they will resent our mission because they have no idea what we are doing and force us to pull out because of their fear of the unknown and thinking the mission is senseless and pointless. From a nation so used to soildiers who carry unloaded weapons doing humanitarian work to a nation at war with an enemy that is so ruthless it preys on innocent people: this is a drastic change in roles and I think our people should be fully disclosed on the nature (not the details of the operation) of the mission so casualties are softened by the fact that we were prepared to deal with them here at home. 
The threat almost has to literally hit home like it did for the U.S. on 9-11 for us to open our eyes and finally say "Let's do something about this". I, personally would rather be blown to pieces by an RPG blast in Afghanistan figthing for the safety of my family and my country than have my family killed but a terrorist attack on here on Canadian soil. Every Canadian needs to adopt this attitude I think in some form or another. There cannot be a parlimentary debate on the issue, we are either all in or not at all. It's time for the fence jumping to stop. I think once the government makes a solid commitment that is not debatable or even questionable it will hopefully help the citizens of this great nation follow suit. Remember that division creates conflict which in turn weakens the foundation and that is exactly how our enemies intend on beating us.



> If you don't stand behind behind our troops,
> Please feel free.
> To stand in front of them.


  to that GUNS.


----------



## GAP (28 Oct 2006)

Canadians support combat for a 'just cause'
Sat Oct 28 2006 By Chris Lackner
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/world/story/3751714p-4337371c.html 

OTTAWA -- A majority of Canadians support military participation in "conventional combat missions," such as the Afghan counter-insurgency, as long as they're convinced the cause is just and progress is being made, according to a new poll conducted for the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute. 
The survey revealed that 55 per cent of Canadians are willing to send troops into danger -- even if it leads to deaths and injuries -- as long as they believe in the military's goals. 

"Some people might be surprised to see the level of Canadian commitment to getting on the playing field and not just sitting on the grandstands when it comes to military combat missions," said Greg Lyle, managing director at Innovative Research Group Inc., which carried out the survey. 

Only 19 per cent of respondents said they've always been firmly opposed to combat missions, while 23 per cent said they'd be willing to send troops, but that casualties would affect their level of support. 

"This isn't a blank cheque for the government to take troops wherever they want," Lyle said. "But if Canadians are convinced the cause is right and we're making a difference, they are prepared to send soldiers into harm's way -- even if there is no direct Canadian interest at stake and no Canadian lives at risk." 

But the poll also showed Canadians are increasingly uneasy with the military's current role in Afghanistan.    
While 54 per cent support the troops presence, opposition to the mission has risen to 42 per cent from 36 since a similar poll was conducted in June.Dawn Black, defence critic for the New Democratic Party, said the poll demonstrates that the public is increasingly uncomfortable with the mission because it lacks focus and doesn't appear to be offering tangible benefits to Afghan civilians. 
End


----------



## josh (5 Nov 2006)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e45af5b6-ffb6-42a9-ada5-d9c23e9bb210&k=55504

Support for Afghan mission continues to decline
  
Allan Woods 
CanWest News Service 


Sunday, November 05, 2006

OTTAWA - The level of support among Canadians for Canada's military mission in Afghanistan dropped considerably over the course of the last month, according to a new Ipsos Reid opinion poll conducted for CanWest News Service and Global Television.

The latest figures peg support for the use of troops in combat operations in the troubled country at 44 per cent. That number is down 13 per cent from the level of support expressed by survey participants at the end of September....... more on link.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2006)

. :boring:..and once again we wonder how many polls got trashed and how many people got hung up on when they answered the first question "wrong".

Move along folks, nothing to see here.......


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2006)

To be entirely fair, I think there would be serious consequences for polling company telling the phone pollsters what the "right" answer is, or having them not include the results or hang up if they don't get it.  

Are the questions "crafted" in accordance with the needs of the client?  Hell yes - fair game to pile on there.

Sadly, I wish we could move on, but we have to remember:
1)  politicial types look at these numbers (albeit as only one piece of information in a very complicated info environment, but they're not ignored); and
2)  based on limited experience, I think any polling done by the government itself is done by companies similar to the one doing the media's polling, using the same techniques.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Nov 2006)

title is inaccurate:
Support for Afghan mission continues to decline...Amongst Canadian Media


----------



## Journeyman (5 Nov 2006)

I guess I just I have a more jaded view of media & politics. I suspect that most politicians have their minds already made up, and use polls to support their views - - views which are based overwhelmingly on what will get them re-elected.

Because I also believe that a large percentage of the media leans to the left, _their_ views therefore inform the politicians, not the "masses." In this case, pro-Afghan mission comments get left on the editor's floor. Just look at the coverage of "anti-war protests" versus "wear red days" - - not hard to see which stories the media wanted out there, by their distorted coverage of the protests.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2006)

Paracowboy:  How's this for an alternative headline?

"Support Declines Among Approximately 1,000 Canadians Who Didn't Hang Up on Pollsters Calling Around Supper Time at Home; Group Alleged to Represent an Accurate Mix of Canada's 32,623,490 Citizens"

 :


----------



## rmacqueen (5 Nov 2006)

I notice that the story does not contain a link to the actual poll or the wording of the questions.  So much depends on what the actual questions were.  For example, if Ipso-reid asked "Do you support Canadian troops being used for combat?", you would get a different answer than "Do you think Canadian troops need to be used for combat?"  So much depends on the phraseology of the poll, phraseology the media likes to keep hidden.  Just take a look at the difference in opinion at http://www.timeoutcanada.org/ when the question is straight forward.

Take all polls with a grain of salt



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "Support Declines Among Approximately 1,000 Canadians Who Didn't Hang Up on Pollsters Calling Around Supper Time at Home; Group Alleged to Represent an Accurate Mix of Canada's 32,623,490 Citizens"



That is a very valid point since polling companies are having more and more trouble getting people to answer the questions.  It is estimated that only 20% of people called actually answer.  Of those, the majority tend to be stay at home and/or unemployed.  The majority of working people do not have the time or desire to put up with pollsters.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (5 Nov 2006)

I was at the  YMCA earlier this morning, did a little canvas of my own in the sauna after the workout. Bout eight guys of varying age and a couple of women. Naturally, they all supported the troops. Doesn't every Canadian, at least when you ask them? But once the I shifted the conversation to the mission... I hate to say it, but those poll numbers were wrong. 

And not in a good way. 

I have a pool tournament later this afternoon, once again, I will bring up the subject, well, cause frankly, I was disappointed with the results.

How bout you guys doing the same thing and we can compare notes then judge them against the poll?  Nothing complicated, just ask them if they think this is a winnable situation and let the conversation go from there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> To be entirely fair, I think there would be serious consequences for polling company telling the phone pollsters what the "right" answer is, or having them not include the results or hang up if they don't get it.



Well we have had 3 members of this site get the 'hang-up' when they answered the first question with "Yes, I support...."  Thats just 3 members, who have come forward, from this site alone.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (5 Nov 2006)

I find that you have to go with only those polls that are reputable and are concerned about their reputation. The poll cited, BTW, happens to be one of these... Of course, it could be politically motivated, as I suspect the hangups were.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2006)

First I've heard of the hang-ups (not reading closely enough around here, I guess).  Were the hang-ups on reputable polling firms, or did the caller even identify themselves?

If that's the case, I wonder why MSM isn't asking around - oh, wait, that would be giving both sides, wouldn't it?  Silly me, expecting that...


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (5 Nov 2006)

Why is it that the Canadian public and Canadian media are under the illusion that polling companies are without bias?  Neither polling companies, nor advertising companies are independent neutral parties, but mercenaries hired by parties with vested interests for specific purposes.  Some polls are not for public consumption, and are to determine how the public feels about a subject for the purposes of determining policy stances.  Other polls are done for the purposes of demonstrating a public mandate to pursue the course of action that the paying party already supports.  IE the NRA does not pay pollsters to determine that there is support for disarming the American public, nor does the NDP commission polls to determine that the Canadian public supports armed intervention in Afghanistan.  The poll questions are slanted to guarantee the results desired by the pollsters.  An example from a poll I was given over the phone last year about the Afghan mission (a poll commissioned by the NDP) "Did I support further Canadian casualties in Afghanistan?  Strongly opposed to further casualties, moderately opposed to more casualties, moderately in favour of more casualties, or strongly in favour of more casualties?"
    This poll was then released to show declining support for the mission.  Does anyone see that in the question asked?  The question asked was not released to the media, only the sample size, percentage, and error rate; giving the implication that this was in some sense an impartial scientific research, not a public relations ploy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2006)

The polling company's are basically the worst kind of advertising shysters as they hide behind a veneer of "nuetrality" when they are anything but.........would make a nice news exposé.
Bet any of the news outlets would touch it?  Every ratings poll from than on in would probably have them dead last for the advertising buy rates.


----------



## GMan87 (6 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The polling company's are basically the worst kind of advertising shysters as they hide behind a veneer of "nuetrality" when they are anything but.........would make a nice news exposé..



Here's a little something to think about, from Penn and Teller's Bullshit, an exchange between a leading US pollster and some guy walking on the street (seems like a normal guy, not an idiot or anything):

*Does the federal government spend too much or too little on social programs for illegal immigrants in this country? * I think they spend too much on illegal programs for immigrants

* Would you deny emergency room care to an illegal immigrant?  * No I wouldn't.

* Would you deny the children of illegal immigrants the ability to attend a public school here ? *  No I woudln't

* So you'd spend money on education for them, you'd spend money on health care for them, but you think we're spending too much money on them?  * Yes I do

So really using those similar questions, the pollster could easily either say the man supports social programs for illegal immigrants or does not support them.


----------



## career_radio-checker (6 Nov 2006)

Owww PLEASE!!! I'll say anything !!! I can't take anymore schtick!!!
Seriously, it really hurts my fragile head trying to read those questions.


----------



## Teflon (9 Nov 2006)

Here's a site for numerous CBC Polls on Afghanistan:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/afghanistan-survey2006.html

Green content is my additions

1. Generally speaking, would you say that your opinion of the Canadian Armed Forces is  
Very favourable 34 
Somewhat favourable 39 
Not very fabourable 14 
Not at all favourable 10 
Don't know/No answer 3 

2. Do you feel more proud, less proud, or about the same pride, in the Canadian Forces today as you did five years ago? 
More proud 38 
Less proud 13 
About the same pride 46 
Don't know/No answer 3 


3. When it comes to Canada's role in the world, some people say that Canada should focus on a peace-building role in the world. Others say that Canada should focus on active combat roles with our allied countries. Which view is closer to your own?  
Peace-building roles 80 
Active combat roles with allied countries 16 
Don't know/No answer 4 

4. I would like to know how you feel about Canada's involvements around the world in the last several decades. Please tell me if you are proud or not proud of each of the following: a) Canada's involvement in United Nations peace-building operations around the world since World War Two?  
Proud 92 
Not proud 6 
Don't know/No answer 2 

4. b) Canada's non-participation in the U.S.-led war in Iraq?  
Proud 78 
Not proud 20 
Don't know/No answer 2 

4. c) Canada's recent involvement in Afghanistan?  
Proud 55 
Not proud 42 
Don't know/No answer 3 


5. As you may know, Canadian troops are now active in Afghanistan. Why do you think Canadian troops are there? What is the reason or reasons?   
Support U.S. troops / U.S. foreign policy / help George Bush 22 
Support NATO/support United Nations 5 
Restore peace 13 
Defeat Taliban / warlords / insurgents 9 
Help create democracy 8 
War on terror / defeat world terrorism/defeat Al-Qaeda 8 
Peacekeeping 24 
Humanitarian assistance/reconstruction 18 
Negative U.S. influence / pressure 2 
Stabilize Afghanistan 2 
Sent by Canadian government 2 
Other SPECIFY 6 
DK/NA=0 11 

6. Regarding Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, do you... Nov 2006
Strongly approve 19 
Somewhat approve 31 
Somewhat disapprove 18 
Strongly disapprove 30 

7. As far as you know, is the Canadian mission in Afghanistan part of a U.S.-led coalition or part of a United Nations approved NATO mission?  
U.S. led coalition? 35 
UN approved NATO mission? 53 
Don't know/No answer 12 

8. In your opinion, should Canadian Forces  
Stay in Afghanistan past the year 2009 10 
Stay in Afghanistan until 2009 and then return to Canada, or 23 
Return from Afghanistan before 2009?  59 
Depends  – 
Don't know/No answer 8 

9. Do you think in the end the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful or not successful?  
Successful 34 
Not successful 58 
Don't know/No answer 7

10. Here are some reasons why Canadian Forces might stay in or might leave Afghanistan a) Some experts say that if Canadian Forces left Afghanistan, it would undermine international efforts to help that country and the Taliban might return to power there. In your opinion is this  
A good reason to stay in Afghanistan, or 58 
Not a good reason to stay in Afghanistan? 38 
Don't know/No answer 4 

10. b) Some experts say that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan has increased Canada's image and influence in world affairs. In your opinion is this  
A good reason to stay in Afghanistan, or 32 
Not a good reason to stay in Afghanistan? 64 
Don't know/No answer 4 

10. c) So far 42 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. In your opinion is this 
A good reason to leave Afghanistan, or 41 
Not a good reason to leave Afghanistan? 56 
Don't know/No answer 3 

10. d) Some experts say that Canada's mission in Afghanistan will increase the chances of Canada becoming a target of terrorist attacks. In your opinion is this   
A good reason to leave Afghanistan, or 44 
Not a good reason to leave Afghanistan? 53 
Don't know/No answer 3 

Well with the exception of the polling publics apparent confusion on Question 5 and their opinion on Question 9 it seems to gather a different picture then the lefts "The vast majority of Canadians want us out of Afghanistan" slant.....


----------



## FredDaHead (9 Nov 2006)

I think in Question 5, "Restoring Peace" and "Peacekeeping" probably divided up the people who don't really know the difference.  Same for the whole Defeat Talibans/Defeat Al Qaeda/Stabilise Afghanistan... looks like they could be bunched up under some "Kill bad guys"-type answer.

I think Question 9 should have defined what "successful" means. Does it mean purging the country of all Taliban and insurgents or giving them a viable country with a police force that can control the bad elements? One is almost impossible, while the other is likely if we have the political will to keep at it.


----------



## Trinity (9 Nov 2006)

I think the fact that 35% of Canadians think this is a US led war
makes a huge difference on their opinion of it.

Although everyone here has run into it, only last week did I get someone
who I know throw in my face we are there because of Bush and Bush only.
My response... so why are the other 32 countries there supporting us?

No answer...

Supporting NATO is much easier than supporting Bush.  So how do
we disseminate this info.. other than us doing it person by person?


----------



## ProPatria Mike (9 Nov 2006)

I think the government needs to do more to define the mission in terms Canadians can understand. Judging by the respondents numbers, i cannot help but think a lot of Canadians are confused.


----------



## Korus (9 Nov 2006)

Weren't we only part of the US led coalition (under OEF) for Op Archer Roto 0? Then switched back to NATO for Roto 1?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> I think the government needs to do more to define the mission in terms Canadians can understand. Judging by the respondents numbers, i cannot help but think a lot of Canadians are confused.



Send them here: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html  and here: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/25-More-Free-Advice-for-Prime-Minister-Harper-Its-Time-to-Communicate.html  and even here: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/10-Why-We-Are-In-Afghanistan-Joining-The-Dots.html


----------



## Teflon (9 Nov 2006)

Task Force Orion was under Operation Enduring Freedom till 1 Aug 06 when command was handed over to ISAF

I personally didn't find the transition difficult but I was departing shortly after (21 Aug)


----------



## Bobbyoreo (9 Nov 2006)

I have seen four polls today..one said CDNS behind the misson..another said more CDNS against...one said Afgans feel more secure...another said Afgans are giving up hope.....I really dont trust polls they always seem to lead to the way that the poll takers want..


----------



## Teflon (9 Nov 2006)

Polls - their value is always dependent upon how the questions are phrased (ie: is the question specific or very broad, or if the question is asked in a slanted manner) and the already present conceptions of the answering people, along with their knowledge of the polls subject.

I never really put much stock in any poll which doesn't include the actual question asked along with the results.


----------



## Nieghorn (9 Nov 2006)

Very good point, Teflon.

I've seen the City family of stations' newspeople have been advertising something along the lines of 'most canadians polled think we should leave afghanistan before 2009' ... which even by that wording, doesn't give you much of a choice.  I'd like to see our troops home before then as well, so long as things are stable.  I skip local news, but I wonder if they mentioned that it's a CBC poll?  I'm an admitted CBC-ophile, but I know that most of their fans are the centre/left leaning types, which would also play a factor in my interpretation of the polls.


----------



## Kunu (9 Nov 2006)

Not to mention, often times when the poll numbers don't match their agenda, they twist and contort their wording until it does.  Sometimes they pull it off well, and other times, like the example below, it's pathetically blatent.  

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/08/afghanistan-survey.html?ref=rss#skip300x250


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2006)

Only 2% got the right answer, sent by the Canadian government  :crybaby:


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Nov 2006)

Afstan: Bush-clone cowboy warmonger!  "Stay the course in Afghan war: *Clinton* [my emphasis - MC]". 
http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=mercury/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163069645338&call_pageid=1050067726078&col=1050421501457

How odd that none of the major media seem to have picked up this story about what a leading US Democrat--very popular with Canadians unlike a certain George Bush--thinks. Given this selective news coverage ("accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive") no wonder Canadians are divided about the war.  Latest poll (their own) was lead story on CBC Newsworld this morning, and I'll bet they're all over it on Don "Chuckles" Newman's "Politics".
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/08/afghanistan-survey.html

Note that Mr Clinton wants US troop strength increased by 8,000. More fighting troops from somewhere (Europe, nudge, nudge; wink, wink) are certainly needed in the south.



> Former U.S. president spoke in Kitchener to an audience of about 1,000 yesterday
> 
> JEFF OUTHIT
> 
> ...



At least CBCnews online carried its own version of the story.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/09/clinton-reaction.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Nov 2006)

So how much would we all have to pitch in if we wanted to hire one of the polling firms to commission our own poll, with our own questions?


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> So how much would we all have to pitch in if we wanted to hire one of the polling firms to commission our own poll, with our own questions?



Wouldn't do us any good mate.  They low ball the polls in order to get their party in power so they can live off contracts afterwards. And we can't compete when the government uses our own dollars against us.  

..........Time for my medication


----------



## North Star (14 Nov 2006)

Another reason why one shouldn't govern by polls.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Nov 2006)

Polls don't determine what is right or what is wrong.  They only focus on opinion, which is as changing as the wind in Gagetown.  Take this snippet of "information" out there

Despite what we hear from our political and military leaders, this war to support U.S. oil policy is not going well. Just recently it was reported that in 2005 there were 150 insurgent attacks against NATO forces each month; this has risen to 600 in 2006. Back in 1979 Zbigniew Brzesinski urged President Jimmy Carter to lure the Soviet Union into Afghanistan to trap them in their own “Vietnam war.” How long will Canadian forces stay in Afghanistan?  We have already surrendered our long tradition of peacekeeping under the United Nations.
(from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAR20061116&articleId=3891)

In this article, the author neglects to mention any UN resolutions on Afghanistan and the terror attacks of 11 Sept 2001.  One that comes to mind is 1368 (2001) which states in part:
_"Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;"_
So, my point is: people are stupid.  Not individual persons, but people as a collective mass of humanity are generally stupid and do things for the wrong reason.  How else to cry "No Blood for Oil!" regarding the war in Afghanistan.  Why else would people call this "Bush's war"?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Polls don't determine what is right or what is wrong.  They only focus on opinion, which is as changing as the wind in Gagetown.



I disagree, polls only focus on what the intended and/or required opinion of the pollster's buyers need it to be.


----------



## schart28 (12 Dec 2006)

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14017

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose sending troops to Afghanistan?

                 Dec. 2006             Oct. 2006

Support      35%                     44%

Oppose       61%                    53%

Not sure      4%                      3%


----------



## Duzty (12 Dec 2006)

Does this include the data collected by the the phone surveyors who hang up on you if you say you support the the CF in a'stan?  ;D

First thing my stats prof taught me... never believe stats...


----------



## STONEY (12 Dec 2006)

Polls are essentially popularity contests that change daily usually by the last headline or TV show.
Why have elections , wouldn't it be cheaper and faster to simply have a poll.
Cancel the hocky season , simply hold a poll of fans. There is a simple formula = length of mission x number of casualties= loss of support.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2006)

A polling company called me last week, likely sponsored by the government. They ask me to rate stuff on a 1 to 7 scale, 7 being good/very supportive. When asked several questions on Afghanistan I gave a big 7 to the mission and any other question related to supporting it.


----------



## Gunnar (12 Dec 2006)

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.


----------



## North Star (13 Dec 2006)

Reading the press release, I can detect a polling bias already. It describes Afghanistan as part of the "Global War on Terror", which usually turns people off to our deployment right away. I wouldn't doubt that the questioners put the term in their preface to the question. Anti-Americanism gets you the results you want in polling about peace and war. 

If it were reworded as "Canada's contribution to the UN-sanctioned NATO mission in Afghanistan", I betcha you'd get different results.


----------



## GAP (13 Jan 2007)

Afghan mission support rebounds slightly 
Published: Saturday, January 13, 2007 Peter O'Neil, CanWest News Service
Article Link

Support for Canada's mission in Afghanistan has grown over the winter as memory of a wave of bloodshed during the summer and early autumn fades, according to a new national poll provided exclusively Friday to CanWest News Service.

The online Jan. 8-10 survey of 2,206 Canadians by Innovative Research Group found 58 per cent of respondents support the military action compared to 38 per cent who are opposed.

The numbers are in line with a previous Innovative survey done last June, but up from a follow-up October poll that had just 54 per cent of Canadians backing the mission and 42 per cent opposed.

Of the 37 Canadians who died in Afghanistan last year, 26 perished during the July-to-October period.

Innovative Research president Greg Lyle said his research shows Canadians are prepared to support the dangerous overseas mission as long as they are convinced Canadian soldiers are providing critical assistance and bringing peace and democracy to the war-plagued country.

"The idea that we're a bunch of pacifists sitting around singing Kumbaya just isn't the way Canada is."

David Bercuson, programs director for the Calgary-based Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, said the expected fighting lull in Afghanistan during the winter months isn't the only likely reason for the increased public support.

He said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government's stepped-up communication efforts, combined with generally positive media coverage of the conflict over the holiday season, have illustrated to Canadians that the military is engaged in reconstruction as well as combat.
More on link


----------



## pbi (14 Jan 2007)

> He said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government's stepped-up communication efforts, combined with generally positive media coverage of the conflict over the holiday season, have illustrated to Canadians that the military is engaged in reconstruction as well as combat.



This, IMHO, is the important part. While the CF has understood all along that we have to win the Info fight on this side of the pond if we want operational success, the Govt (and, to be honest, the previous Govt as well) really just didn't get it. In fact, I have fairly good anecdotal source saying that the current Govt was quite unhappy and uncomfortable with the way the CF "leans forward" on information. But, over the last couple of months, I have seem a distinct change: I think the light came on. This has been reflected in the reportage I have seen (although we could cynically say that due to the usual winter lull, there isn't much "bleeding" so reconstruction does the "leading"....I hope not, but then I can be a bit dim some times...)

The baddies and their support networks (who are no doubt reading this and every other open source in Canada, as well as watching our TV, reading the Cdn papers and  watching our domestic political developments) know that a military defeat of NATO forces is probably impossible, but that an information-based defeat of NATO public opinion is much easier and probably more important in the long run. They will be sitting in their Northwest Frontier refuge areas asking themselves why they haven't achieved that  defeat yet, and what weaknesses they can exploit. So far they haven't had to do too much: just sit and watch as NATO partners point fingers and call each other names in plain view, thus encouraging ill-informed Canadians to fear that the CF is carrying Afgh all by itself. A more adroitly exercised info ops campaign might do even more.

So what? Well, I think somebody once said that a lie can be half way around the world while truth is still getting its boots on, or something like that. So, it means that neither the Govt nor the CF can backtrack now on keeping the Cdn public informed with the truth, as quickly as possible, even if it isn't glorious. We needn't fear doing that. If, however, we get caught fibbing or "covering up" (to use a term we should remember all too well...) then look out. The baddies have nothing useful to offer the people of Afghanistan, but they have the ability to depict the opposite to an ill-informed public, aided and abetted by some of our political hopefuls who will cynically exploit dead Canadian soldiers to take a whack at the party in power.

Information is a weapon: it can destroy armies as surely as bullets and bombs.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> *Information is a weapon: it can destroy armies as surely as bullets and bombs*



Just in case someone missed it pbi.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2007)

One of the things I have noticed about the coverage is we now seem to be getting more reconstruction stories about the CF helping the Afghans.  Is that because of an improved security situation giving reporters more freedom of movement? Or is it because more projects are being organized close to the gates so that the reporters can get there?  Either way it serves the purpose and both show progress.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jan 2007)

Various headlines in CanWest papers for the same Innovative Research Group poll--the differences are rather interesting.

Fewer deaths, more support for mission: Poll shows increase in backing as time passes after bloody era (_Winnipeg Free Press_)
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/canada/story/3842272p-4446024c.html

Support for Afghan mission increases: 58% of Canadians in favour of effort: poll (_Ottawa Citizen_)
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=8d38e9ad-248d-48f6-86b5-34f11e8a64c9

Afghan mission gaining support (_Calgary Herald_)
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=196da05f-449c-419c-b0ed-5587501d0666

Support for Afghan mission grows in new national poll (_Victoria Times Colonist_)
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1523a493-e9ea-4ffa-9db0-5d48ab225f1d

Support for Afghan mission growing, poll finds (_Edmonton Journal_)
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=6c733f32-3ae1-4f36-aef1-5dad74ecf889

Support for troops growing (_Windsor Star_)
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=636b4744-e43a-4088-af78-97d127084c58

Canadians support mission (_Regina Leader-Post_)
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/canada_world/story.html?id=de6a4839-6ccc-4356-a6c9-00f2d8659c1f

Afghan mission support shows slight rebound: Almost 60 per cent of Canadians back military action: poll (_Saskatoon StarPhoenix_)
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=94973c1d-d1b7-4a99-b9b5-dd74a4f0a1f6&k=75831

Afghan mission support rebounds slightly (_National Post_)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=cdbdcfe9-ebcf-48ed-b6f3-42fc60e7e401

Afghan mission support rebounds slightly (_Vancouver Sun_)
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=cdbdcfe9-ebcf-48ed-b6f3-42fc60e7e401&k=70059

Afghan mission support rebounds slightly (_Montreal Gazette_)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1112691600&filter=0

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## rmacqueen (15 Jan 2007)

Wonder how the NDP will try and spin this?


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2007)

the NDP?
They'll ignore it and hope it goes away


----------



## cplcaldwell (15 Jan 2007)

Interesting, as far as I can see no mention of this on Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, CBC or CTV.

No mention.


----------



## Exarecr (15 Jan 2007)

It wouldn,t suprise me to find out the CBC did the poll during a special on the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Solmalia. Sounds so bizarre you just never know.....


----------



## Trimmen (18 Jan 2007)

So Canadians support the war on terror and are willing to commit troops, however, if any degree of risk were involved than Canadians should not commit? 
Correct me if I'm wrong but the results of this pole provide distinct evidence that suggests the majority civilian Canadians are either delusional, indecisive or so incredibly self centered that they are willing to deceptively commit and then suddenly turn their backs and run when adversity strikes?
The globe and mail shouldn't be spending time and money producing a study that demonstates Canadian ignorance. Perhaps they should produce a pole that tests Canadian knowledge and perception regarding the of the conflict in Afghanistan.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jan 2007)

I don't think you need to take it that badly.  Canadians have been quite happy to be "the Good Guys" for so long.  We fancy ourselves the buddies to the planet, and that is what gives everyone that mental edge over the Americans (illusory as it may be).  The media have been quite thrilled to distort this conflict from the beginning, but it is really hard to continue to rag on a righteous action for very long.  Education and awareness will eventually seep in.  If nothing else, the more people clue in to what "nice guys" we are by helping in A'stan, the more they will support it.  
Or maybe they only just realized that there is a Tim Horton's there.  Hard to call.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2007)

Instead of just sharing media reports (available on GAP's AFG News Only Thread), I've posted the news release and tables of results here so we can get it, as much as one can in a media-driven-and-commissioned poll, straight from the horse's mouth.  

*Most Canadian Support Troops In Light of Recent Investigation Into Afghanistan Abuses*
But Canadians Remain Split On The Continued Military Effort In Afghanistan
Ipsos-Reid news release, February 22, 2007
Permalink to news release, tables of results

Toronto, ON – In the light of the recent launch of an investigation into allegations that Canadian soldiers may have mistreated detainees in Afghanistan, a new Ipsos Reid poll reports that most Canadians (63%) are sceptical that the Canadian public will ever really find out what happened. Many (37%), though, believe that investigation will get to the bottom of the issue.

Whatever the investigation’s finding might be, it appears as though Canadians’ support for their troops’ actions and behaviour in Afghanistan is unwavering:

* 73% agree that “whatever is reported back, it is probably an extremely isolated circumstance and not widespread among the Canadian forces”;
* 63% agree with the statement “I don’t believe that our Canadian troops are involved with torturing combatant prisoners”; and
* 86% agree that “our armed forces are doing a good job in Afghanistan”.

In fact, a good proportion of Canadians (39%) say they “don’t have a problem with our Canadian troops roughing up or manhandling combatant and Taliban prisoners because it’s a war zone”.

But while support for the actions and behaviour of Canada’s troops in Afghanistan is high, support for the military effort in Afghanistan is middling. Approximately half of Canadians:

* Agree with the statement that “Canada should pull its military out of Afghanistan as soon as possible” (49%); and

* Disagree with the statement that “If NATO forces don’t send more international troops, the Canadian military should stick it out until it’s tour of duty ends in 2009 as Afghanistan is too important to abandon” (47%).

Previously Ipsos Reid polls which asked “Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of Canada’s troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?” revealed a similar split in Canadian public opinion dating back to March 2006.

These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid survey fielded from February 15th to 19th, 2007. For the survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1,000 adult Canadians were interviewed via an on-line survey. With a sample of this size, *the aggregate results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20*, of what they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled. The margin of error will be larger within each sub-grouping of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to Census data.

Most (63%) Don’t Believe Investigations Into Handling Of Detainees By Canadian Troops Will Find Out What Really Happened…

Question: As you may know, the Canadian authorities who are responsible for investigating how our troops behave in combat zones are looking into allegations that Canadian soldiers may have roughed up detainees in Afghanistan and that their misdeeds were ignored by the police. Do you believe that these investigations will get to the bottom of the allegations in the Canadian public will really find out what happened?

* Yes 37% -- most likely from Alberta 47%, followed by Atlantic Canada 43%, British Columbia 41%, Ontario 37%, Saskatchewan/Manitoba 36% and Québec 30%; men 42% and women 32%, older 41%.

* No 63% -- most likely from Québec 70%, followed by Saskatchewan/Manitoba 64% and Ontario 63%, British Columbia 59%, Atlantic Canada 57% and Alberta 53%; women 68% and men 50%, younger 68%.

Agree/Disagree Statements

Question: I don't have a problem with our Canadian troops roughing up or manhandling combatant and Taliban prisoners because it's a war zone.

* Agree 39% -- [strongly 11%/somewhat 28%] -- most likely from Alberta 64%, followed by Ontario and British Columbia 44%, Atlantic Canada 35%, Saskatchewan/Manitoba 23% and Québec 27%; men 53% and women 27%, middle-age 43%.

* Disagree 61% -- [strongly 36%/somewhat 24%] -- most likely from Québec 73% followed by Saskatchewan/Manitoba 67% and Atlantic Canada 65%, Ontario and British Columbia 56% and Alberta 36%; women 73% and men 47%, younger 65%.

Question: I don't believe that our Canadian troops are involved with torturing combatant prisoners

* Agree 63% -- [strongly 19%/somewhat 44%] -- most likely from British Columbia 66%, Alberta 65% and Ontario 64%, followed by Québec 61%, Atlantic Canada 60% and Saskatchewan/Manitoba 59%; men 65% and women 60%, older 69%.

* Disagree 37% -- [strongly 6%/somewhat 32%] -- most likely from Atlantic Canada 40%, Saskatchewan/Manitoba 41% and Québec [39%, followed by Ontario 36%, Alberta 35% and British Columbia 34%; women 40% and Man 35%, younger 43%.

Question: Whatever is reported back, it is probably an extremely isolated circumstance and not widespread among the Canadian forces

* Agree 73% -- [strongly 30%/somewhat 43%] -- most likely from Atlantic Canada 82% and British Columbia 81%, followed by Ontario 75% and Alberta 74%, Saskatchewan/Manitoba 69% and Québec 65%; men 77% and women 69%, older 77%.

* Disagree 27% -- [strongly 4%/somewhat 23%] -- most likely from Québec 35%, followed by Saskatchewan/Manitoba 31%, Alberta 26% and Ontario 25%, British Columbia 19% and Atlantic Canada 18%; women 31% and Man 23%, younger 30% and middle-age 28%.

Question: Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the political decision to send our troops to Afghanistan, I support our Canadian troops in the job that they are doing

* Agree 88% -- [strongly 58%/somewhat 30%] -- most likely from Alberta 95% and Atlantic Canada 95%, followed by Ontario 89%, British Columbia 86% and Saskatchewan/Manitoba and Québec 85%; men 89% and women 88%, older 92%.

* Disagree 12% -- [strongly 5%/somewhat 7%] -- most likely from Québec and Saskatchewan/Manitoba 15%, followed by British Columbia 14%, Ontario 11% and Atlantic Canada and Alberta 5%; women 12% and men 11%, younger 15%.

Question: Our armed forces are doing a good job in Afghanistan

* Agree 86% -- [strongly 40%/somewhat 46%] -- most likely from Alberta 93%, followed by Atlantic Canada 80%, Québec 86% and British Columbia/Saskatchewan/Manitoba/Ontario 84%; women 87% and men 84%, older 92%.

* Disagree 14% -- [strongly 4%/somewhat 10%] -- most likely from Ontario/Saskatchewan/Manitoba/British Columbia 16%, followed by Québec 14% and Alberta 7%; men 16% and women 13%, younger 21%.

Question: Canada should pull its military out of Afghanistan as soon as possible and abandon this mission

* Agree 49% -- [strongly 22%/somewhat 27%] -- most likely from Québec 60%, followed by Atlantic Canada 55%, Ontario 45%, British Columbia and Saskatchewan/Manitoba 44%, and Alberta [35%; women 61% and men 36%, no age difference.

* Disagree 51% -- [strongly 24%/somewhat 27%] -- most likely from Alberta 65% followed by British Columbia and Saskatchewan/Manitoba 56%, Ontario 55%, Atlantic Canada 45% and Québec 40%; men 64% and women 39%, no age difference.

Question: If NATO allied forces don't send more international troops, the Canadian military should stick it out until it's tour of duty ends in 2009 as Afghanistan is too important to abandon

* Agree 53% -- [strongly 17%/somewhat 36%] -- mostly from Alberta 62%, followed by British Columbia/Saskatchewan Manitoba 56% and Ontario 55%, Atlantic Canada 49% and Québec 46%; men 62% and women 45%, older 59%.

* Disagree 47% -- [strongly 17%/somewhat 31%] -- mostly from Québec 54%, followed by Atlantic Canada 51%, Ontario 45% and British Columbia/Saskatchewan/Manitoba 44% and Alberta 38%; women 55% and men 30%, younger and a middle age 50%.

Question: Canada should commit to only having a peacekeeping military, not combat ready military

* Agree 58% -- [strongly 33%/somewhat 26%] -- most likely from Québec 71%, followed by British Columbia and Saskatchewan/Manitoba 56%, Ontario 54%, Atlantic Canada 53% and Alberta 42%; women 70% and men 46%, no age difference.

* Disagree 42% -- [strongly 19%/somewhat 22%] -- most likely from Alberta 58%, followed by Atlantic Canada 47% and Ontario 46%, Saskatchewan/Manitoba and British Columbia 44% and Québec 29%; men 54% and women 30%, no age difference.

For more information on this press release, please contact:
John Wright
Sr. Vice President
Ipsos Reid Public Affairs
(416) 324-2900


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Feb 2007)

I wonder how many supporters got hung up on for that one?


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Feb 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

The Canadian Forceseux nations 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/canadian-forces-deux-nations.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2007)

MOD SQUAD:  I know it's more than 100 days, but the posting is still pretty relevant to the thread, and can serve to grow the pool of polling knowledge.  Feel free to break away if you see fit.

Full Results:  Canadians:  Afghan Mission Difficult but Enhances Canada's Standing in the World, Nik Nanos, SES Research, _Policy Options_, June 2007. (.pdf)



*Canadians doubt success of Afghan mission*
Poll: One-quarter believe in high chance of success
CanWest News Service, 6 Jun 07
Article Link

Whether they are for or against Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, Canadians are highly skeptical about its chances for success, a new poll shows.

"Canadians believe the mission in Afghanistan enhances our reputation in the world, but also believe it is a difficult and complex mission and are highly doubtful about the chances for success," said Nik Nanos, president of SES Research. 

In a national survey conducted for Policy Options magazine, the company found that only about one in four Canadians believes that either the military mission or the efforts to promote the rule of law and human rights in the troubled Asian country have a strong probability of success. The sentiments were shared across the board, regardless of whether respondents felt Canada should be in Afghanistan at all.

"What I found interesting is that even among committed Conservative supporters, or the group that support the mission the most, only 26 per cent think there is a high chance of success," Nanos noted.

The poll found that close to half of Canadians believe the mission is enhancing Canada's reputation on the world stage, while one-quarter either believe it has had no impact or is diminishing the country's reputation. 

In general, however, the humanitarian aspects of the mission enjoyed more support than the security efforts, with 38 per cent of respondents saying efforts to promote the rule of law and human rights were the most important reason for Canadian engagement in Afghanistan. About one-third felt rebuilding security and stability were the most compelling justifications, while one in five favoured initiatives that support economic and social development. 

"This may well have to do with Canadians' enduring self-perception of our country as a nation of peacekeepers, even though we are not really in that business anymore," said Nanos.

The poll was conducted  April 26 to May 1, after six Canadian soldiers died when a roadside bomb blew up their vehicle in the dangerous Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. The results carry a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Nanos said the poll should inform the government as it reflects on the criteria for gauging the mission's success.

"I wouldn't look at these numbers and think the government should be pulling out of Afghanistan or not. But what it does show is that maybe the government has set the bar so high in regards to success, in regards to creating stability, fostering democracy, building an economy ...that Canadians are looking at those things and saying these objectives are going to be pretty tough to achieve," said Nanos.

The pollster concluded that somewhat "more realistic" goals could make the mission more acceptable to Canadians.

"The reality is this is a very grey issue. We found that among people who oppose or support the mission, there are the same concerns about whether we are giving our men and women in Afghanistan the resources they need to succeed." said Nanos ....


----------



## pbi (8 Jun 2007)

Two thoughts:


-I wonder what the Taleban and friends make of these results, and how they intend to influence them;  and

-I'm really struck by the outstanding difference in Quebec results. I guess I shouldn't be, because I'm familiarr with the mantra that Quebec is the province that least supports the military, but to see the cold numbers is quite something. It makes me wonder how much community support our brothers and sisters in 5ieme GBC are getting, and whether or not this public unhappiness offers a juicy info ops target for the baddies?

Cheers


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> It makes me wonder how much community support our brothers and sisters in 5ieme GBC are getting, and whether or not this public unhappiness offers a juicy info ops target for the baddies?



Well, it seems at least ONE group of (what some would consider baddies) appears to be taking advantage:

The War on War! Coalition - Valcartier 2007 invites you to come out on June 22nd for a demonstration to denounce Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan and the deployment of additional troops to Kandahar.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Jun 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> In a national survey conducted for Policy Options magazine, the company found that only about one in four  Canadians believes that either the military mission or the efforts to promote the rule of law and human rights in the troubled Asian country have a strong probability  of success. The sentiments were shared across the board, regardless of whether respondents felt Canada should be in Afghanistan at all.



Gee, once again stats are skewed to flog a negative article.  What a bunch of crap.  Look at the numbers.  Sure, 24% of people Canada wide when asked "DOES CANADA HAVE A HIGH, AVERAGE OR LOW LIKELYHOOD OF SUCCESS IN PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS?" indicated a high likelyhood.  But they skip the whole "average" statistic, which is 40.4% Canada wide.  So why not say "64.4% of Canadians have an average to high expectation..." You get the point.  
So to write a whole article based on such a selective interpretation of data is bad journalism at best, and biased political shilling at worst.


----------



## geo (9 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Two thoughts:
> 
> 
> -I wonder what the Taleban and friends make of these results, and how they intend to influence them;  and
> ...



5 GBMC is doing quite well thank you very much.
What the press says and what real support we get from the people are two entirely different things.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> 5 GBMC is doing quite well thank you very much.
> What the press says and what real support we get from the people are two entirely different things.



Par for the course.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jun 2007)

The latest - as of posting, Decima hasn't seen fit to share the details on its web page yet (will share if/when available).  Shared with the usual disclaimer.

*Big majority wants Afghan mission to end on schedule in 2009: poll*
Bruce Cheadle, Canadian Press, 10 Jun 07
Article link

OTTAWA (CP) - The vast majority of Canadians want this country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009, according to a new poll.

The survey by Decima Research, released Monday to The Canadian Press, found that two-thirds of respondents want Canadian troops to come home when the current mandate from Parliament expires in February 2009.

Only 26 per cent of respondents believed the military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."

The results of the poll, conducted May 31 to June 4, were released as Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed an extension to the mission with his Dutch counterpart in Ottawa.

Harper has repeatedly hinted that Canadian troops may have to stay on in Afghanistan's troubled southern provinces beyond February 2009 in order to ensure stability.

"You know that we can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best," he said last month during a visit with the troops in Kandahar.

Jan Peter Balkenende, prime minister of the Netherlands, faces a similar debate, with Dutch troops mandated to work alongside the Canadians only until August 2008.

After meeting with Harper, Balkenende told a news conference on Parliament Hill that he will inform NATO by this August what his country intends to do.

"We will of course consult closely with Canada on this," said the Dutch prime minister. "That was one of the reasons for my visit today."

Neither Balkenende nor Harper tipped his hand on an extension, but Harper said the two leaders discussed the matter at length and share "similar considerations, a similar evaluation of the situation, similar concerns."

"I obviously will not pressure the prime minister in public," said Harper. "But just to say that we have valued tremendously the co-operation with the Netherlands in southern Afghanistan."

Harper's hints appear to run counter to a Canadian sentiment that Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said runs strongly across every region, both genders, all age and income groups and among both urban and rural residents.

"Even Conservative party voters are at best split," said the pollster, noting self-identified Conservative supporters in the survey were divided 48-47 in favour of extending the mission.

That's not to say Canadians feel the mission is a wasted effort.

In the telephone survey of more than 1,000 respondents, Decima asked whether "sufficient progress" is being made in three separate areas that are frequently used to defend the military mission.

A healthy plurality of respondents felt the mission was helping to rebuild Afghanistan for its people and fostering democracy. But respondents were more skeptical about the mission's goal of reducing the threat of global terrorism, with more people saying there's been insufficient progress than sufficient progress.

Anderson noted that not one of the three rationales received more than 50 per cent support as making sufficient progress.

"In each case we found that there wasn't really an overwhelming consensus," said the pollster.

"Given the size of the commitment, given the number of casualties that Canadians have experienced, this represents a problem, obviously."

One diplomat and 56 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and the mission has cost the country billions of dollars. Respondents in the Decima survey were twice as likely (62-29) to say the number of casualties is unacceptably high.

Conservative voters, said Anderson, were the only subgroup in the poll in which a majority, 52 per cent, felt the number of casualties has been acceptable.

Yet Anderson says the broad sentiment does not appear to be for an immediate military withdrawal, and Canadian reticence about an extension could change as the deadline approaches and the consequences of leaving become clearer.

The Dutch people face that decision this summer, but Canadians can delay it for several more months.

"Right now that deadline seems like it's some distance off into the future," said Anderson.

"What people are really saying, I think, through this poll is we're uncomfortable with a completely open-ended commitment."

The poll's national results are considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## simysmom99 (12 Jun 2007)

Geo, I am glad to hear that those in Quebec are getting good support.  You only hear the negative in the press (of course) so thank you for sharing that info.  In fact Paul and I will be travelling next week for a BBQ and a visit with the medics deploying shortly so I look forward to seeing everyone and showing our support as well.

Here is where I have a problem.  Did my husband, and 5 others (that we know of to date) lose body parts in Afghanistan to help people who want help for nothing?  Did we lose 57 soldiers doing the same thing for nothing?

I think the general public still doesn't understand what is really going on.  That we are doing a great job, but to cut and run in 09 is a terrible idea.  All that hard work, sacrifice and stress to see all if it go away.  That just makes me so mad.  What else can we do to help others really understand?  More education, yes.  Any other ideas?


----------



## Flip (12 Jun 2007)

> A healthy plurality of respondents felt the mission was helping to rebuild Afghanistan for its people and fostering democracy. But respondents were more skeptical about the mission's goal of reducing the threat of global terrorism, with more people saying there's been insufficient progress than sufficient progress.



I hate polls - for the simple reason that a question is posed that respondents
are unlikely to have the information to answer rationally.
The questions, whatever they are measure how the media is doing about as well as the military.  And really none of that could be considered meaningful.



> I think the general public still doesn't understand what is really going on.  That we are doing a great job, but to cut and run in 09 is a terrible idea.  All that hard work, sacrifice and stress to see all if it go away.  That just makes me so mad.  What else can we do to help others really understand?  More education, yes.  Any other ideas?



simysmom99 
Double Ditto!

I'm a civvie and I never thought for a moment that it would all be a waste.
Thanks to your husband and you for your service!

I agree with you - It's a problem.
The media in the liberal west try to run things.
They grab for the steering wheel with no idea where we're going.

If someone stands up and offers this country leadership - pour on the static!

Write a book?
Submit to the editorial page?
Get interviewed?
Confront the nonsense that is written directly.


----------



## simysmom99 (12 Jun 2007)

We are well started on your list of to-do's Flip.  We have written a book *due out August 29, 2007* (okay, shameless plug), I have done editorial pages, we get interviewed a lot.  And of course, if anyone wants some education I try to help or I suggest sources for their answers.  I guess that is all we can really do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2007)

Lecherous bloodsucking slime licking  friggin' goofs.........yea, I'm looking at you polling companies.

I think by law these clowns should have to release also how many polls were conducted with the same question, how many people told them to stop calling and hangups, and also the geographical makeup of the poll.
To do otherwise makes the poll useless.............................I would like to call the same *thousand* people and ask the same question with " even though this means allowing Mr. Taliban to continue murdering thousands of helpless women and children at their leisure?" attached to the end of the question.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Jun 2007)

I believe that Decima is a Liberal-friendly polling firm...I usually ignore their polls.


----------



## Etienne (12 Jun 2007)

Humm...for the PQ results, I am wondering were did they call... in the region of Quebec City the support is very VERY  high to us..

And Yess 5 CMBG is doing great 

Etienne


----------



## atlas (19 Jun 2007)

This poll is still misleading in that, if anything, it actually masks the degree of popular opposition to the war.

I have read in other polls that almost half of Canadians want troops out _before _ 2009, so I couldn't figure out how over 60% would support _staying there for another two years _ (when the current mission is supposed to end.)  

The answer is on Decima's website, where you can read the survey and results. (Go to http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/070612AE.pdf) 

It shows that Canadians were only posed with two options on the length of deployment issue. Those choices were:

Do you... 1) Support an extension past 2009. or 2) Support leaving in 2009 as scheduled

The truth is that there should have been a third option for "troops leaving before 2009" which would have received a sizable percentage. Obviously anyone truly opposed to the conflict felt compelled to choose option 2 over option 1.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Jun 2007)

i agree with bruce. Polls and LOADED questions can be set to easily dupe or get the answer they are looking for. It would be like saying "In spite of all the allegations of criminal activity agaisnt Mr Bloggins, what is your opinion of him?" You the average canuck would have been presented with a thought along with a question.

The liberals I don't doubt for one second are lovingt his crap. Too many people were "liberal drunk" when thos monkeys were in power.  :threat:


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2007)

> Support for Afghan mission dropping: poll
> Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service
> Published: Monday, July 16, 2007
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f6a34b10-d80a-4f26-b710-418e10aa9dc5


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (16 Jul 2007)

Government isn't lead by polls. Nevertheless, anger the population, end up in opposition.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> Government isn't lead by polls. Nevertheless, anger the population, end up in opposition.



Really?? Ever notice how policy seems to change when poll results do??

The Liberals were famous for it.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jul 2007)

Source:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070718/afghanistan_poll_070718/20070718?hub=TopStories

(Shared in accordance with the normal caveats)

"Earlier this month, anti-war protesters crashed a parade for the Quebec-based 22nd Regiment known as the Van Doos, who are now being deployed to Afghanistan. 
The soldiers also received about 3,000 letters asking them not to go"

From what others have said about that "parade crashing", is this misinformation?  As well, earlier ctv (television, not the "dot see-eh") said something to the effect that "the Taliban have killed 66 Canadian soldiers".  By my count, 6 were killed by friendly fire, at least 4 in traffic accidents, 1 by accidental fall and 2 by unauthorised/accidental/negligent discharges.  That's 13, leaving "53" killed by the Taliban.  Since the NDP like to harp on about how combat is not "our way", a rather low number of our troops have actually  been killed "in combat": 14 (eg: direct fire by the enemy, as opposed to suicide bomber, IED, landmine, or whatever.  I put "in combat" in quotes simply because I cannot find another way to say that the enemy were shooting at our lads, as opposed to planting explosives.  The difference is that even with our bullet proof Blue Berets, those fellows killed by IED, landmines, suicide bombers, whatever, would still be dead.  Probably more if we weren't in combat killing those who would plant such mines, etc)


----------



## Trinity (19 Jul 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> "Earlier this month, anti-war protesters crashed a parade for the Quebec-based 22nd Regiment known as the Van Doos, who are now being deployed to Afghanistan.
> The soldiers also received about 3,000 letters asking them not to go"




No, they received one letter, 3000 times.  Big difference between 3000 people writing letters vs 1 person doing a mass flyer.
(Yes, I know its the article, not you Sensible)


----------



## alfie (19 Jul 2007)

2 points, one Polls ..they never ask me and how does 1-20 protesters constitute "crashing a parade" if it wans't;t for our NDP slanted media nobody would have even known they were there.


----------



## Gardiners1 (19 Jul 2007)

Wouldn't it be nice if they polled a few thousand members of the Armed Forces and published those results?


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jul 2007)

Gardiners1 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice if they polled a few thousand members of the Armed Forces and published those results?


then it wouldn't be an accurate sample of the population.  It would be like doing a poll on Vancouver's lower east side, asking about the legal status of marajuana.  Roughly 100% would be in favour!  Publishing that data as representative of the general population's opinion would be false reporting.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2007)

I wonder how accurate these polls are? We have read reports on this forum from service members who have been disconnected by the pollsters when they start giving "pro" CF or "pro" mission answers. I don't know all the questions or methodologies, but I strongly suspect "push polling" (i.e. the answer is given in the question) might be used in many cases.

Combined with the distinctly one sided reporting in the news, and the "chattering classes" are shaping preceptions, rather than the public reacting to what is actually happening in the mission.


----------



## Flip (19 Jul 2007)

As much as they are liberal biased they are biased toward controversy.

If 1 person is in a conflict with 20 then the two sides get equal air.
It's not representative of the population, or even what's happening.
It just demonstrates how violent that tempest is, without showing that it's in a teapot.

If members of the CF and veterans demonstrated in front of NDP HQ 
It would get air......
A red shirt rally with inflamatory sighnage that calls Jack a liar, maybe?

A "save the Afghan babies" rally.
Women's rights in Afghanistan?

As with polls, it's all in how you sell it. _ If Canadians saw "our" side they would support our view ( I think anyway).


----------



## Hawk (19 Jul 2007)

But do you realize that to an extent that's exactly what polling firms do( carefully pick the area to poll)? They pick areas where they're likely to get the result the client wants.  Then they carefully word the question to make it confusing to the respondent, or the answer choices are designed so they force the response they're asking for. 

They have qualifiers at the beginning of a poll. These could be age, sex, employment, education, salary range. Beware of polls that ask these qualifiers before they get into the poll. They're fishing for just the right demographic to pad the poll.

The questions can be done in 2 ways, and both are effective in getting the right answers. One way is a great long paragraph, read verbatum, and quickly, then asking if you 1. strongly agree, 2. somewhat agree, 3, disagree, 4. somewhat disagree, 5. strongly disagree.

The other method is to make a statement based on some press nonsense. Then say: which of the following statements is closest to your opinion,  and offer you 3, 4, or more long winded, and usually poorly written statements, and you have to choose.

Most, but not all, polling firms insist that their people read everything verbatim. If you ask them to clarify, they're trained to say," I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to interpret the question, but I can read it for you again". Trust me, this is drilled and drilled in training. Then they read it again, exactly as before.

Try to get out of answering? "I'm sorry, but I require an answer before we can go on, now, would you say . . ." Hang up? your number goes to a Refusal Buster, who will try it again.

I've been trying to find an online poll to lead you to. The preditory company I'm most aware of, won't call me - I'm on their Do Not Call list.

Been there, done that - refuse to wear the t-shirt.


Hawk


----------



## GAP (19 Jul 2007)

Nobody has commented on it, but has anyone noticed that in the last year the polling numbers have changed. The standard was around 2,000 a year ago....most polls now, and within the last 6 months are only of 1000. I don't think their accuracy numbers would hold up to scrutiny, especially if they are pick a demographic or geographic area in addition to lower numbers.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (19 Jul 2007)

alfie said:
			
		

> 2 points, one Polls ..they never ask me and how does 1-20 protesters constitute "crashing a parade" if it wans't;t for our NDP slanted media nobody would have even known they were there.



I happened to be there during that big parade (as a spectator, not a participant) and subsequent "crashing" and there were a lot more than 20 protestors. I'd say probably in the neighbourhood of 200.

Also, I consider this to be a relevant piece of news, not some left-wing media agenda, as there were actually some minor scuffles where the protestors tried to disrupt the marching.


----------



## Hawk (19 Jul 2007)

The low numbers likely mean better pinpointing of the desired demographic. They won't just do 1000 surveys - they will accept 1000 surveys. The survey will come back to haunt the callfloor night after night till they have the right number of positive and negative numbers required to satisfy the client. They may only have to get 100 more completes to finish up after the first night of calling, but when they go in the next night, they may need 500. Good chance the required numbers haven't been reached yet. I know from using their software as a supervisor, that it can track almost anything you want tracked - including the number of positive and negative responses. Everything and everyone is monitored.

Notice its *cosidered* accurate not *is* accurate 19 times out of 20 - whatever that means.

Sorry, I just don't trust any polling firms.


Hawk


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (19 Jul 2007)

Why doesent the government make a real poll about this? Where every Canadian gets to vote and they publish the real results.

I'm tired of the Mop & Pail or some other biased network making a false poll and then presenting it to the people as fact.


----------



## 3rd Herd (19 Jul 2007)

CF Enthusiast said:
			
		

> Why doesent the government make a real poll about this? Where every Canadian gets to vote and they publish the real results.
> 
> I'm tired of the Mop & Pail or some other biased network making a false poll and then presenting it to the people as fact.



Then the talking "expert" heads would be out on the streets or worse re-enlisting in their former area of expertise and doing some first hand primary research. Nope the troops got enough problems.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Notice its *cosidered* accurate not *is* accurate 19 times out of 20 - whatever that means.
> 
> 
> Hawk



What they mean is that out of every 20 polls taken there is going to one, that for a variety of reasons, is out to lunch. However, the number to look for is the "Margin of Error" (MoE) and this represents the sampling error that could be found in any poll. The MoE will depend on the size of people asked and in this case is 3.1%(-/+). That means any _overall _figure given in the poll can vary by 3.1%(-/+). 

Here is a link to a poll on how Canadians think about the Afghan mission as reported on CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070718/afghanistan_poll_070718/20070718?hub=Politics

and the actual poll itself:
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/2007-07-16%20GMCTV%20July%2012-15.pdf

So, when they say for instance that only 22 % of Canadians "Totally Support" the mission [because of the MoE (3.1%)] the number should be really be 19 - 25 % (I rounded the figures off).  They also show in brackets that shows the change (if any) from the same poll taken last year. You will notice that many of the numbers are within the 3.1% MoE error rate which means the numbers are meaningless. 

Of course, the smaller the number of people polled, the greater the MoE is. If you look at the bottom of the page it states that the "Quebec sample size is 247, with a 6.3 percentage point margin of error." So, for the figure for Quebecer's who totally support the mission could be anywhere from 16 - 28 % and those who oppose 69 - 81 %. This also applies to the figures representing the "rest of Canada," "Ontario" or "the West." The MoE for these breakdowns is listed in the actual poll. Again, they have the changes (for Quebec) from last years poll, but because they fall within the 6.3% MoE they are essentially meaningless. 

Hope I haven't confused everyone. For more information on polls/polling go here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/readpoll.html "How to Read a Poll"

http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4 "20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results"


----------



## regulator12 (20 Jul 2007)

Why is it so hard to swallow that most Canadians would not want us in Afghanistan. I personally think that there is a split in peoples views on the mission, however i do not doubt there support for the troops. Canadians i am sure do not like to see or hear about more soldiers dying. I doubt that these polls are so rigged to get the results the pollers want. It might just be that they dont want us there anymore. Who knows....


----------



## Hawk (20 Jul 2007)

Well, I've done my best to tell you how these companies work. I've watched the numbers being fudged, and got into trouble because I wouldn't have any part of it. That's one of the reasons I no longer work fo a polling company.

I have this bridge . . . . 


Hawk


----------



## uptheglens (20 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Well, I've done my best to tell you how these companies work. I've watched the numbers being fudged, and got into trouble because I wouldn't have any part of it. That's one of the reasons I no longer work fo a polling company.
> 
> I have this bridge . . . .
> 
> ...



Although you have a much better knowledge of how polling companies work, I thought that this was one of the most brilliant examples of how the same question can have two different results in polling. This excerpt is from "Yes, Prime Minister" by Antony Jay and Johnathan Lynn. The poll was about the re-introduction of conscription:

The secret is that when the Man in The Street is approached by a nice attractive young lady with a clipboard he is asked a SERIES of questions. Naturally, the Man in The Street wants to make a good impression and doesn't want to make a fool if himself. So the market researcher asks questions designed to elicit CONSISTENT answers.

Humphrey demonstrated the system on me. "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"

"Yes", I said.

"Do you think there's a lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?"

"Yes"

"Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?"

"Yes"

"Do they respond to a challenge?"

"Yes"

"Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"

"Yes"

Well, naturally I said yes. One could hardly have said anything else without looking inconsistent. Then what happens is that the Opinion Poll publishes only the last question and answer.

Of course, the reputable polls didn't conduct themselves like that. But there weren't too many of those. Humphrey suggested that we commission a new survey, not for the Party but for the Ministry of Defence. We did so. He invented the questions there and then:

"Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

"Yes," I said, quite honestly.

"Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?"

"Yes"

"Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"

"Yes"

"Do you think it wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"

"Yes"

"Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"

"Yes"

I'd said "yes" before I'd even realised it, d'you see?

Humphrey crowed with delight. "You see, Bernard," he said to me, "you're the perfect Balanced Sample".


----------



## Greymatters (20 Jul 2007)

Ah, how true...


----------



## Sassy (20 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Well, I've done my best to tell you how these companies work. I've watched the numbers being fudged, and got into trouble because I wouldn't have any part of it. That's one of the reasons I no longer work fo a polling company.
> 
> I have this bridge . . . .
> 
> ...



LOL you are correct, I recently participated in a poll and it became clear halfway through that I was being led to a preconceived conclusion.  In fact the poll was designed to get the results that the person paying for said poll wanted.  I have no faith in polls.  Considering our MSM is extremely left/left/left wing, thus they only report the negatives of the Mission. Once in a while the Globe and Rail will post a fluff piece but if one wants to find out what's happening on the ground we have to read blogs.  That is shameful, MSM needs to start reporting the news instead printing a blurb and telling me what they think. Frankly I'm sick of reporters opining their opinion like it's fact.  It's not it's their opinion. Gurrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I participate in several forums that are Liberal, sadly only a small percentage of them support the mission.  Most posters call our military some  nasty names, baby killer is one of them.  All I can do is try and be a voice for those who can't speak.  When I read something that shines a bright light on the military I post it. I'm often refered to as a "War Monger" sigh but considering the source I really could careless.


----------



## Hawk (20 Jul 2007)

uptheglens - that was wonderful! YES PRIME MINISTER is truly brilliant! Know what, though, like all good comedy its absolutely true. You talk in a soft (sexy?), calm voice - sooth them into complacency then let them have it once they're listening to the flirtyness in you voice. Guys can work it on women, just like I can work it on men. Sounds sexist, and I don't mean it that way (please forgive if I've offended anyone, that wasn't my intention), but when you're under the gun to get completed surveys, you use what you've got  >

The sad thing is, the polls will lead the people. What they report will be (is?) what will happen. People have a herding instinct. If they hear most people want us out of Afghanistan, then everyone can't be wrong, can they? Pulling out must be the right thing to do. THAT'S the real danger in all this spin. They won't think for themselves, will accept what they perceive as the status quo, and let the chips fall where they may.

That's why I love coming here to chat - people here think for themselves, and don't allow MSM or anyone else tell them what they think. Argue as I will, its in my nature, I'm truly enjoying this place, and want to stay. So I'm trying to behave.


Hawk


----------



## McG (21 Jul 2007)

It would be interesting to see a graph showing public opinion over the year + since this started.  The same sort of thing is done in the lead-up to an election.

I recognize that some error would exist as a result of the question not being exactly the same each time.  Regardless, I think we would see that regularly publicised trends toward decreasing support are false.


----------



## gnplummer421 (21 Jul 2007)

I still believe the biggest blocker for most people that oppose our mission is the lack of knowledge.

Whenever I become engaged in a conversation with a person who is convinced we should not be there, I have encouraged that person to explain to me, in detail, exactly why they feel this way. Most seem to answer in exactly the same way;

1. It is Bush's War,
2. It is about Oil,
3. We are supposed to be Peacekeeping,
4. Harper is just a Bush puppet,
5. Our soldiers are dying for nothing. (this one really angers me)

I then gently (suppressing my anger) try to get them to tell me what they know about the actual mission. The current units involved, what province we are operating in, who we are fighting and why.

Sadly, when it comes to this part, most people will change the subject, because they simply do not know. I believe most people react only to what they see on TV, read in the papers, and then those damned polls. If our troops would get some positive publicity, maybe it would help educate people, and then they can form an accurate opinion.

Our Forces ARE doing very positive things, I only wish my fellow citizens knew about them.

Gnplummer421


----------



## uptheglens (21 Jul 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> uptheglens - that was wonderful! YES PRIME MINISTER is truly brilliant! Know what, though, like all good comedy its absolutely true. You talk in a soft (sexy?), calm voice - sooth them into complacency then let them have it once they're listening to the flirtyness in you voice. Guys can work it on women, just like I can work it on men. Sounds sexist, and I don't mean it that way (please forgive if I've offended anyone, that wasn't my intention), but when you're under the gun to get completed surveys, you use what you've got  >
> 
> The sad thing is, the polls will lead the people. What they report will be (is?) what will happen. People have a herding instinct. If they hear most people want us out of Afghanistan, then everyone can't be wrong, can they? Pulling out must be the right thing to do. THAT'S the real danger in all this spin. They won't think for themselves, will accept what they perceive as the status quo, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> ...




Phooey. I could have saved all my time typing that out, and linked to the part in question. Here's the broadcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM90nx25Tys


----------



## je suis prest (24 Aug 2007)

The following is a recent poll, indicating that perhaps the real story of Afghanistan is coming through, and Canadians are not falling for the Jack Layton/Gilles Duceppe approach after all (reproduced in accordance with fair dealing laws etc)

Support for Afghan war effort stable, poll reveals Jack Aubry, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, August 24, 2007 Article tools
 Printer friendly
   
E-mail
   Font: * * * * OTTAWA — Canadian support for the military mission in Afghanistan remains surprisingly stable, including in Quebec, despite the loss of three soldiers from that province in the past week, a new CanWest News Service/Global National poll suggests.

Conducted by Ipsos Reid, the poll found 51 per cent of respondents across the country said they support the mission, while 45 per cent oppose it. The numbers remained virtually unchanged from a month ago.

In Quebec, support for the nation’s overseas combat activities actually rose to 35 per cent this week from 30 per cent in July, while opposition dropped to 61 per cent from 65 per cent. The Ipsos Reid poll runs counter to a CROP survey, released earlier this week, which showed an 11 percentage-point increase, to 68 per cent, of Quebecers opposed to their compatriots being involved in the conflict.

The Ipsos-Reid poll was conducted following the death of the first soldier from Quebec’s Royal 22nd Regiment — the Van Doo. Partway through the survey, which ran from Tuesday through Thursday of this past week, two more Quebec soldiers were killed in action in Afghanistan. Both were based at Quebec’s Canadian Forces Base Valcartier. Moreover, a high-profile French-language TV personality was caught in an attack, which seriously injured his cameraman. 

John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid, said the slight increase in support for the mission in Quebec captured in his poll may be “a symptom of Quebecers rallying around their own troops in support of their efforts in Afghanistan.” 

However, the four percentage-point drop in opposition in Quebec falls within the poll’s margin of error of 6.2 percentage points for the province.

At a red rally for the troops held Friday at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Canadian soldiers are involved in a “noble cause” in Afghanistan. Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff, told the crowd that Canadian troops believe in the mission in Afghanistan and that public support means a lot to them.

“From the soldiers’ perspective, we do not believe a group of people who will whip women for (wearing) heels that will click on pavement should be allowed to resume control of their country and the lives of those people in it,” said Hillier, referring to the Taliban enemy. Because of the “incredible work” of Canadian soldiers, there are now 6,000 Afghan women in training as school teachers, the general said.

Wright said public opinion on the Afghan mission has held relatively stable, even during periods when Canada suffered serious casualties.

“There’s 24.5 million adult Canadians in this country and we have found that about 12.25 million have supported the mission and 12.25 million have been against it from the beginning. There has not been any drastic swings in support and opposition against the effort,” said Wright.

And, he added, about two-thirds of Quebecers have consistently opposed it. Through both world wars and in more recent history, Quebecers have been at odds with other Canadians over Canada’s military engagements. When Quebecers are removed from the overall numbers, the majority of Canadians (56 per cent) continue to support the Afghan mission, the latest poll confirms.

In another indication of the continuing support for the Canadian Forces, the military exceeded its recruiting goals for the 12 months ending March 31, 2007.

A total of 6,547 Canadians signed up at one of the nation’s 10 recruiting centres, and went through basic training. 

That’s 121 more than the target of 6,426, said Capt. Holly Brown, with Department of National Defence’s Canadian Forces Recruiting Group.

“It’s good to have a little extra,” Brown said, “because you never know: someone may decide they don’t want to do it after all, or might not make it through the (basic)_training,” 

Respondents in this week’s poll may also have been influenced by U.S. President George W. Bush, who lavished praise on Canada’s war effort following a summit meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart.

The poll reveals that the strongest support for the mission is in Alberta (72 per cent), followed by Atlantic Canada (56 per cent), and Ontario (55 per cent). British Columbia is evenly split, with 49 per cent expressing support while 48 per cent oppose the mission.

Quebec’s Van Doo regiment took command of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan on Aug. 1.

Harper has pledged to withdraw Canada’s combat troops from Afghanistan in February 2009, unless Parliament as a whole agrees to extend the mission. So far, 70 Canadians, including one diplomat, have died in that country since Canada’s military involvement began in 2002. 

The poll involved 1,000 interviews with adults. The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Hunteroffortune (25 Aug 2007)

An even more interesting poll, shows that up to 81% of Canadians support the mission, but you will never hear that on TV! 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a26fa1a8-866d-4c2c-8042-f8013c8f4f80&k=62450

Interesting graph, support is around 50% or higher, and depending on how you ask the questions, going as high as 81%!

_In a string of polls for the National Defence Department in late 2006 and early 2007, Ipsos Reid tweaked the questions even further, and found dramatic differences in response.

When the question referred to military operations that help to secure "the environment for the civilian population" through activities "that include combat," backing shot up to the low 60s.

After a lengthy preamble that said Canada is trying to improve human rights for women and build a more free and democratic society in Afghanistan, another question drew support from 81%.

It suggests that explaining the purpose of the mission is all-important if the government wants to boost the tepid support among Canadians for the operation, said Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies._

So, never believe a poll, they will ask the question slanted to what the client wants, they will get the results that will get them paid, and used again. It's funny though, no matter how biased the question asked was, support is holding steady at 50%, in Canada, that's HUGE support!


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Aug 2007)

_Plus ça change_ (usual copyright disclaimer):

Canadian support for the mission holding steady: poll
Albertans at 72% are most likely to back deployment, while nearly two out of three Quebecers are opposed
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d125b279-9c7d-4bbe-8aba-8d3b4501ff35



> Canadian support for the military mission in Afghanistan remains surprisingly stable, including in Quebec, despite the loss of three soldiers from that province in the past week, a new CanWest News Service/Global National poll suggests.
> 
> The poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found 51 per cent of respondents across the country said they support the mission, while 45 per cent oppose it. The numbers remained virtually unchanged from a month ago.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

I remember reading a similar poll from the Reagan era, originally the poll asked if people were for or against welfare, I believe 70% were against it. After re-wording the question to "do you support the government providing assistance to the poor" the poll went the complete opposite with 70% fully supporting government providing more to the poor. Once again it simply shows how much of an effect spin will have and how simple it is to change word's in order to elicit a response. We saw the same with the poll provided above were 80% supported the mission after the question was re-worded. 

It also goes to show how people need more information on the issue from both sides before making a decision of support based on a simple single sentence question.

A little bit off topic, but the results of this poll were fairly interesting. 

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070813_108160_108160


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2007)

*Majority (54%) Believe Troops Should Stay In Afghanistan Past 2009*
Minority (44%) Believe Troops Should be Brought Home in 2009, While Majority (54%) Believe Canada Should Continue either in Current Role (14%) or in Training Capacity (40%)
Ipsos Reid, 16 Oct 07
News release - Permalink to news release (.pdf) - Detailed tables (.pdf)

In light of Prime Minister Harper’s appointment of a five-person panel to review the future of Canada’s role in Afghanistan, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively on behalf of CanWest News Service and Global Television reveals that *a majority (54%) of Canadians want Canadian troops to continue to be stationed in Afghanistan, while those who want a full withdrawal of Canadians troops from Afghanistan are in the minority (44%)*. Two percent (2%) do not know what they would prefer.

However, *it appears that many Canadians would prefer to have Canada’s current mission altered away from the current combat-intensive mission*, with four in ten (40%) agreeing that Canada should ‘keep troops there, but have them do something like train Afghani soldiers or police officers’. Just 14% of Canadians believe that the government should ‘extend our current role and mission as required’.

Canadians across the country are not uniform in their opinions on this matter. *Those most likely to indicate that they would like to see a full withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan are most likely to come from Quebec (51%), followed by residents of Atlantic Canada (47%), Ontario (43%), British Columbia (42%), Saskatchewan/Manitoba (42%) and Alberta (33%)*. Younger Canadians, aged 18 to 34, are more likely (49%) to adopt this stance than are middle-aged (43%), aged 35 to 54, or older Canadians (40%). Women (51%) are much more likely than men (36%) to believe that Canada’s troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan when the current mission ends in 2009.

Those most likely to support the notion that Canadian soldiers should be redeployed to activities which primarily include the training of Afghan police and soldiers are most likely to come from Alberta (45%), followed by British Columbia (43%), Saskatchewan/Manitoba (41%), Ontario (41%), Quebec (36%) and Atlantic Canada (35%). Older Canadians are more likely (43%) to support this type of mission than are middle-aged (41%) or younger Canadians (36%). Men (46%) are more likely than women (35%) to support this type of mission.

And the Canadians who most likely to support an extension of our current role and mission as required are most likely to come from Alberta (22%), followed by Saskatchewan/Manitoba (21%), Atlantic Canada (18%), British Columbia (14%), Ontario (13%), and Quebec (12%). There are no significant differences among age categories, however men (17%) are more likely (12%) than women to support extending Canada’s current combat role as required.

These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted for CanWest News Service/Global News and *fielded from Oct 9 -14, 2007. For this survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1,001 adult Canadians was interviewed by telephone. With a sample of this size, the aggregate results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20*, of what they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled. The margin of error will be larger within each sub-grouping of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to Census data ....


----------



## McG (16 Oct 2007)

I wonder if that large group that wants us to switch to training is aware that our OMLTs are in the fight & that our losses include OMLT pers.


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2007)

They wouldn't have a clue with a flashlight and two hands.....


----------



## geo (16 Oct 2007)

Anyways.... even those safe cushy regions in northern Afghanistan have not done Germany, France & Spain any good... they have been loosing personnel - same as us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2007)

Hey, if you believe SOME "commentators", the trainers aren't even close to the fight  



> (....)
> 
> *Foreign troops mentor from a distance*
> 
> The use of the long-distance "negotiating tool", combined with "close air support" (CAS), underlines the sometimes cautious, circumspect nature of NATO's presence in southern Afghanistan. Indeed, various media have reported on the hide-and-seek nature of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. "The U.S. and NATO forces only venture out to conduct special operations. Routine patrolling and intelligence gathering is the responsibility of the nascent Afghan National Army," writes John Cherian. Further, he asserts that "loyalty of the Afghan Security Forces cannot be taken for granted... For instance, General Bismillah Khan, Chief of Staff of the Afghan National Army, is a former warlord".



This appears to come from this piece from Cherian, dealing with Taliban-India relations.  Funny how this is the ONLY paragraph cherry picked, from a _*2005*_ report?



> "Writing from Helmand province, the Globe and Mail's Graeme Smith remarks that "British troops were effectively under siege at their patrol base in Sangin [Helmand province] last year". And this fact isn't winning many friends for the foreign forces: *"Those foreign [expletive deleted] say there is security - it’s a lie," charged one Afghan army commander. "They don’t risk their asses out here. There are Taleban right in the district centre, but the British and the Americans stay in their holes".*



This is an interesting paragraph -- the highlighted quote in the paragraph seems to be found in this article by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting from earlier this summer, but not in any of Smith's pieces for the past two years (yes, I did check).  Wonder how firm the REST of his quotes are?



> *While Canadian soldiers appear to have been spared such disparaging accusations,* ....



...but I'll mention it anyway.


----------



## Hawk (17 Oct 2007)

Isn't it interesting that Ipsos ******* Reid interviewed the largest number of respondents in Ontario and Quebec, 2 of the places they got highest results for Bring the troops home. Once again, good (skewed) polling, Ipsos!


Hawk


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Isn't it interesting that Ipsos Reid interviewed the largest number of respondents in Ontario and Quebec..... Once again, good (skewed) polling, Ipsos!


Well, that is where the "largest number" of Canadians live.  Do you think it would have been less "skewed" if the "largest number" of respondents came from the two provinces with the smallest populations?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Oct 2007)

....and, as we all know, contains the centre of the universe!  :


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2007)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Isn't it interesting that Ipsos ******* Reid interviewed the largest number of respondents in Ontario and Quebec, 2 of the places they got highest results for Bring the troops home. Once again, good (skewed) polling, Ipsos!



As MGC says, Stats Can says these two are also the biggest provinces by population - if most people living in Canada live in ON and QC (about six outta ten according to Stats Can), makes sense to have most survey respondents from these areas, too.

_- edited to acknowledge those wiser and faster than me -_


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Oct 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ....and, as we all know, contains *the centre of the universe*!  :



Yes, yes....I've moved to Ontario...but what does that have to do with polling on Afghanistan  ;D

[/sarcasm]


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Nov 2007)

"Canadians still want out of Afghanistan"

That was the storiy I was confronted by running on the ticker on CTV Newsnet.  Far be for me to questions the findings of a poll, but I thought it was painting things with a broad brush.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071104/tories_poll_071104/20071104?hub=Canada


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> "Canadians still want out of Afghanistan"
> 
> That was the storiy I was confronted by running on the ticker on CTV Newsnet.  Far be for me to questions the findings of a poll, but I thought it was painting things with a broad brush.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071104/tories_poll_071104/20071104?hub=Canada



Somebody started another thread on this article.


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Somebody started another thread on this article.


link?  This was another thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is a report from today’s _Globe and Mail_ about the Remembrance Day services.

Of special note were the remarks by Rabbi Reuven Bulka at the end of the service. It is normal to hear applause when the veterans march on (and past) but in the half century plus that I have been attending these services I cannot ever recall hearing applause for a _benediction_.

Rabbi Bulka went beyond the normal scope of a prayer and invited Canadians to do more than remember the dead. He reminded us that CF members are, at the recruiting ads suggest, fighting for the *right* and for *rights* for all, including the wretched of the earth. It was pretty moving stuff.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071111.wremembr1111/BNStory/National/home
My emphasis added


> Wreaths laid, dead remembered across country
> 
> STEVE RENNIE
> 
> ...



I don’t know if Ottawa, 2007 was *my* most memorable Remembrance day (I remember when it was called Armistice Day) but it may be the most memorable for many Canadians who were invited to do more than just remember.

I’m posting this here, rather than in the Remembrance Day thread, because I think this is about public opinion. It may not have been a poll but the applause, and the ‘opinion’ it represents, was ‘measured’ by the media and reported upon.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Nov 2007)

I experienced the same thing at my local remembrance service yesterday. I have been trying to put in words what this article describes. The few WWII vets left were delivered by car to the site. But the entire service had a new vibrancy and energy I have never felt in the many previous years. The crowd was large and attentive with much clapping for each group as they marched on.
Our local Mayor spoke from the heart of what a great country this is and the sacrifice of our forces. The Chaplin recited the 23 Psalm.
There had been a renewed effort to organize the service in a manner in keeping with it's newly recognized meaning.


----------



## GAP (1 Jan 2008)

Troop pullout favoured, poll finds
 TheStar.com - Canada - January 01, 2008 Richard Brennan OTTAWA BUREAU
Article Link

OTTAWA–With the body of another Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan due to arrive home tomorrow, the majority of Canadians are calling for an early troop withdrawal from the war-torn country.

Gunner Jonathan Dion, 27, a member of the 5th Régiment d'Artillerie légère du Canada, based in Valcartier, Que., was killed by a roadside bomb Sunday, bringing Canada's armed forces death toll to 74 since 2001.

An online survey of 1,052 Canadians by Angus Reid Strategies, conducted Dec. 19 and 20, shows 53 per cent of those polled believe Canada's troops should be withdrawn before the February 2009 deadline. Sixty-one per cent reject any suggestions of extending the mission beyond the deadline.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has mused about extending the mission if the House of Commons is agreeable, the poll shows 60 per cent of those surveyed don't believe Harper has done a good job of explaining Canada's role in Kandahar. 

"The federal government continues to face a challenge in courting Canadians," concludes the survey, which is considered accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Seventy-one per cent – up dramatically from 58 per cent in July – believe Canada is shouldering too much of the burden of the NATO Afghan mission, which involves nearly 40 countries and a total force of about 41,700 troops.

While Canadian troops – some 2,500 – amount to roughly 6 per cent of all soldiers in Afghanistan, they account for 10 per cent of the fatalities. Canada is now third on the list of fatalities, behind the United States and Britain.

Among those surveyed in the poll, 47 per cent regard Canada's role as a war mission, while only 28 per cent believe the country is playing its historic peacekeeping role.

An independent panel, led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley, is looking into Canada's role in Afghanistan and is to report to Parliament. It has been charged with gathering information and recommending what Canada's role should be after 2009.
More on link


----------



## guns_and_roses (1 Jan 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Troop pullout favoured, poll finds
> TheStar.com - Canada - January 01, 2008 Richard Brennan OTTAWA BUREAU
> Article Link
> 
> ...



I hate that phrase!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2008)

Just more proof of a saying that I read recently in a recent book:  "Failure is success in Canada".


----------



## guns_and_roses (1 Jan 2008)

To true George.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jan 2008)

The poll is probably skewed to get the result the pollster wanted. We see this alot in the US. Online survey ? If they are so accurate why not vote on line ? It would have been great to see the actual poll instead of the media version of what the poll says.


----------



## armyvern (1 Jan 2008)

Shit like this disgusts me.

It seems to me that the intestinal fortitude of the "average" Canadian (debateable whether they really ARE average Canadians though of course for polls like this -- I've been hung up on by pollsters when they didn't like my initial answer) polled with this question and left wing politicians ALWAYS wavers with "sentimental holidays" approaching and also wavers in the immediate aftermath of the loss of a member of the CF while in Afghanistan.

Besides slanting the god-damed question to obtain the results they want to glean -- the timing of the polling is impeccable. What a load of tripe and bullshit. 

The highjacking and exploitation of our service members in this manner, our fallen and their sacrifice, our injured and their well-being, and our still-deployed ... is a despicable and cowardly act. Especially so by the politicians and the persons responsible for commissioning the polls.

Wake up Canada. Don't you feel used yet in the pursuance of someone's clear political agenda?


----------



## ixium (1 Jan 2008)

Wouldn't the best kind of un-official poll(anything that isn't a country-wide vote) be one that only included Canadian soldiers?

Wonder why you never see any of those... :\


----------



## Shamrock (1 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...the timing of the polling is impeccable.



Poll was conducted 19 and 20th of Dec.

53% of such a small sample from the Internet means SFA (and since it's the Internet, there's no gaurantee the voting bodies were unique individuals or even Canadian).  The confidence interval probably dips below the 50% line, which is likely why it is not mentioned.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2008)

ixium said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the best kind of un-official poll(anything that isn't a country-wide vote) be one that only included Canadian soldiers?
> 
> Wonder why you never see any of those... :\



Who says none were surveyed?  Vern has already stated that she has been 'surveyed' by a pollster.  I have had them call my home.  They don't list the occupations of who they call in their survey.  They just make random calls in many cases.  Sometimes they have a cross-section of society enlisted/registered to answer their polls.  

Remember; they are playing with statistics and statistics can be manipulated to give many different responses.


----------



## ixium (1 Jan 2008)

I never said none were. 

A poll where its just confirmed members of the Canadian Forces would hold alot more ground in the land of statistics then just polling "random" people.


----------



## Shamrock (1 Jan 2008)

ixium said:
			
		

> A poll where its just confirmed members of the Canadian Forces would hold alot more ground in the land of statistics then just polling "random" people.



Only if they were polling to see the attitudes of soldiers, otherwise it'd be statistically biased.  Randomness is what they want.  Getting that randomness on the Internet is pretty much impossible.


----------



## armyvern (1 Jan 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Poll was conducted 19 and 20th of Dec.
> 
> 53% of such a small sample from the Internet means SFA (and since it's the Internet, there's no gaurantee the voting bodies were unique individuals or even Canadian).  The confidence interval probably dips below the 50% line, which is likely why it is not mentioned.



Yep, and like I said in my earlier post ---

Polls like this always tend to be "leaning" especially with a "sentimental holiday (ie Christmas)" coming up or in the immediate aftermath of the loss of one of our fellow soldiers. 

MOST people want loved ones close to them at Holiday time --- it's only natural that that sentimentality would be reflected in the results of a poll question about do you want the "troop to come home to Canada" a mere week before Christmas.

I'd move, that had the same question been asked 3 weeks earlier -- that confidence interval was WELL below that 50% line. 

Statistics, damn statistics, and lies. Polls, misleading polls, and (for the left commissioning the polls) ... impeccable timing.


----------



## gaspasser (1 Jan 2008)

Maybe those polled would care to live under the Taliban for a month in a corruptly governed country?  Oh, and maybe some of the "western" women would enjoy a week under Taliban "guidance"? 
I strongly feel that our brothers and sisters are doing a righteous job in A-stan, if anything, in a peacemaking role to bring stability to the country.  
I could be out to lunch??!!   
Just my $0.02 worth. 

edited to add: easy vern, don't blow a gasket...have a beer and breath...cheers, ///D


----------



## armyvern (1 Jan 2008)

ixium said:
			
		

> I never said none were.
> 
> A poll where its just confirmed members of the Canadian Forces would hold alot more ground in the land of statistics then just polling "random" people.



Actually ... I'm going to have to disagree here. If it were "just soldiers" polled --- it'd be no more unbiased (actually less-so than a "random" poll) because how would you be able to determine uncategoricly that soldiers weren't just "toeing the official line"?

Mind you -- The vast majority of the troops I know believe that we are doing the right thing and that this mission is just ... I just don't think you'd see the Left in this nation "buying" into the notion that soldiers "answered honestly" when polled rather than answered questions in a manner which support the reigning government." Some people after all, do really believe that we soldiers have no individual speech or decision making abilities and that the concept of free and critical thinking is non-existant in our breed.


----------



## gaspasser (1 Jan 2008)

...ditto..
oh was I allowed to say that??

If they did actually poll some CF pers, did they disallow the opinions that did not fit the poll???
 ???


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2008)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> If they did actually poll some CF pers, did they disallow the opinions that did not fit the poll???
> ???



They have been known to do that.  Several people have posted that they have had pollsters hang up on them when they may have answered a question in a manner that the pollster may not have wanted.  I remember one hanging up on me, when I answered that I was in favour of something, which I guess they didn't want to hear.


----------



## Shamrock (1 Jan 2008)

Since I brought it up...

The margin of error is ± 3% 19 times in 20.   Looks like my saying the CI dips below 50 was wrong.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jan 2008)

The only poll that concerns is the one on election day.

I would not take this current poll too seriously.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## DarkFire (2 Jan 2008)

I wouldn't expect an online poll in any way to be accurate or a good source of information. I can easily, along with twenty other friends jump onto a computer, vote once and reload the page using a proxy server and vote again.


----------



## Rayman (2 Jan 2008)

I have to agree with Vern on this one. The timing of when the pole was taken obviously affected the outcome most definately. At the same time it could also make you wonder if that was the whole intent (being have it at a sentimental time of year so that there would be a bias of sorts). Secondly it was taken on the internet. How do they know it was all Canadians that voted? Trace all the IP's? Weed out the ones that are not from Canadian ISP's? We have Americans, Germans, Australians and other various nationalities visiting a web site about the Canadian Army. I can go to pretty much any page on the internet. The point here being as others have said with the variables and draw backs of online polling, how do we know the data collected is a fair representation of Canada. 

You know come to think of it, 1,052 people voted. Considering Statistics Canada estimates the population of Canada at the time of this post being 33,142,754 thats a rather small representation of Canada. Of course you take into consideration youths and minors under the age of 18. However that still is a very small representation. As well whats to say that youths did not take place in this online poll? I know highschools that have more people in them than the total on the poll. And this is making news saying its what all Canadians want? The media IMO needs a good kick in the ass.


----------



## Greymatters (2 Jan 2008)

The online poll is insignificant - we've already proven on this very site that online polls can be skewed by a determined group of persons to reflect whatever message we want to send, and none of the poll results we did skew (which were promptly ignored by the host site) were given as much attention as the anti-mission results...


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> The online poll is insignificant - we've already proven on this very site that online polls can be skewed by a determined group of persons to reflect whatever message we want to send, and none of the poll results we did skew (which were promptly ignored by the host site) were given as much attention as the anti-mission results...



Just look at this topic on Martin Schoots-McAlpine and wonder what his group may have been up to, or some of the other groups and fanatics we have seen visit this site from time to time.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2008)

From the original article:



> ....Seventy-one per cent – up dramatically from 58 per cent in July – believe Canada is shouldering too much of the burden of the NATO Afghan mission, which involves nearly 40 countries and a total force of about 41,700 troops...



Looking at this differently, at least Canadians understand that there are a number of NATO nations that are pulling far less than their respective weights in ISAF operations.  Good.

The answer, however, is not to reduce Canadian participation.  There is an overall requirement to ensure suitable security in which further development activities can be conducted without substantive disruption.  Those NATO nations participating in ISAF, apparently more for the sake of saying they have thousands of troops in Afghanistan than for facilitating continuing development of the country, should be held accountable to provide their fair share of support to riskier security-building operations.

G2G


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jan 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Only if they were polling to see the attitudes of soldiers, otherwise it'd be statistically biased.  Randomness is what they want.  Getting that randomness on the Internet is pretty much impossible.



Actually the Angus Reid poll's can be either really random or pretty biased.
When you sign up for their on line poll's you pretty well explain who your are,your interests and how you feel on certain subjects.
If Angus Reid polled only certain people (as my wife gets more invites to answer polls than I do) it can be extremely biased.
Wife is upo to 10 dollars I got 2. :'(


----------



## Dirt Digger (2 Jan 2008)

I tend to not put a lot of faith into any phone polling...way to many opportunities to introduce bias into the results.  Even when they claim accuracy to the 95th percentile (that 19 times out of 20 line) I seriously doubt their methods:

Biased towards the wording of the question.
Biased towards current events / topics of significant passion.
Biased towards those that have home phones (and not cells).
Biased towards those that are actually home during the surveying hours (usually standard daytime hours).
Biased towards those that actually answer their phones and do not call screen.
Biased towards those that are willing to participate.
Biased towards those that have the time to answer the survey.

And as mentioned...biased towards the poller, who may hang up on you if you don't give the "right" answer.

Try giving these examples while you're sitting in a room full of students going for Master degrees in health science.  Then follow it up by saying, "but if your happy with a sample population of the unemployed, stay at home moms and the elderly...well knock yourself out."   ;D


----------



## Hawk (2 Jan 2008)

Actually, calling time for other than business polling is around 3:30 to 10:00 central time. You can only be contacted till 9:00 pm in your time zone. That doesn't mean you won't ever be called during the day. If the poll is behind on being finished, CSR's will be assigned it on day shift. I would trust an online poll way less than I do one on the phone, and I don't trust them in the least. 


Hawk


----------



## Greymatters (2 Jan 2008)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> I tend to not put a lot of faith into any phone polling...way to many opportunities to introduce bias into the results.  Even when they claim accuracy to the 95th percentile (that 19 times out of 20 line) I seriously doubt their methods:
> 
> Biased towards the wording of the question.
> Biased towards current events / topics of significant passion.
> ...



Excellent points...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Jan 2008)

I read in the paper that Toronto had 87 homicides last year (2007) mostly by lawless thugs similar to the Taliban (street gangs). How would Taliban Jack feel about us pulling out of Toronto Danforth??


----------



## ClaytonD (6 Jan 2008)

Maybe Army.ca should start their own poll. We could hire a polling company, hell, I have a phone  .


----------



## Stauds (9 Jan 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has mused about extending the mission if the House of Commons is agreeable, the poll shows 60 per cent of those surveyed don't believe Harper has done a good job of explaining Canada's role in Kandahar.



I hate it when people say this crap. If they really cared about the mission, and didn't think the government was doing a proper job of explaining things, why the hell wouldn't they go out and educate themselves??


----------



## DarkFire (10 Jan 2008)

> I hate it when people say this crap. If they really cared about the mission, and didn't think the government was doing a proper job of explaining things, why the hell wouldn't they go out and educate themselves??



The simple answer is that those same people are to lazy to look up the information using the internet and unless it is spoon-feed to them on TV, their not going to bother.


----------



## Kilroy (2 Feb 2008)

I met a guy outside a Sears outlet, and he very politely stated that he feels the troops should not be in Afghanistan, as he said why should our tropps be over there getting killed. I asked him if he knew about the wells being dug in villages so the people would have access to fresh cleaner water for perhaps the first time. he no, he knew nothing of it. I asked him if he knew that new roads where being built so the country can move around easier. He said he knew nothing of it. I asked him if he knew that there are now MANY open and well operating hospitals, compard to about six barely running hospitals that used to exist. he said he knew nothing of it. I asked him if he knew that kids could now go to school, play with thier friends, and enjoy the simple pleasures of flying a kite, without the threat of being killed. He said he knew nothing of it. I asked him if he knew that womeon where now allowed to work, and to choose whether to wear the full burka or not, by thier own decision. I don't suppose i have to tell you what he said.  He asked me why he hasn't heard any of this on the news. I asked him, "what do you feel a news agency thinks is a higher "ratings" story, one about another Canadian soldier who died in Afghanistan, or one about a well that was dug in a village so people would have clean drinking water. He then hung his head down and shook it. he then came over to me, and shook my hand and thanked me for informing him. Then he asked how I knew of all this. When i told him I had just come back from spending six and a half months in Afghanistan helping to assure these things could comtinue to happen (I am a technician, not a front line soldier, but I do fix the equipment that allows the frontline soldiers to do thier jobs) He then proceeded to give me a hug and again thank me. This time there where tears in his eyes, and he was apologizing to me. He said he was sorry he was so misinformed, but all he knew was what he has heard on the news. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not on a cross country crusade to convince everyone to support out troops being over in Afghanistan. Nothing would give me more pleasure than for out troops to no longer be needed there. This is a free country, and everyone is entitled to thier own opinion. I just would like to hel people make these opinions INFORMED opinions!

Guess I changed one guys mind.   :warstory:


----------



## Flip (4 Feb 2008)

> I just would like to help people make these opinions INFORMED opinions!



Thankyou for your service Kilroy- and keep it up!


----------



## ballz (6 Feb 2008)

Well, looks like parliament is going to decide. This is going to be a nailbiter thats for sure.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080205%2fdion_harper_AM_080205

Seems kinda flawed to me that Canadians voted for Harper and the Conservatives to lead the country, yet the Liberals will be making this decision. And I'm sure the party that's not in power has another agenda besides the mission when it comes to this vote.


----------



## Eowyn (6 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Seems kinda flawed to me that Canadians voted for Harper and the Conservatives to lead the country, yet the Liberals will be making this decision. And I'm sure the party that's not in power has another agenda besides the mission when it comes to this vote.


Actually the majority (by seats) didn't vote for the Conservatives.  It is because of the minority government that the Liberals get to make the decision.


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2008)

Eowyn said:
			
		

> Actually the majority (by seats) didn't vote for the Conservatives.  It is because of the minority government that the Liberals get to make the decision.



Yes but you're having the party that has the 2nd amount of support from Canadians make the decision, and the party and "point of view" of most Canadians is being ignored. I've always been a fan of Representation by proportion and not by population anyway.


----------



## tbennet (13 Mar 2008)

I am a civilian. I've been visting this site for atleast two years even though I haven't posted much (I had a different account). 

I believe that you can blame the media for the lack of knowledge. You only ever see bad news about the mission. I am 21 years old, and get so mad and upset when I see people saying that they don't believe that we should be in Afghanistan. I also get upset when people my age, or of any age take our freedom for granted. They don't understand that Freedom Isin't Free. In order for me to hear the GOOD news, I have to visit this site. 


All of you men and women are doing a fine job. I promise you this. I will do MY part and try to inform as much people as possible about the mission, and the real definition of freedom. And I trust that if anyone knows if we should be there or not. It will be the men and women that are fighting for my freedom, that are away from their families, and that are helping the Afghan people have a better life.

My brother now knows that we aren't in Iraq.  ;D

Keep up the good work,

Troy.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Mar 2008)

It bugs me that the media keeping saying that people don't understand why we are there and the Government has some "splaining to do." the mission was explained when we went there...there is plenty of stuff written about it and lots of info for the reading....it is the media that isn't bothering to get the story out. 
I think the real story is that people don't want to believe in what has been said and written and therefore keep parroting this ridiculous line about the Government not explaining the mission.
I've seen a lot of stuff written and reported about the mission in the public domain and it's pretty clear to me.


----------



## UCModFloppy (15 Mar 2008)

I spend 1-2 hours per day off work reading stories from Afghanistan. I am 1 in 35 million Canadian Public, and support our role 100%. The polling organizations know what territories garner which responses and call those to fit their needs, IMO. 

 It took the death of Cpl.Chris Reid   to really open my eyes to the mission. I had interest in it before hand, but the event made it personal to me to know and understand. I just hope others of my civilian variety can be taught what we are there for without such a harsh lesson.

 I think the Gov. sites are some of the most informative (not easily navigated though) sites from anywhere. There are many pages on what the PRTs, CIMIC, ISAF, and members are doing on a daily basis. I think it comes down more to media and the fast food culture. Most dont want to spend more than 10 minutes to see the news, sports, weather. I've had ppl spot my SoT hat and say they dont think we should be in Iraq,  ??? I say, "me either, its a good thing we aren't there". That happens alot here in Fort Mcmurray, but never happened in Truro. Which brings me circling back to my first Paragraph. 

Ipsis Reed, J.D. Power and Assoc. I await your call, ask me what I think of poll irregularities, Taliban Jack, the fine work our Soldiers, brothers and sisters are doing in Afghanistan.

 I feel better knowing $15 from my paycheque is going down range at a Taliban SoB, than going to a multimillionaire's company cause it cant market itself properly.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (3 Apr 2008)

In response to the beginning of the topic dont forget that Quebec has a consistent record of being largey against Canadian combat missions.From the beginning of this mission at least 75% of Quebecs population has been opposed to the mission, and I feel a large proportion of the total number of Canadians opposed to the mission are from Quebec. In english Canada we've been in love with this whole peacekeeping business since Pearsons days, combined with knee jerk anti-americanism(especially since the 60's), and many large urban cneters which have have little military presence in their limits, you get negative public opinion.

So, lets look at this:

-75% of Quebec opposed
-Quebec makes up 25% of Canada

So, using proportions 18% of Canada, at least, is to be opposed to any Combat mission overseas. That leaves 50-60% of the rest of canada supporting a mission.


So, I dont want to sound like im singling out anybody, just pointing out people in a localized area are bounf to be opposed to a combat mission no matter how well it goes or what it is for. The rest of canada is relatively supportive despite urban centers having strong disaproval, possibly due to the reason I listed. I think some may have to do with an urban environment, but I dont fully know an urban environment so I wont comment on it


----------



## T-Rex (24 Apr 2008)

I have to agree with what most of my fellow soilders are saying most of the canadian public are to stupid to know what is needed to get the job done.  If we leave Afganistan we are going to be back in a few years agianst something that has metastas into something far more difficult to deal with.  Why are we listening to them anyways its not like the general public shares the risk.


----------



## Yrys (24 Apr 2008)

T-Rex said:
			
		

> I have to agree with what most of my fellow soilders are saying most of the canadian public are to stupid not interested enought to get informed to know what is needed to get the job done.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2008)

Some tidbits
Agriculture 

Since 85 percent of Afghans depend on the agricultural sector for survival, the U.S. assistance program emphasizes agricultural recovery and rural reconstruction. Last year, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported an 82 percent increase in production of wheat— Afghanistan 's staple grain—since the fall of the Taliban. The wheat harvest for 2004 is expected to roughly equal last year's total of 4.4 million metric tons (mt)— Afghanistan 's best harvest in more than two decades. 

Afghan farmers achieved this abundant harvest in part due to 12,439 mt of fertilizer and 9,252 mt of seeds for drought resistant, higher yielding varieties of wheat. Both were supplied by the United States through private dealers to more than 100,000 farmers in 13 provinces during the fall 2002 planting. 
To improve vital irrigation in this chronically dry country, the United States has rehabilitated more than 7,441 canals, underground irrigation tunnels, reservoirs, and dams by de-silting and cleaning waterways, repairing stone masonry, and building retaining walls. 
Irrigation projects affecting 325,000 hectares are now nearly half complete, with 150,000 hectares already under irrigation. 
Working with the Afghan government, the United States has rehabilitated 7,269 km of rural roads and completed more than 600 related road-reconstruction projects, including repair of retaining walls and culverts. This allows humanitarian supplies to reach the needy and helps the Afghans employed in the agricultural sector—more than 70 percent of the population—ship produce to markets and receive needed supplies. 
The number of Afghans dependent on food aid dropped from 10 million to 6 million in 2002 and continued to drop in 2003 and 2004. 

Source http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/rebuildingafghanistan.html

In case you think the Whitehouse is biased:

Afghanistan's wheat output to increase 
         


As a sign of positive step towards agricultural recovery in the war-shattered Afghanistan, the country's wheat production is expected to increase this year, an official of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of United Nations said Monday. 

"We expect output of wheat this year to reach about 4.4 million tones," the country's FAO representative director Serge Verniau told journalists at a press briefing here. 

He said the production in comparison with 2005 is much better. 

Afghanistan's output of wheat was around four million tones in 2005. 

"The country will have deficit this year at roughly half million tones of cereals while 100,000 tones would be needed with food aid and 400,000 from commercial import," the official noted. 

The increase in wheat production in Afghanistan has been seen after years of war and drought. 

FAO would continue to support Afghans through the agriculture and livestock ministry to improve agricultural products in the country, as agriculture is the largest sector of Afghanistan's economy, he added. 

There are 65 million hectares of land in Afghanistan, 30 million are rangeland for livestock and eight million are cultivated. Wheat accounts for 80 percent of Afghanistan's grain production, according to a press release of the FAO. 

Source: Xinhua  http://english.people.com.cn/200605/16/eng20060516_266030.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2008)

The latest from Angus Reid (.pdf permalink with full data).....

*Canadians Still Oppose Afghan Mission Extension*
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research,  13 May 08

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Canada believe the House of Commons should not have extended the country’s military mandate in Afghanistan until the end of 2011, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 54 per cent of respondents disagree with the decision.

When asked if the Canadian government should actively negotiate with the Taliban if this helps the peace efforts led by the elected Afghan government, 48 per cent of respondents reject the idea, while 37 per cent are open to it.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

At least 800 soldiers—including 82 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Canadians renewed the House of Commons in January 2006. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Harper leads a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party.

In May 2006, the House of Commons extended Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. In March 2008, the House of Commons voted 198-77 to prolong the military deployment until the end of 2011. The Conservative and Liberal parties supported the motion, while the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois opposed it.

Yesterday, Harper unveiled a 20-year, $30 billion U.S. program to renew the Canadian Forces, declaring, "If a country wants to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, it needs to have the capacity to act. It’s just that simple. (...) By investing in new military equipment and technologies, the Strategy will benefit Canada’s knowledge and technology industries, which will produce lucrative civilian commercial spin-offs."

Polling Data

As you may know, the House of Commons has authorized an extension of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011, which is conditional on Canada coming up with unmanned aerial vehicles and transport helicopters, and NATO providing an additional 1,000 troops in the south. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011?

                      May 2008     Mar. 2008

Agree                41%              37%

Disagree            54%              58%

Not sure               6%               5%

Some people have stated that officials from foreign nations should reach out to the Taliban if this helps the peace efforts led by the elected Afghan government. Would you agree or disagree with the Canadian government actively negotiating with the Taliban?

Agree         37%

Disagree     48%

Not sure      15%

_Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,006 Canadian adults, conducted on May 7 and May 8, 2008. Margin of error is 3.0 per cent. _


----------



## forcerecon85 (13 May 2008)

Interesting, they don't support the mission but don't want to negotiate.


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2008)

forcerecon85 said:
			
		

> Interesting, they don't support the mission but don't want to negotiate.



They just dont want Canada to do the fighting. They much prefer to have their dirty job done by someone else.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (13 May 2008)

What happened to the eighty-some odd approval that there was when the CF was first sent to Afghanistan? Have people forgotten about the 3 000 killed on 9/11 and decided to co-mingle Iraq and Afghanistan into one big war?

Can you imagine these same mind frames were in place in 1939?
_"Sure, we'll fight the Nazis. Our commitment will be from September 1939 until December of 1941. After that, we'll continue to support the Allies, but our forces will have to be replaced by another nation."_

Midget


----------



## Richie (13 May 2008)

T-Rex said:
			
		

> I have to agree with what most of my fellow soilders are saying most of the canadian public are to stupid to know what is needed to get the job done.  If we leave Afganistan we are going to be back in a few years agianst something that has metastas into something far more difficult to deal with.  Why are we listening to them anyways its not like the general public shares the risk.



I take it you're not trying to win the hearts and minds of the Canadian public with this post.  : I'm a member of the Canadian public and I keep abreast of what's happening in Afghanistan and also try to learn as much as I can about the history of that country. Polls can be skewed so many ways that they become meaningless and the Harper government doesn't seem to govern by meaningless polls. 

I won't comment further except to say that prior to going to Afghanistan you should learn how to spell that country's name. Your English skills are about to metastasize into incoherence.


----------



## George Wallace (13 May 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Can you imagine these same mind frames were in place in 1939?
> _"Sure, we'll fight the Nazis. Our commitment will be from September 1939 until December of 1941. After that, we'll continue to support the Allies, but our forces will have to be replaced by another nation."_



Perhaps the French?  Oh!  They were otherwise occupied.


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> I won't comment further except to say that prior to going to Afghanistan you should learn how to spell that country's name. Your English skills are about to metastasize into incoherence.



Ok, i'll bite....

When are *YOU* going to Afghanistan ?


----------



## McG (13 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok, i'll bite....
> 
> When are *YOU* going to Afghanistan ?


Let's not get into this.  He made a valid observation that labeling of the Canadian public as "stupid" is not going to do members of the CF any good.  He then presented the opinion (one regularly stated on these boards) that polls can be skewed to the point of meaninglessness depending on how questions were asked.  His service (or lack there of) in Afghanistan doesn't have any relation to these observations.


----------



## Richie (13 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok, i'll bite....
> 
> When are *YOU* going to Afghanistan ?



Well, I'll bite back.

I have nothing but respect for our military, I wouldn't be on this forum otherwise. However, respect is a two way street. T-Rex's post insulted a large part of the Canadian public and the fact that he is a serving member doesn't mean he can do so. 

What am I to think the next time I see a soldier on the street, that he might think that I'm too stupid to understand the politics of the situation in Afghanistan? The Canadian military requires positive public relations, not comments like the one above. 

If you want to belittle me because you think I'm not doing my bit, that's your right. I couldn't care less. I stand by my original post to T-Rex.

The next time a polling firm asks me my opinion on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, I'll give them the same answer I've always given anyone who's asked: I support it and I support our military.


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> Well, I'll bite back.
> 
> I have nothing but respect for our military, I wouldn't be on this forum otherwise. However, respect is a two way street. T-Rex's post insulted a large part of the Canadian public and the fact that he is a serving member doesn't mean he can do so.



I was not taking issue with your opinion of his post. I took issue with you telling him he should learn to spell the name of the country before he went.


----------



## Richie (13 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I was not taking issue with your opinion of his post. I took issue with you telling him he should learn to spell the name of the country before he went.



An acerbic comment on my part; his post made me angry. 

I wish T-Rex all the best and a safe return if he is going to Afghanistan and this matter is closed as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## UCModFloppy (16 May 2008)

There are people on both sides I think that need better education, opening of ideas. 

The polls should ask : Do you support the development of Afghanistan, and the security of its people? plain and simple.

Saying its a public opinion poll is also skewed. Was there no military personnel allowed in the poll, their families? So many variables can skew results, income, location, religion to name a few. If there is a separation of it being civilian I would like to see the results of a Military family only poll.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 May 2008)

Just by saying it's a poll has already said a lot. who commissioned it? for what purpose? Of course it's skewed...it's all in the way you ask the question. Why do you think the PQ worded the last referendum question the way they did? It was in order to get the answer they wanted....and by the looks of it quite a few were fooled. Polls are meaningless in the long run and it's not about the intelligence of the people responding to them.
Richie I think the answer to your question..."what am I to think the next time I see someone in uniform?" is "there goes another Canadian soldier who is just as complex an individual as any other in our society....not a caricature or stereotype arrived at by the judgement of one or two statements made by individual CF pers."


----------



## Captain Coffee (21 May 2008)

I agree with a lot of what's been said here.

The sad truth is that most Canadians don't know what's going on in Afghanistan, why we're there or what we're doing there.  I saw one poll (wish I could remeber where) that had similar results to this one, but then went on to ask them some questions like "Why is are Canadian troops in Afghanistan?"  "What is Canada's mission in Afghanistan?" etc etc. Of course the results showed that a disappointing number of people knew the right answers.

Then they proceed to tell them about the mission in as general, and unbiased a way as possible.  How it came about, why we went, what we're trying to do, what results we're achieving etc etc.

Then they re-asked their opinions on the mission.  HUGE difference.  Lots of support then.

Some people actually think Afghnistan is a peacekeeping mission!  Worse yet, they think it's a peacekeeping mission LIKE BOSNIA!

I like that we live in a country that isn't as "gung-ho grab a gun and lets go!" as the Americans are but I shake my head at how little the average person knows about the CF.


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

UCModFloppy said:
			
		

> There are people on both sides I think that need better education, opening of ideas.
> 
> The polls should ask : Do you support the development of Afghanistan, and the security of its people? plain and simple.
> 
> Saying its a public opinion poll is also skewed. Was there no military personnel allowed in the poll, their families? So many variables can skew results, income, location, religion to name a few. If there is a separation of it being civilian I would like to see the results of a Military family only poll.



That question in itself is skewed. Very few people are obviously going to say no to helping people. The question plain and simple should be do you support the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. Thats the purpose the polls in the first place. To find out whether or not Canadian citizens support Canada's roll within Afghanistan. 

I've read through quite a few posts with interest and intrigue. I've seen a lot of arguments that pertain to military members or pro-military people being dissapointed and upset that Canadians could be so naive to not support a mission to fight the people responsible for 9/11. There was also a lot of shock that people think we should be fighting the war on terror but not in Afghanistan is somehow hypocritical. Well, the two things aren't synonymous with each other, there are other terrorist organizations that operate not only outside of Afghanistan, but inside Canada. Not to denegrate the work that the soldiers are doing in Afghanistan, there seems to be a lot of shock and not a lot of understand as to how people couldn't support the mission which leads to assumptions that are themselves naive. As someone who is totally against the war in Afghanistan, let me try to explain my position in a respectful manner.

First, the military is too blunt an instrument to deal with the problem of radicalism. Indeed, as it has shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan, military presence in both countries seems to have enflamed the situation rather than help the situation. I'm not saying that soldiers aren't trying to do good work, but the population of those countries don't necessarily see it in such a manner. How would we take it if we were occupied even if they were making our lives infinitely better than we had it before? The answer is that some would, a LOT wouldn't, especially those who have tremendous nationalistic pride, which most in the middle east have. The very notion that international troops are on their soil is an affront to their country and to their religion which contributes to the problem, it doesn't help it. Secondly, through large operations, civilian casualties are bound to happen. This also radicalizes the population. In short, we're making the problem worse, not better. Though we haven't seen any terrorist activity in North America since 9/11, the incidences of terrorism since that day is exponentially higher than it was before through attacks in Asia and Europe. Clearly, since the epidemic of global terrorism is getting worse not better, we must not use the military like we have since 2001, but police. How many terrorist attacks have been prevented in Canada by troops in Afghanistan? Now, how many terrorist attacks have been prevented in Canada? CSIS, RCMP, Metro Toronto Police and Durham Regional Police were watching the Toronto 17 for two years before they were arrested. The answer is that in order to not radicalize the Middle East further, and to protect ourselves at home, we have to pull out of Afghanistan and put emphasis on border crossings, CSIS and local and federal crime enforcement. As I stated at the top, the military is too blunt of a force to tackle the problem of decentralized groups that are basically chameleons within society. To attack the groups is to attack the society which only radicalizes otherwise uninterested citizens of the middle east and other countries and indeed, even citizens in Canada. 

Finally, to Afghanistan to be a truly independent nation, like Iraq, a peaceful government MUST be designed and ratified by the Afghani population while foreign troops are not present. The same situation goes for Iraq. Until that happens, no government will ever be a legitimate government in the eyes of the locals. As long as the government is viewed as a non-legitimate entity, there will always be factional infighting within the country as we see today. The Middle East has a history of colonialism, and to the populations there, they don't see any difference with what is happening today than what happened 60-70 years ago with the British. They didn't like it then and as it's been proven time and time again that they don't like it now. Again, these are proud, nationalistic people who will never rest until occupational forces are out of their country. This is a no-win fight.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Again, these are proud, nationalistic people who will never rest until occupational forces are out of their country. This is a no-win fight.



Theres the "occupation" thing again........ :


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Theres the "occupation" thing again........ :



And that's where I clicked on the "ignore" button once again.  :

More non-factual lolly-gagging instead of truth.


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Theres the "occupation" thing again........ :



I don't personally view it as such. However, its not what I think of the situation, or indeed what you think of the situation. It's what the Afghani's think of the situation that determines our chances of success or failure. Considering the amount of dead and wounded, I wouldn't imagine that a lot of people think Canadians or other NATO forces are "liberators." That, and if you wan't to be technical about it, isn't a foreign force residing in a different country an occupation?


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> I don't personally view it as such. However, its not what I think of the situation, or indeed what you think of the situation. *It's what the Afghani's think of the situation that determines our chances of success or failure*. Considering the amount of dead and wounded, I wouldn't imagine that a lot of people think Canadians or other NATO forces are "liberators." That, and if you wan't to be technical about it, isn't a foreign force residing in a different country an occupation?



Apparently then, you'd be surprised to learn that the VAST majority of the Afghan population do not consider us an "occupational" force and appreciate what Canadian soldiers (ergo Canada) is doing for them and their country.

The "occupational" view point is held by extremists and by Canadians who are not informed as to the actualities in-country, just their spin.

BTW, "Afghani" is a currency -- not a person. You still have some more educating of yourself to do.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> It's what the Afghani's think of the situation



Afghans, not "Afghani's"




> Considering the amount of dead and wounded, I wouldn't imagine that a lot of people think Canadians or other NATO forces are "liberators."



Have you been there and asked the locals what they think ?



> That, and if you wan't to be technical about it, isn't a foreign force residing in a different country an occupation?



We have a large number of Foreign military here in Canada, are we being occupied ? Are american forces occupying Italy ( Aviano AB, NAS Sigonella......) , Korea, The UK........


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that's where I clicked on the "ignore" button once again.  :
> 
> More non-factual lolly-gagging instead of truth.



Hypocrisy, no? I respect peoples opinions, but the fact is many people here are complaining of Canadians not wanting to become educated about the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. However, here is a prime example of people just throwing an opinion out the window simply because you don't agree with it rather than debating it. Its fine that people here have their ideas and are disappointed with them, but don't just dismiss them because they go against the grain.


----------



## Mike Baker (24 May 2008)

Nicky boy, your out of your league here stating these things. Best stop now before the hammer comes down.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> However, here is a prime example of people just throwing an opinion out the window simply because you don't agree with it rather than debating it.



It has been debated here, many times over. What we are doing there is right, an the Afghan people *WANT* us there. If you can't understand it, then go back under your rock.

Thats all I have to say about that.
Baker


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Afghans, not "Afghani's"
> 
> 
> Have you been there and asked the locals what they think ?
> ...



Foreign troops the government has invited for training purposes are different than an invasion for combat purposes. As for Italian airbases, ask Italians. I don't think too many Europeans are happy with US military bases in their country. 

Have I been to Afghanistan? Clearly not. But has anyone else here been to Afghanistan? First hand experience would certainly be welcomed. Unfortuantely, the only poll I've seen is from the National Post which in itself is right wind radicalism that says Afghan's to the tune of like 90% want Canadians there. You can question other polls in terms of what they ask, but I have two questions to ask in terms of the National Post, or whichever news organization it was that surveyed people. 1) What kind of poll was it. Was it a telephone poll? Because that precludes almost all of Afghanistan and secondly, are you really going to have reporters going to Afghan villages going door to door asking poll questions? I think not.


----------



## Mike Baker (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> But has anyone else here been to Afghanistan?



Many have been there, an we have lost some that were members on here, and some that are on here have been injured. I'm sure one or two will be by soon.

Baker


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Hypocrisy, no? I respect peoples opinions, but the fact is many people here are complaining of Canadians not wanting to become educated about the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. However, here is a prime example of people just throwing an opinion out the window simply because you don't agree with it rather than debating it. Its fine that people here have their ideas and are disappointed with them, but don't just dismiss them because they go against the grain.



We're quite open to debate around here.

But, if you want to come to a debate -- especially with soldiers who, contrary to leftists opinion, are NOT just a bunch of automatons and who DO fully inform themselves as to what they actualities and facts are of what they are undergoing and partaking in daily (vice those sitting back here simply listening to spin) ... then I highly suggest that you fully understand that it is not your opinion that we have problems with ...

it is the spin and the mis-information that is tossed about as facts.

You want to debate soldiers involved in Afghanistan on whther their "occuptation" is justified or not on behalf of all those "occupied people" that you speak of and the Canadians who agree with them -- then you'd better come prepared to be corrected on such simple things that people who actually give two-cents about this country already seem to know ... the first and most obvious being your lack of knowledge of Afghanistan evidenced by you referring to the Afghan people as money.

I dismiss them not because I am against other ideas, but because they can't seem to get either their "facts" correct. They always seem to be claiming that we are "occupying" etc and that the population doesn't want us there (based on an extreme minority viewpoint of the populace - that being the one held by the Taliban and extremeists) when they don't even have a clue how to properly adress that population by it's proper name.

And, when we call them on it -- they claim we are the uninformed and misguided ones.  :


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

Baker said:
			
		

> Nicky boy, your out of your league here stating these things. Best stop now before the hammer comes down.
> 
> It has been debated here, many times over. What we are doing there is right, an the Afghan people *WANT* us there. If you can't understand it, then go back under your rock.
> 
> ...



No, I can't say I do understand it. Clearly, the people there want us so badly, yet so many soldiers are coming home in body bags. Its a shame. It was never my argument that what we're doing there ISN'T right, just misguided and creating larger problems than were there originally. It was also my argument that the problem will never be solved just so long as we're there. Its up to the Afghan's to build their own nation, not Canadians.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Foreign troops the government has invited for training purposes are different than an invasion for combat purposes.



NATO troops are in Afghanistan on a UN-authorized mission at the request of the democraticly elected Afghan government.




> As for Italian airbases, ask Italians. I don't think too many Europeans are happy with US military bases in their country.



I have been to American Airbases in Italy, have you ? Lots of Italian civilians have jobs in Sigonella and the American presence is a huge boost to the economy. What you "think" is not always reality of what the media likes to portray.



> Have I been to Afghanistan? Clearly not. But has anyone else here been to Afghanistan? First hand experience would certainly be welcomed.



I have not been there either but lots of members of this site have been. Some more than once.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Its up to the Afghan's to build their own nation, not Canadians.



 :brickwall:

They cant do it as long as the Taliban continues to destroy it. We are there to help until they can do it by themselves.


----------



## Mike Baker (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> No, I can't say I do understand it. Clearly, the people there want us so badly, yet so many soldiers are coming home in body bags. Its a shame. It was never my argument that what we're doing there ISN'T right, just misguided and creating larger problems than were there originally. It was also my argument that the problem will never be solved just so long as we're there. Its up to the Afghan's to build their own nation, not Canadians.


Yeah, soldiers die because there is an enemy there, which is why this is a combat mission.

The Afghan people need our help to push them to democracy, because there are so many that want them to go back to their old style of government.

Can you imagine a world in which women cannot get jobs, go to school, an are aloud to be beaten by their husband?

I sure as hell don't want that, any where in the world. And I don't want a place that will be an area of operation for terrorists to come to our country, an kill our people. That is just one of the reasons we're there.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :brickwall:
> 
> They cant do it as long as the Taliban continues to destroy it. We are there to help until they can do it by themselves.


Exactly!

Baker


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Foreign troops the government has invited for training purposes are different than an invasion for combat purposes. As for Italian airbases, ask Italians. I don't think too many Europeans are happy with US military bases in their country.
> 
> Have I been to Afghanistan? Clearly not. But has anyone else here been to Afghanistan? First hand experience would certainly be welcomed. Unfortuantely, the only poll I've seen is from the National Post which in itself is right wind radicalism that says Afghan's to the tune of like 90% want Canadians there. You can question other polls in terms of what they ask, but I have two questions to ask in terms of the National Post, or whichever news organization it was that surveyed people. 1) What kind of poll was it. Was it a telephone poll? Because that precludes almost all of Afghanistan and secondly, are you really going to have reporters going to Afghan villages going door to door asking poll questions? I think not.



Oh my. Who needs a poll?

Canadian soldiers are thanked every day in theatre by Afghans. With their smiles, and their waves and the appreciation they express.

We live it.

You get what the media wants you to get, that's it and no more, no less. 

There's plenty of info out there on google for you that you won't find published in the MSM -- go ahead and educate yourself as to the actualities. You obviously need a whole bunch of educating in this subject area still.


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We're quite open to debate around here.
> 
> But, if you want to come to a debate -- especially with soldiers who, contrary to leftists opinion, are NOT just a bunch of automatons and who DO fully inform themselves as to what they actualities and facts are of what they are undergoing and partaking in daily (vice those sitting back here simply listening to spin) ... then I highly suggest that you fully understand that it is not your opinion that we have problems with ...
> 
> ...



Never did I say anyone was automoton's here. I have friends and family who were in the military and I myself was in Cadets for 5 years. I have an idea of what its about. And also, you don't dismiss ideas, but of course, my thoughts are just leftist opinions that are misguided and wrong. Clearly, everyone is open to debate. 

Funny, no one has addressed the governmental aspects of the problem I addressed, or the fact that terrorism has gotten worse since the missions began, not better. Or, the fact that even after our involvement in Afghanistan, we've still arrested terrorism supsects that this mission was supposed to protect us from. Or the fact that the government is still in dissaray. I'm the one with the spin, yet no one addresses the real issues at heart. All I get is that everyone loves Canada in Afghanistan and we're doing a great job, the standard military song and dance. If people actually cared about their country, they'd be trying to critique the things we're doing wrong so we can do them right in the future, not tow the line. Clearly, with my involvement in the military in the past I have known some extremely intelligent military people which is why I thought I could come here and have a smart debate wtih people who knew (I was just surfing and came across the site) and convey the feelings of Canadians who are actually against the fight in Afghanistan to those who support it. The fact that there is such a uniformity of opinion is really disturbing and I feel sorry for those who cling to the notion that there's some sort leftist spin conspiracy surrounding the military and Afghanistan.


----------



## Sigger (24 May 2008)

Sigh


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Funny, no one has addressed the governmental aspects of the problem I addressed, or the fact that terrorism has gotten worse since the missions began, not better.



Please explain how it got worse 




> Or the fact that the government is still in dissaray.



Oh i see. Setting up a functional government, in your eyes, happens overnight ?  Have you looked at our system of government over the last 20 years ? We still have corruption and mismanagement and Canada has been at this democracy thing for over a century.....




> If people actually cared about their country, they'd be trying to critique the things we're doing wrong so we can do them right in the future, not tow the line.



I have been serving my country for almost 16 years regardless of the personal cost involved so do not ever imply that i do not care.


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Never did I say anyone was automoton's here. I have friends and family who were in the military and I myself was in Cadets for 5 years. I have an idea of what its about. And also, you don't dismiss ideas, but of course, my thoughts are just leftist opinions that are misguided and wrong. Clearly, everyone is open to debate.
> 
> Funny, no one has addressed the governmental aspects of the problem I addressed, or the fact that terrorism has gotten worse since the missions began, not better. Or, the fact that even after our involvement in Afghanistan, we've still arrested terrorism supsects that this mission was supposed to protect us from. Or the fact that the government is still in dissaray. I'm the one with the spin, yet no one addresses the real issues at heart. All I get is that everyone loves Canada in Afghanistan and we're doing a great job, the standard military song and dance. If people actually cared about their country, they'd be trying to critique the things we're doing wrong so we can do them right in the future, not tow the line. Clearly, with my involvement in the military in the past I have known some extremely intelligent military people which is why I thought I could come here and have a smart debate wtih people who knew (I was just surfing and came across the site) and convey the feelings of Canadians who are actually against the fight in Afghanistan to those who support it. The fact that there is such a uniformity of opinion is really disturbing and I feel sorry for those who cling to the notion that there's some sort leftist spin conspiracy surrounding the military and Afghanistan.



I didn't dismiss your thoughts -- I corrected your errors.  

When one wants to debate and his remarks contain obvious _basic_ errors in the subject he claims to have informed himself about and is professing to speak about -- he will always find himself and his errors being noted. That IS the nature of debate. It is also the nature of "correcting" misguided thoughts and opinions of others about this mission - ie correcting the actual "facts" - for those who subscribe to those those misguided thoughts, opinions, and erroneus facts ... even should they profess to be delivering those misguided fatcs, opinions, and errors on behalf of someone other than themself.



And, I rather feel sorry for you actually -- funny how that works.



> If people actually cared about their country, they'd be trying to critique the things we're doing wrong so we can do them right in the future, not tow the line.



And, this comment further illustrates exactly how misinformed you are regarding our mission if Afghanistan. The above occurs as a matter of course (and constantly) both in-theatre and outside of theatre. We call it Lessons Learned.  :


----------



## Good2Golf (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> I don't personally view it as such. However, its not what I think of the situation, or indeed what you think of the situation. It's what the Afghani's think of the situation that determines our chances of success or failure. Considering the amount of dead and wounded, I wouldn't imagine that a lot of people think Canadians or other NATO forces are "liberators." That, and if you wan't to be technical about it, isn't a foreign force residing in a different country an occupation?



No.



UN Sanctioned mission to stabilize Afghanistan to assist establishment of country's own democratically-elected government.

UN co-ordinates with NATO to undertake stabilization operations (ISAF).

In fall 2005, Afghans elect their first democratic government.

Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (on behalf of the Afghans that elected its representatives) requests ISAF and coalition forces to continue assisting the Government and its security forces increase security and pave the way for reconstruction and development activities.

When the county's people, through its democratically-elected government, request security forces to assist them in their own country, the assisting are not "occupying" the nation.

Simple as that.  No occupation.  Period.  

NATO serves at the pleasure of the Afghan government.

G2G


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Never did I say anyone was automoton's here. I have friends and family who were in the military and I myself was in Cadets for 5 years. I have an idea of what its about. And also, you don't dismiss ideas, but of course, my thoughts are just leftist opinions that are misguided and wrong. Clearly, everyone is open to debate.
> 
> Funny, no one has addressed the governmental aspects of the problem I addressed, or the fact that terrorism has gotten worse since the missions began, not better. Or, the fact that even after our involvement in Afghanistan, we've still arrested terrorism supsects that this mission was supposed to protect us from. Or the fact that the government is still in dissaray. I'm the one with the spin, yet no one addresses the real issues at heart. All I get is that everyone loves Canada in Afghanistan and we're doing a great job, the standard military song and dance. If people actually cared about their country, they'd be trying to critique the things we're doing wrong so we can do them right in the future, not tow the line. Clearly, with my involvement in the military in the past I have known some extremely intelligent military people which is why I thought I could come here and have a smart debate wtih people who knew (I was just surfing and came across the site) and convey the feelings of Canadians who are actually against the fight in Afghanistan to those who support it. The fact that there is such a uniformity of opinion is really disturbing and I feel sorry for those who cling to the notion that there's some sort leftist spin conspiracy surrounding the military and Afghanistan.



Just my opinion but you don't want a debate, you want someone in the military to agree with your preconcieved idea of "mission bad" to justify your narrow view. People who have been to Afghanistan have told you the locals appreciate us, but to you it is only "the standard military song and dance."

As for this little tidbit you offer, 





> Clearly, with my involvement in the military in the past


 made me spit my coffee all over my monitor. 5 years in cadets does not offer anything approaching involvement in the military. :


----------



## Yrys (24 May 2008)

Baker said:
			
		

> Can you imagine a world in which women cannot get jobs, go to school, an are aloud to be beaten by their husband?




CTV link to pictures of  : Women bravely come out to ask for further recognition of human rights in Afghanistan.


----------



## nicky10013 (24 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Please explain how it got worse
> 
> 
> Oh i see. Setting up a functional government, in your eyes, happens overnight ?  Have you looked at our system of government over the last 20 years ? We still have corruption and mismanagement and Canada has been at this democracy thing for over a century.....
> ...




I don't think that you do not care. I think it gets shown in the wrong ways. Loving your country isn't a bad thing. Taking things from the military at face value because it's somehow patriotic doesn't help our democratic situation.

Of course Canada has had trouble with corruption. Every government does. Thats not the point. The traditional definition of government is a body that has a monopoly on the usage of force. We live in a country where there is a bureaucratic rule of law that oversees everything from halting crime to collecting taxes; two things the Afghan government did not do, can not do and will not be able to do for a long time to come. This is the reason why there has been civil war for the past 30 years in Afghanistan and thats why it will continue while we are there and until after we leave. The situation is and will be a lot like Somalia. The country did not have a working state when we intervened, and it still doesn't have a working state. There is no government, only war lords. The sad thing is that there is not much the international community can do not only in Afghanistan, but in Somalia where the mere thought of the international community spurns remarks of disgust due to the fact that we intervened in the first place. While western powers intervene, violence will subside because governments and militaries pick the faction du jour. The Northern Alliance were just as despotic as the Taliban but we picked them because they were fighting the guys who were protecting OBL. Since right now Karzai has support from the west, his government is legitimate in our eyes. But who knows where support really lies in terms of Afghan citizens. Due to the previous history of the country, that could change as I'm sure the government is seen widely as a puppet western government, like there was a puppet Soviet government. It's funny how ironic it is that the whole country of Afghanistan rose up and fought against the Soviet aggressor, but only a fraction of the population today are fighting against the lovely Canadians. And despite our best intentions; whatever we wanted to accomplish from this mission, the fact remains that this mission, in the broader western liberal notion, is to install friendly democratic governments in the middle east. The thing is though, that's not up to us. The fact that we can force democracy on other nations is the most undemocractic principle of them all.


----------



## Sigger (24 May 2008)

:deadhorse:

My friend,

The fact that you have your opinions is great. But it is just that - your opinions. I am not sure what you are getting at, but without some form of fact to back up your opinion, it sounds like you have a case of verbal diarrhea.

Out


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 May 2008)

nicky10013: This comment on another thread is rather relevant here; I urge that you read the whole article:

Terry Glavin
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-national-post-about-afghanistan-its.html
in the _National Post_:

Our Generation's Spanish Civil War
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=533347

The conclusion:



> The British linguist and historian Fred Halliday sets this historic "antiwar" misjudgment in these terms: "To my mind, Afghanistan is central to the history of the left, and to the history of the world since the 1980s. It is to the early 21st century, to the years we're now living through, what the Spanish Civil War was to Europe in the mid-and late-20th century."
> 
> What this means is that the heirs and successors of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion -- the brave Canadian volunteers who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists -- are to be found today not in the main ranks of the left, but among the courageous young men and women of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Vandoos and all those other Canadian regiments that are holding the banner high in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> .....The country did not have a working state when we intervened, and it still doesn't have a working state. *There is no government, only war lords.* The sad thing is that there is not much the international community can do not only in Afghanistan, but in Somalia where the mere thought of the international community spurns remarks of disgust due to the fact that we intervened in the first place...



Okay, clearly you are not going to be convinced otherwise, because it has been pointed out to you by several people that we are there assisting the Afghan government....I worked for 8 months, embedded in the Afghan government, helping redevelopment efforts.  I first saw a government very much retaining the qualities of a Soviet bureaucracy (pushing decisions up higher, with little initiative of their own) and at the end of my tour saw dynamic young Aghans taking charge of rebuilding their country and a very purposeful manner.

You need not agree with me...heck, you don't even have to believe me...that's your choice.  I have to say,your mind appears to have already been made up.  

The irony of your earlier statement about some of us attacking and not being willing to engage in meaningful debate is astounding.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> ....despite our best intentions; whatever we wanted to accomplish from this mission, the fact remains that this mission, in the broader western liberal notion, is to install friendly democratic governments in the middle east. The thing is though, that's not up to us. The fact that we can force democracy on other nations is the most undemocractic principle of them all.



This is far from the mission.

Would you please read about the mission here?  (Plus my take on the mission's "raison d'etre" and why to extend (at least) to 2011 - here.)

I'll be straight up with you, I find it incredibly frustrating that even when presented with sources of information that can provide many answers to the very questions that people are asking, it appears as though such information is ignored, and the previous line of argumentation continued.

Honestly, if you're not going to at least consider what some of us are saying, then why even bother with us?

G2G


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> I don't think that you do not care. I think it gets shown in the wrong ways. Loving your country isn't a bad thing. Taking things from the military at face value because it's somehow patriotic doesn't help our democratic situation.



See, this is where you're wrong again.

Rather than taking things from the military "at face value" why don't you start asking the MSM why they aren't running reports on the news (even IF not during prime time) that shows all the reconstruction that's occuring? That shows the highways being rebuilt? That shows the women actually out and working? That shows kids playing in the streets, listening to music and enjoying themselves actually _being_ kids?

Why don't you ask them, while you're at it -- where are the stories in the papers about all this too?? And the wells being dug for drinking water? And the communications being built for the populace?

It's ALL happening, but don't expect the MSM to show it to you ... it doesn't sell papers (ergo earning the shareholders as much profit) as a story about another dead Canadian Soldier or terrorist attack does (especially when said terrorists are strapping their wares onto kids and blowing up those kids via remote detonations) ...

Then again, seems that us just telling you it's happening is asking you to "take our word for it" -- or is considered to be us "towing the party line" -- even though there's not a single dime in profit to us based on our actual _informed_ viewpoint.  :

Go ahead and google "PRT works" -- you'd obviously be amazed. 

Or instead of us just telling you -- do you actually want us to provide you the links and thus do your self-education for you?  :

The PRT
Ignatieff
Canadian PRT in Afghanistan - A Debate
PRT overlooked

Damned if I didn't notice that, overwhelmingly, the google hits were NOT from MSM sites -- go figure eh?


----------



## GAP (24 May 2008)

> Quote from: nicky10013 on Today at 13:40:51
> 
> Funny, no one has addressed the governmental aspects of the problem I addressed, or the fact that terrorism has gotten worse since the missions began, not better.



Actually, statistics in one of my sandbox posts, showed that overall, with the exception of Bagdad, terrorism acts in Iraq and Afghanistan have declined in the last year.....they went on to give probable reasons why, I don't remember the details, but I do remember that little tidbit.

Maybe there is a dimishing pool of ardent suicide bombers, God is running out of groups of 72 virgins, whatever.....


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Actually, statistics in one of my sandbox posts, showed that overall, with the exception of Bagdad, terrorism acts in Iraq and Afghanistan have declined in the last year.....they went on to give probable reasons why, I don't remember the details, but I do remember that little tidbit.
> 
> *Maybe there is a dimishing pool of ardent suicide bombers, God is running out of groups of 72 virgins, whatever.....*



Probably why they've resorted to strapping their wares onto kids lately  and onto gentle giants suffering from mental illness in Britain ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 May 2008)

nicky10013: There is progress of interesting sorts going on of which you seem unaware.  A post at _The Torch_ that you might read in full if you actually are interested in some of the various things happening in Afghanistan:

Now if the Taliban can only be hit for six...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/now-if-taliban-can-only-be-hit-for-six.html



> Who says there's little progress? I'll be they weren't playing cricket at the time of the three Anglo-Afghan wars:
> 
> Afghan cricket team aims for world cup glory...



Then these news stories (a topic not, for some reason,covered in the Canadian media):

Afghan Pop Idol winner declared
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7309029.stm



> The grand final of Afghanistan's hit pop music talent show, Afghan Star, has taken place in Kabul.
> 
> Rafi Naabzada, 19, saw off his rival Hameed Sakhizada, 21, to win the contest at a heavily-guarded hotel.
> 
> ...



Afghanistan's Pop Idol breaks barriers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7262967.stm



> In the corner of the kebab shop a small television with a crackly picture draws everyone's eye as they plunge their Afghan nan bread into oily sauce and slurp up a chunk of meat.
> 
> The cross-legged diners lean to one side as they peer around a sheep's carcass that momentarily blocks the screen as it's passed from the freezer to the hook from which it then hangs in the window.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Thats the purpose the polls in the first place. To find out whether or not Canadian citizens support Canada's roll within Afghanistan.



The problem with that is that too few people here have any real clue what that role is, and what we're actually doing. You illustrate this quite well.

A valid poll would start out with an explanation of the mission, and then ask people if they supported those aims.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> I've seen a lot of arguments that pertain to military members or pro-military people being dissapointed and upset that Canadians could be so naive to not support a mission to fight the people responsible for 9/11.



Then you have not been paying attention.

Afghanistan was a failed state, and its government had allowed its use as a safe haven and training base for international terrorists. As such, even removal of that government was insufficient as the Taliban movement was strong enough to re-assert itself - it was the biggest band of bullies around, which is how it seized power in the first place.

The prime goal is to rebuild Afghanistan, thereby preventing its regression into failed-state status. A prosperous Afghanistan will not be a breeding ground for terrorism.

It is also right to protect people from abuse. Men were beaten for shaving their beards. Sports, music, television, radio, and children's toys were all banned. Food was extremely scarce, and many people faced starvation. Women were forced to wear burkas outside, could be beaten at whim for any of a number of trivial transgressions, stoned or shot on vague suspicion of adultery, and denied the ability to work even if they were the sole surviving parents. As they could not work at any job, they could not become doctors or nurses, and as it was also not acceptable for male doctors to treat them, they had an unnecessarily high mortality rate from illness and injury. Girls were denied education. The Taliban was an extremely repressive and opressive regime, and few Afghans harbour nostalgia for those days.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> As someone who is totally against the war in Afghanistan,



If you are against the mission, then what are you for? A return to the situation that I described above? Misery, starvation, terror, and death? That is what would befall the Afghan people if we pulled out.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> First, the military is too blunt an instrument to deal with the problem of radicalism.



Is it? Says who? Your cadet experience gives you no basis whatsoever to make this claim.

Was it too blunt of an instrument to bring peace to Cyprus, and the former Yugoslavia?

Our combat role is only one aspect of the mission. We are training the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. We are assisting ordinary Afghans in villages to dig wells, build schools and mosques, and all-important roads while giving them a secure environment in which to do that. Note that I said "assist". We are not doing it for them - we are helping them, providing materials where necessary, showing them how, and paying them for their labour. This gives them training and experience that they can put to use on other projects, pride in their work and a sense of real ownership, and a kick-start to an economy at the lowest level, where it is most needed. Many Taliban fighters take up arms not because they believe in the cause, but because they are paid to do so and the income is necessary for their survival. Providing an alternative shrinks the Taliban recruiting pool.

The Canadian Armed Forces is the right instrument for the job at present, and the only Canadian instrument that is truly effective as the situation stands right now.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Indeed, as it has shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan, military presence in both countries seems to have enflamed the situation rather than help the situation.



I will leave Iraq aside. It is not our fight, despite the presence of serving CF personnel in exchange positions there, and the situation is radically different from Afghanistan.

How has a NATO-led presence in Afghanistan "enflamed" (sic) the situation? On what do you base that claim?



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> but the population of those countries don't necessarily see it in such a manner.



They don't necessarily see it your way, either. And given that very many people on this site have direct experience in both places, I see no validity in your position. You are speaking from pure ignorance.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> How would we take it if we were occupied even if they were making our lives infinitely better than we had it before?



Who is "occupied"? If the Afghan population felt that we were attempting to "occupy" them, our loss rate would be staggering. As it is, we've only lost approximately the same number of dead from all causes, including accident and suicide, as were murdered in Toronto last year. There is no mass uprising, as occurred during the last real occupation, the Soviet one. Their army lost 13,000 to 15,000 during that operation. Afghans aren't even holding protests in Western cities, and neither are Iraqis for that matter. In fact, Afghans living in Canada are assisting us in predeployment training because they welcome our assistance in their homeland.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> The very notion that international troops are on their soil is an affront to their country and to their religion which contributes to the problem, it doesn't help it.



Facts would indicate otherwise.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Secondly, through large operations, civilian casualties are bound to happen. This also radicalizes the population.



Yes, they are, unfortunately, bound to happen. We go to unbelievable lengths to ensure that they do not, however, and the Afghans are aware of that.

The same is not true of the Taliban, and Afghans know that, too.

'Tis the Taliban who have the image problem with ordinary Afghans.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Though we haven't seen any terrorist activity in North America since 9/11, the incidences of terrorism since that day is exponentially higher than it was before through attacks in Asia and Europe.



Is it? Or do you just notice it more. There have been terrorist movements operating in Europe and elsewhere for decades prior to that day - IRA (Ireland), ETA (Spain), Baader-Meinhof Gang and Red Army Faction (Germany), and a whole menagerie of Middle Eastern, African, and South-East Asian ones come to mind. Al Qaida just did it bigger, and since being cleaned out of its Afghan safe havens, hasn't been able to come close in seven years.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Clearly, since the epidemic of global terrorism is getting worse not better,



Clearly, you are wrong.

And even if you weren't, there is a truism in statistics that says that "correlation does not equal causality", ie just because two things happen at about the same time, Thing X causes Thing Y. It could be that Thing Y actually caused Thing X, or that Thing X reduced Thing Y, or that the two are completely independent.

Any increased level of terrorism, real or perceived, may then not actually be a result of action in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. It may have occurred anyway, and it may have been a lot worse had those actions not focussed terrorists elsewhere, reduced their effective strength, eliminated much of their command structure, deterred recruiting, and set back their training efforts.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> How many terrorist attacks have been prevented in Canada by troops in Afghanistan?



Who can say?

How many might have occurred if Afghanistan had been left as a breeding ground for terrorists? Had Al Qaida and its Taliban hosts not been smacked hard, who knows how many more airliners would have been flown into large buildings, reservoirs been poisoned, ocean liners sunk, trains blown up, or political leaders been assassinated?



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Now, how many terrorist attacks have been prevented in Canada? CSIS, RCMP, Metro Toronto Police and Durham Regional Police were watching the Toronto 17 for two years before they were arrested.



And had the infection not been rooted out at its source, how can you know that all of these other agencies would not have been overwhelmed?

You simply cannot deal with a threat of this nature with only one method. That is sheer stupidity.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> we have to pull out of Afghanistan and put emphasis on border crossings, CSIS and local and federal crime enforcement.



Doing so only grants terrorists the freedom to choose where and when they will strike. Defence never won a war. Offensive action is the only thing that can. You take the fight to the enemy, or he will take it to you. Study some history.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> To attack the groups is to attack the society which only radicalizes otherwise uninterested citizens of the middle east and other countries and indeed, even citizens in Canada.



Wrong. To attack the groups that prey on the (Afghan) society helps that society, and there are extremely few "radicalize(d) otherwise uninterested citizens" protesting our role in Afghanistan anywhere.

No matter how peaceniks long for the "good old days" of the late sixties and early seventies, nothing comes close to the protests back then. It just ain't happpening.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Finally, to Afghanistan to be a truly independent nation, like Iraq, a peaceful government MUST be designed and ratified by the Afghani population while foreign troops are not present. The same situation goes for Iraq. Until that happens, no government will ever be a legitimate government in the eyes of the locals. As long as the government is viewed as a non-legitimate entity, there will always be factional infighting within the country as we see today.



Without the presence of those foreign troops, a "peaceful government ... designed and ratified by the Afghani (sic) population" is a complete impossibility. It had government by thuggery, and that is all that it would ever have without our presence.

May I remind you that, despite threats of death and violence by the Taliban, Afghanistan had a higher rate of voters turning out to exercise what we here take for granted than any Canadian election in years? They truly wanted what, without us, they could not have had and, without our continued presence for a few more years, they will never have again.

People like you would deny them that, and other simple freedoms and pleasures that we also take for granted.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> The Middle East has a history of colonialism, and to the populations there, they don't see any difference with what is happening today than what happened 60-70 years ago with the British. They didn't like it then and as it's been proven time and time again that they don't like it now.



Apparently, simply by their lack of opposition to our efforts, let alone more positive indicators, the Afghan population disagrees with this premise.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> Again, these are proud, nationalistic people who will never rest until occupational forces are out of their country.



If, by "occupational forces" you mean the Taliban coming in from Pakistan, then yes, you are right in this regard.

A very large number of Afghans are working tirelessly, with our help, to ensure that the Taliban never again gets a grip on their country.

That should not be too difficult to understand.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> This is a no-win fight.



For the Taliban, most definitely, so long as we stick with it.


----------



## Loachman (24 May 2008)

nicky10013 said:
			
		

> It's funny how ironic it is that the whole country of Afghanistan rose up and fought against the Soviet aggressor, but only a fraction of the population today are fighting against the lovely Canadians.



What's "funny" and "ironic" is that you cannot comprehend why this is, because you cannot comprehend the differences between these two examples.

Resistance to the Nazi occupation of Europe was very high. There was no similar resistance movement following the Allied liberation.



			
				nicky10013 said:
			
		

> And despite our best intentions; whatever we wanted to accomplish from this mission, the fact remains that this mission, in the broader western liberal notion, is to install friendly democratic governments in the middle east. The thing is though, that's not up to us. The fact that we can force democracy on other nations is the most undemocractic principle of them all.



Nobody can "force" democracy on others, period. We can only give them the ability to choose, and that's not something that their previous government would permit.

Despite your wishing it otherwise, there is still no indication that that Afghan population at large wants us to leave, and every indication that they want us to stay until they can run their country by themselves. At that point, Afghanistan is free to go its own way, and remain on friendly terms or not.

The choice will be theirs, and that is what we are trying to give them.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 May 2008)

Loachman: Brilliant  .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (24 May 2008)

Does this help you young Nick?  From that notorious hot bed of right wing thought - SFU.



> B.C. researchers find decline in global terrorism, question previous data
> 3 days ago
> 
> VANCOUVER — A group of researchers from Simon Fraser University says global terrorism is on the decline, despite previous data and public perceptions that suggest otherwise.
> ...



http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA


----------



## Kirkhill (24 May 2008)

Or from the equally right wing BBC.....

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2007/12/afhans-remain-o.html



> Afghans Remain Optmistic, but NATO Support Sliding in Southwest: Poll
> 'Afghans 'still hopeful on future'', BBC News, 3 December 2007
> 
> EXCERPT: "Most Afghans are relatively hopeful about their future, an opinion poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested. They also support the current Afghan government and the presence of overseas troops, and oppose the Taleban. But the poll suggests that Afghans are slightly less optimistic than a year ago, and are frustrated at the slow pace of reconstruction efforts. Overall, the figures indicate that the peaceful north of Afghanistan is significantly more satisfied than the troubled south. Most dissatisfaction is found in the south-west, where the Taleban are most active. Charney Research spoke to 1,377 people in October and November in all 34 provinces for the BBC, ABC and ARD."
> ...



In particular I commend this link to your attention and particularly questions 16 and 17.  Some 70 per cent of Afghans support both the US and NATO in Afghanistan, 82 per cent oppose foreign jihadis and 93 per cent oppose the Taliban.

By the way,  in Northern Ireland Bernadette Devlin, Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams and an couple of hundred other idiots kept British soldiers "coming home in body bags" for a period of 30 years.  The Italian Carabinieri still regularly die dealing with their local thugs......As do Canadian Mounties.  

Casualty count is no indication of public opinion....it only speaks to the motivation and capabilities of those involved in committing crimes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_12_07_afghanpoll2007.pdf


----------



## QV (25 May 2008)

Good post Loachman.


----------



## Haletown (26 May 2008)

Amen Loachman, excellent post.

Way to slice 'em & dice 'em.

BZ


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2008)

The government could take some of the wounded vets on a volunteer bases, give a 2 week primer on all the history and all of the programs, progress and failures. send them to malls, fairs with a booth and a sign saying: "Not sure? Ask a Vet" 

Make sure the vets can and will give honest answers, perhaps laptops with wireless so if they can't answer a question they can get the information. It will give the vets an oppurtunity to serve the mission and increase the awareness of the forces in the public eye. If the nutbars target them, people will get pissed off at the nutbars in a hurry, in fact I would not be surprised if "Joe construction dude" might walk up and assist the nutbar into tripping on the sidewalk several times.

There is lots of stuff happening there that never gets into news or talked about, that's what is hurting the mission.


----------



## Flip (28 Aug 2008)

No doubt.



> There is lots of stuff happening there that never gets into news or talked about, that's what is hurting the mission.



I generally like your idea and I have always thought that the public should have more exposure to what the military is doing - not just Afghanistan but everywhere.

The problem in general is, that our liberal sensiblities have precluded a show of militarism like that since the 60s.  People don't want to upset their nice comfortable belief system in which all war is bad and the participants just need to be sent to their corners to think about it.  

Canadians need more information.
Canadians need to understand their military.
But, Canadians still think Santa Clause is a Canadian.


----------



## GAP (28 Aug 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Canadians need more information.   yes
> Canadians need to understand their military. yes
> But, Canadians still think Santa Clause is a Canadian.   *he is*


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> No doubt.
> 
> I generally like your idea and I have always thought that the public should have more exposure to what the military is doing - not just Afghanistan but everywhere.
> 
> ...



I was thinking more of a departure from the CNE/PNE thing with less emphasis on equipment, but more on the human benefits of the mission itself. The vets could team up with civilians from involved agencies (and share budget costs   ) This is almost a word of mouth campagain. It will let average Canadians talk to people involved and learn more about the situation on the ground from people they will have more respect for then politicans.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is more bad news:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080905.wmilipoll0905/BNStory/National/home


> Troops best as peacekeepers, Canadians say
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> The Canadian Press
> ...




So, despite six years of combat operations and nearly 100 KIA in Afghanistan, not to mention real fighting in the Balkans – even if the Chrétien government did try to hide our combat operations – and despite all of Gen (ret'd) Hillier's efforts, 'we' (a substantial majority of Canadians, I'm guessing because we will not see the numbers until next week) are still believers in the _peacekeeping_ myth.

Desmond Morton says we’re _idealists_ and I think that is part of the ‘problem’ but ‘we’ are also *wilfully blind*. The poll says that ‘we’ see/listen to/read the news from Afghanistan but we don’t ‘trust’ the media. What that really means is that the media is not telling us what we *wish* was the truth so we choose to believe something else. That’s not idealism; that, my fellow Canadians, is *STUPIDITY*


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2008)

"If wishes were horses then tinkers would ride".

Edward, you and I and a host of others on this board spend a deal of time talking about how we don't trust the media and politicians.   ;D  Isn't it a bit rich to criticize the rest of Canada for also not believing them?  

The problem these days is that everybody finds people of like mind, talk amongst themselves, devise comforting narratives and then cheerfully ignore the rest of the world.  Heck, I do it everyday.  I read this board instead of Daily Kos or Rabble.  I scan Real Clear Politics rather than watch "The Daily Show" or "Larry King".  (I gave up on the TV news of any stripe about 18 months ago).

To the meat of the article itself, and my opener.....

Canadians may prefer their soldiers to be involved in rescuing individuals from natural disasters, or peacefully and bravely (if stupidly) keeping the peace between the Lion and the Lamb without resort to bloodshed and guns while at the same time realistically appreciating that occasionally reality intrudes and you can't get what you wish for.

Note that in the article ONE, Individual, in the focus group came forward with the unique view that soldiers shouldn't have guns.  What did the rest of the group say?

While it appears that 50% of our population is of a suitably scrambled and muddy socialist mindset I would prefer to focus on the other 50% that sees intervention as an unpleasant but unavoidable necessity.  And, as well I have hope that at least 20% more, that combine with the realist 50% in having pride in the work of the troops can also be brought around to an appropriate state of military zen.

I don't see a desire to live in a peaceful world as being mutually exclusive to realization that that world doesn't exist.

Now, as for the 30-50% of the population that are "no-hopers"................................nuther story.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2008)

> The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA -- A majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests.
> 
> ...



More on link: CTV News Link

I find it interesting that the poll states that nearly 2/3 of respondants support what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.... yet the MSM paints the whole country against the mission.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> More on link: CTV News Link
> 
> I find it interesting that the poll states that nearly 2/3 of respondants support what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.... yet the MSM paints the whole country against the mission.



And they (the MSM) wonder why we think that they are all f*&^%$ up.   They can't even read the polls........or they think they know better than the people polled.  

It has been the propoganda spewed out by the Federal Government since the Pearson/Trudeau days that we are Peacekeepers.  Unfortunately, no one seems to be able to associate Peacemaker in the equation and a step towards becoming Peacekeepers.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Sep 2008)

Hello:

I'm back posting my opinions,,,,

Here's one.

If the politicians of MY generation had DONE THE BUSINESS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE in the 60's-90's, then this generation would have an easier time of it. But we'd rather invite psychopathic criminals to tea and "Negotiate" with them. BULL$HIT!!!!!!

I think you know what I mean.


----------



## Petard (6 Sep 2008)

Sheep tend to gather with, and like the company of, other sheep.
That, and just plain ignorance, I would say is the reason this peace keeping myth endures.
how many Canadians for example have even heard of the Dag Hammarskjöld Medal?

http://www.geocities.com/dco700/UnitedNations.htm

I don't recall too much interest from Canadians when this was announced, or, for that matter, when some of these brave souls that this medal recognizes did not come back from these "peace keeping" missions .


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2008)

Further to Petard's comments on sheep: 

I am brought back to this comment by one of the Focus Group participants.



> One participant lamented that the fighting in Kandahar was changing the nation's international character:
> 
> “With Afghanistan, we're more in the spotlight than ever before. Before we were under the radar. Now our troops are in Afghanistan and they are looking at us in a different light. We used to be peacekeepers and we aren't any more, and I resent that.”



My sense of that comment is that it reflects fear.  

Before, we were everybody's friend, or at least people ignored us.  There was no threat to Canadians (and THERE is the greatest myth of all).
Now we have taken a position (and some of us argue that we have to and that that only happened because we were forced to by events).  We suddenly find ourselves in the line of fire.

I would put our position as akin to an Ostrich on a firing range.  Fat, dumb, happy and lucky it has survived with its head in the sand.    It presented an amazing target but through luck or circumstance nobody has shot it, or even shot at it. One day though, somebody dragged our head out of the sand and we discovered bullets cracking and banging all around.  Our situation hasn't changed but our awareness of our situation has.  All of a sudden we have been taken from a state of blissful ignorance to a state of fearful awareness.

Under those circumstances it is not unusual to be resentful of the individual that caused you to become fearful - even if all that individual was doing was trying to lead you off the range, out of the line of fire and towards safety.

A further complication:

After spending a lot of time working in the States (even though I only lived there for two years I have spent almost 12 years serving Americans) I have returned to a Canada much changed.  I find myself working with a virtual United Nations of folks, even in a small town in Southern Alberta.  I have come to admire and respect them (even if they do think that Che Guevara and Castro are heroes and have difficulty discerning the difference between Kosovo and Ossetia).  One thing that has been forcefully brought home to me is that for many of these people bombs and machetes are not theoretical bases for discussion.  They are constantly with them as reminders or waking nightmares.

They came to Canada to join us in our blissful ignorance.   They joined with us in sticking their heads in the sand.   They convinced themselves that they were safe because everybody else said so.  Now, when forced to confront their current predicament their resentment is amplified by their even greater fear.   

And one of their greatest fears is that Canada will join with the US and cause them to be put back in the firing line, or worse be treated like Japanese were treated in WW2, Galicians were treated in WW1, or they were treated in their homelands when they were unpopular minorities.....

I happen to believe that we have always been on that firing range and that ignoring our position doesn't make the bullets go away.   We have to deal with reality,  the world as it is and not the world as we wish it. 

But I think I am getting a new appreciation for the anti-american opposition here in Canada.  In point of fact I don't blame the immigrants.  They were, by and large, just looking for a safe haven and an opportunity to live a normal, WESTERN, life - complete with cars and bars and debt.

I blame those Canadian born (and some Clydeside immigrants like those that used to run the Post Office) bureaucrats that kept the rest of the flock, on the firing range, in blissful ignorance.    Some of those bureaucrats were a guileless as the rest of the flock and didn't perceive the threat.  Others though, I am convinced, not only perceived the threat but actively worked to keep the flock's heads down both for their own political benefit but also, and more nefariously for the benefit of other external forces.

Sorry,  just ran out of tin-foil.....  Conspiracy theory again.....must control that urge.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Sep 2008)

Meanwhile a CBC poll.  It would seem (CP poll above for comparison) that while many people want to do good things in Afstan, they just don't want the necessary military means--and costs--used to achieve them (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html



> *The number of Canadians who disapprove of the country's military action in Afghanistan is at its highest point since 2002, according to the results of a new poll sponsored by CBC News.
> 
> The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 34 per cent of respondents "strongly disapprove" of Canada's participation in military action in Afghanistan, while 22 per cent "somewhat disapprove," making a total of 56 per cent [emphasis added].
> 
> ...



On CBC's "The National", Sept. 5, Brian Stewart interpreted the poll as basically indicating that Taliban successes were proving false the CF's efforts (not/not the government's) to sell the mission.  Never mentioning that our media--esp. TV which forms most opinion--generally cover military things almost exclusively, especially the bad (death) news; report almost only on the CF at Kanadahar; and do not report major ISAF successes, e.g.:

British soldiers kill 200 Taliban in Afghan dam operation
A major secret British operation to boost the economy in Afghanistan's Helmand province has been completed after a force of 5,000 troops fought for a week to drive a huge dam turbine through Taliban lines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2668595/British-soldiers-kill-200-Taliban-in-Afghan-dam-operation.html

More here:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/development-through-combat.html

Moreover, no Canadian media organization has even one reporter stationed in the capital, Kabul--so we get almost zero reporting about Afstan at the national level (e.g. in education).  That gives Canadians the totally skewed view that the troubles (big) at Kandahar represent the country as a whole--and therefore things are hopeless and we should bug out.  But no reporting on the largely secure North, pretty secure West--and ditto Kabul and the large economic progress there.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (6 Sep 2008)

My "feeling" is that a significant amount of disapproval comes from the misguided notion that GWB started the "War on Terrorism".  We've completely lost track of the *Fact*
that war was foisted upon us by our collective enemies.  In previous wars we blamed the "bad guy". Now for some perverse reason we're blaming ourselves.

I've never heard a Canadian politician say "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"  I'm not sure how it would play.  This what brings up the most insidious part of the peacekeeping myth.  Canadians and indeed many westerners believe to fight a war is unneccesary, even when it's started by the other side.

Canadians by and large do not understand their history.
In particular military history. And in particular to that, peacekeeping history.
New Canadians do add a problematic dimension, as do this generation of established Canadians.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Sep 2008)

What ever happened to support the troops even if you dont agree with the mission ? These polls and short sighted politicians are putting the troops at risk.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2008)

T6 

There hasn't been very much news of any kind re Afghanistan, especially on the front pages.  The only time that Afghanistan now is "News" is when there is a multiple-casualty incident.  Even single deaths don't make the front page anymore.

Consequently there is no positive reinforcement as there was in the early days of the mission.  Never mind that the annual death rate amongst Canadian troops over there is approaching that of Canadian police at home (a slight, but only slight exaggeration - one order of magnitude) and the general populace sees a steady drip of losses with no return on that "investment" and no sense of an end in sight.  And to be honest, there is no prospect of an end to these types of operations.  The Afghan government will be fighting this battle for decades.  The only question is when will they be ready to do it themselves and when will the Canadian presence be reduced to one equivalent to the 18th Century "adventurers" that built the Indian Army.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2008)

I noted on a BBC report on the possible civilans deaths in Shindand that they neglected to say that it was a combined Afghan/US operation and that the information was provided by tribal elders, of another tribe known to be hostile to the one hit. Seem like important facts to neglect.....


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Sep 2008)

One Third of Canadians Back Afghan Mission
September 13, 2008

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Canadian adults continue to disagree with the decision to prolong the country’s mandate in Afghanistan until 2011, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 34 per cent of respondents agree with the extension, while 59 per cent disagree. 
Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. 
At least 956 soldiers—including 97 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 
Canadians renewed the House of Commons in January 2006. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Harper formed a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party. 
In May 2006, the House of Commons extended Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. In March 2008, the House of Commons voted 198-77 to prolong the military deployment until the end of 2011. The Conservative and Liberal parties supported the motion, while the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois opposed it. 
On Sept. 10, Harper—in the middle of a federal electoral campaign—assured that there would be no new extension of the mission if he forms the government again, saying, "You have to put an end date on these things. By 2011, we will have been in Kandahar, which is probably the toughest province in the country, for six years. Not only have we done our bit at that point, I think our goal has to be after six years to see the government of Afghanistan able to carry the lion’s share of responsibility for its own security. At that point, the mission, as we’ve known it, we intend to end." 
Polling Data 
As you may know, the House of Commons has authorized an extension of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011? 

             Sept. 2008 	Jul. 2008 	May 2008 
Agree 	34% 	36% 	41% 
Disagree 	59% 	58% 	54% 
Not sure 	7% 	6% 	6% 

Source: Angus Reid Strategies 
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,001 Canadian adults, conducted on Sept. 9 and Sept. 10, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. 

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31745/one_third_of_canadians_back_afghan_mission


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2008)

I find the final statement telling:



> "At that point, the mission,* as we’ve known it*, we intend to end."



I smell lots of wiggle room for the continuation of the mission past 2011 with that statement. Change to mandate, change to location, change of deployed pers strength, etc ... any of which will have the effect of "changing the mission as we now know it."

Not exactly a lie now is it?

But, it does serve to placate the "apparent" masses of those opinion poll voters who are disagreeing with the mission "as we know it now".

Politics at it's very best.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern: Worst, rather:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/out-of-afghanistan.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/cf-in-afstan-modest-middle-ground.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/its-important-right-up-until-part-where.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/any-excuse-for-party-even-grisliest-one.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/misplaced-war-room-fervour.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## armyvern (15 Sep 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ArmyVern: Worst, rather:
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/out-of-afghanistan.html
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/cf-in-afstan-modest-middle-ground.html
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/its-important-right-up-until-part-where.html
> ...



Yeah ... well politicians at their best (best = the standard "colourful" rather than "lying") usually results in the worst for some of us. I just love politics by opinion polls.

I first heard his announcement about 2011 as I was listening to CBC driving back from Borden on Friday ... almost drove off the freakin' road.

And, I'm quite in agreement with Mr. Jim Davis' take on it all ...

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/election-2008/canada-in-afghanistan/#clip91830


----------



## Celticgirl (19 Sep 2008)

Snipped from a Letter to the Editor of the Cape Breton Post this morning:

"Canada, whose mission in the world used to be peacekeeping, has involved itself in fighting. One cannot win a war in which people's bodies become bombs, as in Afghanistan, and where roadside bombs are implanted. When people are prepared to die in suicide missions, they cannot be won over. Only death, destruction and more misery will be created on all sides of the conflict.

So I think it is better if Canadian soldiers are brought back home soon, rather than being killed for nothing. Other countries' troops should also leave Afghanistan. After that, good sense might come to the people there to settle their issues."


Did that last sentence make anyone else "laugh out loud"? I nearly spit a mouthful of coffee on my shirt.  :


----------



## Snafu-Bar (19 Sep 2008)

Someone obviously delusional has themseleves a writing job.... perhaps (S)he should stick to fiction. I guess some people think because we are there, we are doing nothing but fight and kill people? Perhaps this person should be added to a convoy or one of the many rebuilding missions.  


 Cheers


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2008)

Presently on CBC "The Current" is a discussion on why we should stay in afghanistan and should we limit air strikes entirely....

Radio Link - Pick a City...presently on in Winnipeg


----------



## Celticgirl (19 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Someone obviously delusional has themseleves a writing job.... perhaps (S)he should stick to fiction.



Naw, it was just someone writing a letter to the paper. I think the point of it was to gather support for the NDPs.

Interesting about the Canadian Forces traditionally being peacekeepers bit, though. I could have sworn our troops have fought in wars besides this one in the past. Silly me.


----------



## TCBF (20 Sep 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Naw, it was just someone writing a letter to the paper. I think the point of it was to gather support for the NDPs.
> 
> Interesting about the Canadian Forces traditionally being peacekeepers bit, though. I could have sworn our troops have fought in wars besides this one in the past. Silly me.



- You forget that all history must pass the 'relevance' test before being considered.  'Progressive' Canadian history started when we ran up the new flag in '65, after lowering the one imposed by our old 'colonial masters.'

 8)


----------



## loonie559 (20 Sep 2008)

I am not surprised to see such a letter. (it's not the first one I have seen)  I think the Canadians that are writing these letters are the uninformed and nonmilitary faction of Canada.   :


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Sep 2008)

I'm tired of the left wing loonie lot crying and wringing their hands over a few dead no good psychotic terrorists.

When is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing? NEVER that is when.

But we have some "sheep" in our midst who bleat and complain every time the sheepdogs pass wind, or heaven help them, kill a wolf about to prey on a weaker member of the flock.


----------



## twistedcables (11 Oct 2008)

A poll of 1000 Canadians is supposed to be reflective of the views of 30 MILLION + ?!  I doubt that very much.

Besides, opinion polls are for politicians not soldiers.


----------



## Stupor (16 Nov 2008)

twistedcables said:
			
		

> A poll of 1000 Canadians is supposed to be reflective of the views of 30 MILLION + ?!  I doubt that very much.
> 
> Besides, opinion polls are for politicians not soldiers.


Polls from small sample sizes can reflect the opinion of general population very accurately, subject to statistical limitations. It is statistically unlikely for the many polls that have consistently shown a majority of the Canadian public to be against the war in Afghanistan to have been all wrong. Let's debate the merits of reasons for public opposition to the war, rather than assume that the apparent opposition is only due to inaccurate polls, and that the mission actually enjoys the backing of the 30 MILLION + ?! Canadians.

Opinion polls on the war in Afghanistan are NOT just for politicians; they should be important to all Canadian citizens, and especially so to soldiers. We are more than just mercenaries who are happy to kill as long as we get paid by the government, whether or not the populace support our missions. We are part of the Canadian society, and we choose to represent our fellow citizens by serving in the military and deploying internationally (well, not me personally, yet, but my hats are off to those of you who have). For us to legitimately claim a mandate, we must enjoy their support.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (16 Nov 2008)

Stupor said:
			
		

> Polls from small sample sizes can reflect the opinion of general population very accurately, subject to statistical limitations. It is statistically unlikely for the many polls that have consistently shown a majority of the Canadian public to be against the war in Afghanistan to have been all wrong. Let's debate the merits of reasons for public opposition to the war, rather than assume that the apparent opposition is only due to inaccurate polls, and that the mission actually enjoys the backing of the 30 MILLION + ?! Canadians.
> 
> Opinion polls on the war in Afghanistan are NOT just for politicians; they should be important to all Canadian citizens, and especially so to soldiers. We are more than just mercenaries who are happy to kill as long as we get paid by the government, whether or not the populace support our missions. We are part of the Canadian society, and we choose to represent our fellow citizens by serving in the military and deploying internationally (well, not me personally, yet, but my hats are off to those of you who have). For us to legitimately claim a mandate, we must enjoy their support.



 Doh.. 

message lagged out... anyways as i was going put in here....

 Opinion polls can target certain demographics depending on the pollsters desire to provide influence in the topic. Hence in this instance they could have been at an anti-war rally and polled 1000 war protesters to get thier "results". You can spin it and more often then not people won't take a "poll" as something the entire country feels in the favourable answer. The results will vary depending on the demographic targeted and by the location within the country it was taken.

 Cheers.


----------



## Nauticus (16 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I'm tired of the left wing loonie lot crying and wringing their hands over a few dead no good psychotic terrorists.
> 
> When is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing? NEVER that is when.
> 
> But we have some "sheep" in our midst who bleat and complain every time the sheepdogs pass wind, or heaven help them, kill a wolf about to prey on a weaker member of the flock.


I don't feel it's right to call their oppinion 'loonie'. And it doesn't matter whether or not you're tired of it. And I also have no idea why we, as military professionals, constantly talk down about civilians. I understand some are uninformed, but we would be better represented to simply inform them, instead of insulting them. That's childish.

I feel the military in general should have more respect for civilians. This thread shows that we don't respect their opinions, so I begin to wonder why some of us are even in the military. Our ethos is to basically protect their right to free speech (among other things...), so complaining when they do is counter-productive in my opinion.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Nov 2008)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I don't feel it's right to call their oppinion 'loonie'. And it doesn't matter whether or not you're tired of it. And I also have no idea why we, as military professionals, constantly talk down about civilians. I understand some are uninformed, but we would be better represented to simply inform them, instead of insulting them. That's childish.
> 
> I feel the military in general should have more respect for civilians. This thread shows that we don't respect their opinions, so I begin to wonder why some of us are even in the military. Our ethos is to basically protect their right to free speech (among other things...), so complaining when they do is counter-productive in my opinion.


DON'T presume to lecture me. We've had the loonie left forever. Most civilians are just fine, but there is a corps of "useful fools" who constantly whine about anything military.
I respect civilian authority, and if the Government of Canada says we're out, we're out. Notice I said the Government of Canada, not the lunatic fringe.
Perhaps you don't know that the Government of Canada is elected by civilians, not the lunatic fringe who want peace at all costs.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.


----------



## Nauticus (16 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> DON'T presume to lecture me. We've had the loonie left forever. Most civilians are just fine, but there is a corps of "useful fools" who constantly whine about anything military.
> I respect civilian authority, and if the Government of Canada says we're out, we're out. Notice I said the Government of Canada, not the lunatic fringe.
> Perhaps you don't know that the Government of Canada is elected by civilians, not the lunatic fringe who want peace at all costs.
> Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.


I'm not lecturing you at all, but I take exception when you call those who have a differing opinion than you a "lunatic".

All people - especially those who are representing our rights (including freedom of expression) overseas - should have an open mind, and should accept that others' opinions may be different than our own. While I agree with what we're doing overseas 110%, I also accept than some people may not agree with what the military is doing. Guess what? They have that right, too.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Nov 2008)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I'm not lecturing you at all, but I take exception when you call those who have a differing opinion than you a "lunatic".
> 
> All people - especially those who are representing our rights (including freedom of expression) overseas - should have an open mind, and should accept that others' opinions may be different than our own. While I agree with what we're doing overseas 110%, I also accept than some people may not agree with what the military is doing. Guess what? They have that right, too.


Yes they have that right.....and like I told you... don't presume to lecture me. You haven't heard a word I've said. Go guard a shopping mall. I notice by your own profile you are applying to join. Good. In the meantime, please take note of our experience and tours. Have a nice day.


----------



## Nauticus (16 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Yes they have that right.....and like I told you... don't presume to lecture me. You haven't heard a word I've said. Go guard a shopping mall. I notice by your own profile you are applying to join. Good. In the meantime, please take note of our experience and tours. Have a nice day.


You'll find that I have joined, I have not updated my profile. Additionally, don't insult my previous job please.

Back on topic.


----------



## Franko (17 Nov 2008)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> You'll find that I have joined, I have not updated my profile. Additionally, don't insult my previous job please.
> 
> Back on topic.



Thanks for doing moderation on this site for us. Oh wait, you aren't a mod.

Back on topic troops or this one will be locked.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2008)

Some new numbers from Angus Reid (full poll in .pdf here).....


> As you may know, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that Canada would withdraw the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan in 2011. Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view?
> 
> *The bulk of the troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan before 2011 .................53%
> The bulk of the troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011 as scheduled ... 33%*
> ...


----------



## pbi (21 Dec 2008)

Interesting to see that 42% of Canadians are so ignorant of the political realities of the situation in Afgh that they think it is the place of the Govt of Cda to negotiate with the Taliban. On what grounds would we, a foreign power, do that? The question of whether or not there is to be political negotiation with any party in Afgh has to be the decision of the Kabul govt or we are making a mockery of the stated purpose of the international presence in Afgh. Besides that, what productive political response has the Taleban (or any insurgent group) provided to the GoIRA or to the international community? What is their political platform, other than "foreigners out, Kharzai dead, Taleban in charge"? What these wishful and no doubt-well intentioned Canadians miss is that any meaningful negotiation requires two parties who actually want to reach a reasonable solution.

What really scares me about all this is that our country may be gradually losing its backbone for standing up to dangerous, violent and heavily armed bad people. In my opinion, that "standing up" is our REAL military tradition, not some phoney warm and fuzzy vision of benign, low-risk peacekeeping. Will we be ready to act if there's another Rwanda, or Somalia, or Darfur, or some crisis like that? Or will we hide at home and wait till its safe so we can go in  and make nice photo ops while others do the dirty work?

Cheers

pbi


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2009)

Highlights mine....

*Canadians Want Quicker End to Afghan Mission*
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, 4 Jan 09
News release - Complete poll (.pdf)

Many adults in Canada want their government to end its current military deployment in Afghanistan before the scheduled departure date, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies released by the Toronto Star. *53 per cent of respondents believe the bulk of Canadian troops in Afghanistan should be withdrawn before 2011.*

Conversely, *30 per cent of respondents would remove most soldiers in 2011, while eight per cent would retain Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011.*

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

At least 1,037 soldiers—including 106 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Canadians renewed the House of Commons in January 2006. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Harper formed a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party.

In May 2006, the House of Commons extended Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. In March 2008, the House of Commons voted 198-77 to prolong the military deployment until the end of 2011. The Conservative and Liberal parties supported the motion, while the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois opposed it. In September, Harper assured that there would be no new extension of the mission.

A new presidential election is expected to take place in Afghanistan in 2009. On Dec. 27, Canadian defence minister Peter MacKay predicted a tougher year for soldiers, saying, "[The Taliban] are going to try to disrupt this election, and inevitably they will step up their violence against their own citizens and against coalition forces. So that’s one explanation for a spike that will likely come." 

As you may know, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that Canada would withdraw the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan in 2011. Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view?
  	
Nov. 2008/Dec. 2008

The bulk of the troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan before 2011
53%/53%

The bulk of the troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011 as scheduled
30%/33%

The bulk of the troops should remain in Afghanistan after 2011
8%/7%

Not sure
8%/8% 

_Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,004 Canadian adults, conducted on Dec. 19 and Dec. 20, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. _


----------



## TCBF (5 Jan 2009)

- I see an issue with the 'intellectual future' of our nation dissuading their fellow students from joining up because they don't like this mission.  When - not if - they eventually find a mission they like, it will be too late. The young Einsteins we need to munch such delicate missions having been scared away from the recruiting centers by the ComSymp protesters, the only remaining types are like you and me.  As for me, a semi-literate Grade Two: Page Four, swamp monkey from the NWO (North-Western Ontario), I am lonnnnnnggggggg in the tooth and but a few short years from the mandatory ass-chillin' in a rocking chair on the front porch of a trailer in the desert.  Twelve bore on my knees. Old yaller dog.  Some chickens.  Range card by every window...

- So, who will we have for a future feel-good Pinko mission? A bunch of Canadian Afghantsi  who say   "WTF?  This is BOGUS! I didn't join for this!" and waltz out the door with their experience?  Good luck singing THAT song...


----------



## Greymatters (10 Jan 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some new numbers from Angus Reid (full poll in .pdf here).....
> 
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32232/canadians_would_leave_afghanistan_before_2011
> 19% think the Afghan government will be able to take care of its own security needs without assistance from international troops in 2011
> ...



Considering this very site has proven how easy it is to manipulate the results of on-line polls, I find it surprising that this poll is given much credibility in the first place. 

The questions themselves are hokey as well.  

How is that the average canadian is expected to be knowledgable enough to know whether a foreign government can survive on its own or not?  Is there some secret self-educating online course out there Ive never heard of on this subject? This question should have a Part 2 follow-up: 
"What credentials do you possess to support your judgement?"
a) read the newspapers every day
b) university education, special interest group or anti-war group 
c) went on holiday there once or visited as part of political delegation
d) worked there within the last two years 
e) was born there and later moved to Canada  
f) other (please specify) _______________________

Same with the next question, there should be a Part 2 detailing why  they think the mission should end.
"I disagree with the extension of the mission until 2011 because..."
a) Im opposed to any form of fighting
b) I belong to a group that protests fascist colonization of foreign countries
c) I dont like Harper
d) I dont like the military
e) politicians can solve this more quickly and successfully.  
f) other (please specify) _______________________ 

I would especially love to see answers as to why we should even think  of negotiating with the Taliban:
"Canada should negotiate peace with the Taliban because..."
a) Because the Taliban is a legitimate political party well-known for its honesty and willingness to deal fairly.
b) Because they are really a nice bunch of guys who have been the victim of bad publicity. 
c) Because they only make bombs and behead people as part of protecting themselves from foreign oppression. 
d) Because I dont like Harper or the military.
e) Because Im pretty sure there's some legal organization out there who can take them to court and give them a really big punitive fine if they break any agreement.
f) other (please specify) _______________________

_Sarcasm intended, bias unavoidable...._


----------



## Oil Can (11 Feb 2009)

Freedom doesn't come free.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2009)

More of the latest from Angus Reid (.pdf attached):


> Many adults in Canada believe their government should cease its military deployment in Afghanistan sooner than scheduled, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 48 per cent of respondents want the bulk of Canadian troops in Afghanistan to be removed before 2011.  Conversely, 35 per cent of respondents would withdraw most soldiers in 2011, while eight per cent would keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011 ....
> 
> _Methodology: Online interviews with 1,006 Canadian adults, conducted on Feb. 27 and Feb. 28, 2009. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent._


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Apr 2009)

Afstan: The right poll question, according to Johnathon Narvey at his National Post blog (more links in original):

Jonathon Narvey: Canadians agree more than they disagree on Afghanistan
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/23/jonathon-narvey-canadians-agree-more-than-they-disagree-on-afghanistan.aspx



> In light of polls that make me doubt whether many of my fellow Canadians truly understand what’s at stake in Afghanistan, I’d like to go over a few assumptions I have about my fellow citizens.
> 
> If you ask Canadians whether respect for human rights ought to be universal, everyone will agree.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Apr 2009)

_Torch_ post dealing with St. Steve Staples:

Guess what? _Ceasefire.ca_ readers oppose Afghan mission
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/guess-what-ceasefireca-readers-oppose.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Apr 2009)

I have to ask a question here:

What agenda does Stephen Staples have? Why does he and others insist we negotiate with thugs, terrorists, murderers and those that would deny basic human rights? Of course their answer would be "Well the USA are all those things too"
I think someone tried that negotiation thing with Hitler right before WWII. That didn't work out well at all did it?

You can't negotiate with thugs and murderers. Period.


----------



## Franko (27 Apr 2009)

OS,

These people live in a cocoon of their own self righteousness and yell on their soap boxes from the safety of their home soil.

They have no context nor idea of what we're doing there nor are they interested in hearing the truth of the mission.

I, along with many other people, have written off Mr Staples' "expertise" on the military, specifically the Afghan mission, as tripe.

I've also spoken to many WW2/ Korean vets about the mission and the rantings of Mr Staples. Lets just say that they do not appreciate his motives and are at a loss for words.

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 May 2009)

Link to news release here, with .pdf of news release attached in case link doesn't work.  Also, .pdf of full poll available here.


> Half of adults in Canada believe their country’s commitment to the mission in Afghanistan should draw to a close before the scheduled end date, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 51 per cent of respondents would withdraw the bulk of the troops before 2011.
> 
> Conversely, 33 per cent of respondents would remove most soldiers in 2011, while seven per cent would keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011.
> 
> ...


----------



## aquasaurus (1 Jun 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...
> Conversely, *30 per cent of respondents would remove most soldiers in 2011, while eight per cent would retain Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011.*
> 
> Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.
> ...



I get a kick out of the part where the article simply says that bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in the 9/11 attacks. Are there other suspects? Or are the majority of Canadian journalists so biased when they create and present these polls that they want to imply that, you know, maybe it was really a conspiracy by Bush or something, and we're just trying to pin it on innocent bin Laden...

The Canadian public (or perhaps, more correctly, the majority of the Canadian press) needs to get over the fact that there are real, honest-to-goodness bad people in the world who can only be dealt with using real fire and brimstone military power. Most Canadians' only experience with "bad people" is when someone cuts in front of them in the line at Starbucks.


----------



## fuzzy806 (2 Jun 2009)

Does anyone know if these polls have been offered to members of our forces? I suspect they may find a drastic difference in the results, if they bothered to ask "those who know". I personally am not in the "those who know" yet, I start my basic in a little under two months; However, personally I feel we should remain in Afghanistan until we have completed what we went in to do. If anyone knows of such a poll, I would be very interested in reviewing it's results.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Jun 2009)

We found in the past that people who expressed strong opinions that support the military and our involvement in Afghanistan were hung up on in the middle of the survey.  Can't have honest opinions screwing up a poll with an agenda.  
Such a survey of the CF would likely see massive support to the mission, however the lefties would just say that's because we are just a bunch of mongers in need of a war.  
Plus, it's just doing our job.  Our opinion sort of doesn't matter.  Hell, go overseas.  They you'll see your opinion _REALLY_ doesn't matter.


----------



## Rinker (3 Jul 2009)

I should do a poll of my own ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2009)

It appears that Canadians, everywhere, are, finally, tired of the mission.

This report on an _Ekos_ poll is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_ website:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/15/ekos-afghanistan-mission-support015.html


> 54% of Canadians oppose Afghan mission: EKOS poll
> 
> Last Updated: Thursday, July 16, 2009
> 
> ...



I suspect there is, outside of Québec, very little (say 10-20%) opposition based on “principle.” My guess is that Canadians are, simply, bored; they are tired of something that drags on, year after year, for seven years with no reported “victories.”


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2009)

This is the nature of counter-insurgency. It takes time, patience and a great deal of effort. It seems if we do not have a solution in an hour, we grow bored and change the channel on the TV.
Maybe its a national case of ADHD.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2009)

Hey.  We have the "Mcdonald's Generations".  All those people who want to get in, get their burger, and get out, as fast as possible.  None of them realize that we are still in Europe as part of NATO, since 1945.  UN Troops are still separating the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus.  There are still Troops in the Golan.  What do they expect we do with a real shooting war; end it overnight and come home?

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hey.  We have the "Mcdonald's Generations".  All those people who want to get in, get their burger, and get out, as fast as possible.  None of them realize that we are still in Europe as part of NATO, since 1945.  UN Troops are still separating the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus.  There are still Troops in the Golan.  *What do they expect we do with a real shooting war; end it overnight and come home?*
> 
> :




That's pretty much exactly what "they" expect, for the reasons to which you allude.

Even in 1944/45 Canadians (and Americans) were getting impatient for the end of the campaigns in Europe and Asia. In 1944/45 people _understood_ that we had pretty much won the war; they no longer feared Germany and Japan, they just wanted a quick end to the death and destruction and, especially, the *relative privations* they were enduring - even in comfortable, safe Canada and the USA.

This campaign is more difficult. The wars against Germany, Japan and North Korea/China were fairly clear and comprehensible. A counterinsurgency campaign is not; telling ourselves that "they" do not understand does nothing to help "them" to achieve the understanding "we" know to be necessary. It is unlikely that governments (America's or Britain's or Canada's) will be willing or able to make "them" understand so we have to accept that "they," the people, on whose behalf we go to war, do not want this one any more. It is, politically, time to declare victory and come home. If that is the political imperative then any and all military considerations are meaningless.

The very real, painful sacrifices made by soldiers and their famlies are *not* meaningless - only the military aims and plans are without any useful meaning.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2009)

Sigh

We are so close too. Victory in Iraq was last year just before the election, and if we were to presevere in Afghanistan until @ 2015, the first wave of the 6 million children who started going to school in 2005 will begin graduating, creating a big enough cadre to begin real social change in Afghanistan.

We can try and spread this message to everyone we meet and over every channel, but I suspect the constant drumbeat of defeatism has taken its toll.

What will hurt even more is the very same people who were so critical of the mission will be the same ones to scream bloody murder if a resurgent Taliban overrun Afghanistan again....


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2009)

Boy, if they think Afghanistan is a quagmire, wait until we get to Darfur!!....that should last 3 maybe four months before our beasts inflict themselves too heavily on those poor itinerant freedom fighters!!! (sarcasm intended)


----------



## Jungle (16 Jul 2009)

I prefer not to get too excited by poll results... look at this one:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somnia/1795206/story.html


> The shift in how Canadians view the military's role beyond its 2011 commitment, however, is not a reflection of support for the troops, the poll showed.
> 
> A higher number of Canadians -- 82 per cent compared to 77 per cent two years ago -- said they are "proud of the men and women who serve in Canada's Armed Forces."
> 
> ...


If this is any indation of "reality", it could mean that the CDN public is starting to understand that one can support the Troops regardless of their opinion of the political aspects of the current war. Now that should be good news.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2009)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I prefer not to get too excited by poll results... look at this one:
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somnia/1795206/story.htmlIf this is any indation of "reality", it could mean that the CDN public is starting to understand that one can support the Troops regardless of their opinion of the political aspects of the current war. Now that should be good news.




I have an old and dear friend, a research scientist - a well educated, thoughtful person (the two do not always go together), who fits that bill. She is quite opposed to the Afghanistan mission because she believes we have the wrong war aims (she opposes the _Taliban_ and _al Qaeda_ but she opposes the _Global War on Terror_ even more). She is, however, very proud of "her" Canadian Forces - as a good citizen she understands that they are doing "her" bidding, even though she disagrees with the government's policies - and feels deep sadness at each casualty. Her position is _nuanced_ but not internally or intellectually inconsistent. I suspect she is not alone and the reportedly broad and growing opposition to the war is accompanied by broad and growing support for the CF.


----------



## ruckmarch (16 Jul 2009)

ipsos reid asked 1000 people to arrive at their recent conclusion. How does that represent the whole country and every demographic or background of people there is out there?

These kind of polls have FLAWS written all over them IMHO


----------



## 40below (16 Jul 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> ipsos reid asked 1000 people to arrive at their recent conclusion. How does that represent the whole country and every demographic or background of people there is out there?
> 
> These kind of polls have FLAWS written all over them IMHO



If you're asking how polls can possibly extrapolate from a small sample size, you should take a statistics 101 class. If you're asserting all polls are BS because you don't understand how they work, you should definitely take a statistics 101 class.


----------



## ruckmarch (16 Jul 2009)

40below said:
			
		

> If you're asking how polls can possibly extrapolate from a small sample size, you should take a statistics 101 class. If you're asserting all polls are BS because you don't understand how they work, you should definitely take a statistics 101 class.



Am not insinuating that, you ought to read my post again. If I didn't know how they worked, I sure wasn't going to ask someone like you, that has to say the same thing twice.

What is your nickname.....johnny two times?


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Jul 2009)

40below said:
			
		

> If you're asking how polls can possibly extrapolate from a small sample size, you should take a statistics 101 class. If you're asserting all polls are BS because you don't understand how they work, you should definitely take a statistics 101 class.



As someone who has been polled TWICE and hung up both times after asserting my strong support for the mission, I'm saying that I don't trust the polls due to a possible bias by the poller. I won't trust them anymore, and I don't give any credence to their "findings".


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jul 2009)

West is pro the mission, East is anti the mission.

Sounds statistically valid to me. :nod:


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Jul 2009)

> The biggest boost of support came from Quebec, where the number jumped to 76 per cent from 58 per cent.



Probably because 5 Bde is there right now.  That number will more than likely drop when this Roto is over.


----------



## giver (17 Jul 2009)

No wonder we were never going to win the war. The country didn't support it in the first place.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> No wonder we were never going to win the war. The country didn't support it in the first place.



Banned in one post is the record.  You are way over the mark, so either contribute something useful or knock it off.  
Please.


----------



## giver (17 Jul 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Banned in one post is the record.  You are way over the mark, so either contribute something useful or knock it off.
> Please.


If you ban me you might as well ban the other 54%.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> If you ban me you might as well ban the other 54%.



Chances are, they're not here.  Give it up.


----------



## giver (18 Jul 2009)

There has got to be other Canadians here with the same logic as I do. Or is everyone here 100% pro Afghanistan?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> There has got to be other Canadians here with the same logic as I do. Or is everyone here 100% pro Afghanistan?



Dude, what site do you think you are on?  Perhaps rabble.ca will find you more support.
There are quite a few different opinions on how the mission should be run, but pretty much everyone here believes that it is worth it to try to help the people of Afghanistan because a) they can use the help and b) ignoring that country after the Russians left is what helped lead to Islamic extremism over there.
As well, everyone here welcomes intellectual discourse.  If you have some informed reasons for us to abandon Afghanistan then share them.  So far, you haven't really offered that, just pointing to a flawed poll and agreeing with it.
Just some friendly advice.


----------



## mellian (18 Jul 2009)

I am personally against the war, at least for lasting as long as it did. I am all for helping the people there, just that Afghanistan is not the only country and people that need help (help as in local kind of help and sensitive to the culture and perspectives). We, including our allies, do not have the means and resources to 'help' every single country that need help, or even those deem security threats. 

All the positive reasons for being there can be applied to many other places, and it is really not why we went there in the first place. Canada went in in support of their allies and commitment to NATO who reacted to the Taliban harboring those who help orchestrate 9/11. They needed someone to hit, and we helped. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and the country would still generally be ruled by the Taliban.  

Once the mission ends, would be good for Canada to consolidate, rest, and refurbish/update, and try avoid situations having our fair chunk of the military committed to one area for nearly a decade or more.  

So yes...


----------



## TCBF (18 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> No wonder we were never going to win the war. The country didn't support it in the first place.



- It isn't Canada that needs to support the war.  It's Afghanistan that needs to support the war.  

 ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jul 2009)

More details from the Ipsos-Reid poll for CanWest News/National Post (news rls attached - highlights mine)...

"Canadians’ support for the current mission in Afghanistan is holding relatively steady according to a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global Television. In 2005 support for the Afghanistan mission was at 52% and is now at 48% -- this at a time when the first half of July alone has witnessed 43 coalition troops having died including four Canadians, one Italian, 15 British and 23 Americans.

*But what’s apparent now is that only 41% of Canadians support any ongoing role—including non combat where training of Afghani troops would continue: 52% are now resolved in their belief that once this commitment is concluded in 2011 it’s time for Canada’s military role to end and have the troops fully out of Afghanistan (7% are unsure or don’t know).

This is clearly a change in support for the policy of Canada being in Afghanistan, not a reflection on the conduct of its Forces: the poll finds that support for Canada’s troops has increased by five points since 2007 (77%) to 82% now with Canadians being “proud of the men and women who serve in Canada’s Armed Forces.” The biggest boost in support has been in Quebec—up an astonishing 18 points from 58% to 76% but countered by a drop in support from 78% to 64% (down 14 points) in Manitoba /Saskatchewan where debate was fuelled in 2008 by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence which found inconsistent care across the country with wounded Canadian soldiers returning from overseas and not be getting the most effective care. In this context, the downturn in “support” in the Prairies may not be a reflection on the troops themselves but rather in the state of affairs provided to them and their families by the Forces after their return.*

Support for Military Mission to Afghanistan Has Remained Relatively Stable Since 2005…

The latest poll has found that one half (48%) of Canadians ‘support’ (22% strongly, 26% somewhat) ‘the use of Canada’s troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan’. By comparison, in January of 2008, one half (50%) of Canadians supported the mission, demonstrating virtually no change in public sentiment towards the mission that expires in 2011.

Conversely, 45% currently ‘oppose’ (23% strongly/21% somewhat) the mission, down 1 point from last year. Seven percent (7%) don’t know if they support or oppose the mission, up 3 points from 2008.

*A Majority of Canadians Seem to be Saying “We’ve done our bit, bring our troops home”…*
A majority (52%) believes that Canada should bring its troops home at the end of the mission in 2011, up from 37% (14 points) in January of 2008 and 44% in 2007, clearly indicating that sentiment towards Canada’s future in Afghanistan has shifted significantly in the last 18 months...."


----------



## Rinker (18 Jul 2009)

How many people here talk to people who don't support the war, but don't really know why they don't support the war. They just say it is war, it doesn't help. Now there has got to be a lot of those types.


----------



## jacksparrow (18 Jul 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> I am personally against the war, at least for lasting as long as it did. I am all for helping the people there, just that Afghanistan is not the only country and people that need help (help as in local kind of help and sensitive to the culture and perspectives). We, including our allies, do not have the means and resources to 'help' every single country that need help, or even those deem security threats.
> 
> All the positive reasons for being there can be applied to many other places, and it is really not why we went there in the first place. Canada went in in support of their allies and commitment to NATO who reacted to the Taliban harboring those who help orchestrate 9/11. They needed someone to hit, and we helped. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and the country would still generally be ruled by the Taliban.
> 
> ...



So you think we don't have a presence elsewhere then at the moment? Are you in the military or about to join?

We aren't the only country over there, the UK has lost just as much people over there and they were in Iraq as well. Canada is made up of of different background of people, and we aren't going to sit back and watch people's country of origin go to the dogs if there is a legitimate case for us to be there helping out in any way shape or form.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jul 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> I am personally against the war, at least for lasting as long as it did. I am all for helping the people there, just that Afghanistan is not the only country and people that need help (help as in local kind of help and sensitive to the culture and perspectives). We, including our allies, do not have the means and resources to 'help' every single country that need help, or even those deem security threats.
> 
> All the positive reasons for being there can be applied to many other places, and it is really not why we went there in the first place. Canada went in in support of their allies and commitment to NATO who reacted to the Taliban harboring those who help orchestrate 9/11. They needed someone to hit, and we helped. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and the country would still generally be ruled by the Taliban.
> 
> ...



So you figure that it's a good idea to leave the people of Kandahar high and dry, just because they didn't get their act together fast enough for your liking?  Perhaps we should have done that to the Turks and Greeks and abandoned Cypress as well?  Stick Europe, the Russians wouldn't dare nuke them?  And doubtless we shouldn't even be even thinking of _anybody_ being in FRY?  
Investing a decade (which it hasn't been yet) in the face of 30 years of war and global neglect doesn't seem to be such a long time.  
But doubtless we should race to Darfur and give them the very best our country can offer. 
For *no more* than seven months of course.  Then it's GTFO time.


----------



## leroi (18 Jul 2009)

I cut and paste this May 5th 2009 email response to me from the _Kabul Center for Strategic Studies_. I place it here because it's a good reminder that the peoples of Afghanistan _do_ appreciate the efforts made by our Canadian Forces and others. I've edited out the individuals name who responded. I'd sent him links to a few Toronto print media "stories" that some of us thought were mis-representing his country and the Canadian mission in Afghanistan as well as sending him some links to Canadian ongoing fundraising efforts for Afghanistan. So here's a little glimpse of what some  people in Afghanistan think of Canada's efforts on their behalf:


Dear Joan,

Thank you for your email. Well your vision for Afghanistan is appreciable and adorable. I never thought that there is someone who think about my country when she is passing her college. [He misunderstood my email and thought I was a young college student as opposed to being middle-aged (can ya say old? lol) and just taking a few History courses.]

I am happy that there is still goodwill among Canadians about their Forces mission in Afghanistan and their lovely vision of helping the Afghan women. I think your country's Forces play a vital role in post-Taliban Afghanistan in the former strong hold and place of birth of the Taliban. Canadians are really in effort to provide a better situation for Afghans. 

Thank you for the links provided me. I hope that your efforts be blessed and as an Afghan I thank all of your brave women. [Here he refers to a Women's Day fund raising breakfast for Afghan women I'd written to him about.]

Well there are many warm countries with cold and freezed minds, mindsets and impressions. I think, although your country is cold, but enjoys from many warm people like you. [Re: I'd whined a bit to him about the Canadian winter.]

Regards,

[name edited out]


----------



## Larkvall (19 Jul 2009)

Well I have something to say on this matter.

For the record I am 39 and I have never served in the armed forces, but I am applying to the Reserves.

I am very disturbed at what I am hearing in this thread.

You know when I was a teenager there was no question or choice who the enemy was. I remember sitting in history classes watching a documentary in which they asked Canadian tank crews how long they thought they would survive if WWIII broke out. I don't think anybody answered over 2 hours. That would have been a HARD war but they were willing to fight it.

Now the good news is the whole world won the Cold War.

NOW here are some facts for you:

1) We are part of NATO
2) The US was attacked
3) They asked for assistance

Get over it.

Do you people even know what the Taliban are about? They didn't allow girls to go to school and boys could only learn religion. They banned tv to cut people off from the rest of the world. Imagine what the country would look like after a couple generations of this! You don't think this would be a problem?

Here is an idea. I am sure the UN would love some troops for Somalia peacekeeping. What could be "hard" about a mission there? <sarcasm>


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Jul 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> They banned tv to cut people off from the rest of the world. Imagine what the country would look like after a couple generations of this! You don't think this would be a problem?



Well, that would explain why Kandahar Has Talent and Degrassi Jr Madrassa suck so much.   ;D j/k

Great post.  Nice to see a civilian who "gets" it.


----------



## burnaby (19 Jul 2009)

In my opinion from what I am studying about (taking a course called War and Society) our military is not designed to fight insurgents. Ok let me make it clear before i go on, I'm not saying we are going to lose for sure, all wars can be won or lost. Our military originally before Afghanistan, is trained in a Western style of warfare, in this kind of warfare we look for pitch battles, quick victory and to fight uniform personal. This is what we are taught in the public too in some extant. We remember the battle of Vimy Ridge for an example, but in the war in Afghanistan there are no specific battlefields, the whole country is the battlefield. I think this is one of the number one problem facing the public, because we as the general public is so fixated of finding "that" battle or "that" operation. If you go on the streets and ask the average Canadian, "name me a battle in Afghanistan or an operation" a majority of them will not know. But if you ask them a WW2 or WW1 battle or operation they will likely to give you an answer(a grade 11 student can name Somme and a grade 12 student can name Operation Overlord they teach it in school at least when i was in secondary school). In Afghanistan there is constant skirmishes in some nameless place in the middle of a hamlet not heard of in Canada. Another problem that is plaguing the public is that the lack of knowledge or interest, honestly (I live in BC) I ask some people at my campus and on the streets they don't really care, they have lost interest, some feel we have been there for far too long, we should pull out, we are still fighting in Afghanistan? (<-----one of my favorite answers, gee they can get a math degree but don't know whats out the door), etc.... The constant news of soldiers getting killed is more lethal then a bomb, because it spread like a cancer, the general public get demoralize quickly. Simple answers such as "lets just pull out and leave" is a very appealing answer for the public. Furthermore as mention before news from the media is hazards, they either post ambiguous, lies and sometimes truth about the situation. One example is the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War.

Well that's my summary of why we are having such a hard time on the field and at home. i believe that we can win this war, we shouldn't be quick to judge the war is over, it may be longer then WW2, but at the end what really matter is "do we have the will to go on?" and "are we doing everything possible adapt our tactics efficiently to destroy our enemies".


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jul 2009)

burnaby, as you noted about your studies in history, it often takes the passage of time for things to be ingrained in a society's "memory".  While not every Canadian will be able to name "The Battle of the Panjwai" or "Operation Medusa" now, many might in the future.  There are Canadians who now know at least the name, or even some context to "The Battle of the Medak Pocket" in the Former Yugoslavia where Canadian and some French troops interposed between Croat and Serb forces to protect the Serbs in the village of Medak.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Larkvall (19 Jul 2009)

Here is a documentary on the Battle of Medak Pocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-AvcKJnx9I


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jul 2009)

*Britain, Canada Differ from U.S. on Afghan War* (link embedded in title)
Angus Reid Global Monitor, 22 Jul 09
More details attached as .pdf

"Adults in the United States remain supportive of their country’s military engagement in Afghanistan, but people in Britain and Canada are considerably less enthusiastic about the mission, according to a three-country poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 55 per cent of American respondents support the military operation in Afghanistan, but only 43 per cent of Canadians and 39 per cent of Britons concur.

In fact, 53 per cent of respondents in Britain—and 52 per cent in Canada—oppose the military operation in Afghanistan ...."

_From July 15 to July 18, 2009, Angus Reid Strategies conducted an online survey among 1,007 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists, 1,000 American adults who are Springboard America panelists, and 1,887 British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1% for Canada, +/- 3.1% for the United States, and 2.2 per cent for the United Kingdom. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Canada, the US and the UK. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding._


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Here is a documentary on the Battle of Medak Pocket.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-AvcKJnx9I


I was there. Watching this video gave me goosebumps. I know the two gentlemen (Mr. Green and Mike Spellen) fairly well. 

This battle was kept under wraps for quite a few years, as the the government of the day was very sensitive to having "peacekeepers" actually have to shoot and possibly kill people who were up to no good. The Somalia affair was very fresh in everyone's memory, plus the Western press was postively anti Serb.

The Croatian government continues to deny this incident to this very day. 

I spent 10 days in The Medak Pocket. Bn HQ was located in a two story brick house. All the windows were long gone, but it was still 100% better than what the troops in the Pocket were living in. I remember having the BHQ drivers count and identify Serb equipment that was moving into the area. I also remember the explosions and the smell of fires for those days. I do not like the smell of woodsmoke, particularly on a humid cloudy day.

Once in the Pocket, what the troops found was sheer destruction. 

Our Bn Photographer was tasked with providing photographic evidence of the destruction.
They weren't pictures you show at a cocktail party.

In some ways I'm still harboring some anger towards the Croat "army". They weren't "army" at all, but more like the SS factions in WW2 that followed the fighting troops and exterminated people wholesale.
Cowards....all of them. We found personal documents of Croat "army" soldiers in the Pocket.

My rant ends. Thank you for your patience.


----------



## leroi (22 Jul 2009)

OldSoldier, have you ever thought of writing a book?

This is a fascinating snapshot of history and not a rant at all.

Some of you guys and gals have experienced things that have tested the limits of your humanity and yet you've endured and survived and can talk/write about your experiences. It is quite amazing.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2009)

leroi said:
			
		

> OldSoldier, have you ever thought of writing a book?
> 
> This is a fascinating snapshot of history and not a rant at all.
> 
> Some of you guys and gals have experienced things that have tested the limits of your humanity and yet you've endured and survived and can talk/write about your experiences. It is quite amazing.



I started one, but haven't finished yet....there are more chapters to be written.

Thanks for the compliment!


----------



## Larkvall (24 Jul 2009)

Afghanistan's First National Park

It seems progress is being made in some places.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQD9fo88Ao

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyzEYNMTCU


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an opinion piece by former Conservative leadership candidate and Liberal cabinet minister Belinda Stronach:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/investing-in-girls-pays-off-in-social-and-economic-progress/article1296298/


> Investing in girls pays off in social and economic progress
> *As host of the next G8 Summit, Canada has the opportunity to kick-start this engagement*
> 
> Belinda Stronach
> ...



I agree with Ms. Stronach. _Investing_, in every sense of the word, in women and girls makes good social, economic and political sense. Most of what I have read about _micro-financing_, for example, indicates that _investing_ in projects run by women is most likely to produce better results and returns than one gets from projects run by men.

But, I’m surprised and a bit dismayed that Stronach has ignored the ongoing _mission_ that involves our biggest and “best: investment in women and girls: Afghanistan.

Ms. Stronach and the G8 and whatever G_n_ will meet in the years to come should applaud those NATO/ISAF members, including Canada, that are _investing_ treasure *and blood* in Afghanistan’s women and girls. We are “making a difference,” right now.

Ms. Stronach missed an opportunity to inform Canadian public opinion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC’s web site, is an *opinion* piece by veteran CBC foreign correspondent Henry Champ:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/23/f-rfa-champ.html


> *Henry Champ:* Will Obama abandon Afghanistan?
> 
> Wednesday, September 23, 2009
> 
> ...




Champ and I must be looking at different wars. What I see are American combat brigades “out in the boonies,” in the farms and villages, with the Canadians, going after the Taliban and securing the people – not hiding in big cities.

But, his main point is: *Obama wants out.* That remains to be seen.  He also says, and I agree, that Americans are _growing_ tired of the war. Perhaps their spirits can be lifted by some good news. Absent good news it is hard to see how they might “turn about” and support a mission when they are e.g. worried about the economy, confused by the health care debate, and concerned about immigration. 

Most Canadians, we know, have already stopped “supporting” the war. “News” like this will reinforce that opinion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2009)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Support for combat role feeble, poll finds*
Peter Zimonjic, Sun Media, 28 Sept 09
Article link

OTTAWA -- Almost half of Canadians say our troops should remain in Afghanistan, but only if the mission changes from a combat role to a training and development mission.

A Leger Marketing poll says 45% of Canadians support staying for a non-combat mission, while 12% want the troops to stay until the war is won.

"People are supporting the troops and hoping they make it home safe. They are saying we do have a role in Afghanistan, but just not that one," said pollster Christian Bourque, vice-president of Leger Marketing.

Military analyst and retired colonel Michel Drapeau says the support for Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan in a different role indicates many are displeased with the departure from Canada's traditional role as a peacekeeping nation.

"It's surprising there is as much as 12% who want to stay until the war is won because that is about as open-ended a mandate as we could have," said Drapeau. "Nobody can say what it would mean to win, or when that objective would be achieved. It could be a century from now."

Support to remain until the war is won was greatest in Alberta (19%), but lowest in Quebec (6%). When asked if Canadian troops should leave Afghanistan immediately, 52% of Quebecers said yes compared to the national average of 37%.

"Quebecers have always had this very naive or pacifist perspective on foreign relations and they have always sided in that same direction," said Bourque.

While the high disapproval rating in Quebec for the combat mission in Kandahar should be expected, it might be especially high right now, Drapeau said.

"The very people who have lost their lives over the past six months are primarily coming from Quebec," he said.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Sep 2009)

> Support to remain until the war is won was greatest in Alberta (19%), but lowest in Quebec (6%). When asked if Canadian troops should leave Afghanistan immediately, 52% of Quebecers said yes compared to the national average of 37%.
> 
> "Quebecers have always had this very naive or pacifist perspective on foreign relations and they have always sided in that same direction," said Bourque.
> 
> ...



AFAIK, Quebec has never supported the mission like the rest of Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

Québec’s _isolationism_ goes far, far, farther back than this mission.

Laurier faced intense opposition, for example, to creating a Canadian Navy (1910) from two sources:

1.	Those _imperialists_, spread across society, who felt that a small, locally administered Canadian Navy would be a waste and that the same resources (men and money) simply _applied_ to the Royal Navy would produce better results; and

2.	The Québec _isolationists_, led by Henri Bourassa, who, as they had during the Boer War, opposed any “overseas adventures.”

Québec _isolationism_ goes beyond being “opposition to British _imperialism_." In 1917 and in the 1940s there was little enthusiasm for “supporting” or “liberating” France, either.

Québecers, broadly, have a deep seated sense of self and a very, very weak _connection_ to the rest of us. They know what they have and what they want, and, again very _broadly_, they care little for the "world" outside their own linguistic, cultural and geographic "borders."


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2009)

Finally found a copy of some more detailed figures on the latest Leger Marketing polling (attached as PDF) - here's a link to the entire survey, which includes how different parties are faring.


----------



## bdave (2 Oct 2009)

I think most people misunderstand what we're actually doing there.
I *think* most (Canadian) people feel that we're fighting a useless war. We aren't the ones who were attacked so why should we be involved. What does this have to do with us?

I feel as though the Canadian spirit has died.
Weren't our nation's founding moments during the first and second world wars?
When we heard un-justice was being done, we didn't cry about it. We grabbed our guns, our boots and our courage and we stormed out the door. We didn't care that it had little to no effect on us. Over a million of us stormed out to help.
While the stakes are obviously lower today, the idea is the same.
Someone needs our help, so let's help them.
First we were helping our American brothers and now we're trying to "free" the Afghani people and bring them up to date on civilization.
I think people have forgotten what it is exactly we're fighting for.
Who cares what the politicians want the war for (oil in Afghanistan..what?), you should be able to see the past it and see the good that can come from it.

There are two ways to help someone being oppressed.
You can either help them by tending to their wounds (mental or physical) or you can take care of the oppressor. If you're smart, you'll do both.
Canadians want us to do the tending (help and rebuild) and no killing.
I think concerning the people [insurgents] we are dealing with, that is impossible.

/end childish and overly patriotic rant


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2009)

From the news release:


> Public backing for the mission in Afghanistan is eroding in two countries, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 59 per cent of respondents in Britain oppose the military operation involving UK soldiers in Afghanistan, up six points since July.
> 
> In Canada, overall support for the mission stands at 37 per cent, down six points in three months. In the United States, public backing for the military commitment remains stable at 54 per cent....



Full poll results attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2009)

From Harris-Decima (PDF of news release), for the Canadian Press - highlights:


> Canadians remain more opposed than supportive of the government’s commitment to have troops in Afghanistan. Nationally, 56% are opposed, basically unchanged since measured in May (54%). Currently, 37% support the mission, including 9% who strongly support it. No region finds a majority supporting the mission.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


More from the Canadian Press here.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2009)

When I read these, I wonder....well have several questions;

Where are these polls conducted?
Who conducts them? Not just a corporate name, but a name.
How is the question asked?
Who pays for these polls?

Finally, where have our values gone? Why is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing?

Too many years of Trudeau, Liberal and NDP hogwash.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2009)

I know there is great mistrust of polling here on Army.ca.

I believe (and it is a well informed belief) that mistrust is ill founded.

The major polling firms in Canada are successful because they consistently provide a demonstrably fair and accurate assessment of what the public thinks about issues.

Almost all polling is privately commissioned – often by news media for later public release, as a _service_ to gain/retain the loyalty of subscribers/readers/viewers/listeners. Sometimes firms conduct polls on issues of national import as their own _public service_ – again with the aim of enhancing their reputation. Most polling work is wholly commercial in nature - designed to help marketing managers make smart decisions.

The very, very worst thing a polling for could do would be to conduct a poll, even when privately commissioned, that was aimed at a predetermined outcome. I have had some contact with poling forms over the years, in my _second career_ and after that as a _student_, and I am here to say that the big firms do not _situate the appreciation_ by any of the various techniques suspected by many, many Arm,y.ca members. The owners and managers of these firms are well paid; they live the good life; because they produce a consistently reliable product. They would fail, they would lose their jobs and income and cottages mansions in the Muskokas, if they did what so many think  they do. They don't do what so many accuse them of doing because they are not stupid people.

Polling data is _more_ accurate at gross levels – when you poll 3,000 people across Canada you get an accuracy rating of *about* ±2.5% 19 times out of 20. But your poll of Ontario probably had only 1,250 respondents so its accuracy is lower – maybe *about* ±3.5% and so on down to PEI where, with only 150 respondents the accuracy is laughable. (I’m emphasizing ‘maybe’ and ‘about’ because I’m too lazy to go look up the real numbers but someone who took a _Stats_ course in the last few years ought to have those numbers near at hand.) Polls, even large ones, are rarely more than about 95% accurate – but, given the relatively small samples, necessary to provide timely data, that’s a _fair_ result.

You don’t have to like the poll results but you should be fairly confident that they are giving you an accurate reflection of public opinion. The polls should always contain details of the questions, methodology and sample size – and almost all polling firms almost always publish that data. The media are often less willing or able to devote column inches or TV time to telling you all about the poll. When you read a poll in the media you should always go to the polling firm's website where you will, 99% of the time, find the data you need to assess what was asked and how it was asked.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2009)

To (humbly) add to E.R.'s overview....



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> When I read these, I wonder....well have several questions;
> 
> Where are these polls conducted?


In this case, by phone:  "Each week, Harris/Decima interviews just over 1000 Canadians through teleVox, the company’s national telephone omnibus survey."



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Who conducts them? Not just a corporate name, but a name.


I'm guessing that one person doesn't do more than 1000 calls to get the approximately 1,000 responses needed - either staff members of the polling firm, or staff at a call centre such firms may hire, make the calls.



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> How is the question asked?


Based on my experience, pretty uniformly and monotonously, exactly as worded in the news release:
- Do you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose the government’s commitment to have troops in Afghanistan?
- Do you believe Canada should remove its troops early from Afghanistan, stay until the current end
date of 2011, or extend their mission in Afghanistan
- This past week, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would end its military mission in Afghanistan in 2011, and replace it with a civilian mission. Would you say you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose Canada taking this approach?
Also keep in mind that whoever pays for the poll has some input into the questions - based on VERY limited experience, there's a back-and-forth between the client, who says "here's the kind of stuff I want to canvass/find out about", and the polling company, who responds, "well, here's some wording that could draw that information."



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Who pays for these polls?


In this case, it appears Canadian Press paid for the company to have the poll done - that's why CP gets to run the story.  Other media outlets use different companies the same way.



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Finally, where have our values gone? Why is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing?


Sadly, right doesn't always equal popular.

I wish I had better answers for you, my friend....



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You don’t have to like the poll results but you should be fairly confident that they are giving you an accurate reflection of public opinion. The polls should always contain details of the questions, methodology and sample size – and almost all polling firms almost always publish that data. The media are often less willing or able to devote column inches or TV time to telling you all about the poll. When you read a poll in the media you should always go to the polling firm's website where you will, 99% of the time, find the data you need to assess what was asked and how it was asked.


To add to this, ALL media stories should include at least how many people were surveyed and the plus/minus factor for accuracy - if a poll shows, say 52 and 49 per cent results for opposing positions, and the margin of error happens to be +/- 4%, that means any difference would have to be more than 4 % to be reasonably significant.  Plain language - you can't say "a slim majority support X with 52%" in the situation I gave because the difference is less than 4 points.  It would be more correct to say "opinion is split between X and Y".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am here to say that the big firms do not _situate the appreciation_ by any of the various techniques suspected by many, many Arm,y.ca members.



I don't "suspect" misconduct (if that is what _situate the appreciation_ actually means  ).  I KNOW that when I got called by Ipsos-Reid polling me on my opinion of the mission when I told them I strongly supported the mission (the second question after "Are you aware that Canada has soldiers in Afghanistan") I was promptly hung up on.  The subsequent poll that came out had significantly more questions associated to it.  As there are several other people who all report the same occurrence, my faith in the polls is low.  
I would also respectfully submit that someone who enjoys a quality lifestyle is not immune from political influence and greed.  I should think that is fairly clear from what we consistently see in the news.  
However, I still feel that if Canadians do not support the mission, it is largely due to the fact that the Army (I blame the Army) has failed to do a credible job of reporting our successes.  It would seem that it is almost too scary to admit that we have transitioned from fighting radical Islamic militants (which we are, but argueably it is just pissing in the wind) to nation building.  I would like to think that the Canadian public would still support the mission if its main purpose was more humanitarian in nature and was moving towards simply helping Joe and Jane Afghan get better lives.


----------



## Jungle (24 Oct 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't "suspect" misconduct (if that is what _situate the appreciation_ actually means  ).  I KNOW that when I got called by Ipsos-Reid polling me on my opinion of the mission when I told them I strongly supported the mission (the second question after "Are you aware that Canada has soldiers in Afghanistan") I was promptly hung up on.



While it never happened to me, I know at least one individual who had the same thing happen to him; when he stated that he "strongly supported" the misssion, the pollster hung up...


----------



## Hawk (24 Oct 2009)

I worked for Ipsos-Reid. Their call floor is in downtown Winnipeg. The way the polls work is this. They ask you about your support for the Government's commitment to having the troops in Afghanistan: "a. strongly support, b. support, c. oppose, or d. strongly oppose". If they punch in an "a" or "b" answer, it automatically brings up "Those are all my questions. On behalf of Ipsos Reid and myself, I would like to thank you for participating in our poll today. Have a good evening. Good-bye." If they punch in a "c" or "d", the next question about the troops in Afghanistan, or the Government pops up, and the survey continues damning the Government, the Troops, or both. Been there, done that - night, after night, after night. The kids (mostly age 16 to 20) will keep calling on this till they get a good number of negative responses, usually a pre-determined amount. Thankfully, I wasn't there long, but long enough to realize what a scam public opinion polling is.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2009)

It is called a "Vocal Minority".


----------



## Jungle (24 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is called a "Vocal Minority".



Exactly... it's the old "squeeky wheel" principle...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2009)

Hawk said:
			
		

> I worked for Ipsos-Reid. Their call floor is in downtown Winnipeg. The way the polls work is this. They ask you about your support for the Government's commitment to having the troops in Afghanistan: "a. strongly support, b. support, c. oppose, or d. strongly oppose". If they punch in an "a" or "b" answer, it automatically brings up "Those are all my questions. On behalf of Ipsos Reid and myself, I would like to thank you for participating in our poll today. Have a good evening. Good-bye." If they punch in a "c" or "d", the next question about the troops in Afghanistan, or the Government pops up, and the survey continues damning the Government, the Troops, or both. Been there, done that - night, after night, after night. The kids (mostly age 16 to 20) will keep calling on this till they get a good number of negative responses, usually a pre-determined amount. Thankfully, I wasn't there long, but long enough to realize what a scam public opinion polling is.




And that would be just the sort of poll you would conduct is the question was "Who is to 'blame' for this mess?" There are two polls in one:

First: who "a. strongly supports, b. supports, c. opposes, or d. strongly opposes" the mission; and

Second: who is to 'blame?'

There is no point in asking those who strongly support or support the mission who is to blame. It would be a silly question. Those who support the mission do not 'blame' anyone.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Oct 2009)

Sure, but you can still take snapshots of stats that can skew the results.  If the answers were screened out like you say, then you will have nobody that strongly supports the mission.  After the poll is done then you have all of the stats for the individual questions.  Whoever is paying for the poll gets all of the results, and then they can trot out "authentic" stats that show that Canadians don't support the mission "Just look at the numbers!  We polled X thousand people with a 2% degree of accuracy".  But the numbers are still bunk.


----------



## Hawk (25 Oct 2009)

Absolutely! And that's the reason for the poll! Every time one of them phones me I automatically tell them to put me on their Do Not Call list. I have no time for them!

Hawk


----------



## leroi (8 Dec 2009)

Here's a December 3, 2009 poll by Angus Reid that's based on polling 1006 Canadians from all parts of the country.  It's important to critically analyze a pollsters methodology but I also think the good ones make no attempt to bias the results-IMHO! This polls sample size of respondents is small, so according to Mr. Campbell, it's more prone to inaccuracy? The poll claims support  for the mission is actually "up five points since October." (Disclaimer: stats are not my strong point.)

http://www.visioncritical.com/2009/12/canadians-reject-sending-more-soldiers-to-afghanistan/

As the U.S. and Britain get ready to send more troops to Afghanistan, two-thirds of Canadians believe that their own country’s military commitment should not be altered, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found. In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,006 Canadian adults, 66 per cent of respondents express opposition to Canada committing more soldiers to the war in Afghanistan, while only 28 per cent would consent to this idea.

The Mission

This month, 42 per cent of respondents (up five points since October) say they support the military operation involving Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, while 53 per cent are opposed (down three points).

Support for the military mission is highest in Alberta (66%) and lowest in Quebec (32%).

Canadians are evenly divided on whether the country was right to send military forces to Afghanistan, with 40 per cent believing this was the correct decision, and 40 per cent claiming this was a mistake. Overall, three-in-five Canadians (61%) say they have a clear idea of what the war in Afghanistan is about.

When The War is Over

When asked about what they think will be the most likely outcome of the war in Afghanistan, seven per cent of Canadians expect a clear victory by U.S. and NATO forces over the Taliban, and 32 per cent foresee a negotiated settlement from a position of U.S. and NATO strength that gives the Taliban a small role in the Afghan government.

In addition, 16 per cent of respondents believe the Taliban will play a significant role in Afghanistan after the war is over, and a further 16 per cent believe U.S. and NATO forces will ultimately be defeated by the Taliban.

Obama’s Plan

Canadians are skeptical about the plan for Afghanistan outlined by U.S. President Barack Obama. Just over a third of respondents (37%) are very or moderately confident that the Obama Administration will be able “finish the job” in Afghanistan, while a majority (54%) are not too confident or not confident at all.

Analysis

While Canada was not mentioned as a possible source of additional soldiers, the population flatly rejects the possibility of an increase in the number of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Following a month filled with intense discussions about Canada’s role, support for the mission actually increased by five points.

At this stage, Canadians are not entirely satisfied with the situation in Afghanistan, but would definitely be against any attempts to change course in the next two years. It is important to note that, despite his popularity in Canada, Obama’s plan for Afghanistan is not regarded as an ideal solution to the conflict.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:

Jodi Shanoff, Vice President, Public Affairs


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Feb 2010)

*Canadians Divided on Afghanistan Mission*
Angus Reid Global Monitor, 24 Feb 10
News release link - Complete Survey also attached



> Adults in Canada hold differing views on the mission in Afghanistan, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 47 per cent of respondents support the military operation involving Canadian soldiers, while 49 per cent oppose it.
> 
> In addition, 53 per cent of respondents think the federal government has provided too little information about the war in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Feb 2010)

47% in favor, 49% against?

A dead heat, media wise.

I agree with the 53%, the government hasn't done a good job on the info side.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Feb 2010)

Yes, but it also says that, "Since October 2009, the level of support for the mission has _increased_ by 10 points," which is why this poll isn't a sensationalist headline in the Red Toronto Star


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Apr 2010)

8 Apr 10, Ekos:


> Mission in Afghanistan:
> ¤ 49% oppose
> ¤ 36% support
> ¤ 14% neither
> ...



21 Apr 10 Angus Reid (pet peeve highlight mine):


> - 39% (-8 since February) support the military operation involving Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, 56% (+7) oppose it
> - 51% think the media has provided the right amount of attention to Afghanistan
> *- 53% think the federal government has not provided enough information about Afghanistan*



Both reports attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2010)

From Angus Reid:


> Fewer adults in Canada are supportive of the military mission in Afghanistan, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 59 per cent of respondents oppose the operation involving Canadian soldiers, up 10 points since February.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...



Full survey attached


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2010)

And based on that sort of polling _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ and Bob Rae want Stephen Harper to extend the mission, in some form, beyond 2011 ... is that it?

_Bonne chance!_


----------



## Jungle (20 Jun 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And based on that sort of polling _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ and Bob Rae want Stephen Harper to extend the mission, in some form, beyond 2011 ... is that it?
> 
> _Bonne chance!_



I think we should change the name of the "opposition" in government; it has come to a point they will "oppose" any and all actions/decisions the govt makes.

We have an excellent example here: the opposition opposed keeping Troops in Afghanistan beyond 2011; now that the govt is on board, the opposition shifts it's position to oppose the govt's decision to withdraw... this is getting ridiculous...

Now I wish we had a "shake-your-head" smilie; kind of like this one:  :nod: but the shake would be horizontal...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

From Postmedia News:


> Canadians support their soldiers and believe in the country's combat mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> But they still want the soldiers home by 2011 — as originally scheduled. They do not want Canadian Forces to stay until 2014, when Afghan security forces would "lead and conduct military operations in all provinces," setting a potential timeline for foreign troops' departure.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

....straight from the horse's mouth, Ipsos Reid - all attached.  Some highlights:


> Canadians’ desire for what should happen after the mission is becoming clearer as the mission approaches its final year. Nearly six in ten (57%) Canadians overall – including a majority in every province – say that when the combat mission ends they’d most support Canada ‘bringing all of our troops home’ (up 5 points since last year and 20 points from 2008). On the opposite side of the spectrum, one in ten (12%) believe the combat mission in Afghanistan should be extended as required (down 2 points since last year). Staking out a compromise, one in three (31%) Canadians believe that we should ‘keep troops there but have them do something like train Afghani soldiers or police officers’ (up 4 points).
> 
> (....)
> 
> What is also clear is most Canadians’ unwavering support of the troops: eight in ten (81%) ‘agree’ (7 or higher on a scale of 1-10) that they are ‘proud of the men and women who serve in our armed forces’, down just 1 point since last year and relatively unchanged in the aftermath of recent news reports regarding high-ranking Canadian Forces officials.



_- edited to consolidate some attachments -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2010)

> Public support for Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan has hit a low point, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
> 
> Practically half of Quebecers “strongly oppose” the military operation.
> 
> ...


More here and in attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2010)

A VERY interesting read by Terry Glavin on why more Canadians responding to public opinion polling may not be supporting missions - highlights mine:


> .... What is at the root of this disorientation? The best explanation I know about is revealed in an ambitious 20-country opinion poll conducted under the auspices of the University of Maryland's World Public Opinion initiative, which shows global opinion similarly split, with the following insight: *"Among those who believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to leave, 76 percent say that NATO forces should leave. Among those who believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to stay, 83 percent say NATO forces should stay."*
> 
> I don't have any polling data to prove it, but I would bet a dollar to a dime that most Canadians believe the lie that most Afghans want NATO forces to leave their country. The primary function of Canada's so-called "anti-war" activists is to make you to believe that lie, and Canada's punditocracy has encouraged you to believe it.
> 
> I would also bet a dollar to a dime that if most Canadians knew the truth, which is that the overwhelming majority of Afghans have consistently supported and continue to support NATO's efforts in their country, Canadian support for a robust Afghan mission would be overwhelmingly favorable, and we'd be closer to the relative sophistication of Indians, Kenyans and Nigerians. And then we could move the Canadian debates out of the weeds, to questions that really matter ....


I can't wait for Canadian polling firms to ask similar questions....


----------



## armygirl23 (16 May 2011)

I find alot of people don't know what is really going out there. I do not know every aspect, but I do know I would like to see all of our troops (peace keepers) back safely. I bet if we were guarantedd complete safety then more people would not be opposed. This fight is no longer worth fighting however. It is time for our men and women to come back. We had our time to peace keep and fight and the time was then. Lets hope this is really our "Closing out tour" and maybe our government will re think some of what has gone on. More people should be given the vote on what we fight against and for whom.

  :camo:  :deadhorse:


----------



## MikeL (16 May 2011)

armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I find alot of people don't know what is really going out there. I do not know every aspect, but I do know I would like to see all of our troops (peace keepers) back safely. I bet if we were guarantedd complete safety then more people would not be opposed. This fight is no longer worth fighting however. It is time for our men and women to come back. We had our time to peace keep and fight and the time was then. Lets hope this is really our "Closing out tour" and maybe our government will re think some of what has gone on. More people should be given the vote on what we fight against and for whom.
> 
> :camo:  :deadhorse:



You come off as one of those people who don't fully understand what is going on in Afghanistan.

Canadian Forces are not working as the blue beret UN Peace Keepers a lot of people tend to associate with Canada.  Canadian Forces are conducting Combat Operations as well as Mentoring, CIMIC, PRT, etc  No one can be guarenteed safety, especially in Afghanistan.  Also, why is it no longer worth while for Canadians to be in Afghanistan?  Have you ever been there? Are you well versed on what is actually going on over there, and what has been going on over the years?  Also, it isn't so much of a "Closing out tour" more of a relocation from Kandahar to Northern Afghanistan. As well as the mission changing from Combat to Training.  

Just a FYI, you don't have to add multiple images/animations at the end of your comments here, especially if they aren't beneficial to getting your point across.


----------



## Loachman (17 May 2011)

armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I find alot of people don't know what is really going out there.



I find that you are one of them.



			
				armygirl23 said:
			
		

> but I do know I would like to see all of our troops (peace keepers) back safely.



As do we all, but do not ever call me a "peace keeper". That is not what I joined for, it is not what I trained for, and it is not what I do. My entire time in has been geared to training for or conducting combat operations.

Peacekeeping was one role that the CF performed as and when able, but it was never a core activity.



			
				armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I bet if we were guarantedd complete safety then more people would not be opposed.



I bet that if we were guaranteed complete safety (an impossibility anywhere), then fewer people would be interested in joining in the first place, and those who did would be less capable of performing to the level necessary when called upon to do so.



			
				armygirl23 said:
			
		

> This fight is no longer worth fighting however.



Based upon what? Explain yourself, please.



			
				armygirl23 said:
			
		

> It is time for our men and women to come back.



Based upon what? Explain yourself, please.

We are starting to see the fruits of our labours. Many of us are far from thrilled to be pulled off of a job prematurely, and turn it over to somebody else who will take all of the credit that we worked and bled for.



			
				armygirl23 said:
			
		

> More people should be given the vote on what we fight against and for whom.



More people should educate themselves before spewing forth unsubstantiated opinions. More people should be required to write a comprehensive test of knowledge before being allowed to vote on anything.


----------



## MrsAlex (19 May 2011)

armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I find alot of people don't know what is really going out there.



This is the only thing I agree with you about. 

People don't understand what is really going on because they only see what the media let them see. Of course, war tends to be unpopular to begin with so it's no surprise most of the population is not supporting this mission. What the CF are doing over there IS making a difference. Those who have gone on several tours have seen the changes. There is a job to be done in Afghanistan, and they doing what needs be done. But they are not the ones who write the news. 

Naturally, we all want the troops to come home safely. But people got to realize that although it's wonderful the CF can be useful as peace keeper and give a hand in case of catastrophe, the first purpose of an army is to fight.


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2011)

armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I find alot of people don't know what is really going out there. I do not know every aspect, but I do know I would like to see all of our troops (peace keepers) back safely. I bet if we were guarantedd complete safety then more people would not be opposed. This fight is no longer worth fighting however. It is time for our men and women to come back. We had our time to peace keep and fight and the time was then. Lets hope this is really our "Closing out tour" and maybe our government will re think some of what has gone on. More people should be given the vote on what we fight against and for whom.
> 
> :camo:  :deadhorse:



I'm here and have ~ 8 months to go yet ...

The fact that you would even think to use "Peace Keep" (by the way, Canada doesn't have any offical "Peace Keepers" as a job description, but we do have "soldiers [who always have fought and died for Canada BTW]) tells me that you have no schmick as to what we are accomplishing here. Nada schmick.


----------



## majorchuck (3 Jun 2011)

gentlemen we all know the price of freedom and democracy is blood unfortunatly it is the blood of our finnest men and women and as a proud canadian in every major conflict we were there and we turned the tide in ww1 pashondale and vimi in ww2 we were the shock troops the germans feard us again cyprus and peasekeepers with one mag of ammo the list is long now the war on terror we must be there and we will fight these criminals where ever they hide and dam the polls  if I was a young man I would join up and I councel all young men and women to do 5 years and get the training of a life time . yes we must be in the sand box as long as it takes even is us pulls out.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jun 2011)

Please punctuate properly and capitalize where appropriate, as we expect of all posters here. More people will read your posts as a result.


----------



## Wolf117 (4 Jun 2011)

armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I find alot of people don't know what is really going out there. I do not know every aspect, but I do know I would like to see all of our troops (peace keepers) back safely. I bet if we were guarantedd complete safety then more people would not be opposed. This fight is no longer worth fighting however. It is time for our men and women to come back. We had our time to peace keep and fight and the time was then. Lets hope this is really our "Closing out tour" and maybe our government will re think some of what has gone on. More people should be given the vote on what we fight against and for whom.
> 
> :camo:  :deadhorse:



Armygirl, while I appreciate the sentiment that you wish to see us all make it back safely, I would appreciate it more if you not refer to what I and so many other Canadian soldiers have done over there as (peacekeeping).  Because the long and the short of it is that is a factually incorrect statement for so many reasons.  I'll highlight two I think are most important.

One, I did not deploy there twice to stand between two or more warring factions to act as a neutral party.  I was part of one of the warring factions, that of the Afghan Government supported by an international coalition of nations that ranged from Canada to the Kingdom of Jordan.  I rolled out of camp armed and ready for combat in a green or tan coloured vehicle (not white) with a tan camo helmet cover (not blue).  To say what I did was peacekeeping is ignorant of historical fact and serves only to confuse others as to our true military history.

Two, peacekeeping operations come from authorization between Chapter 6 and 7 of the UN Charter.  The difference here is that while the Afghan mission is a UN authorized mission, it isn't based on the concept of peacekeeping but rather it derives it's legal legitimacy from a resolution passed on Afghanistan by the UN security council.

To suggest that the mission in Afghanistan is peacekeeping is wrong both factually and morally.  Factually for the differences stated above, morally because it leads to misinform a public which is still trying to learn what the Canadian Forces are and what our history is.  In short that comment reaks of a politically motivated worldview that states Canada is a "peacekeeping" nation without any first hand knowledge as to what peacekeeping is or what it is to serve in the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Wolf117 (4 Jun 2011)

armygirl23 said:
			
		

> I bet if we were guarantedd complete safety then more people would not be opposed.



Herein lies the very source of your lack of understanding of Canada's military and what we do.  NOTHING we do overseas can have guaranteed safety.  The very fact we are being put to work suggests that there is an unsafe environment to begin with.  Whether that be war, disaster or civil disorder.  Much of what we do is hard, but nothing in the world worth doing was ever easy.

We do not seek to guarantee our safety when there are threats to combat.  Let me tell you a short story.  On my first tour to Kandahar we had been made aware of an issue facing locals.  You see they were finally gaining enough confidence to send their kids (boys AND GIRLS) to school in the local government run facility.  However, the Taliban insurgents in that area were not okay with that.  So to deter these kids from attending class they sent out two man teams on motorbikes armed with spraybottles filled with battery acid.  They would spray kids in the eyes who were on their way to or from school.  So as a father, and a human being let me say honestly that I would face any danger any risk to see those men stopped.  That's why I volunteered to go to Afghanistan, twice, that's why I'd go again.  Because I KNOW what kind of foe we face there and I do not feel like abandoning the rest of that country to their brand of tyranny.

I personally do not care if any of those who are not active participants in this conflict have poor opinion polls about whether we should or shouldn't be there.  What I care about is that those who ARE going over there and ARE participating in this conflict are fully educated about what they're facing and that they agree with what they're going over to do.  That they are volunteers and on board with this.  And honestly I haven't met a Canadian soldier yet who was being sent to Afghanistan against his or her will.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jun 2011)

Imagine if fire fighters or the police needed "guaranteed complete safety" to garner support from the public they serve...   :


----------



## Bergen1 (15 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Herein lies the very source of your lack of understanding of Canada's military and what we do.  NOTHING we do overseas can have guaranteed safety.  The very fact we are being put to work suggests that there is an unsafe environment to begin with.  Whether that be war, disaster or civil disorder.  Much of what we do is hard, but nothing in the world worth doing was ever easy.
> 
> We do not seek to guarantee our safety when there are threats to combat.  Let me tell you a short story.  On my first tour to Kandahar we had been made aware of an issue facing locals.  You see they were finally gaining enough confidence to send their kids (boys AND GIRLS) to school in the local government run facility.  However, the Taliban insurgents in that area were not okay with that.  So to deter these kids from attending class they sent out two man teams on motorbikes armed with spraybottles filled with battery acid.  They would spray kids in the eyes who were on their way to or from school.  So as a father, and a human being let me say honestly that I would face any danger any risk to see those men stopped.  That's why I volunteered to go to Afghanistan, twice, that's why I'd go again.  Because I KNOW what kind of foe we face there and I do not feel like abandoning the rest of that country to their brand of tyranny.
> 
> I personally do not care if any of those who are not active participants in this conflict have poor opinion polls about whether we should or shouldn't be there.  What I care about is that those who ARE going over there and ARE participating in this conflict are fully educated about what they're facing and that they agree with what they're going over to do.  That they are volunteers and on board with this.  And honestly I haven't met a Canadian soldier yet who was being sent to Afghanistan against his or her will.



All I will say is well said and "Cheers!".


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Herein lies the very source of your lack of understanding of Canada's military and what we do.  NOTHING we do overseas can have guaranteed safety.  The very fact we are being put to work suggests that there is an unsafe environment to begin with.  Whether that be war, disaster or civil disorder.  Much of what we do is hard, but nothing in the world worth doing was ever easy.
> 
> We do not seek to guarantee our safety when there are threats to combat.  Let me tell you a short story.  On my first tour to Kandahar we had been made aware of an issue facing locals.  You see they were finally gaining enough confidence to send their kids (boys AND GIRLS) to school in the local government run facility.  However, the Taliban insurgents in that area were not okay with that.  So to deter these kids from attending class they sent out two man teams on motorbikes armed with spraybottles filled with battery acid.  They would spray kids in the eyes who were on their way to or from school.  So as a father, and a human being let me say honestly that I would face any danger any risk to see those men stopped.  That's why I volunteered to go to Afghanistan, twice, that's why I'd go again.  Because I KNOW what kind of foe we face there and I do not feel like abandoning the rest of that country to their brand of tyranny.
> 
> I personally do not care if any of those who are not active participants in this conflict have poor opinion polls about whether we should or shouldn't be there.  What I care about is that those who ARE going over there and ARE participating in this conflict are fully educated about what they're facing and that they agree with what they're going over to do.  That they are volunteers and on board with this.  And honestly I haven't met a Canadian soldier yet who was being sent to Afghanistan against his or her will.



Well Said!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Herein lies the very source of your lack of understanding of Canada's military and what we do.  NOTHING we do overseas can have guaranteed safety.  The very fact we are being put to work suggests that there is an unsafe environment to begin with.  Whether that be war, disaster or civil disorder.  Much of what we do is hard, but nothing in the world worth doing was ever easy.
> 
> We do not seek to guarantee our safety when there are threats to combat.  Let me tell you a short story.  On my first tour to Kandahar we had been made aware of an issue facing locals.  You see they were finally gaining enough confidence to send their kids (boys AND GIRLS) to school in the local government run facility.  However, the Taliban insurgents in that area were not okay with that.  So to deter these kids from attending class they sent out two man teams on motorbikes armed with spraybottles filled with battery acid.  They would spray kids in the eyes who were on their way to or from school.  So as a father, and a human being let me say honestly that I would face any danger any risk to see those men stopped.  That's why I volunteered to go to Afghanistan, twice, that's why I'd go again.  Because I KNOW what kind of foe we face there and I do not feel like abandoning the rest of that country to their brand of tyranny.
> 
> I personally do not care if any of those who are not active participants in this conflict have poor opinion polls about whether we should or shouldn't be there.  What I care about is that those who ARE going over there and ARE participating in this conflict are fully educated about what they're facing and that they agree with what they're going over to do.  That they are volunteers and on board with this.  And honestly I haven't met a Canadian soldier yet who was being sent to Afghanistan against his or her will.


Well put - milpoints inbound


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2011)

> As QMI Agency followed the last Canadian combat troops out of Afghanistan last month, there was one question that seemed to get under the thick skin of even the toughest soldier.
> 
> In fact, after repeatedly being asked by media in the combat zone, it became a catch phrase among some combatants -- tossed about with shrugs and often rolled eyes.
> 
> ...


Source:  QMI Media, 4 Aug 11 - a few more poll details downloadable here or attached.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (4 Aug 2011)

This has been the case for a long time. "I support the troops, just not the mission." Or "You guys shouldn't be there, but you're doing good stuff while you're there."

Afghanistan is given about as much due from the Canadian public as another thing going on in the background of their lives. A soundbite they heard after "_Dancing With the Stars_" or in the back page of a newspaper. We have been a military at war, not a country at war. 

The fact that I have been referred to as a "Peacekeeper" by numerous affiliations not connected with the military shows this. I am not old enough to have served in any recent UN mission  and yet theres that "P" word everyone knows and loves to throw around when it's more convienent and paletable than soldier. Soldiers die and come home in flag draped caskets. Peacekeepers are noble and don't get hurt. :

I will take all these polls with a grain of salt. I know the sacrifices others have made and the difference we have made in Afghanistan; and believe me when I say my sons will too when the time comes. 

Statistics from uninformed sources leads to flawed research after all.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Infanteer (4 Aug 2011)

This is a natural result of a non-existential cabinet war.

There are some that will believe that if the physical security of the country is not directly threatened then any cost is too much.

I figure there are also some who feel it is good to wash the spears in the worlds badlands once in a while, as long as the expenditure doesn't seriously impact the homefront.


----------



## RCDtpr (4 Aug 2011)

This poll is no surprise.  We took all of our work and handed it to the Americans before we were finished.  The average citizen can see this and the poll reflects that.


----------



## smoothrider (13 Aug 2011)

This article is picking sides, especially in 2006 when we did not have the Conservative majority, and the liberal caucus still had something to say. Having said that Our mission to Afghanistan has been a great strategy because our military needs were constantly in the press and the news. As a result of Canada's involvement, we got the support needed to modernize the military faster than ever. I don't think it is the matter what Americans say about us when we head south of the border, but it is the matter showing the world that our specialized military of a few can do better than the other NATO countries. 

These opinion polls don't say what type of people were picked for their study. Were those people experts in military engagement and strategies or were they just other Canadians who only shared anti-war opinions? It is hard to say; I believe, that's just my opinion, every statistical data that gets processed and wants to point to the Canadian Public, needs to follow strict conventional research methods. They need to include their sources, time of the study, population, number of experts, the population's supporting political parties, their method of statistical analysis, and their design and conclusion. Still with all those things said many of these type of polls don't stand a chance for systematic scrutiny because they are just opinions without any background analysis of the population for the study of that population. According to the conventional research methods, this type of study is the lowest credible type of study. Therefore, it should not be taken seriously.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Aug 2011)

smoothrider said:
			
		

> Having said that Our mission to Afghanistan has been a great strategy because our military needs were constantly in the press and the news. As a result of Canada's involvement, we got the support needed to modernize the military faster than ever.



Unless I'm reading your post wrong, what you describe isn't strategy, it's policy.  

Are you saying that it was a good policy to send Canada's soldiers to fight simply to upgrade equipment?  Anytime a government needs to get some tanks, it has to offer some ramp ceremonies?


----------



## Mainz (18 Aug 2011)

Since the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan was stood up over 21 months ago, we can say that developing the Afghan forces is well on track. There are 33 countries, under NATO command, which are dedicated and committed to ensuring that Afghanistan’s security institutions (Army, Air Force, and Police) are self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and enduring.

Over the past two years, an additional 113,000 Afghan soldiers and police have been trained and are working with 130,000 NATO. In seven areas of Afghanistan, encompassing 20 percent of the population, Afghan Army and Police are already leading security efforts. Local militias are integrating into the formal security structure; commerce is returning; and schools are opening. GDP has increased from $170 under the Taliban to $1,000 per capita in 2010, almost all Afghans now have access to basic health services (only nine percent did in 2002), school enrollment increased from 900,000 (mainly boys) to almost seven million (37 percent girls), and women now serve in government. Most of the country is now connected via mobile phones and highways. The powerful force of social media is altering the landscape as over one million Afghans have internet access and over 215,000 have facebook accounts. 

There are still untold challenges ahead but the force of 2011 has little resemblance to the one NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan began advising two years ago. Over the next several years, the force will develop key support forces such as logistics, human resources, and finance. Professionalizing the force is a key to creating enduring institutions and reducing Afghan reliance on ISAF for combat support. As Afghans assume the security lead, NTM-A’s focus shifts to training the trainer.

Any reference to the ‘Bear coming over the mountain’ would seem irresponsible and derisory. Those who take the time to become informed will discover the progress, the hope and the determination of the Afghan people. They are working successfully with hundreds of NTM-A advisors from around the globe. Together with international partners they are developing leaders, establishing enduring institutions, and creating a self sustainable, autonomous Afghan National Security Force. The progress is astounding. The mountains belong to the Afghan people, and with the help of the world community, the Afghans are reclaiming them.

http://www.facebook.com/TroopsInAfghanistan


----------



## Flanker (19 Nov 2011)

MrsAlex said:
			
		

> This is the only thing I agree with you about.
> 
> People don't understand what is really going on because they only see what the media let them see.



Do not forget this "people" is paying cash for this Afghanistan trip.
So I would be more respectful and avoid considering "people" as totally media brain-washed.
People do not want to pay for what they find insignificant for their lives. Period.
As you and all of us.


----------



## Flanker (19 Nov 2011)

majorchuck said:
			
		

> gentlemen we all know the price of freedom and democracy is blood unfortunatly it is the blood of our finnest men and women




Sorry, what democracy are you talking about? Democracy in Afghanistan?
Are you beleiving also in unicorns?


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Feb 2012)

.... from Angus Reid - highlights mine:


> *A majority of respondents disagree with extending the training mission beyond its 2014 deadline.
> 
> Most Canadians are in favour of their government’s decision to keep soldiers in Afghanistan to help train the local military, but many also believe this mission should not be extended beyond 2014*, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2012)

I wonder if the Western "public" understands what the Saudi funded Taliban did to Afghanistan and what similar groups want to do in Muslim states from Morocco to Malaysia ...






Women walking in the street in Kabul, Afghanistan, 1970s
Source: http://www.demoqrateya.eu/


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if the Western "public" understands what the Saudi funded Taliban did to Afghanistan and what similar groups want to do in Muslim states from Morocco to Malaysia ...



Even if they do understand, they don't care. We live in an era of instant gratification. That our mission has taken 10 years goes against the grain and has well passed the average attention span. No amount of explaining will instill the logical conclusion that 30 years of warfare and destruction will take longer than 30 days to repair. We were in the Balkans for 10 years to repair what was essentially 4 years of conflict. With a 2.5:1 ratio applied to Afghanistan, it would take 75 years to make the same inroads. Even then, the Balkans start position for us was better than Afghanistan.


----------



## fraserdw (28 Oct 2012)

That picture is truly amazing especially when you consider that it could be Iran in 70s or Lebannon in the 60s.  What a shame....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> That picture is truly amazing especially when you consider that it could be Iran in 70s or Lebannon in the 60s.  What a shame....




That's what passed through my mind. I recall the Middle East and North Africa in the 1970s and even as late as the 1990s - while there were always some women in veils, etc, the picture was the norm in many (most?) places (*not* Saudi Arabia, however).


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2014)

Some of the latest numbers as Canada's flag comes down - more details in the attached ....


> *Canadians Agree Afghanistan Mission Has Made a Difference, but Unsure About Lasting Success*
> 
> According to Vice-President Megan Tam “With the Canadian mission in Afghanistan drawing to a close, a majority of Canadians are reserving judgment on whether they would call the mission a success , suggesting they are waiting to see whether there is a lasting legacy from the training Canada has provided. It’s unclear though, at which point Canadians will make that determination, or how they will determine the success of the mission. That being said, the vast majority feel that the Canadian presence in the country has made at least a small difference.”
> 
> ...


Harris/Decima, 12 Dec 14


----------

