Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[Glorified Ape]

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. 

By the way Yank is an old British slur used to insult American colonialists,

http://www.answers.com/topic/yankee-doodle

so, would you be so kind not to use it? :-* 

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.  :

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]

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]

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%
No: 20%
Don't know: 7%

If you were an MP would you vote in favour of sending troops to Afghanistan?
Yes: 27%
No: 62%
Don't know: 11%

Would your position change if you knew it might lead to significant casualties?*
Yes: 31%
No: 64%
Don't know: 5%

4. Do Canadians think Canada should be participating in the war on terrorism?
Yes: 48%
No: 43%
Don't know: 9%

*This question asked only to those who voted yes to the previous question.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.