Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Trinity said:
Hey Trinity we all have to get our 2 cents worth in...just like the Parish Council...lol :boring:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
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
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
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 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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)
(Monday rant off)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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:
Yaaaa! Stick it to the man, Jack! :crybaby:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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
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
M
monika
Guest
gnplummer421 said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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...
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...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I guess the red and white maple leaf on the shoulder really throws them off :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
So we have a rat here do we.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Pike said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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
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
M
monika
Guest
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.
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.
Similar threads
