Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[raymao]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Sure it will.  Its called morale.

 

[Thompson_JM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

You tell them Franko !

! Franko for Prime Minister !