Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[waters]

What I had in mind is really how we mostly hear about wounded or dead soldiers from the CF and not enough on the positive things we are doing in Afghanistan for its population.

 

[monika]

What I had in mind is really how we mostly hear about wounded or dead soldiers from the CF and not enough on the positive things we are doing in Afghanistan for its population.

I have seen and heard positive reports on all stations. I listen to international radio and I have also heard good things along with the negative.

As a former journalism student, I often feel the media are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they report about troops giving kids candy they get accused of "perpetuating the peacekeeper myth."  If they report on deaths and dissent they get accused of focusing on the negative.

This is a difficult time for all of us.

 

[the 48th regulator]

What I had in mind is really how we mostly hear about wounded or dead soldiers from the CF and not enough on the positive things we are doing in Afghanistan for its population.

I had the exact in mind myself, I have seen quite alot of amazing articles regarding the positive work we are doing.  Have you not seen them? Rosie Dimanno has done some very positive articles while over there.

If you have a reason to criticize the Media, do it properly.  You throw out some pretty broad and negative comments towards them, and you wonder why we get no "good" press.

Maybe you should spend a looney and pick up a paper, rather than assume..

dileas

tess

dunno, I have this itching feeling I know you from somewhere.....

 

[waters]

dunno, I have this itching feeling I know you from somewhere.....

...small world

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

The Canadian public has been brainwashed since Lester Pearson that our soldiers are Peacekeepers.  The myth that for the last 30+ years our soldiers have been creating world peace by wearing blue berets and smiling at opposing armies to make them stop fighting.  Our peacekeepers have fought before, and many of them have died or been seriously wounded, but because this was under the UN it was ignored.  Now the Canadian public is having to deal with the twin thoughts; first-our soldiers kill people (good at it, too) and secondly people are trying (hard) to kill our soldiers.
      Peace is the result of the creation and maintenance of order.  Provincial reconstruction teams are helping the Afghan people create the structures to provide that order.  The Taliban and the drug lords have no place in this order, and are willing to kill to stop it.  Our troops are their to pound them flat if they try. There will be peace, and when we are done making it, the Afghans will be able to keep it themselves.

I hear you. I make a pest out of myself over in another forum...Politics Canada where a lot of lefties hang out...gotta provide some balance. They are so brainwashed and uninformed it is a joke....well it's sad actually. Most of them just don't want to know. A lot of them want to thump the tub of us all being minions of George Bush....yada yada.
I think the media is finally getting the picture...they don't seem to be harping about "peacekeeping" as much now....mainly because the embedded reporters are getting a taste of what's really going on.
It's going to be a long tough slog though getting Canadians re-educated to the realities of the new world situation. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=28807&catname=Queens%20Park&classif=Queens%20Park
 
Voters Back Peacemaker Role For Military

James Wallace for Osprey News Network
Queens Park - Monday, April 24, 2006

Ontario voters strongly support Canada's continued military involvement in Afghanistan, shows a poll by SES Osprey Research.

The poll suggests public support not only for stationing Canadian troops abroad as international peacekeepers but, as is the case in Afghanistan, in the more dangerous role of peace makers.
Almost three-quarters of voters polled in this province - 73 per cent - strongly or somewhat supported a peacekeeping role for Canadian troops, to restore order and help countries rebuild.

Meanwhile, 67 per cent felt the same about sending troops on missions to enforce peace and supervise truces among hostile or warring communities.
"Canadians know our troops are in Afghanistan and it's pretty clear from the poll that when our troops are at risk people will rally to support them," said Nik Nanos, president of SES Research.
"No one was surprised there was support for peacekeeping," Nanos said. "But one of the things that surprising was the support for peace making.
"It may be indicative of a shift in attitude about our military and our international role," he said.

The poll was conducted before four Canadian soldiers died on the weekend on the way back to their base in Kandahar following a goodwill visit to the village of Gumbad.
It was one of the worst one-day combat losses for the Canadian military since the Korean War.
Taliban militants claimed responsibility for the attack and the Taliban has recently issued warnings that it will accelerate attacks against Canadians to pressure this country's voters and government to withdraw its troops from that country.

Cpl. Matthew Dinning, of Richmond Hill, Ont., Bombardier Myles Mansell, of Victoria, Lieut. William Turner, of Toronto and Cpl. Randy Payne from CFB Wainright, Alta, died after a home-made bomb tore through their lightly armoured G-Wagon.
"These men were working to bring security, democracy, self-sufficiency and prosperity to the Afghan people and to protect Canadians' national and collective security," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement.

"We will not forget their selfless contribution to Canada," Harper said.
Fifteen Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since the Canadian military was deployed there in early 2002 following the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban regime.

The death toll has included four Canadian soldiers were killed by friendly fire in 2002 from an American fighter jet during a training exercise and three others were killed in 2003 when their Iltis jeep struck a roadside bomb near Kabul.
Most of Canada's 2,300 troops in Afghanistan are based in Kandahar, where they have taken over security from American forces.

The SES Research/Osprey Media poll suggests Ontarians are more prepared now than they may have been in recent decades to accept such tragedies as this past weekend's deaths as part of the cost of Canada's international military obligations.
"There's a new world post 911 and part of that new world involves countries around the world stepping forward and taking more risks to make peace," Nanos said.
Just 27 per cent of voters strongly or somewhat disagreed with having Canada play a role as an international peace maker while 23 per cent strongly or somewhat opposed even a peacekeeper role for this nation.

The telephone survey of 500 Ontario voters was conducted between April 11 and April 13. It is considered accurate within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
A detailed breakdown of the poll can be obtained at www.sesresearch.com

James Wallace is the Queen's Park bureau chief for the Osprey News Network.
Contact the writer at: jwallace@ospreymedialp.com or at www.ospreyblogs.com.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

 The poll suggests public support not only for stationing Canadian troops abroad as international peacekeepers but, as is the case in Afghanistan, in the more dangerous role of peace makers.
Almost three-quarters of voters polled in this province - 73 per cent - strongly or somewhat supported a peacekeeping role for Canadian troops, to restore order and help countries rebuild.

Meanwhile, 67 per cent felt the same about sending troops on missions to enforce peace and supervise truces among hostile or warring communities.

And as everyone knows, once you have a peace maker, it's not long before you ramp it up to a peace maintainer, and god only knows if it gets bad enough they might end up being PEACE ENFORCERS. 
For the love of fudge, can't we get the media to say "soldiers"?  ???

 

[Journeyman]

I think the media is finally getting the picture...they don't seem to be harping about "peacekeeping" as much now....mainly because the embedded reporters are getting a taste of what's really going on.

Maybe we should start embedding civilians. In the media sense, they could actually see soldiers making a positive difference. In the other meaning of the term, it might at least broaden the gene pool.

Sorry, couldn't help it  ;D

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Maybe we should start embedding civilians. In the media sense, they could actually see soldiers making a positive difference. In the other meaning of the term, it might at least broaden the gene pool.

Sorry, couldn't help it  ;D

    The practice of embedding civilians.... so far has lead to three daughters.  So proceed with caution (he says ducking socks thrown by domestic 9'er) ;D

 

[monika]

Maybe we should start embedding civilians. In the media sense, they could actually see soldiers making a positive difference.

I realise this was a classic example of humour a la JM, but as a civvy(36 years strong!) I like it. When I was a kid there was a programme called "Katimavik" which allowed youth to spend a summer working in remote regions of Canada. Kids I knew who took part loved it.

I think it would be great to implement something similar in conjunction with the CF. I can understand that for OPSEC you can't have us civis running amok in theatre, but even having observers at training might be interesting.

It would really open up a lot of ears, eyes, minds, and hearts.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Globe and Mail seems to be taking a dim view of the mission in its reporting.  This front page headline May 6, "SUPPORT PLUMMETS FOR AFGHAN MISSION: Canadian opposition to troop deployment growing fastest in Quebec, poll finds"  (a poll the Globe and CTV commissioned):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060506.POLL06/TPStory/Front

And the story has this delightful quote from the pollster Allan Gregg: ""Active military combat is just not consistent with Canadians' self-image of what we should be doing abroad..."

There is no evidence in the story that this opion flows from the poll itself.  It appears only to be Mr Gregg's personal view--but the story omits to say that.

Mr Gregg goes on: "'For good or ill, we continue to see ourselves as kind of the Baden-Powell of the world community, doing good deeds, not getting killed or killing others.'

The boy scouts of the world indeed.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[camochick]

Why dont they do a poll and see who actually has a clue about the forces and the mission in Afghanistan?

 

[Korus]

That would be interesting... Throw in questions such as "How much have you researched, appart from the news, into the current situation in Afghanistan" and questions to actually TEST people's knowledge. I don't think the results would be too surprising, though..

 

[TMM]

Why dont they do a poll and see who actually has a clue about the forces and the mission in Afghanistan?

Because people don't want to shell out to find out they're clueless?

I can see it now:

Q: What is the most important thing in Helmand?
A: I don't care; I use Miracle Whip.

 

[George Wallace]

Mr Gregg goes on: "'For good or ill, we continue to see ourselves as kind of the Baden-Powell of the world community, doing good deeds, not getting killed or killing others.'

The boy scouts of the world indeed.

Mark
Ottawa

I wonder if Mr. Gregg knows the history of the Scouting Movement?  Has he looked into Lord Baden-Powell's activities in South Africa at all?

 

[paracowboy]

I have no faith in the media’s “polls”.

Who were asked?
Where do they live?
What demographics were approached?
What questions were asked?
How were the questions phrased?
Were they leading questions?
Was Occam’s Razor employed?
Is it an on-line poll where-in people can make several replies?

And on, and on…

(Bear with me, it rambles a bit, but gets pertinent.) As for the public’s perceptions of what we’re doing in A-stan, people should spend more time focusing on who the real asshats are and how we can keep them from hurting all the non-asshats. Reporters, now. They seem to generally fall into the asshat category. I’ve found that most reporters haven’t done their research or are merely looking to promote their own agenda using the cloak of a reporter to do so. The reporters put everything into a broad stroke not giving us enough credit for knowing an asshat from an non-asshat. We’re smarter than they give us credit for. It’s about time we asserted that intelligence. We can do so by writing into the asshats that call themselves journalists and let THEM know that WE know they’re asshats.

We should also stop playing the politically correct card, and speak the plain, unvarnished truth. And demand that our media and especially our politicians learn to do likewise. Or we should start demanding more Statesmen, and less Politicians. The term, no the Myth of the Peacekeeper is the ultimate politically correct distortion. It attempts to portray soldiers as something fuzzy and cuddly.  I am not  fuzzy and cuddly. I am hairy and irritable.We should spend more time working on the asshat factor and less on the politically correct. Being politically correct is like whiskey. If you don’t have enough it’s bad. If you have too much it’s bad. A medium ground must be found for it to be of any use.

Every country on this planet has had asshats at one point in their history. I guess the best thing is to figure out who are the biggest asshats, today. Right now, the biggest asshats I can think of are the Taliban. They are truly excelling at asshatism.

So, in conclusion I have two points:
1. the media are never to be trusted, believed, or fed.
2. we are doing Good work in A-stan, and killing asshats is part of that.

 

[aesop081]

I have no faith in the media’s “polls”.

Who were asked?
Where do they live?
What demographics were approached?
What questions were asked?
How were the questions phrased?
Were they leading questions?
Was Occam’s Razor employed?
Is it an on-line poll where-in people can make several replies?

And on, and on…

(Bear with me, it rambles a bit, but gets pertinent.) As for the public’s perceptions of what we’re doing in A-stan, people should spend more time focusing on who the real asshats are and how we can keep them from hurting all the non-asshats. Reporters, now. They seem to generally fall into the asshat category. I’ve found that most reporters haven’t done their research or are merely looking to promote their own agenda using the cloak of a reporter to do so. The reporters put everything into a broad stroke not giving us enough credit for knowing an asshat from an non-asshat. We’re smarter than they give us credit for. It’s about time we asserted that intelligence. We can do so by writing into the asshats that call themselves journalists and let THEM know that WE know they’re asshats.

We should also stop playing the politically correct card, and speak the plain, unvarnished truth. And demand that our media and especially our politicians learn to do likewise. Or we should start demanding more Statesmen, and less Politicians. The term, no the Myth of the Peacekeeper is the ultimate politically correct distortion. It attempts to portray soldiers as something fuzzy and cuddly.  I am not  fuzzy and cuddly. I am hairy and irritable.We should spend more time working on the asshat factor and less on the politically correct. Being politically correct is like whiskey. If you don’t have enough it’s bad. If you have too much it’s bad. A medium ground must be found for it to be of any use.

Every country on this planet has had asshats at one point in their history. I guess the best thing is to figure out who are the biggest asshats, today. Right now, the biggest asshats I can think of are the Taliban. They are truly excelling at asshatism.

So, in conclusion I have two points:
1. the media are never to be trusted, believed, or fed.
2. we are doing Good work in A-stan, and killing asshats is part of that.

:rofl:

You and me both........

 

[Britney Spears]

Who were asked?
Where do they live?
What demographics were approached?
What questions were asked?
How were the questions phrased?
Were they leading questions?
Was Occam’s Razor employed?
Is it an on-line poll where-in people can make several replies?

It's not hard to find, if you actually looked.

Maybe you should heed your own advice before casting any stones about "doing one's research", eh? 

 

[paracowboy]

It's not hard to find, if you actually looked.

Maybe you should heed your own advice before casting any stones about "doing one's research", eh? 

nope. I wasn't speaking about that particular poll, my fine feathered friend, but rather all media polls in general.

 

[Britney Spears]

Well it seems to be a reoccuring theme around here. Any poll that says something we don't like is automatically poo-pooed as being inaccurate or biased without any supporting evidence. Statistics isn't a social science, if the poll's methodology has problems then it's not hard to find them. If you're not challenging the accuracy or methodology of the poll then why do you distrust the results?