Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[Lost_Warrior]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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)

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. 

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]

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]

 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-|-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-|-]

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]

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]

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


OTTAWA (Reuters) - A majority of Canadians support the country's expanded military mission to    Afghanistan, even though they realize there is a risk of casualties, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

The Ekos poll, provided to Reuters, showed that 70 percent of those surveyed said they backed the mission while 28 percent were against it.

The result contrasts with a survey last week that said 62 percent of Canadians were against sending troops to Afghanistan.

Canada contributed 2,000 troops to a    NATO-run force in Kabul after the September 11 attacks. By next month it will have 2,300 troops in the volatile southern city of Kandahar as part of another NATO mission.

Canadian troops in Kandahar are already coming under frequent attack. Eight Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001.

"People distinguish between the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and the war in    Iraq. They see it as part of Canada's traditional role in helping sustain peace around the world," said Paul Adams of Ekos.

"People understand it's a robust role and they're comfortable with it. But we're not suggesting it (support for the mission) is so strong it can't be moved," he told Reuters. Adams said the picture could change if Canadian troops started taking significant casualties.

Last week's survey, by the Strategic Counsel, prompted defense officials to say they needed to do a better job of explaining why Canadian troops were in Afghanistan.

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.