TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rabbitjoker Ok, thanks, we read this the first 3 times... POINT MADE! Lets start a "Russian Military Victory" thread where all the Russians/former-bloc citizens can get together and mutually-masturbate about their past grand "strategies" and "massive achievements"? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by geroin so who was fighting the most effective? I don't think you know much about Soviet's military strategies and their massive achievements... well it's obvious, they don't teach that here in history class.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zentac_75 Agreed. However this is one of many reasons for the U.S.A joining the war. |
| quote: |
Let's just be happy we didn't go through this personally and honour those who lost their lives (military and civilian) during this horrific period. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree Yes... Effective like being encircled and losing tens of thousands of men at a time? Or suicide attacks because Soviet officers feared getting killed by NKVD for desertion and treason? Or human wave attacks by getting criminals (and other 'undesirables' according to Soviet leadership) drunk and sent them trampling into minefields and into blunt of enemy bullets and artillery? Or needing something like 10 to 1 advantage to defeat a German formation? Stop. Insulting. My. Intelligence. You're assuming that I'm an avg uni student who knows dick all about WW2. Believe me when I say I've read a lot of books on WW2 that I've forgotten more about WW2 than I need to know. So far, you've presented one evidence, that documentary, to do all your talking. I will watch that documentary when I have the time. And one casualties chart, as if that speaks volumes of who fought well. You don't judge who won or fought best by how many of YOUR men you lost. The rest of your talking is vague generalities wrapped around patriotism. Not to mention you agreeing with Kris's rather silly comment about North America nation's entry into war which rather discredits how much you actually know about WW2. I think you actually have no idea what you're talking about. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by geroin so who fought well then? you did not answer my question. The reason why i posted a link was because i was rather lazy to explain in detail what and where and how things happened and totally hijack the thread. While the documentary is not 100% accurate it explains in pretty good detail and gives an idea of what happened in the region during the war without me having to explain and prove everything to you and others. |
| quote: |
About Kris: even though her comment is silly it is actually true, US didn't do much until the attack on pearl harbour which they actually instigated themselves by imposing sanctions on Japan (oil, metal and others). Because of those shortages they attacked US. I have posted another documentary in here also which is called Zeitgeist. You should watch it also when you get a chance. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/. Only in the end did US join the main war in Europe when it was quite obvious who was winning. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by geroin he doesnt realize that here they teach only about what canadians did in the war, to be honest they didn't really do much at all... there was 45,300 Canadian Casualities while there was 23,600,000 of Russian (Soviet) Casualities, the numbers speak for themselves |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by geroin i did not say that canadian veterans did nothing, i said that canadian history books are mostly based on canadian/american achievements in the war when there were much more important things happening in europe. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by geroin Total deaths: United States: 418,500 United Kingdom: 450,400 Soviet Union: 23,600,000 this is including the civilians, i mean its quite obvious who did most of the work. ... some more stats for you:   |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree But my short answer is that everyone fought well, to their own way. |
| quote: |
| The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the most costly conflict in human history with over 30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined. The distinctly brutal nature of warfare on the Eastern Front was exemplified by an often willful disregard for human life by both sides. It was also reflected in the ideological premise for the war which also saw a momentous clash between two directly opposed and radical ideologies. To hardline Nazis in Berlin, the war against the Soviet Union was one of a struggle of Fascism against Communism, and the Aryan race against the "inferior" Slavic race. Hitler referred to it in unique terms, calling it a "war of annihilation", one in which the Soviet Union was to be utterly destroyed and the populations of Eastern Europe and Russia were to be enslaved and exterminated. This would further German expansion and provide for the colonization of Eastern Europe and Western Russia. In addition, Hitler also sought to wipe out the large Jewish population of Eastern Europe (see The Holocaust). Aside from the ideological conflict, the mindframe of the leaders of Germany and the Soviet Union, Hitler and Stalin respectively, contributed to the escalation of terror and murder on an unprecedented scale. Stalin and Hitler both disregarded human life in order to achieve their goal of victory. This included terrorization of their own people, as well as mass deportation (planned, in the case of Germany) of entire populations. All these factors resulted in tremendous brutality both to combatants and civilians that found no parallel on the Western Front. |
Germany lost because they had to fight a two front war for too long, just like in WW1. End of debate.
Back to Canada at war.
I recommend Canada In Afghanistan: the War so Far for a starting point to understand the history of Afghanistan itself and what Canada, NATO, ISAF and coalition forces have accomplished there.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/260315
| quote: |
| Canada wrote Afghan leader's speech, NDP says Sep 25, 2007 01:40 PM THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA � The NDP says it has documents that show the Canadian military effectively wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year. The party's defence critic, Dawn Black, says the papers indicate Karzai's address was an "elaborately staged political stunt." Black held a news conference today to release access-to-information documents that suggest a team of military advisers prepared an initial draft of Karzai's speech, delivered on Sept. 22, 2006. She quoted a situation report from Task Force Afghanistan as saying: "Team prepared initial draft of President (Karzai's) address to Parliament 22 Sep." Black said Gen. David Fraser reports in the documents that "key statistics, messages, themes, as well as overall structure (of the speech), were adopted by the president in his remarks." "What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence," Black said. In the speech, Karzai thanked the families of soldiers killed in combat and painted an optimistic, but not rosy picture of his country's future. He also took direct aim at NDP Leader Jack Layton's opposition to the war, saying that those who believe the mission was weighted too heavily toward combat and not enough toward reconstruction were wrong. "There has been speculation about the resources that the Department of National Defence is pouring into trying to sell this mission to the Canadian people," Black said. "I never thought that the Canadian military would go this far. This raises serious concerns about the independence of the Afghan president and origin of his recent comments to Canadian media in Kabul." Black said she plans to call for an emergency debate on the issue in the House of Commons when Parliament resumes next month. She also said she will seek an investigation by the Commons defence committee into the military's communications campaign. |
Initial draft?
Or was it merely background briefing to Karzai?
Not much info about this right now, but either way, Karzai had final say on his speech.
This isn't even a major issue, but just NDP grasping at straws, as per normal
I just found it interesting and naturally it remains to be proven.
if there is substance to the allegation that the military pretty much wrote the speech, it implies a case of it saying "look, we want to stay...you want us to stay...so here's what you're gonna say to drum up support for us back home".
I suspect that this would be interpreted, at the very least, as being highly unethical behaviour by the military (and I wonder if it could be linked back to the gov't).
The function of the military is to carry out a specific mission/mandate, not write speeches for foreign heads of state which are then used to ligitimize the current mission/mandate.
interesting...of course the NDP doesn't hide it's position on the mission, so we'll see what comes of this.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT I just found it interesting and naturally it remains to be proven. if there is substance to the allegation that the military pretty much wrote the speech, it implies a case of it saying "look, we want to stay...you want us to stay...so here's what you're gonna say to drum up support for us back home". |
| quote: |
I suspect that this would be interpreted, at the very least, as being highly unethical behaviour by the military (and I wonder if it could be linked back to the gov't). |
| quote: |
The function of the military is to carry out a specific mission/mandate, not write speeches for foreign heads of state which are then used to ligitimize the current mission/mandate. |
And here's what some Afghans have to say about Canada's supposed withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen...fa-08671c172e51
| quote: |
Talk of pullout draws scorn from Afghans 'If they leave, we all know the Taliban will come back' Matthew Fisher, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 KABUL - For residents of the bustling Afghan capital, the prospective departure of Canada's soldiers by February 2009 produces mostly quizzical looks. It seems inconceivable that NATO's International Security Assistance Force would withdraw its troops, leaving these war-weary people to the mercy of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Even the more benign alternative to a complete withdrawal -- training Afghan soldiers and police to look after security while western nations focus on humanitarian and development work -- is, at best, undesirable. "What is the point of sending your army to Afghanistan if it isn't going to fight?" demands Muhammad Noor Sahak, director of the OMAR war museum and a graduate student in Pushtun literature. "Given Afghanistan's famous warrior culture, most Afghans like ISAF, but they will only continue liking ISAF if they think it is making their lives more secure. And the only way to do that is to fight. If ISAF fails, the Russians, who don't want NATO here, could interfere. So will Iran. Pakistan is already interfering." For Afghans, an equally pressing question is whether the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai will accept a Taliban offer to begin peace talks. The answer is an overwhelming yes, although not if it means accepting the Taliban's condition that ISAF's 36,000 troops must leave the country first. Mr. Karzai has already flatly rejected that proposal. "I don't like ISAF. I love them. They are good people," Balyaly, a 22-year-old carpet salesman, said. Using a variety of obscene hand gestures, Balyaly, who, like many Afghans, uses only one name, denounces the Taliban as "very dirty." He seemed genuinely shocked that Canada is considering withdrawing its 2,500 troops from the volatile south of Afghanistan and that the Netherlands is contemplating a similar pullout. Mukhtar Subur, 19, who, like many young Afghans, does not have a job, was also adamant that the NATO forces must remain and continue to fight. "Our whole country profits from the gifts of ISAF," Mr. Subur says. "If they leave, we all know the Taliban will come back and the Afghan people will have trouble again." Hamid Fahim, who collects ancient Enfield rifles used by the mujahedeen in their holy war against the Red Army during the 1980s, observes that Afghanistan has been in a state of perpetual war for nearly three decades. By contrast, the Canadians, who first fought on the front lines in Kandahar in 2002, are relative newcomers. Seventy Canadian soldiers have died here -- about the number of Afghans who die fighting on many days. "They are not like the Russians who tried to take our whole country," Mr. Fahim said. "ISAF comes to fight beside us, not against us. It is much better for us if they stay." Flush with aid money and cash from this year's bumper crop of illegal opium, Kabul appears far more prosperous and liberal than it was. Every day, more and more women shed the all-encompassing burqa and show their faces, something that always led to a beating when the Taliban ruled the capital. But Kabul's confidence has been shaken by recent suicide bombings and a spate of kidnappings of businessmen. The government and ISAF seem unable to do anything about it. Again and again, Afghans mentioned that many ISAF countries, such as Germany and Italy, have seemed more concerned with protecting themselves than sending out troops to attack the Taliban. "If all the money being spent by those ISAF countries that don't fight here was spent on us, we would already have a bigger and better army," Sahak says as he shows a visitor around his museum. "We would also have better schools and more doctors and nurses and engineers." |
Refreshing change from the usual articles about Afghanistan mission...
http://ottawasun.com/News/Afghan/20...576954-sun.html
| quote: |
| Is It Time To Pull Out? The truth about Canada's mission in Afghanistan By MICHAEL DEN TANDT, SUN MEDIA KANDAHAR -- The Afghan war is not one conflict but three -- a guerrilla war, a development war, a communications war. Canada is gaining ground in the first, slowly winning the second and losing the third. The military and the media deserve some measure of blame for this. Mainly though, responsibility falls to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Even as he struggles to sell the Afghan mission to an increasingly uneasy public, his mania for control is stifling the truth about what's happening here. On Friday, Harper announced he has tasked a blue-ribbon team to study Canada's future role in Afghanistan. Led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley, the five-member group will begin by meeting with troops and development workers in Kandahar. The panel is expected to report back in February 2008. The truth of what is happening in Afghanistan is extraordinary: It's a story of courage and grit and idealism that, if more Canadians only knew it, would make them very proud. PLEASE DON'T GO But most don't know it, because the people best positioned to tell it have been gagged. I came back to Afghanistan to find answers to two questions: Is Canada's deployment here still worthwhile, despite the rising toll in lives? And if it is, then why do so many people back home think it isn't? In the past week I've spoken to dozens of Canadian soldiers, non-governmental aid workers, and Afghans, some who are very critical the U.S.-led international effort here, and of the Karzai regime. Their message was clear: Please, Canada, don't go. Our country has an influence and a reputation here that is vastly disproportionate to the number of troops we have on the ground. That's partly because we are spending money -- a great deal of money, $1.2 billion committed over 10 years -- on rebuilding and redevelopment. Your tax dollars are helping pay for a vast national de-mining project, led by Canada but in partnership with the United Nations. Every day on a mountain top in Kabul, Afghans mentored by Canadians carry on the painstaking and dangerous work of removing and destroying the thousands of pieces of unexploded ordnance that litter this country. Canada is the single largest donor, contributing $20 million annually. Your tax dollars are paying for a project that will help 3,000 war widows in Kabul start micro-businesses this year. Often, the aid begins with a single cow or goat. Your tax dollars are paying for the training of a professional Afghan National Army, which is increasingly imposing order in the volatile south. Thirty-four thousand troops are already trained. A thousand new troops a month are graduating from the Afghan National Training Centre in Kabul. Canadians are in the forefront of the training effort. Your tax dollars are paying for 200 small aid projects in Kandahar City, all geared to stimulating local business and trades, and developing a functioning local economy. These efforts are not being carried out on your behalf at arms' length. They're led, supported and protected by a Canadian military that has learned, through half a century of peacekeeping, how to properly and modestly engage with a foreign culture. You may have heard that no one can tell Canadians and Americans apart any longer. In Afghanistan, everyone knows the difference. Canadians are leaders here in the delicate trick of combining military power with aid. Other nations in the 37-member international coalition come to our Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Kandahar City, to study our methods. The PRT, Camp Nathan Smith, is a model, an experiment in a new kind of military engagement: Soldiers, working hand in hand with RCMP officers, diplomats, lawyers, doctors, specialists in governance and foreign aid workers helping the Afghans manage their own affairs, raise their standard of living and establish a functional state. You've heard about the 71 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat who've lost their lives in Afghanistan. You've heard about the CBC journalist and cameraman whose armoured vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb. What you haven't heard, perhaps, is that the vast majority of the casualties and injuries in this civil war are Afghan. Mentored and supported by Canadian officers. The Afghans are in the forefront of every combat operation in the south and 85% of the casualties treated for war injuries at Kandahar Air Field, the main coalition base in the south, are Afghan army or Afghan police. It follows from this that our deployment here is not an occupation: It's a support mission. But few people back home appreciate this, because nobody's covering the Afghan side of the war. Afghan casualties, even mass casualties, get short shrift. The leading edge of Canada's humanitarian engagement here is the PRT, Camp Nathan Smith. But for reasons that defy explanation, only the soldiers stationed there are allowed to speak publicly about their work. The five officials from foreign affairs, the 10 RCMP officers engaged in training Afghan police, the head of the CIDA mission in the province (with a budget of $39-million this year alone), are not allowed to speak to the media. According to multiple sources here, they have been gagged by the Prime Minister's Office. Figure that one out. The very people who could best spread the word about the good works Canada is carrying out beneath the security umbrella provided by our troops, can't talk about it. This translates into a distorted portrait of the mission at home. The military can't get off scot-free either. The Canadian army's communications resources in Kandahar province are located at the Kandahar Air Field -- the centre of combat operations. Reporters at the airfield are supported by satellite and media tents with sophisticated communications equipment. At the PRT, there's a single media tent. It has no reliable, permanent Internet hookups. There's no satellite for television transmissions. As a result, most reporters choose to stay at the airfield -- where they don't hear a lot about development work, because it's all based at the PRT. The media? We're at fault too. Reporters driven by competition and the demands of editors back home, are hell-bent on covering Canadians in combat. That's a good thing, as far as it goes: Canadians need a public witness to the exercise of lethal force by their representatives abroad. Combat stories are dramatic and gripping and the tales we hear about soldiers at war can inspire and move us the way few other stories can. But the entire mission stands or falls on whether development can succeed. For media to ignore the tangible evidence of progress simply because these stories aren't as dramatic as combat, is beyond belief. Here's why all this matters so much: The Taliban are not fighting a conventional guerrilla war. All their efforts are geared towards forcing Western governments to pull their soldiers out of Afghanistan. DISTORTED VIEW Every suicide bombing and IED attack is about hurting Western troops, but it's even more about causing fear and uncertainty back home. This is why there's such frustration, among soldiers here, about the posturing and chest-beating in Ottawa each time a Canadian dies in combat. Each cluster of front-page stories is, in effect, a tactical victory for the insurgents. What happens if we pull out? Some say it would make no difference. The Americans could easily replace us. But it's not nearly that simple. The Afghans don't trust the Americans. Their approach is different from ours -- much more blunt, less culturally sensitive. Canada has an institutional memory now in Kandahar, won by five years of hard work on the ground. Canada has the aid projects, just now beginning to bear fruit. Canada has credibility with the Afghans, won by our soldiers' willingness to fight and die on their behalf. If we pull out, much of that will be lost. The mission will continue but the setback will be huge and Canada's standing in Afghanistan, and the world, will suffer immeasurably. |
^^^Intriguing article. Thanks for the update.
interesting read, thanks. My own issues with the mission mirror what this articles tells us...i.e. that we DON'T know exactly what is going on over there. The current gov't has been woefully negligent in communicating with Canadians on EXACTLY what we're doing over there and HOW LONG we'll be doing it.
then again...effective communication through the media is the LAST thing the CPC cares about (note their plan to spend a couple million on their own, PMO-controlled media centre instead of using the one that's been in use for decades that they've shunned since taking office, since the CPC can't fully control it's use).
I love this part too:
| quote: |
| The five officials from foreign affairs, the 10 RCMP officers engaged in training Afghan police, the head of the CIDA mission in the province (with a budget of $39-million this year alone), are not allowed to speak to the media. According to multiple sources here, they have been gagged by the Prime Minister's Office. Figure that one out. The very people who could best spread the word about the good works Canada is carrying out beneath the security umbrella provided by our troops, can't talk about it. This translates into a distorted portrait of the mission at home. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT interesting read, thanks. My own issues with the mission mirror what this articles tells us...i.e. that we DON'T know exactly what is going on over there. The current gov't has been woefully negligent in communicating with Canadians on EXACTLY what we're doing over there and HOW LONG we'll be doing it. |
| quote: |
then again...effective communication through the media is the LAST thing the CPC cares about (note their plan to spend a couple million on their own, PMO-controlled media centre instead of using the one that's been in use for decades that they've shunned since taking office, since the CPC can't fully control it's use). I love this part too: what? The CPC is controlling info? The gov't that campaigned on transparency and accountability? I'm stunned, lol. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree ... But I also think that a lot of Canadians does support the soldiers on the individual level, and they are about frustrated with Harper govt about failing to communicate properly about the Afghanistan mission. Because they don't know enough, they can't support the mission based only on vagueness. Should be interesting what the Throne Speech says tomorrow |
To be honest, I'm disappointed in Harper and the Conservatives with respect to the military especially. The CPC won the federal election precisely because they put so much effort into communicating their platform. That openness seems to have gradually declined over the past few months, to the point where we hardly hear a peep from Ottawa anymore.
If you bother to really dig into the info available, you'll see that Canada really is making a difference there. But instead of trumpeting our victories, the government is wallowing in terror over the possibility of citizens not supporting the war and keeping quiet in order to avoid any potentially negative PR.
Mind you, they may not be entirely wrong about that. But it's a PR problem anyway, since Canadians all know we still have troops there, and no news in a war/occupation is generally bad news. They should have this stuff plastered all over the CBC.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut If you bother to really dig into the info available, you'll see that Canada really is making a difference there. But instead of trumpeting our victories, the government is wallowing in terror over the possibility of citizens not supporting the war and keeping quiet in order to avoid any potentially negative PR. Mind you, they may not be entirely wrong about that. But it's a PR problem anyway, since Canadians all know we still have troops there, and no news in a war/occupation is generally bad news. They should have this stuff plastered all over the CBC. |
^^^^^
Great point,the "anti-war loonies" do seem to act as if it is their god given right to let their voices be heard. Whats even worse is in their minds, anyone who supports the mission is a conservative redneck or "uninformed", as they think they are. ahaha.
To be honest, Canadian "anti-war" protesters really infuriate me. I feel as though it is just a bunch of hippies who wanted to be able to protest a "war" like the americans have been. I hate hearing their ridiculous rhetoric. I was talking to one of them once and she was telling me, "Canadian soldiers have no humanity in them, they are just over there to kill people." And that is a direct quote.
As for the portrayal in the media, I agree that they need to start showing coverage of the good things that have been accomplished. Because these definatly do outwiegh the negatives. It's sad to see the conservative government not trying to promote patriotism and support for the mission through sharing all the achievements. But as mentioned, it will be interesting to hear the throne speech tommorow as it could change a lot.
Now back to the hippies. hahaha. I noticed a bunch of "Canada out of afghanistan" flyers up recently. I think it said they were going to have a protest coming up sometime. Hopefully they hold a support our troops rally the same day, time and place. If they did I would definatly go.
Here's something for the anti war crowd to chew on
Life is keeping me busy atm, but I just came across these two articles
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...al_gam_mostview
| quote: |
Poll shows Afghans want NATO troops to stay ALAN FREEMAN October 18, 2007 at 8:34 PM EDT OTTAWA � A strong majority of Afghans approve of the presence of NATO-led troops in their country, including from Canada, and want the foreign soldiers to remain to fight the Taliban and support reconstruction efforts. In a public opinion poll of Afghans conducted by Environics Research on behalf of The Globe and Mail, the CBC and La Presse, respondents expressed optimism about the future, strong support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and appreciation for the work being done by NATO countries in improving security. In Kandahar, where the Taliban is stronger and violence more pervasive, support for the foreign troops was weaker, but respondents still want the soldiers to stay. According to the survey, conducted in person across the country between Sept. 17 and 24 with a representative sample of 1,578 men and women, 60 per cent said that the presence of foreigners in the country was a good thing. Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing, while 22 per cent said it was equally good and bad. In Kandahar, where the Canadians are centred, Environics added to the number of respondents and asked a series of special questions; there, 61 per cent said the foreign presence was good while 23 per cent responded that it was a �bad thing.� While a majority of Canadians oppose the military mission in Afghanistan and are anxious to see it end in February, 2009, if not sooner, Afghans are considerably more sanguine about the NATO presence and want it to continue. Nationally, 64 per cent of respondents said they believe the foreigners have made a lot of progress or some progress in the fight against the Taliban. In Kandahar, where the insurgency is still raging, 58 per cent still say the foreigners are doing a good job fighting the Taliban. When asked about the future of the foreign soldiers, only 14 per cent said they should leave right away while 11 per cent said they should leave within a year. Another 27 per cent said the troops should stay between two and five years but the biggest group by far�43 per cent�thought the foreign military presence should last ``however long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order.� In Kandahar, the heart of the Taliban movement, there was less enthusiasm for the foreign presence with 32 per cent saying the soldiers should leave right away or within a year, but 18 per cent said the Canadian and other foreigners should stay for two to five years and 31 per cent for as long as it takes to defeat the Taliban. The survey pointed to a general sense of optimism in the country with 60 per cent of the national sample and 61 per cent in Kandahar saying they were better off than five years ago. When it comes to the status of women, 73 per cent of respondents nationally said that the women are better off now than they were in 2002. �It's the first poll ever done by a Canadian organization (in Afghanistan) and the first one that has asked about the Canadian mission and has focused on Kandahar,� said Keith Neuman, group vice president at Environics. When it comes to Canada's presence in the country, it has a relatively high profile, ranking fourth in public awareness after the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. Asked which foreign countries are present in Afghanistan with soldiers, aid workers and businessmen, 95 per cent named the U.S., Germany 63 per cent, Britain 52 per cent and Canada 46 per cent. But virtually no Afghans are apparently aware that Canadian soldiers are involved in fighting the Taliban. Asked which foreign counties are involved in battling the Taliban, 89 per cent of Afghans mentioned the United States and none mentioned Canada. Even in Kandahar, 90 per cent said the U.S. was fighting the Taliban while only 2 per cent identified Canada. On the other hand, 25 per cent of respondents in Kandahar said that Canada was providing reconstruction assistance, compared with 27 per cent for Britain and 28 per cent for Germany. Yet when the question was asked differently, awareness of the Canadian role was higher. When respondents in Kandahar were asked what the main purpose of the Canadian presence was in the province, 47 per cent responded that the main goal was to fight the Taliban, while 16 per mentioned reconstruction and 10 per cent answered that Canada was there to support the Karzai government. Mr. Neuman said that because the U.S. has by far the most troops in the country, respondents immediately identified American forces as the major fighters against the Taliban but in Kandahar, awareness of the Canadian presence was high and their role was well-regarded, particularly when it comes to reconstruction work. Support for the Taliban also was surprisingly low, with only 14 per cent of respondents nationally said they had very positive or somewhat positive views of the Taliban. In Kandahar, those positives rose to 20 per cent. Respondents also were overwhelmingly opposed to suicide bombings, with 71 per cent nationally saying they were never justified. Despite the enmity towards the Taliban, 74 per cent said they supported negotiations between the Karzai government and Taliban representatives as a way of reducing conflict. In Kandahar, support for talks jumped to 85 per cent. |
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/...fghan-poll.html
| quote: |
51% of Afghans feeling good about country's direction: poll Last Updated: Thursday, October 18, 2007 | 6:05 PM ET CBC News A new poll of nearly 1,600 Afghans shows the majority feel safer than they did five years ago, and approve of the direction their country is taking, thanks to the presence of international security forces from countries such as Canada. Results from the Environics Research poll, conducted in partnership with the CBC, show 60 per cent of Afghans surveyed believe the presence of foreign troops has been good for their country. As well, 51 per cent said they feel their country is headed in the right direction, compared to 28 per cent who responded that it's headed in the wrong direction. The remaining interviewees saw no change or didn't know. Most Afghans said they believe their lives are better than they were five years ago, citing increased security, as well as better roads and schools because of reconstruction efforts. Those who feel they are worse off say they don't feel safe in the face of continuing violence. "There's no consensus. It's not everyone [who] has a positive view," said Keith Neuman of Environics. "But more often than not, people feel that things are better than they were." Continue Article The Ottawa-based research company oversaw the Sept. 17-24 survey of 1,578 Afghans, whom pollsters from the Afghan Centre for Social and Opinion Research interviewed in their homes throughout the country's 34 provinces. The results have a margin of error of 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20, except in Kandahar, where the smaller sample size leads to a 5.9 per cent margin of error. Support for troops to stay Among the poll's other results: * Forty-three per cent of all Afghans surveyed say that foreign troops should stay as long as it takes to get the job done. Only about 15 per cent of all Afghans surveyed want foreign troops to leave their country immediately, and the rest want time limits. * In the troubled southern province of Kandahar, where the former Taliban government has its roots and where the vast majority of Canadian troops are based, only 31 per cent of respondents want to see foreign troops stick around until stability is restored. In comparison, 32 per cent of those asked would like to see the troops gone within a year, and many had no opinion at all. * A full 60 per cent of those surveyed in Kandahar have a somewhat or very positive attitude toward Canada's soldiers. Those with a negative opinion cite civilian casualties and the fact that they see the soldiers as infidels. Janice Stein is director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, another of the poll's sponsors. She sees grounds for optimism in the results. "I think Afghans are asking for continued assistance," she said. "They are asking for a continued foreign presence in the short term. They are asking for help in order to avoid a return of the Taliban to Afghanistan. These are the fundamental messages that come out of this poll." U.S. cited as chief source of troops When asked who is responsible for fighting the Taliban, an overwhelming majority named the United States. Even in the south of the country, where Canadian forces have lost most of the 71 soldiers who have died in the country so far, 90 per cent of Afghans polled believe it is the United States that is trying to protect them. On the bright side, when it comes to reconstruction, Afghans named Canada as one of the top countries trying to help rebuild Kandahar. "Here are the Canadians in Afghanistan, seen as the people building civil society, helping reconstruction, helping to train, helping to build a democracy so that some day we can leave," says Michael Adams of Environics. "It's interesting � even our military are seen in that role there, rather than in the role of fighting the Taliban." Some NATO countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, have been debating whether to pull their troops out of Afghanistan. But despite political opposition within Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made his position clear: He wants Canadian troops to stay in the country until at least 2011. High marks for Karzai On another front, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government received approval ratings other world leaders can only dream of. More than 70 per cent of Afghans surveyed said they think Karzai is doing a good job. In his home province of Kandahar, the positive reviews jump to 77 per cent. That's significant because Karzai is often seen from the outside as a weak leader who, among other criticisms, hasn't managed to clean up corruption in his own governmental ranks. "I think what people forget is there is a lot of challenges in this country," Arif Lalani, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, pointed out in an interview. "But there's a lot of progress [too], and the Afghans that I see, see the change and he's the face of the Afghan government. So it wouldn't surprise me that they still have faith in him." |
This last poll by Environics group must have had the anti war group reeling. The usual anti war military 'experts' like Scott Taylor, Sunil Ram and their irk on TV are throwing up a lot of smoke screen to trying to confuse the facts, throw in innuendos, conspiracy theory and whatnot to screw with the public mind.
Kinda amusing to watch really, as clueless gits running around rambling. Reminds me of Alec Baldwin in Team America.
This article IMO sums up a lot of feeling that general public has about Afghanistan mission. The bold emphasis are mine.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/267955
| quote: |
| Battle on the home front: Changing public opinion Pierre Martin Recent polls do not augur well for Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. Is the battle on the home front definitely lost or can opinion turn around in the coming months? That's a critical question for Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the wake of Tuesday's throne speech in which he made his first-ever admission that his government was prepared to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2009. But will he succeed in rallying opinion? At one point, that may have seemed impossible, but there is a growing belief that a turnaround in public opinion might not be impossible after all. Last week, participants at a policy retreat known as the Banff Forum were asked whether they supported the Afghan mission. Although there were reservations, a strong majority of those present answered positively. Most participants even endorsed extension beyond 2009, in sharp contrast with opinion polls. Interestingly, many participants admitted that their opinion had shifted from negative to positive in the course of the discussion. Even if the prospects for success in Afghanistan are uncertain, this sample of well-informed citizens concluded that Canada's military presence in that troubled country is worth the cost. As we brace for months of debate on the Afghan mission in the quiet context of the Manley review panel, or perhaps soon in an election campaign, can we expect the same from the Canadian public as a whole? That is probably what Harper was counting on when he unveiled in the throne speech that Canadian troops might stay in Afghanistan beyond 2009. But will he succeed in rallying opinion? Why not? After all, the case for Canada's military presence in Afghanistan to support the country's reconstruction has strong merits. Nonetheless, obstacles abound. The first obstacle is the widely held belief that Canadian troops are in Afghanistan mainly in response to pressures from the U.S. Those who hold that opinion are overwhelmingly likely to oppose the mission, whereas those who believe that Canada's involvement stems from a multilateral commitment � who are still a majority � are much more likely to support it. The problem is that Harper's Conservatives are the only unequivocal partisan voices in support of the mission and, for those who don't intend to vote for them � a majority of Canadians � Harper's foreign policy is perceived as so closely aligned with that of the Bush administration that he has been unable to make a credible case for multilateralism. Another obstacle is the difficulty for many people in understanding the link between the military presence and the humanitarian and reconstruction aspects of the mission. Hardly anyone would disagree that helping Afghanistan recover socially and economically from decades of conflict is a goal worth pursuing. Although Canadian civilians who work over there do not always approve of the way some allies conduct military operations around them, few if any of them would welcome an immediate withdrawal of their country's troops. Nonetheless, polls show that many of those who oppose the military mission also support the reconstruction efforts. Such cognitive dissonance may be excusable on the part of individual citizens, but from a political party, it is nothing short of irresponsible. A third obstacle to a turnaround of public opinion is the imbalance in the distribution of the burden among allies in Afghanistan. Given that Canadian troops have been in the thick of the action and have sustained a higher level of casualties than most NATO countries, Canadians are entitled to believe that their country has paid its dues and it's time for others to take their turn. The greatest test of the Harper government's diplomatic skills will be its capacity to convince one of its allies to do what Paul Martin's government agreed to do on Canada's behalf in 2005: take the heat in the most dangerous regions. Meanwhile, as diplomats negotiate this rotation with allies, Jean Chr�tien's criticism of his successor for accepting the Kandahar assignment � somehow implying that it was okay to participate in a multilateral mission, as long as others paid the price for it � is simply appalling. In the end, success in passing the buck to other allies would probably be most likely to bring about a major shift in opinion on the mission, but that is far from a done deal. The last obstacle, of course, remains Quebec, where opinion is most strongly opposed to the Afghan mission, and where a turnaround would seem most difficult to achieve. Quebecers' historical reluctance to support armed interventions abroad is only part of the reason. On nearly all perceptions or attitudes that shape opinion on Afghanistan, most Quebecers just don't believe the arguments in favour of the mission. Yet, if federal elections were called soon, Quebec is where the Conservatives might make the most gains. That puts things in perspective. On the home front, Afghanistan is only a battle. What matters is to win the war. Pierre Martin is a professor of political science at the Universit� de Montr�al and a member of the Universit� de Montr�al-McGill Research Group in International Security. |
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/270396
rather misleading title...I wouldn't necessarily say the CPC is necessarily and overtly "lying"...but it does bring up a question as to how realistic and honest Harper's gov't is being with the people.
| quote: |
| Tories accused of lying about Afghanistan 10 more years for Afghan security, says Hillier Oct 25, 2007 05:53 PM Bill Graveland THE CANADIAN PRESS The Conservative government was accused today of painting a misleadingly rosy portrait of the situation in Afghanistan � but it refused to discuss the charge. The Tories have maintained that Afghanistan can be stabilized in four years but opposition parties pounced on far less cheerful assessments of the situation from two leading authorities: Canada�s top soldier and the head of NATO. Gen. Rick Hillier declared it will probably take �10 years or so� for the Afghan army to meet its security demands � and NATO�s secretary-general suggested it could take far longer than that. Opposition MPs said Prime Minister Stephen Harper is ignoring his own military experts and allies because the truth makes him politically uncomfortable. �I think General Hillier is telling the truth. And Stephen Harper is in politics,� Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said. Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said: �Mr. Hillier is the expert and he knows better. Someone lied there.� The head of NATO went even farther than Hillier, casting the Afghan struggle as a generational challenge. �Development and nation-building is a matter of at least a generation, if not generations,� Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said. �My analysis is that NATO will have to be present in Afghanistan in the military sense for the foreseeable future.� When asked about the apparent discrepancy, the government simply replied that it has hired a commission to spend the next several months examining Canada�s options. Skeptics have warned that the commission, whose recommendations are non-binding, will serve only one purpose: helping the government avoid questions on Afghanistan for a few months. Today, that warning appeared prophetic. �This government has established an independent commission to study the issue and provide advice to this government,� Tory House leader Peter Van Loan replied when pressed on the matter. �It�s headed up by the former deputy prime minister John Manley. We anticipate a report to this House which will give the House an opportunity to vote on the best course forward.� That commission was struck when it still seemed possible that the government might collapse on its throne speech and face an election with Afghanistan as a central issue. The government survived when the Liberals abstained from voting on the throne speech. On Afghanistan, the throne speech said Canadian troops should remain deployed for four more years � and then, by 2011, Afghan forces should be able to defend their own sovereignty. The Liberals did not question the government on that apparent discrepancy during today�s question period � choosing instead to spend the entire session asking about government scandals. But the NDP did. They asked whether Hillier or Harper was telling the truth , prompting Van Loan to use the commission to dodge the question. �This is a very serious matter and I think the Prime Minister needs to respond,� NDP Leader Jack Layton said afterwards. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.