If the polling data is correct, there seems to be a positive Afghan opinion of Canada being in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Is Environics Research a respectable polling company?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
I would have like to seen larger number of people surveyed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

I can't quite recall what I learned in stats or research methods, but that's a pretty good sample size.

---

The problem with these surveys is that, no matter what, the war situation makes taking an accurate country wide survey nearly impossible, given that opponents of the Karzai regieme are not making themselves very available for comment, as they and their supports by necessity, on pain of death, are in hiding or inhabitting the far districts, outside of the reach of the NATO forces were surveyors can go, also, only on pain of death.

This survey is at best an indication of something, but hardly conclusive. In fact given the facts I just outlined and the slim margin of approval, I think it is safe to say that the majority of Afghans oppose the occupation.

Webgear is right to ask for a larger survey, and in fact, I think a truly useful survey would ask the question based ethnicity, not just as Afghans, as I am sure there is a great differnce between how Tadjiks Uzbeks and Pashtu people see the Karazai regieme and the occupation.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

What would they say if some foreign military came rolling into the U.S. with tanks and helicopter gunships and forced an election on them?

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

If the Afghans think that things are going in the right direction - good for them. I'm happy if they are happy.

For example, when they calculate the margin of error (which comes when you extrapolate from a sample size up to a population) - do they apply cross-culturally? I am woefully ignorant of Afghan society but from what I understand it is a tribal society and so I wonder if techniques developed here to ascertain error are as accurate there.

Furthermore, I have this vision of some polling company hired by the Union army in the American Civil war...what errors would apply? I mean one could certainly imagine that in this fictitious example you wouldn't have a heterogeneous group being hired (no Confederate pollsters). Wouldn't that affect results?

Lastly, the numbers expressing faith in the Karzai government while encouraging may simply reflect hopes and not reality. We speak volumes about the threat posed by the Taliban with respect to democracy, but rarely is it mentioned that the Warlords who comprised the Northern Alliance are also a potential threat to a functioning democracy. As they have used their strength and influence to consolidate power within the new government I think one could argue that little progress has actually been made to fortify a real republican liberal democracy...

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: britchestoobig ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Polls in Iraq show that people there are very unhappy and want the Americans to leave. If people in Afghanistan feel differently i take it at face value.

---

Apples and oranges. Iraq operates today with an infrastructre which in its fundaments the same kind of infarstructure in which traditional polling methods of North American polling apply. For one thing Iraq is highly urbanized, allowing surveyors to ready access to large quantities of poll subjects under the watchful eyes of local authorities.

None of this is true about Afghanistan. Afghans are still primarily a rural people, making a comprehensive survey of Afghans would require a huge logistics effort just to get the polsters out to all the remote towns and hamlets needed to get a reliable picture, and this would likely be a dangerous job.

Just watch the video above, if you want to see what can happen to a TV crew "collecting data" in the contested regions.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

How do they operate? How do they come into power? What is their power base?

Are there any female warlords?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
What exactly is a warlord or drug lord in Afghanistan? Can we name a few and what tribes and regions they are from?

How do they operate? How do they come into power? What is their power base?

Are there any female warlords?

We had this discussion at work recently, they are difficult to answer.

---

Is there even a consistent profile?

quote:

---

Originally posted by britchestoobig:
For example, when they calculate the margin of error (which comes when you extrapolate from a sample size up to a population) - do they apply cross-culturally? I am woefully ignorant of Afghan society but from what I understand it is a tribal society and so I wonder if techniques developed here to ascertain error are as accurate there.

---

That is a very poor list at best, it is very generic. Those are regional leaders at the very best, almost an elected leader of a coalition of warlords or drug lords.

We throw terms around like warlord and drug lord, with very little understanding of who and what they are.

We say that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar operates in and around Kabul however is this actual fact? Does he really control the provinces surround Kabul?

Rest assured, Afghan opinion on this one is of little relevance except to Stephen Harper, who gets a boost from this poll.

If the Taliban are ever defeated in this bloody war, it will be a mere "collateral benefit," a by-product... sort of like kerosene.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: mytiturk ]

Arrgggg pirates off the port bow. Prepared to be boarded.

I have been hearing pirate jokes for the last three weeks.

There are profiles for everything in the military.

Kandahar is on the proposed route to the Persian gulf. Check out the following article, which is where I first found evidence of a plan.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/17/top3.htm

Vladimir Putin stated in Tehran this week that he thinks Russia and Iran should have a veto "on Western plans to carry oil and gas from the Caspian Sea using routes that would bypass Russian soil..." from the Globe and Mail, Oct. 17, page A17.

Your idea of surrounding and isolating Iran makes sense, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
more importantly surounding Iran with US armies and their allies, and isolating it.

---

Donald Rumsfeld certainly stressed this angle while he was in office:

quote:

---

Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

---

Sorry, I miss understood your post about the pipeline.

The Russians would make money off the pipepline also.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

The point I am making is that Putin's expressed desire to be able to veto "other" pipelines must mean that he takes the Afghanistan pipeline threat seriously. Therefore, the idea is still alive.

Given the current mess in Kandahar, the pipeline may indeed turn out to be a pipedream, but I believe it is nevertheless a major reason for this mission.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: mytiturk ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mytiturk:
Putin is clearly concerned about OTHER pipelines being built. You are right; he wants to control the flow through Russia.

The point I am making is that Putin's expressed desire to be able to veto "other" pipelines must mean that he takes the Afghanistan pipeline threat seriously. Therefore, the idea is still alive.

Given the current mess in Kandahar, the pipeline may indeed turn out to be a pipedream, but I believe it is nevertheless a major reason for this mission.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: mytiturk ]

---

Well, I understand the reason one would search for a specific logical motive for the invasion. This pursuit is perfectly normal and logical, and I have no doubt there are some elements among the Bush clique that thought they might be able to gain directly through the invasion, but I cite the reasons above as the main motivator. Also, and possibly even moreso the simple desire by the US to send the message to Asian and Middle Eastern governements that it was not triffling around and then when it wanted something, it was willing to use its awesome military capability to get it.

I'm not an expert on Kandahar, but it isn't pretty and may not be winnable. Canadian deaths in Afghanistan on a % basis exceed every other country's, even exceeding U.S. deaths in Iraq.

This is not even to mention Afghan deaths, which are much higher. Farms and trees were destroyed in some battles by Canadian troops in the process of rooting out insurgents. U.S. Warthog planes shoot up everything in sight if they are called in when troops get in a jam. Lots of collateral damage and friendly fire catastrophes result.

I'm not an expert on Kandahar, but it isn't pretty and may not be winnable. Canadian deaths in Afghanistan on a % basis exceed every other country's, even exceeding U.S. deaths in Iraq.

This is not even to mention Afghan deaths, which are much higher. Farms and trees were destroyed in some battles by Canadian troops in the process of rooting out insurgents. U.S. Warthog planes shoot up everything in sight if they are called in when troops get in a jam. Lots of collateral damage and friendly fire catastrophes result.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: Policywonk ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mytiturk:
In fact, I am skeptical of the recent Afghan poll numbers in support of occupation.

---

quote:

---

Canadian deaths in Afghanistan on a % basis exceed every other country's, even exceeding U.S. deaths in Iraq.

---

Canada has had 71 fatal casualties, about 30 of which have been in the past year. Say 2500-3000 or so Canadian soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at any one time. The Americans have more than 10 times as many personnel in Afghanistan and have suffered 449 fatal casualties. The British have suffered 82 with about 7000 soldiers, although they added 1500 more last winter. In Iraq troop levels over the years have changed, but generally the numbers have been around 130 thousand (160 with the "surge"), about 50 times our troop levels in Afghanistan. They have lost 3830 of them to date. Our losses are comparable, but possibly slightly more in percentage terms depending on relative numbers. Casualty figures are from icasualties.org.

"Canadian soldiers are getting killed in Afghanistan at more than three times the rate of troops from other nations, including those from Britain and the United States also in the thick of the fighting against the resurgent Taliban."

The Globe wants me to pay for the rest of the posted article. In your dreams, Globe.

{edited by moderater to remove a seriously problematic link}

Regarding the Warthog and Canadian victims of "friendly fire:'

This happened on Labour Day, 2006. It was all over the papers. Private Mark Graham died and 37 Canadian soldiers were wounded. The Globe ran a piece on Mark in its focus section on October 28, 2006.

I just found this wikinews reference via google:

http://tinyurl.com/3xmhw7

My reference to trees and farms came from a 2006 incident in which Canadians were aggressively trying to clear Taliban out of a difficult area and ran their tanks through farms. They took out trees so they could see the enemy better. It seems to me that Afghanistan might not have many trees to spare, which is what I thought about at the time. I did not save the paper article.

It just occurred to me that the pipeline is more important than it looks to some. The U.S. is desperately trying to keep the oil producers from selling oil in Euros. The dollar is under so much pressure and a major reason it hasn't totally tanked is the fact that it ensures that countries that have to purchase oil do so in dollars. Iraq was beginning to, or planning to, sell is oil in Euros in the year 2000. Many think that this was a major reason for the Iraq war.

With the pressure on the dollar, more and more oil producers are using the Euro. Russia is moving that way... hmmmm

http://tinyurl.com/2qcfus

Now, folks, I gotta go.

{edited by moderator for sidescroll}

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

I'm reminded of the Iraq parades where kids were told to go out and wave and smile to the US troops and pretend they were happy ( thanks for liberating us ,now go home). Because they were so afraid of them and didn't want to be machine gunned to death.

This poll could be just another piece of propaganda as Canadians believe in polls so much.

How they could have achieved a random sample of all Afghanis is a huge question here.

That being said, even if they surveyed within urban areas only, the numbers would have to say that significant numbers of Afghanis support troops being there.

quote:

---

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.

---

They almost certainly have invested a great deal of time and effort into trying to find out how they can do that, and so my guess is that this study was something that the government was told to do in order to get a positive response from the Canadian public.

Once they knew what they had to do in order to get the Canadian public onside, they almost certainly went to the polling firms and told them what they were after. The polling firms being the good little workers that they are provided them with what they were looking for.

A good idea for the people who are troubled by this survey is to produce some sort of evidence which would give the situation surrounding this propaganda offensive some perspective.

When I was initially considering it, my first impulse was that this is obviously the Canadian government working very hard on what they've told us they were going to do all along: "explain the 'mission' (I read war when I see that word)."

What you need to do when you see "explain it better" is look through what they're saying and ask yourself how "explaining it" would actually make the public a bit more passive on the issue. When I see that, I think that when they say "explain it better," they actually mean "sell it better."

So, they turn to the advertising industry, which the government has a very big share in. This advertising wing then goes to work on selling their product in much the same way you would sell people all sorts of consumer products.

I'm guessing that one of the major findings of the piles of focus groups that the government conducted to find out how they could sell this war better told them that a poll showing what is shown here would have had a positive effect on people's perceptions of the war.

quote:

---

Awareness of foreign countries in Afghanistan. Which foreign countries are understood by the local population to be in Afghanistan with troops, aid workers or business people? Is Canada on the radar? In terms of public awareness of the presence of foreign countries (covering all functions and roles), Canada ranks fourth after the United States (95%), Germany (63%), the U.K. (52%) and then Canada at 46 percent. In Kandahar, Canada comes second with 58 percent recognition, well behind the United States (at 98%).

Who, top of mind, is fighting the Taliban? Nationwide, it is almost exclusively the United States (89%) that is seen as playing this role. Few mention any other country, including Germany (4%) and, the U.K. (3%), with virtually no mention of Canada. Even in Kandahar (where our forces have lost 71 soldiers and counting), it is the U.S. who is seen as the military presence (90%), with only two percent naming Canada. This result is in sharp contrast to the perspective within Canada, where the public is painfully aware of our troop casualties, the highest proportion of any foreign country.

---

CBC News in depth.

There is also an interesting video there, with David Commons doing an overview of the polling firm in Afghanistan that conducted the poll.
Afghan pollsters.

The Environics site offers the following re. methodology:

quote:

---

The research was designed by Environics, in consultation with its media and academic partners.
The survey was conducted for Environics by D3 Systems Inc. and its subsidiary, the Afghan Centre for Social and Opinion Research (ACSOR-Surveys), based in Kabul. D3 Systems/ACSOR established the capability to conduct country-wide public opinion surveys across Afghanistan following the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, and includes among its clients the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), ABC News, the Asia Foundation, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

The Environics survey was conducted by ACSOR between September 17 and 24, 2007 with a representative sample of 1,578 adult Afghans (18 years and older) across all 34 of the country's provinces. The surveys were conducted in-person in people's homes in either Dari or Pashto, the two dominant languages. Female interviewers interviewed women and male interviewers interviewed Afghan men, and the sample was stratified to ensure a 50-50 distribution on gender.

The survey sample consisted of 1,278 interviews conducted across the country, plus an additional 300 interviews to provide over-samples of 270 interviews in Kabul (the country's capital) and 260 in the province of Kandahar, where the Canadian mission is based. The margins of sampling error for these samples are plus or minus 3.8%, 7.3% and 7.3%, respectively (at the 95% confidence level). The response rate for this survey was 85 percent, a rate almost unheard of today for research conducted in the western world. Further details on the methodology used to conduct this survey are available from Environics.

Sample Profile....

---

quote:

---

oldgoat: Did that help?

---

quote:

---

Stockholm: I'm sure that I would agree. Compared to Taliban, ANYTHING would be a step in the right direction.

---

Well, if you're going to use the results of the survey, you might want to note that in Kandahar Province ...

quote:

---

... 85 per cent believe the government should negotiate with the Taliban to reduce conflict, and 72 per cent believe a coalition government with the Taliban would be acceptible.

---

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

glurg. burp.

---

The second coming is at hand.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

Edited to add: Down with editing!

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Too bad the question wasn't asked:

Who is the President of Afghanistan?

a. Hamid Karzai.
b. B-52 is President.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So in Kandhar the sample size was 260 interviews. Can anyone here who is a statistics junky tell me whether this is a reasonable sample size for any poll?

---

quote:

---

This survey is at best an indication of something, but hardly conclusive. In fact given the facts I just outlined and the slim margin of approval, I think it is safe to say that the majority of Afghans oppose the occupation.

---

quote:

---

fellowtraveller: We went there to stop some bad guys who had taken over the country from flying any more airplanes full of people into large buildings full of people. Mission accomplished, so far.

---

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzt! WRONG! You need to distinguish the official propaganda from what was really going on. The Taliban regime offered to hand over Osama bin Laden on condition that some actual evidence was provided linking him with the events of September 11, 2001. The U.S. regime contemptuously rejected this and proceeded to the invasion and indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan. (BTW, this bombing killed many Afghan civilians.) It was a lashing out by the Merricans. It was practice for an Iraqi invasion yet to come. In the words of General Richard Meyers: "There is no limit to our bombing campaign." He stated this publicly at the time. It was the lashing out of a rampaging beast. This is, of course, in addition to the oil and gas and economic interests of the U.S., their geopolitical interests, a prospective attack on Iran, etc.. The world has not been made any safer by that invasion and it is becoming more and more clear, and even Afghans in the poll expressed this view, that the Taliban must be part of any government in order for it to last without being propped up, as is Karzai, by foreign troops. Give the bullshit and Bushean rhetoric a rest, eh?

The issue of returning Afghans needs to be balanced with an exposure of the number of internal refugees in that country, of which there are very many - thanks to the occupation by foreign troops and the ongoing bombing, etc.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

We went there to stop some bad guys who had taken over the country from flying any more airplanes full of people into large buildings full of people.

---

quote:

---

Well, if you're going to use the results of the survey, you might want to note that in Kandahar Province ...

quote: ... 85 per cent believe the government should negotiate with the Taliban to reduce conflict, and 72 per cent believe a coalition government with the Taliban would be acceptible.

Using results from the same survey, Afghans don't agree with you.

---

Consider this paragraph from page 11 of the Summary report (.pdf version):

quote:

---

Overall, these results reflect both surprising and heartening numbers for Canadian troops and public when they reflect on the substantial sacrifices of our soldiers, as well as the significant financial and other investments our government and NGOs have made in this country over the past five years.

---

quote:

---

Are you aware that Canada currently has troops in Kandahar province?
Yes 60%
No 29%
Don't know 10%

---

The resulting stats are all but useless. The margin of error for the 260-person Kandahar sample is, confusingly, stated by the Globe in one place to be 5.9% and in another 7.7%, while Environics says 7.3%. But given that only 157 people were even aware of the presence of Canadians in Kandahar without being "prompted", the true margin of error must be so high as to make the resulting statistics quite unreliable.

You end up with absurdities like this: Only 2% of Kandahar province respondents were able to identify Canada as one of the foreign forces fighting the Taliban. But when the same respondents were asked what was the "main purpose of the Canadian presence" in their province, 47% said it was to fight the Taliban!

Canada's New Government™ can take no comfort from the poll's finding that 85% of Kandahar respondents support negotiations between the Taliban and the Karzai government. McKay and Harper are still singing the "no negotiations with terrorists" tune. Also, across Afghanistan, 54% favour a coalition government that includes the Taliban, and the support in Kandahar is even higher at 72% according to CBC. Whatever way you spin it, it's clear the Harpocons are far more "hard line" than the Afghans.

The money shot, of course, is the question, "How much longer should foreign troops remain?" The choices offered for selection were as follows:

• Leave right away
• Remain 1 more year
• Remain 2 more years
• Remain 3-5 more years
• However long it takes to defeat the Taliban and return order
• Other/Don't know

The first four options are designed to split four ways the opinion in favour of a specific deadline for withdrawal. The fifth option lumps together all those who want foreign troops to stay in perpetuity if necessary with those who want them to leave but can't or won't specify a deadline. Note also the loaded language, offering not only a "defeat" of the Taliban but also a return to "order" (whatever that may mean). Not surprisingly, the fifth option gets the plurality:

14% Leave right away
11% Remain 1 more year
12% Remain 2 more years
15% Remain 3-5 more years
43% However long it takes to defeat the Taliban and return order
5% Other/Don't know

This conveniently allows media such as the Toronto Star to contrast the high and low numbers like this:

quote:

---

A survey of nearly 1,600 Afghan residents last month showed that 43 per cent want foreign troops to remain "as long as it takes" to ensure stability and security. Just 14 per cent thought the troops should leave immediately, according to the poll done for CBC News.

---

Environics is very selective in its list. D3 Systems also includes among its clients People for the American Way, RAND Corporation™, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United States Department of State, United States Information Agency (USIA), World Bank, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, and Voice of America.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

For more on this subject, one should consult the work of Alfred Bernays and Walter Lippmann among others.

Back to the subject at hand though, when they say that they want to explain the mission better, what they're actually telling you is something that they were able to put together after careful study in focus groups. The government has been told via their extensive studies of people through focus groups and such that the war in Afghanistan remains unpopular because people are confused. So, in order for the government to retake control of the issue, they have to effectively unconfuse people. The way it appears as though they're going to do that is to tell us that the people of Afghanistan love us and don't want us to leave. This is needed for them to shift the focus away from all of those recalcitrant articles where we see people coming together in mobs and protesting the occupation.

I suspect that if the government had commissioned a study and it had turned out badly for them -- that they would have found a way to bury it as quickly as possible -- lest the government get stung by the issue even more. Luckily for them, they seem to have found a way of manipulating Afghan opinion enough that the Canadian public can see opinion polls which allow us to warm and fuzzy about our contribution to the Imperial Yankee Expeditionary Forces that are currently pacifying the Afghan population to install their own command and control systems.

What's interesting is that under Gordon O'Connor, the government didn't successfully challenge the confusion in people's minds because I suspect he did not appreciate the power and utility of public relations in getting people to believe what you want them to believe. If he had listened to the extremely large public relations bureaucracy within the Department of Defence, I suspect that we would have been dealing with this study a long time ago.

You'll note that in the summer, Harper shuffled his cabinet and put the old man out to pasture. I suspect that Harper started to realize that O'Connor was not appreciative enough of the power which he sat on in his public relations wing and that he needed to be dumped in favour of someone who was able to more effectively command the battlefield against public opinion here on the home front.

One should note that now that O'Connor is gone, that we're starting to see the public relations studies that were done in the background for a long time under O'Connor are now being put to "proper" (and I use that word very loosely) use, and we're now starting to see the government make much more effective use of their public relations department and the funds alloted for that purpose.

This study, which was something that I'm quite certain Defence Department staff have been clamouring for (for quite some time at that!), is what we should have been seeing a couple of years ago now, but because of the inability of O'Connor to look the gift horse in the mouth, we're only now seeing the government putting their advertising people to work on pacifying the publics perceptions by creating hokey and convenient studies like this.

I'm sure that if the polling companies really wanted to, they could find a way to make those documents show that 96.3% of the population was on board with the occupation force, but I suspect they designed it to show those numbers because they know the lessons learned from the old Soviet propaganda system, whereby nobody took that sort of thing seriously if the results were too discordant with the publics perception.

I think that we should expect more of this sort of thing to continue to poke into the discourse of the Afghanistan war, and that we'll likely start to see holes poked into it, but we'll have to wait a little while because the flak against poking holes into this will be too heavy right now and the media wouldn't dare try and make money off of proving how silly this is because it would upset the master.

Look for the people who question this in public to be ridiculed and publicly tarred and feathered. After a while, the utility of this piece of propaganda will wear off for the government and we'll be in the clear for the corporate media to start looking at the crap they're peddling. I suspect that if we come to a point where this study is put under scrutiny down the road that we'll probably see a lot of "mainstream" folks point out just how flawed it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Pointing out the obvious: It shouldn't have to be pointed out that occupiers have never done a survey indicating that they are unwelcome in the country they're occupying. Ever. Period.

---

I appreciate the spirit of what you're trying to say, but that's not true in a technical sense.

The US State Department has been doing polling in Iraq by "reputable" polling companies all the time, and they've consistently shown that vast swaths of the Iraqi public want them out and they want them out immediately. The key here is that no one knows about those studies save for those who have the spare time to actually conduct the small research project necessary to find those figures.

quote:

---

Too bad the question wasn't asked:

Who is the President of Afghanistan?

a. Hamid Karzai.
b. B-52 is President.

---

Is there a single B-52 in charge or do all B-52s in the USAF sure the power?

What about the other planes in the USAF, I think the A-10s may want to be in charge also.

M. Spector

quote:

---

Environics is very selective in its list. D3 Systems also includes among its clients People for the American Way, RAND Corporation™, United States Agency for International Development (USAID),

---

Other things, this also neatly avoids the question of whether Canadian and US forces can truly win there, by creating a lasting peace, along with our own citizen's views on whether Our troops should be obligated to "stay" there as "peace makers" for an indefinite period, with no tangeable results. (aside from the military propaganda we now get) We've already been there longer the whole Second World War I believe.

Someone should really invite Chomsky up here to do some research on the Canadian propoganda model. I'm afraid even he has no idea yet just how bad it's gotten north of the border.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

To say that the Pashtuns are the main force behind the Taliban shows how little we know about Afghan culture and beliefs.

There are at least 36 tribal and family groups with in the Pashtun confederation.

Here is interesting piece of knowledge.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

I was not referring to you, I was speaking about everyone in general.

I was also directing this comment also to the section about warlords and drug lords earlier in the thread.

Thanks for fixing the long urls. I haven't visited for some considerable time and in the thick of the debate, past my bedtime, I didn't stop to figure out how to avoid that problem.

Webgear

I choose to buy only one newspaper: the Globe and Mail, because it is generally better written than the Toronto Star. I hate it when I get halfway through an article and realize that the writer is not making clear points. The Post and the Sun - no comment.

Of course I don't believe everything I read in the Globe or watch or listen to on other media. The Globe is, except for Rick Salutin on Friday and the occasional essay by Naomi Klein, very establishment. I miss Heather Mallick a lot. One should get information from several sources, which I do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mytiturk:
I miss Heather Mallick a lot. One should get information from several sources, which I do.

I am frequently highly critical of the Globe. If you visit my website you will see in the links that I balance the Globe quite effectively with web-based sources, such as this one.

---

I agree with you about the Globe and Mail - both the good and the bad.

I sure miss Heather and whether I agreed or not, hers was a provocative voice. I know I can find commentaries here and at CBC, but Saturday mornings are not the same.

As for the Afghan "poll", I put little stock in it. I wonder how many respondents were interviewed the day after some American pilot destroyed their homes and killed heir relatives. Nice to see that less then half even know our troops are there.

Let's get back to reality. There are people dying because the Americans needed to play the big kid on the block. We are there because we wanted to show old GW that Canada was a "good guy".

Death, death and death....it is nonsense and the only practical response today is to get the hell out.

This has never been about orphans and women's rights...it's been about ameikan machismo.

....and they wonder why people actually agree to be suicide bombers......

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

quote:

---

This poll is total crap. Means absolutely nothing. We are still seen as occupiers not liberators.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mytiturk:
If the Taliban are ever defeated in this bloody war, it will be a mere "collateral benefit," a by-product... sort of like kerosene.

---

But but but...

I thought the mean ol' Taliban were "defeated" in 2002!

Very interesting observations about the way Environics spins the credibility of D3 systems:

quote:

---

Environics is very selective in its list. D3 Systems also includes among its clients People for the American Way, RAND Corporation™, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United States Department of State, United States Information Agency (USIA), World Bank, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, and Voice of America.

---

What really disappoints me is the way that the CBC lends its considerable (but decreasing) credibility to the whole process. The CBC has really been progressively tamed, dumbed down and ultimately coopted ever since Mulroney began the process of slashing its budget. Sad.

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: mytiturk ]

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/268736

quote:

---

NDP leader Jack Layton wants Canadian troops out now and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wanted them out by early 2009 (although I'm not really sure what he favours at the moment). They've argued, from various perspectives – some informed, some not – that the assignment isn't working, the overall approach to Afghanistan ruinously unbalanced, the insurgency impervious to military intervention and the citizenry increasingly disillusioned, pushed by NATO further towards the neo-Taliban.

Anyone who's been to Afghanistan, spent time in the company of ordinary Afghans, knows this to be emphatically untrue. It's heartening that a detached poll has borne that out.

---

quote:

---

DiManno wrote:
But they know enemy [Taliban] and they know friend [US/NATO].

---

And yet the very poll she cites shows that something like 70-80% of those surveyed in Kandahar want either negotiations with the Taliban, or a power-sharing arrangement between the Taliban and the government (questions 37 and 38 of the poll).

quote:

---

37. Would you support or oppose negotiations between the Karzi [sic] Government and the Taliban to explore ways of reducing conflict in the country? PROBE: Is that strongly or somewhat [support/oppose]

(N=1278) (N=260)

NAT KAN
% %
36 36 Strongly support
38 49 Somewhat support
9 11 Somewhat oppose
9 2 Strongly oppose
6 2 Depends
2 - DK/NA

38. Would you support or oppose the idea of a coalition government in which the Karzi [sic] Government shares power with the Taliban? PROBE:: Is that strongly or somewhat [support/oppose]

(N=1278) (N=260)

NAT KAN

% %

25 27 Strongly support
29 45 Somewhat support
14 14 Somewhat oppose
19 7 Strongly oppose
9 4 Depends
4 2 DK/NA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Yes, they should have sampled any of the millions of Afghan refugees who fled to various countries, from Iran to Germany, since 1992.

---

Why did they come home post 2001, after many years away? Why have they stayed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Do you have actual evidence that the government of Canada had a hand in this poll?

---

Who controls the purse strings of the CBC? <-- the Canadian government

A further 2 million remain as refugees in Pakistan, while another 900,000 registered refugees remain in Iran.

The Iranians, however, have begun forcibly repatriating hundreds of thousands of other Afghan refugees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:

Who controls the purse strings of the CBC? <-- the Canadian government

Where does all the money to operate the CBC come from? <-- advertisements and the government

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fellowtraveller:

I imagine they did, since around 3.5 million of them have now returned to their homeland, from everywhere. Those that went to the West are least likely to return of course, but those that were in the refugee camps have returned and remain in the country.

Why did they come home post 2001, after many years away? Why have they stayed?

Rationalize that, I recognize you must.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:
Who controls the purse strings of the CBC? <-- the Canadian government

Where does all the money to operate the CBC come from? <-- advertisements and the government

---

Here's what Environics says:

quote:

---

The research was the initiative of Environics, in partnership with three national media sponsors – The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Globe and Mail, and La Presse -- and two respected academic think tanks at the University of Toronto – the Munk Centre for International Studies, and the Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian studies (CERES). There was no involvement from government or other organizations.

---

Sure, the poll is biased, as I have argued. But to suggest it is a government plot requires more than just speculation.

ETA: Did anybody else notice how the words I quoted above from Joshua following the characters "<--" were invisible to TAT?

I think I've just stumbled upon a new undocumented feature of the babble software. Maybe we could have some fun with this!

[ 21 October 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]