The poll of 1,000 Canadians was taken July 13-16, days after Cpl. Boneca's death July 9 in Afghanistan, and just as the conflagration in Lebanon was set off. The poll is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.

Do you support sending troops to Afghanistan?

March, 2006: Yes 55%; No 41%; Don't know 4%

July, 2006: Yes 39%; No 56%; Don't know 5%

We should get out while we still can. We are part of the problem, which is becoming more obvious every day. And I think most people can see that as they become more informed. The problems in Afghanistan will have to be solved by local effort and not by the White house and their proxies.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Bubbles ]

quote:

---

The poll of 1,000 Canadians was taken July 13-16, days after Cpl. Boneca's death July 9 in Afghanistan, and just as the conflagration in Lebanon was set off. The poll is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.

---

They are only polling 1000 Canadians on the issue without comment or regards to where those Canadians are from (exception Quebec). When you're target group is that small, it's bound to flucuate alot... Especially depending on the location of those respondants. Very hard to draw conclusions based on this poll... I also get the feeling that a large part of it is the recent conflict in Lebanon and the general populations ignorance regarding the setup (The 'islamic' grouping as if AQ in afghanistan is equiv to Hizbollah in Lebanon). There also might be an anti-harper ressonance going after his Pro-Israeli stance too.

quote:

---

July, 2006: Yes 39%; No 56%; Don't know 5%

---

I find that I don't know number sitting at 5% says alot... I can garentee you the number of people that have no clue whats going on in Afghanistan is much higher than 5% (apparently a national poll on the Lebanon conflict said 8% of canadians (13% in maritimes) are unaware the conflict is even happening), therefore it must go without saying that several yes and no respondents are going with the flow (war is baaaad m-kay? or die terrorists die!) and have no real clue of why they responded yes or no. I guess the downside to democracy is my informed vote is effectively cancelled out by someone who likes to randomly vote using a magic 8-ball.

quote:

---

But for those few who actually pay close attention to this war, they cannot have missed the continual stream of "bad" news from the front

---

Important to note that 100 small successes are never reported on while one goof up makes frontline headlines... International forces do a successful purge of Taliban militants in a town (completed with the intel coming from local Afghan sources... Meaning there is Afghan citizen support there, though unsure how much) was completely sidelined by a story of Tim Hortons running out of doughnuts for the Afghan troops (sadly, I'm not kidding). So the media does cause a bit of this bias... Mind you war weariness is an accepted condition of democracy ^^

[ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Important to note that 100 small successes are never reported

---

I call these "faith-based successes" because they exist only in the minds of those who Truly Believe.

War correspondents have great difficulty penetrating the reality of war; consequently the news that they report is generally the news that the military is comfortable with.

quote:

---

I think the main reason why support has been dwindling is because a lot of people are starting to understand that we're not in Afghanistan doing a peacekeeping mission like we normally do.

---

quote:

---

I call these "faith-based successes" because they exist only in the minds of those who Truly Believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
My concern with the poll is...They are only polling 1000 Canadians on the issue without comment or regards to where those Canadians are from (exception Quebec). When you're target group is that small, it's bound to flucuate alot... Especially depending on the location of those respondants. Very hard to draw conclusions based on this poll...

---

quote:

---

Important to note that 100 small successes are never reported on while one goof up makes frontline headlines...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

The fact that we don't hear about the "successes" is a pretty reliable indicator that there aren't any to write home about.

---

The reason you don't hear about the "successes" is because you don't ask the right people. Do a google for 'Canadian Army forum or chat' there are a couple forums out there chalk full of 'grunts' and field officers whou would be willing to tell you both the good and the bad stories from overthere. And then you can make your decision bassed on true first hand knowledge instead of the garbage pumped out by the Canadian media. And believe it or not our soldiers actually interact with the Afghanies on a daily basis and not always with guns

I mean really, The media is more full of shit than our higher ups. Even military guys and gals hate the media. There always looking to create a story. Remember Cpl Boneca? Seeing dead bodies come home was getting repetitive and boring from there perspective, so they pounced on the story that he was disillusioned and practically tore Boneca's family apart.

I couldn't tell you what it's like or how successful the mission has been because I haven't been over there. But atleast I can say that what I know on afghanistan has been passed on by first hand knowledge.

quote:

---

Are you disputing the claim that this poll is considered statistically accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 95% of the time?

---

Statistcally, that'd be correct... but you'd get different results if you polled 999 people from windsor and 1 peson in BC than if you polled 999 from BC instead... I think if you did this poll again on a different set of 1000 peeps from different areas, you'll see diff results. Not disputing, just pointing out that the results of this will fluctuate alot day to day.

quote:

---

The fact that we don't hear about the "successes" is a pretty reliable indicator that there aren't any to write home about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
Statistcally, that'd be correct... but you'd get different results if you polled 999 people from windsor and 1 peson in BC than if you polled 999 from BC instead... I think if you did this poll again on a different set of 1000 peeps from different areas, you'll see diff results. Not disputing, just pointing out that the results of this will fluctuate alot day to day.

---

The sample of 1000 people is supposed to represent and reflect the views of Canadians across the country. That’s what is meant by statistical accuracy. It’s not just accurate for the 1000 people polled, but for the population they are supposed to represent.

It’s pointless to say there are regional differences so therefore the poll is wrong; the polling methods used are supposed to take those differences into account to within 3.1% 19 times out of 20.

quote:

---

What would you define as a success worthy of writing home about?

---

I put “successes” in quotes, because what is a success depends on what you are trying to achieve, and the latter is by no means clear or beyond dispute. What you or I or ebunny or Steve Harper would consider a “success” in Afghanistan is probably not the same.

I wrote an email to my Conservative MP stating this along with the poll.

His reply:

Thank you for your e-mail.
I understand the Minister has already seen the article.

As I have mentioned before, we are not in Afghanistan in a combat role. We are there to bring peace and democracy.

Afghanistan has hundreds of years of violent history and we are there in an effort to stop that.

Our troops will respond when attacked however.
-----

WOW! It is amazing (well maybe not) that my MP believes that we are not in a combat role in Afghanistan, even though the mission of our armed forces is "counter-insurgency " as part of the US Operation Enduring Freedom.

So, Noise, when will the women and children be free in Kandahar ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pimji:
As I have mentioned before, we are not in Afghanistan in a combat role. We are there to bring peace and democracy.

---

Oh course we are in a combat role, any soldier will tell you that. Just think of Operation Mountain Thrust that took place this month. Bringing peace and democracy is the objective and yup, without lying to you, Canadian soldiers are partaking in military activities to route out oponents (Taliban mainly but there are other actors) that oppose the Karzai gov't.

Not trying to pursuade your opinion on Afghanistan just trying to lessen the confussion.

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: ebunny ]

quote:

---

"Do you know the per capita income in the last four years has more than doubled? Did you know the GNP [Gross National Product] has more than doubled? I mean, those are hard facts that cannot be ignored."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
How's this for "smiley-face" news from the MSM?

---

I wonder what he means by the "last four years"? What is the baseline year he's using? Statistics are not complete for 2006, so he must be referring to 2005 figures. That would make his baseline 2001, the year the country was pounded into rubble and the Taliban government deposed. The country was an economic disaster in 2001. For example, opium production (their major cash crop) was only 185 tonnes in 2001, down from 3,300 tonnes the year before. It rebounded quickly, however, in 2002, to the tune of 3,400 tonnes, and by 2005 opium production was up to 4,100 tonnes. [source (.pdf)]

Since 2001, some $8 billion (US) in international assistance has been poured into the country.

So, it's no real surprise that per capita income and the GDP doubled between 2001 and 2005.

The CIA is not nearly as enthusiastic as the Ambassador, however:

quote:

---

Despite the progress of the past few years, Afghanistan remains extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, farming, and trade with neighboring countries. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan's living standards from its current status, among the lowest in the world. Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs, but the Afghan government and international donors remain committed to improving access to these basic necessities by prioritizing infrastructure development, education, housing development, jobs programs, and economic reform over the next year. Growing political stability and continued international commitment to Afghan reconstruction create an optimistic outlook for continuing improvements in the Afghan economy in 2006. Expanding poppy cultivation and a growing opium trade may account for one-third of GDP and looms as one of Kabul's most serious policy challenges. Other long-term challenges include: boosting the supply of skilled labor, reducing vulnerability to severe natural disasters, expanding health services, and rebuilding a war torn infrastructure.

---

quote:

---

It’s pointless to say there are regional differences so therefore the poll is wrong; the polling methods used are supposed to take those differences into account to within 3.1% 19 times out of 20.

---

Heh, not disputing the poll... Just predicting we'll see it jump back and forth based on region polled and recent world events. Hizbollah vs Israel seems to have sparked more anti-war sentiments as the flavor of the week. Next week our population could have it's different issue of the week and have a different view.

quote:

---

I put “successes” in quotes, because what is a success depends on what you are trying to achieve, and the latter is by no means clear or beyond dispute. What you or I or ebunny or Steve Harper would consider a “success” in Afghanistan is probably not the same.

Maybe you could tell us what you mean by “100 small successes” since you were the one who used the word first.

---

Very correct... Would you consider a rocket attack on a Canadian encampment where quick reactions meant no casulaties... Is that a success as opposed to one that sees fatalities a failure? If the Canadians do seveal operations, and one of them see a soldier come home in a body bag, do you even hear of the previous 'successful' operations? Is it possible for an escort mission to be a success? We only hear of it when there was a 'failure' instead.

quote:

---

So, Noise, when will the women and children be free in Kandahar ?.

---

My answer pends on how religious you are... Is death freedom?

added:

quote:

---

I wonder what he means by the "last four years"? What is the baseline year he's using?

---

Hehe, I like that Thanks for questioning the spector, tis worth looking into.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Do you know the per capita income in the last four years has more than doubled? Did you know the GNP [Gross National Product] has more than doubled? I mean, those are hard facts that cannot be ignored."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Heh, not disputing the poll... Just predicting we'll see it jump back and forth based on region polled and recent world events. Hizbollah vs Israel seems to have sparked more anti-war sentiments as the flavor of the week. Next week our population could have it's different issue of the week and have a different view.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

---

So when will the pro-war side have their day of demonstrations across Canada ?. March 18 was a day of protest against the illegal war on poor Iraqi's for the advertised sake of getting to one man(and unofficially, a shitload of oil).

Our lapdogs in Ottawa will have to do a better job of propagandizing the war on poor people than paleoconservatives are doing currently for the unpopular military occupation of Iraq.

And Karzai's kleptocrats have lowered Afghani unemployment from a war-time high of 80 percent to about 40 percent. It must be a new record for the democratic capitalist third world. They'll have infant mortality rates as low as Kazakhstan's and Nunavut's before long. Clear the track!

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

ebunny:
The reason you don't hear about the "successes" is because you don't ask the right people.

---

The media does report so called successes, but so what? Tactical successes in this kind of war are no accurate indicator that the war is being won. In fact tactical successes may do more harm than good in that they create a false sense of accomplishment and encourage further meaningless successful actions along with further loss of life.

All that the Afghans have to do to defeat the foreign occupation is to keep fighting whether they win any battles or not. The numbers are on their side in a war of attrition.

We talked about these successes in the other thread last week. Is there a way for the media to report strategic successes in this situation without the report seeing like government propaganda?

Does the common Canadian understand the situation in Afghanistan? Would they understand the difference from a tactical defeat from a strategic victory? How would you educate the public about a country with a history such as Afghanistan?

In a broader sense, many Canadians may not be happy with the narrow strategic victory if it leaves in place a government still committed to Islamic law, repression of civil rights and subjugation of women.

Rather than trying to educate the Canadian public on the official policy, a better way forward would be for Canadian soldiers to learn more about fourth generation warfare and the history of how these things turn out, then take a good, serious look into the future and see if they forsee anything in the end but a bunch of medals and dead or mangled buddies.

I KNOW Canada is involved in comabt role. The quote you quoted is from an email from my Conservative MP.

You need to explain that to the him since he doesn't seem to know what the Canadian military is doing there and he is in the ruling party.

quote:

---

As I have mentioned before, we are not in Afghanistan in a combat role. We are there to bring peace and democracy.

---

Yet the country is still divide on most political, economical and culture issues, we just can not force a government or will on the country (yes I know we have done this). These are problems that will take decades to correct, yet most people want the North American quick fix deal.

I believe you are partial correct about your statement on official policy, I believe the public should be educated on 4GW (and other military theories, concepts), education is need for everyone involved.

Being a soldier is difficult as you know, and sometimes how you view an issue at your level is not see by people at another level of command or by the public back home. I have gone from one extreme to the other while on mission, sometimes I am there for the money, other times I am there for humanity and sometimes I am there for the guys that I work with.

Can you provide a link to 4GW which you would recommend , I just want to make sure we are both talking about the same version of the 4GW.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

What form of government is best for Afghanistan is for the Afghans to sort out on their own. One can make an argument for carefully stepping in to prevent genocide or gross violations of human rights, but that doesn't apply here. We have moved the focus for Afghans from human rights and such to expelling foreigners.

The changes that we in progressive societies would like to see have to come from within a society and be demanded by members of that society. There are many ways that we can facilitate that process without putting troops on the ground.

William S. Lind is a conservative/libertarian who has written extensively on the 4GW issue. He is worth reading:

Link

You might also want to check out The Sling and the Stone by Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes. He understands the mechanics of 4GW but isn't too clear on the root causes.

The works of Gwynne Dyer should be required reading for all officers and non-coms

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
PS:

The works of Gwynne Dyer should be required reading for all officers and non-coms

Link

---

Polling 1000 sleepy, average-IQ=100 Canadians about Afghanistan just measures the effectiveness of public relations campaigns/propaganda plus a slight breeze of today's news.

What the dead said:
(a) 4 dead from speed addicted yankee air farce;
(b) 9 dead from IDF crazies;
(c) 7 dead from Afghan students/taliban crazies;
(d) Capt Terry Riordan

But but but.. Uranium is a major export and Canada
has a third of the world's supply and the yank military-industrial-complex is majorly addicted.
If we don't supply them they'll get it from Niger?

Uranium oxide gas has been known to be a weapon of mass destruction since 1943. Being known genocidal it's use is of course banned. And of course compliant Canada switched to tungsten. And of course yanks say our exported uranium won't be militarized.. yet a week after the Shock and Awe massive bombing the radiation level in the atmosphere had increased mesurably as far away
as England. Woo eh! Talk about your 'dust in the wind'.

Or an average-citizen poll can easily be rigged.
For example: "Before the (toxic) invasion the Taliban had almost completely eradicated the
opium trade; after the multinational invasion more heroin was produced than ever before. Was Canada correct to get involved in the invasion?"

quote:

---

How about reading the collected works of Leuren Moret, Doug Rokke or Asaf Durakovic? Or even one article by each?

---

Links??

Also from CBC

quote:

---

Canada is carrying water for the United States

CBC News Viewpoint | July 26, 2006

Many years ago, I flew over Afghanistan but never touched down there. The day of my flight was clear and sunny and I remember the magnificence of that rugged land with its ancient mountains and striking beauty. From the air that's what you see.

The country's history tells a much different story. It's one of ugliness and cruelty, of vicious tribal warfare, drug trafficking, widespread corruption and historically unsuccessful foreign occupations. Its tribes and warlords live in a world of ongoing instability and social chaos. It's an important history to us now, because many young Canadians are there risking their lives in an effort to bring order to a disordered land.

Like many of my fellow citizens, I have been following our country's involvement with a combination of sadness and horror. Twenty Canadians have been killed, and the list of our wounded is growing.

Each death strikes at the heart of every caring Canadian, and that includes, I'm certain, the officials who decided to send these young people so easily into the heart of danger. More will die in this conflict, that's a tragic certainty.

Many questions have been asked about what we euphemistically call "the mission." Most Canadians are unclear as to what that means, although we have the vague idea that we are fighting terrorism. But what we are truly fighting is a war that is an Afghan responsibility....

Link to full article

---

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12903.htm

From Dr. Moret at:

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Moret-Nuclear-Carlyle16sep04.htm
(...)
The use of weapons in war are most effective when the weapons do not kill, but create long-term health and environmental consequences such as lingering illnesses which slowly destroy the health of the environment and productivity of a nation and the economy. The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is a good example of an environmental disaster with lingering and long-term health effects on a population, as well as causing trans-boundary contamination. DU is a permanent terrain contaminant with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, forms immense volumes of nano-sized particles (smaller than bacteria or viruses) which are lofted permanently as components of atmospheric dust traveling around the world until they are rained or snowed out of the air. There is no possible protective clothing, air filters, or treatment for internal exposure to this form of a poison radioactive gas. It was proposed as a military poison gas weapon in 1943 under the Manhattan Project. Even worse, uranium targets the DNA, and the Master Code (histone) which controls the expression of the DNA, and slowly destroys the genetic future of exposed populations. The US CODE, TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 40 > Sec. 2302, defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as:

The term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity.

The US has staged four nuclear wars since 1991 using illegal DU dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets as radiological weapons and released an amount of radiation into the atmosphere which is at least ten times more radiation than the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, released during atmospheric testing. In June 2003, the WHO predicted in a press release that cancer will increase 50% globally by the year 2020, which can only be from an environmental cause. Already medical and scientific journals are reporting mysterious increases of infant mortality in 20 regions of Europe (Lancet Jan. 2004), the UK (Guardian Aug. 2004), and the US (New Scientist Feb.2004). Infant mortality should be decreasing now as a continuing trend for more than a century because of improved education and prenatal care, instead it is increasing in the US for the first time in 45 years with no identified cause. For radiation specialists, infant mortality is the most sensitive indicator of radioactive pollution, a response researchers have identified as a result of exposure to low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plant accidents, releases, and startups. The global pollution from thousands of tons of DU in nano-size particles traveling around the earth and being deposited in the global environment will have a devastating long-term effect. Not only will it cause illnesses and genetic mutations in the future generations of those internally exposed, but it will have a depopulating effect long proposed by the US military. DU is the perfect weapon delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution - the real killer – directly into living cells where they cause the cells to go haywire and dysfunctional:

"Should humans be so stupid as to continue both technological escalation and wars between nation-states, radiological warfare might well be a far more safe and humane way to conduct extermination of large numbers of people, or the emptying out of troublesome political centres, than any of the various biological alternatives."
(...)

That is a long article summarizing the history of uranium research. For a briefer update:

http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Estgvisie/VISIE/A-death-sentence-here-and-abroad.html

Dr. Rokke:

http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_care_denied.html

Dr. Durakovic's Uranium Medical Research Centre site:

http://www.umrc.net/

Note: Scrolling down in the left column gives a page on the Terry Riordon Memorial Fund. Contributions are tax deductible.

For lots of links to recent newspaper coverage etc.:

http://www.rense.com/general70/du.htm

at the bottom of the column
particularly instructive is:

http://www.rense.com/general69/soar.htm

" NATO is to take over military operations in volatile southern Afghanistan from U.S.-led forces on Monday, thrusting the alliance into what will likely be the toughest combat mission in its 57-year history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Webgear:

The changes that we in progressive societies would like to see have to come from within a society and be demanded by members of that society. There are many ways that we can facilitate that process without putting troops on the ground.

---

Very true. Look what happened in Nepal. They basically had a homegrown Parliamentary Revolution against the King.

The latest IPSOS poll:

quote:

---

Support For Troops In Afghanistan Sinks To Minority Territory…

Today, just under half of Canadians (47%) support the “use of Canada’s troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan”– a drop of 10 points since mid-May. More specifically, this drop has particularly affected the proportion who “strongly support” the mission – down to 17% from 29% at this questions last sounding.

Forty-nine (+3 points) oppose our troop’s combat operations in Afghanistan (30% “strongly oppose”).

And More Now Feel Troops Should Be Brought Home As Soon As Possible (52%) Rather Than Stay In Afghanistan (41%)…

Fifty-two percent of Canadians are now of the opinion that “Canadian troops should not be deployed in Afghanistan and they should be brought home as soon as possible” (up 6 points from late March) versus just 41% who feel “Canadian troops are performing a vital mission in Afghanistan and they should stay as long as it takes for them to succeed” (down 9 points from March 23 and down 11 points from March 3). Seven percent of Canadians say they “don’t know”....
Link

---

Well, to avoid such trollery, I linked to the archive on depleted uranium, not to the front page.
Obviously one can oppose Israeli military tactics, or Zionism itself, without being 'anti-Semitic'.

If knee-jerk support for Israel is the litmus test for being 'progressive' I guess I don't qualify but Mr. Harper does? That doesn't make much sense to me. I've never heard Jeff Rense's radio program, but I do notice he has a commendation from 'Jews Against Zionism' and archives Jewish authors like Henry Makow and Barry Chamish quite regularly.

But, not to be distracted from the topic of the thread, I think if more Canadians understood the nature of uranium armaments, then they would automatically not want our troops involved in radioactive, toxic quagmires like Afghanistan.

That includes southern Lebanon, even as 'peace-keepers', if Israel uses the uranium war head GBU 28 'bunker buster' omnicide weapons recently given to it by the U.S.

Since you, unionist, have set yourself up as arbiter of good and bad links for progressives, please tell me what you think about this one:

But in the same case 1000 Greek Hoplites held off a force of 2.8 million soldiers of the Persian Army for several days in 480 BC.

quote:

---

When you go home, tell them of us and say,
"for your tomorrow we gave our today"

---

This epigram by Simonides is originally about the Battle of Themopylae. It has been used many times since.

quote:

---

Webgear:
Yes, they died however the die for the noble cause. They fought a glorious fight, with an outcome that was known before the battle was started.

---

A suicide mission. This is your analogy for our mission in Afghanistan?

quote:

---

What about the Battle of the Windmill in 1838. Both sides were equal equipped and similar numbers.

---

The various sources I have read put the number at about 200 Americans/Rebels to 2000 Canadian and Brit troops, thats 10 to 1.

Unlike Rourke's drift the numbers won out. The numbers in Afghanistan favour the Afghans.

quote:

---

This epigram by Simonides is originally about the Battle of Themopylae. It has been used many times since.

---

Some things never change.

quote:

---

Soldiers in Afghanistan growing tired of 'rats'
If army marches on stomach, Canadians in field have bunions

Ethan Baron, CanWest News Service
Published: Sunday, July 30, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — When the going gets tough, the tough trade rations. After weeks in the field, Canadian combat and support troops become sick to death of their packaged rations.

The "rats," as they are known, come in brown paper sacks packed with tear-open boxes and pouches.

Soldiers eat rations for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

And while the Canadians appreciate their coalition counterparts for their roles in the multi-national force, they are deeply grateful for what comes out of their ration boxes: something other than the same old chow....

Link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
PS for Webgear:

Some things never change.

I recommend carrying personal cans of sardines and salmon, the extra weight is worth it. And, C4 makes a good heat source for quick cooking.

---

It is the new generation of kids complaining about food, I suppose you complained about the food in Vietnam when you were young. Things can not be that bad if the only thing they can complain about is the food in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Webgrear:
It is the new generation of kids complaining about food, I suppose you complained about the food in Vietnam when you were young.

Things can not be that bad if the only thing they can complain about is the food in Afghanistan.

---

From experience I have IMPs on my food list just a half a notch above my boots and belt. The old C rations were not too bad in comparison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

A suicide mission. This is your analogy for our mission in Afghanistan?

---

A clear majority of Canadians consider the mission in Afghanistan a lost cause, according to an extensive survey that hints at deep public skepticism about the war on terror.

Decima Research polled more than 2,000 Canadians last month just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped up his efforts to promote the mission.

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents agreed Canadian soldiers "are dying for a cause we cannot win," while just 34 per cent disagreed with that statement.

An even larger majority said they would never fight in Afghanistan themselves under any circumstances - not even if they were forced to in some military draft.

MS, is this the source you quoted from:

Most Canadians believe Afghan mission a lost cause: survey

Meanwhile our chickenhawk Generals are starting to turn on the neo-cons for not "defending the mission" enough:

quote:

---

The Conservative government's inability last summer to clearly articulate and defend Canada's mission in Afghanistan was a source of great frustration among the country's top military commanders, defence department sources say.

The vexation was vented at a Sept. 6 meeting involving senior federal officials and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier.

At the meeting, called to discuss the dispatch of reinforcements including tanks to help in the battle for Panjwai, Mr. Hillier reportedly said that critics of the war had enjoyed an “open field” to “degrade public support for the mission,” said a source who asked not to be named.

As casualties mounted through the summer, opposition to the war galvanized and found a rallying point in NDP Leader Jack Layton's call for a withdrawal of Canadians from combat operations,

In the absence of political leadership, some commentators came to term the bloody struggle to wrest control of southern Afghanistan from the Taliban as “Hillier's War” — a galling description for officers who say the quotable and accessible general is just doing his job.

“He has no problem defending the mission or speaking on behalf of the men and women in uniform, but until recently the government had not stepped up to the plate,” said one defence department official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Now that Parliament is back they're being forced to defend the deployment.”

A spokesman for Mr. O'Connor didn't deny the military's criticism, but rejected the notion that the Conservatives failed to defend the mission at a crucial time.

“Canada's new government remains one hundred per cent behind our troops in Afghanistan,” said Etienne Allard.

It's not that Canadians “don't get, or fail to comprehend why we're in Afghanistan,” Mr. Hillier said. “They just need to be walked through why our soldiers are in Afghanistan and what we're trying to achieve there.”

Mr. Allard denied that public support for the mission has softened since the summer spike in violence.

---

[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]