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 Chrétien'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 Université de Montréal and a member of the Université de Montréal-McGill Research Group in International Security.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

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.

“We got glib responses . . . This is an enormous discrepancy and it does come down to who’s telling the truth about this war.”

It's the Star... Pretty much a Liberal paper.

But yes, politicians they all want to put their own spin on the events.

It just seems that the Conservatives are trying to make it more... salivable for the general public to accept the Afghanistan mission.
Except this is a rookie mistake

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

Ugh...what difference does it make where the article appeared?

Harper's gov't says 2011 and the head of our military is saying at least 10 years.

There really isn't room for "spin" in that disagreement, now is there?

I'm kind of tired of posting stuff and people replying with "oh, that was in the Toronto Star...liberal rag". You'll note it comes of the Canadian Press wire anyway...but I guess that's a liberal rag too.

btw...The Star article has been updated to include this:

quote:

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier yesterday dismissed questions in the House of Commons about the discrepancy between Harper's and Hillier's assessments. However, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister, Sandra Buckler, stuck to the early end date, saying it was "achievable" and in line with the Afghanistan Compact, the agreement drawn up between the international community and the Afghan government. In her emailed statement, Buckler did not acknowledge Hillier's comments. "We have said so many times before, and will continue to emphasize (that) it will be Parliament that will ultimately decide how long our Canadian Forces will remain in Afghanistan," she wrote.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/270734

typical response of the CPC though, isn't it. When the CPC doesn't want to answer questions, they just ignore them, ignore the media, etc. Nice "Accountability and transparency".

If the public expects to remain somewhat informed, shouldn't we be concerned about the discrepency? Is something similar not happening with the U.S. and Iraq (albeit on a MUCH worse scale)?

i.e. The U.S. gov't keeps feeding overly positive messages to the public, while the situation in Iraq is quite different...as their own military people will say.

Well, we have Hillier saying 10 years, at least, for Afghanistan's army to be capable of handling things...and the PM's office saying 2011. Someone is thus quite "off" in their estimate.

Last edited by MarkT on Oct-26-2007 at 14:36

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Ugh...what difference does it make where the article appeared? Harper's gov't says 2011 and the head of our military is saying at least 10 years. There really isn't room for "spin" in that disagreement, now is there? I'm kind of tired of posting stuff and people replying with "oh, that was in the Toronto Star...liberal rag". You'll note it comes of the Canadian Press wire anyway...but I guess that's a liberal rag too.

It does piss me off when newspapers are suppose to be unbiased, but prints misleading and some times outright false article.

quote:

btw...The Star article has been updated to include this: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/270734 typical response of the CPC though, isn't it. When the CPC doesn't want to answer questions, they just ignore them, ignore the media, etc. Nice "Accountability and transparency". If the public expects to remain somewhat informed, shouldn't we be concerned about the discrepency? Is something similar not happening with the U.S. and Iraq (albeit on a MUCH worse scale)? i.e. The U.S. gov't keeps feeding overly positive messages to the public, while the situation in Iraq is quite different...as their own military people will say. Well, we have Hillier saying 10 years, at least, for Afghanistan's army to be capable of handling things...and the PM's office saying 2011. Someone is thus quite "off" in their estimate.

You're quite right. I'm very interested to see if Harper govt gives any response at all.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...fghanistan/home

Hillier claims that he meant ANA ready to takeover Afghanistan defence in 10 yrs while saying 2011 is for Kandahar province only. So apparently, there is no contradiction.

I love politicians talk. So amusing

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

lol

I guess when Hillier realized that he was essentially calling out his political boss, it became a good idea to bridge the distance between their figures, haha.