Afghanistan Mission Gains Backers.

[Sassylassie]

Article:

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Afghanistan Mission Gains Backers in Canada
September 24, 2006
- Fewer Canadians reject their government’s rationale to take part in the war on terrorism, according to a poll by The Strategic Counsel released by CTV and the Globe and Mail. 49 per cent of respondents oppose the decision to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan, down six points in a month.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

In March, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper travelled to Afghanistan—his first official trip as head of government. Harper dismissed any changes to the mission.

At least 474 soldiers—including 32 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

On Sept. 22 in his speech to the United Nations (UN) general assembly, Harper declared, "We have responded. But we haven’t made Afghanistan’s progress irreversible. Not yet. If we fail the Afghan people, we will be failing ourselves. For this is the United Nations’ strongest mission and, therefore, our greatest test."

Polling Data

Overall, would you say you support or oppose the decision to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan?

Sept. 2006
Aug. 2006
Jul. 2006

Support
42%
37%
39%

Oppose
49%
55%
56%

Don’t know
8%
8%
5%



I support the Mission in Afghanistan, I think we are doing "Some" good there. I also support our Troops 100%.

 

[BitWhys]

At least 474 soldiers—including 32 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

WTF?

 

[Researcher87]

Haven't you forgotten the 3,000+ coalition in Iraq, it is suppose to be a place in the war on terror. :roll:

 

[Sassylassie]

Canada was asked to go to Afganistan, you don't like it child call your MP if you are old enough to vote. It's war our men/women are dying watch you laungage. I support our troops, and if you read the top of the article you'd know I didn't write it. It's about a poll supporting Our Role in Afganistan.

 

[Gonzo]

Most Canadians don’t support the war. This war is not for to defend our freedom, no matter what the propaganda says. It was originally to find Osama bin Laden. It's so easy for you to support our troops because you don’t have to go over there and get shot at. This war is useless. The Soviets with a far more advanced and stronger army could not win in the 10 years they fought. How can Canada win? Are we willing to let hundreds or maybe thousands of Canadians die for …… whatever it is we're fighting for?

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Afghanistan Mission Gains Backers.

...It's about a poll supporting Our Role in Afganistan.

Do me a favour and get back to me when you catch the irony in that :lol:

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Afghanistan Mission G

btw

42 < 49

 

[tracy]

The opposing side still has more people than the supporting side.

Personally, I support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. We are in NATO and an attack on one is an attack on all. Since the actual planners of 9/11 were being sheltered by the Taliban and they wouldn't turn them over, we had to invade. It would be dishonourable and stupid to leave now.

 

[catman]

Honor our commitment until 2009. After that should be up to the Canadian public.

 

[BitWhys]

Commitment is one thing. Delivery is another.

They wouldn't know what to do meeting the goals for 2009 even if they did achieve them. Not without significant changes in attitude. We'll be more likely to meet 2007 in 2008 if we find a way to prove we're serious about getting it according to plan instead of pretending its under control.

2010 will not see realistic consideration of the independence of the Islamic Republic of Aghanistan unless we stop playing terminator, otherwise we'll inevitably find ourselves supporting some major schedule slips.

 

[yballa09]

Re: RE: Afghanistan Mission Gains Backers.

Honor our commitment until 2009. After that should be up to the Canadian public.

Why should it be up to the Canadian public?? That is ridiculous. Despite wha we think of our government, I'd rather trust them with these decisions than the average person on my block. Do the Canadian's who vote truly understand what is going on over there? I think an interesting poll would be that of our armed forces over there. You know, the people who are seeing first hand what is happening, and have their lives on the line everyday? From what I am told, despite all the propaganda from the U.S. that might have started both of the wars they are fighting (and the one we are), NATO is building schools, roads, bringing clean water to regions that have never had it, and at the same time are trying to push back the taliban. I hope this is what is happening, but we can never be too sure. But we shouldnt give BS about how the US started this war to find Bin Laden, because Canada is doing much more than that right now.

 

[Andem]

Testing reply

Just doing a test reply

 

[BigBen]

... This war is useless. The Soviets with a far more advanced and stronger army could not win in the 10 years they fought. How can Canada win? Are we willing to let hundreds or maybe thousands of Canadians die for …… whatever it is we're fighting for?

It's not just Canada fighting in Afghanistan.

 

[Nuggler]

Sassie:

You sound like George W. Chimp. Anyone who doesn't "support our troops", is against apple pie and gun ownership.

Grow up!

All Canadians probably "support our troops". That is a long way from supporting a stupid, ill-concieved mission which has nothing to do with democracy or patriotism.

We can send all the troops we have to die in this semi-arid drug growing Taliban **** hole, and the only thing we are going to have to show for it is dead troops.

People seem to have lost sight of the fact that the ORIGINAL MISSION was to provide a very limited number of soldiers (snipers) to back up the US forces after 9/11 who were in hot pursuit of the Taliban and Osama. They drove out the Taliban (at the time), but never did (we're told) come close to Osama, who, if he's not dead by now, is holed up safetly in Pakistan. An we ain't about to go there are we. Not PC old chap.

THIS MISSION is all about how close we can get Steven mein Harper to the anus of the maniac who unfortunately seems to be president of the US of A at the moment (woe is them). And Harper is prepared to accept any number of Canadian Forces' deaths to accomplish this end.

It's NOTHING about defending our country
It's NOTHING about defending OUR democracy.
It's NOTHING about bringing democracy, truth and light to Afghanistan. That is just so much right wing bull****.

The US cares squat about Afghanistan. They are in I R A Q at the moment and stretched thin, and bankrupting their country. It's ALL ABOUT OIL.

And Sassie, you have been a member of this board longer than most of the people who post here, but that doesn't give you the right to diss anyone who disagrees with your right wing leanings, and infer that they are less Canadian or less patriotic than you because they are AGAINST our troops getting killed in some woebegone never to be democratic outhouse of a country. You should be ashamed for swallowing the neocon bull****, hook, line, and sinker, without giving it more THOUGHT.

Harper will come and go like all the neocons before him. He is filling a niche at the moment while the rest of the country retrenches from the stench of the Liberal pig trough being cleaned out. But he WILL GO. Like Mulroney before him, he will be proven to be a suck up to the stars and stripes and will be turfed with great animosity. Just my opinion, but one which is as valid as yours.

Ugg.

 

[Sassylassie]

Oldnub wrote:

You sound like George W. Chimp. Anyone who doesn't "support our troops", is against apple pie and gun ownership.
No what I said is that I support the troops and I took insult with another anti-american post.

Oldnug wrote: Grow up!

You grow up I was addressing the issue of "Support for our troops" this thread is just another example of childish bullying by Anti-USers.

Oldnug wrote: All Canadians probably "support our troops". That is a long way from supporting a stupid, ill-concieved mission which has nothing to do with democracy or patriotism.

ill-conceived--that's your opinion not mine, Canada is a Nato member and was asked to be in Afghanistan. Afghanistan and it's people have asked repeatedly for us to stay.

Oldnug wrote: We can send all the troops we have to die in this semi-arid drug growing Taliban **** hole, and the only thing we are going to have to show for it is dead troops.

Again another attack on the "Good" our Troops" are doing. It's called the Canadian Military not the Salavation Army.

Oldnug wrote: People seem to have lost sight of the fact that the ORIGINAL MISSION was to provide a very limited number of soldiers (snipers) to back up the US forces after 9/11 who were in hot pursuit of the Taliban and Osama. They drove out the Taliban (at the time), but never did (we're told) come close to Osama, who, if he's not dead by now, is holed up safetly in Pakistan. An we ain't about to go there are we. Not PC old chap.

Wow are you now an expert on Military Warfare? I know exactly what the "Original Mission Mandate" was it's called "An intervention force" to stabalize the country and then rebuild..
Please Oldnug give me the documents or articles that back up your sniper theory???

Oldnug wrote: THIS MISSION is all about how close we can get Steven mein Harper to the anus of the maniac who unfortunately seems to be president of the US of A at the moment (woe is them). And Harper is prepared to accept any number of Canadian Forces' deaths to accomplish this end.

Wow did you forget whom sent who to Afganistan? I know the Liberals are back stabbing and pontificating all over the media that the mission is lost, hello Oldnug they send our boys there. As for Harper I prefer to give him time to establish being PM before I'm foolish enough to put politics into the stew.

Oldnug wrote: It's NOTHING about defending our country
It's NOTHING about defending OUR democracy.
It's NOTHING about bringing democracy, truth and light to Afghanistan. That is just so much right wing bull****.

Yes lets cut and run and look like cowards, break our word that we will help Afghanistan rebuild. Not about our democracy, sorry but Canadians died in September 11 we were victims also. As for right wing bull, I'm not right wing nor an extreme lefty as you have show yourself to be.

Oldnug wrote: The US cares squat about Afghanistan. They are in I R A Q at the moment and stretched thin, and bankrupting their country. It's ALL ABOUT OIL.

Yep here we go again more anti-US horse ****, need a shovel for your hatred oldnug?

Oldnug wrote: And Sassie, you have been a member of this board longer than most of the people who post here, but that doesn't give you the right to diss anyone who disagrees with your right wing leanings, and infer that they are less Canadian or less patriotic than you because they are AGAINST our troops getting killed in some woebegone never to be democratic outhouse of a country. You should be ashamed for swallowing the neocon bull****, hook, line, and sinker, without giving it more THOUGHT.

Oldnug do you realise what a hypocrit you are, you posted an entire page insulting my ethos and our troops for being used and stupid. Ask me if I care at this point what you and your Bush hating friends think, you foul up forum after forum with your propaganda and lies. Feel free to hit the report button on me anytime. As for Neocon bull****, hello you spent the time to type a page insulting me for being a Neocon and all I am Oldnug is a women who spent 20 years watching her husband serve this country with little or no support from the Civies for the work he did. Your response isn't surprising, at least you didn't spit on me like the week spineless Peaceniks did. As for Dishing someone, look in the mirror oldnug because you don't agree with my views you go in for an attack. Me grow up, take the sookie out of your mouth the next time you insult me.

Oldnug wrote: Harper will come and go like all the neocons before him. He is filling a niche at the moment while the rest of the country retrenches from the stench of the Liberal pig trough being cleaned out. But he WILL GO. Like Mulroney before him, he will be proven to be a suck up to the stars and stripes and will be turfed with great animosity. Just my opinion, but one which is as valid as yours.

Unlike you I don't judge people on what political party they support but I do judge people on their actions and words. Whether Harper stays or goes is of no importance to me Oldnug I care about the Troops who are serving under the name of the Canadian Military. I don't need to insult the states to get my point across oldnug and that is the only thing I came away from this exchange with is you are a narrow minded anti-US bigot. I'm not.

Oldnug don't ever be so presumptuous to repremend me again, I'm not your child. Thanks for turning this thread into another Bush bashing, tabernac mon enfant.

 

[MikeyDB]

The opposing side still has more people than the supporting side.

Personally, I support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. We are in NATO and an attack on one is an attack on all. Since the actual planners of 9/11 were being sheltered by the Taliban and they wouldn't turn them over, we had to invade. It would be dishonourable and stupid to leave now.

Well then no doubt you'll be anticipating our troops moving to Saudi Arabia since of course the terrorists were Saudi and not Afghani...using your logic of course.

 

[mabudon]

Geez, What part of what O+U wrote was "propaganda"????

I don't think someone voicing their own opinions counts in the definition, really Sassy, and you DID just go ahead and prove exactly what you were being called on by saying that anyone who doesn't share your obviously -in-line-with-the-US-right-wing-agenda "point of view" is some kind of nutty, hate filled robot who just hates cos hate is what nutty robots like.

I think you are upset at being identified as a mouthpiece for certain very well packaged and promoted PROPAGANDA youself... are we (as in those who think the whole mission is a failure, no matter how much time and effort gets put behind it, sadly) also "Fascists" as well as "Propaganda mongers"?? I am interested in hearing your views...

It's also interesting to note that recent poll that said that 59% of Canadians POLLED (just crossing my t's with that note on "poled" not necessarily ALL Canadians so you can forget about your "rebuttal" before you even type it) think it's a lost cause??? So for believing that our mission there is "futile" I and folks like me are "cowards" and "cut and runners" or whatever, but being firmly behind an abject failure is "PC"???

That is so stupid it hurts to try and think about (the notion itself, that is, no personal attack)

I am NOT a bush-hating robot, Sassy, I am a CANADIAN CITIZEN and I think that the huge waste of money and life over there for the ridiculous concept of making the hole-in-the-ground populated by feuding, Muslim tribes into a shining democracy/hypocracy is IDIOTIC. NO ONE told me to come to this conclusion either so don't go accusing me of "parroting" I am a genius-level person and don't need to get soundbites to shore up my position since it is MINE alone.

Maybe you should mellow out and re-think things before you call everyone opposed to you "Idiots" or "appeasers" or whatever your epithet talking point of the day is, harsh as the language might be O+U just might have been trying to help you out here

 

[tracy]

Well then no doubt you'll be anticipating our troops moving to Saudi Arabia since of course the terrorists were Saudi and not Afghani...using your logic of course.

That isn't my logic because it ignores the fact that the government of SA was not involved in 9/11. The Taliban who at the time were the closest thing to an Afghan gov't were sheltering OBL. If SA had sheltered the planners of 9/11, then we should have attacked, using my logic of course.

 

[bluewaters101]

I among most of the population of canada certainly dont support the war in afghanistan because thier is no purpose to it. When is the government gonna come to its senses and get our troops outta there? The answer is probably never.

 

[Colpy]

Well then no doubt you'll be anticipating our troops moving to Saudi Arabia since of course the terrorists were Saudi and not Afghani...using your logic of course.

Don't tempt me.

DEATH TO TYRANTS!



Actually, it doesn't matter what nationality they were......they trained and their leadership was based in Afghanistan.