Home › New SES Research Poll - Canada's Mission in Afg...
New SES Research Poll - Canada's Mission in Afghanistan - Obstacle to Harper Majority
Although some may consider this a black and white issue, the reality from a public opinion viewpoint is that we are looking at shades of grey. Generally, Canadians are divided on the government’s handling of the mission (44% agree with how the mission is being handled, 48% disagree the rest were unsure). However, 55% of Canadians believe that Canada and NATO together have not deployed the resources necessary to succeed.
Sixty-seven percent of Canadians think our mission makes Canada more of a terrorist target and 55% of Canadians think that if the casualties continue Canada should pull out (39% of Canadians think that casualties are a necessary part of our mission).
Politically, whenever Afghanistan is in the news the Tory numbers in Quebec drop. Although the mission may be good at consolidating core Tory support it basically throws a wrench in any effort for the Tories to build a majority coalition (even 40% of committed Conservative supporters think the government should pull out if the casualties continue).
See the stat sheet on the right in support materials for all the details.
It is unusual for foreign policy to be an election issue - but this one is a sleeper.
What are your views….can this be a defining election issue….how will this impact the support of the various parties.
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
|
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
I find this a most interesting poll with the Conservatives most accepting of cas... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 06 May 04:30
I think that one of the reasons that many Canadians don't understand, or support... more
NNL (Ontario) 06 May 09:14
The question "should Canada pull out if casualties continue" is based on the fal... more
Smitty (Québec) 07 May 01:17
Bernie, I have absolutely no idea where you come up with your arguments. Can yo... more
Candace (Alberta) 10 May 02:48
That is a great thought, if the world was a perfect place... However, in the ti... more
A Tyrrell (Nova Scotia) 07 May 22:43
Let me get this straight: The Liberals got us into the war--Conservatives pay t... more
Regina Beach Boy (Saskatchewan) 07 May 00:37
Comments
Tom Good
I find this a most interesting poll with the Conservatives most accepting of casualties---almost double the acceptance level as compared to those in other parties. To me, Afghanistan is an unwinnable war and I have to agree with the view point expressed by all the "unembedded" correspondents whether they be American, British or Canadian. No armed forces can IMPOSE democracy upon a country where the majority of the inhabitants have no tradition or cultural concept of what the word means and they see the NATO forces as occupying military. Harper obviously has not read the history of the failed attempts of British and Russian "control. Hearts and minds have not been won over and that is the first necessary ingredient if there is to be a transition from tribal loyalties to paticipatory democracy. A full belly and a job is what most desire FIRST and they are no different to the majority of people in that regard. The generally corrupt Karsai government appears to be viewed as an "imposed" organization and rather a puppet of American interests. Reconstruction funds seem to evaporate and not filter down to the common citizen. The war lords reportedly are keeping their mini-armies "Just in case" which is not a vote of confidence in the central government. The Taliban are ethnic Pushtuns who are on either side of the border with Pakistan where the Pakistani authorities cannot even control them----they are Pakistani too. The Afghanistan war is like our government saying they can hold water in a sieve------who is fooling who ? Yes, any pig headed government ---no matter of what political stripe---- should find the continuation of the Afghanistan war to be a detriment to a majority government-----think of the dead---the unnecessary dead on all sides. Afghanistan is an issue that has an ugly odour attached to it and it just cannot be buried and placed conviently out of sight. Afghanistan is a major political issue for Canadians whether there is an election or not.
[updated Sun May 06 04:30:25 -0400 2007]
06 May 04:30
53 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
NNL
I think that one of the reasons that many Canadians don't understand, or support the mission is that there are so few reports on what the mission is all about.
We get what I call long-standing media coverage when there is a casualty, or soldiers wounded. There are few reports of the successes that our troops are having.
From blogs written by troops, and comments from the families of some of our soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, their level of support is high for the Afghanistan mission.
If it were the quagmire that the long-standing media reports, chances are the troops would want out too.
James
[updated Sun May 06 09:14:36 -0400 2007]
06 May 09:14
16 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Candace
I agree, James. When you read even the reporters on-the-ground posts, you get a sense of the positive effect our troops and NATO allies are having, but in the nightly newscasts, it's all about casualties and, more recently, allegations about what happens to the detainees.
Why aren't the media mentioning the FACT that "detainees" aren't covered by the Geneva Convention nor, to my knowledge, is Afghanistan a signatory. The Taliban are not in a recognizable uniform, they are in typical Afghanistan attire. Under the Convention, they could be shot as spies.
The Opposition parties need to be careful what they ask for. Apparently, it's okay to break our longstanding agreement with NATO, but not so much to fail to meet Kyoto commitments (that were a grandstanding gesture to try & make the US look bad, that backfired bigtime).
06 May 13:45
NNL
I wrote on this today on www.netnewsledger.com
Every week I try to do at least one story on the Afghan mission.
James
06 May 13:58
icecoolputer
There are few reports of the successes that our troops are having. This sentence is so true. When the military does something right, NONE of the newsies ever mention it, but as soon as something goes wrong, they are on it like a fly on poop!!!
Most people have NO idea why we are there, and could care less! They don't know that this war against terror can't be won easily and could last 20 years before we can win the hearts of the Afghany people. That will not happen. We will be out of there well before then. And the Afghany people will continue to be terrorised by the Taliban, because our politicians did not have the heart to last long enough to turn the hearts of the Afghany people away from war and pain and suffering.
Our soldiers are not there because they like killing, they are there because they don't want their kids to have to go over there 20 years from now! Of course they have a high level of support amongst themselves. Why don't we?
06 May 17:10
Smitty
The comments of our soldiers are NOT an indication of the legitimacy of the mission. They sign up to do whatever the governement says. Even in the Iraq war (now recognized by MOST Americans as unjustified) , soldiers, both in service and retired, supported the mission in public (while holding their nose in private) because of this misguided American philosophy that one must "support the mission" in order to be loyal to the troops. It has now spread to Canada where one's loyalty is attacked if one questions the wisdom or legitimacy of a foreign venture. In fact our Canadian media have been even more blindly supportive of the Afghan mission than their colleagues at FOX and CNN vis-à-vis Iraq. The rare criticism has been gentle and largely superficial e.g. their dark green combat clothing, the old Iltis jeep, the mistreatment of prisoners by Afghans or Americans - but no tough questions about Canada's military role and comportment. The problem Canadians have with Afghanistan exist DESPITE the blindly supportive role of the media.
07 May 01:58
Bernie
James, you shouldn't imply that those who oppose our bieng in Afghanistan do not understand the "mission". It's because we understand it so well that we oppose it. Our "mission" is to please the present American administration, and that administration is wrong, dead wrong.
It has noting to do with the media and unless you are selective in what you see or read , you must see how much coverage is given to what you call the possitive aspects of the "war".
Every day I see what you call "successes". It just not true that the media doesn't show both sides. Go through back issues of the printed media and tapes of TV programming. The proof is right there.
Besides the media doesn't tell us what's right or wrong, we decide that for ourselves.
Soldiers have to support what they are doing or at least say so. Their position would be in jeopardy if they didn't. This doesn't make it right.
We don't describe it as a quagmire. We only object because it's wrong to be there. for the reasons that we are there.
The amount of good deeds that one does when in the wrong has any value.
It reminds me of a satory of several months ago where in some Eastern European country a man had kidnapped an eight year old girl and kept her for about ten years. Someone said, "yes, but he was good. He let her watch TV and brought her books, etc." The thing itself may be good but it's useless and valueless when in context of the greater wrong.
It's the same with any "good" our soldiers do in Afghanistan. They have no value under the circumstances.
07 May 08:16
NNL
Bernie,
Making informed decisions based on what we see on the nightly news or read in the daily papers is to not make an informed decision in my opinion.
In terms of media telling us what is "right or wrong", of course they do. That should be called commentary or in print an editorial.
However, that line has been very deeply blurred.
That is a part of what we have seen in the rapid changes in media over the past several years. Media is not, like a Doctor, Lawyer, or Accountant a licenced profession, it is a matter of providing ideas, news, information and opinion.
In the US the major networks have a half-hour a day of news coverage, and in my area, the US major network news is usually followed by an hour of entertainment news.
I see what can only be called media feeding frenzy reporting, where an event, often not really that critical takes over the US cable news, Anna Nicole Smith as an example.
In Canada, we have far less media. What media we have is often now being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Online, bloggers operating like news reporters are often breaking stories weeks to months ahead of the long-standing media.
If you look at Afghanistan, and go back into the 1970s, the country has had wars, invaders and massive turmoil.
I didn't say war is positive. However, there are many examples throughout our history where Canadians have achieved worthy goals where only war would lead to that result.
The liberation of Europe in World War Two would be a good example.
Is the Afghanistan mission perfect? I don't think so, but I do think the goals of liberating that society are worthy.
Changes in societies like Afghanistan will come as a result of stability, education and democracy.
Those are the goals I see the Canadian troops working toward.
NNL
07 May 08:36
Bernie
Most of your comments about the media we can agree on. You must have read my previous comments on how I view the media. I don't watch much TV. I never watch the US channels except PBS. In Canada I mostly watch selective programs on CPAC, CBC and TVO. I am not subscribed to any newspaper or magazine, tho, I read them in the library.I do listen to radio usually CBC or or the US NPR.
I also agree about World War Two, but it's the only justifiable war in history, as I read it.
We are only in Afghanistan because Martin wanted to suck up to the Americans. The Americans are there for the wrong reason so we, being with them, are wrong too. Besides that we can't change Afghan society anyway. We can't stay there forever and when we and leave it will return to whatever the Afghanis want for themselves. Our "democracy" is not theirs. It's useless to try to impose it on them. They did things their own way long before, and will again long after we are gone.
"Changes in societies like Afghanistan will come as a result of stability, education and democracy." Yes, but under their terms, in their own way and in their own time.
"Those are the goals I see the Canadian troops working toward." Yes, but it in the context of a greater wrong and it a futile effort and our citizens are losing their lives for nothing. The loss of one life is just not worth it.
Because we are seen to be with the Americans we are making ourselves the target of terrorists
08 May 08:22
NNL
There is a gulf between politicians and Canadians.
I think, to a great degree, that political leaders, the PM, Cabinet Ministers, and the top officials in the opposition parties end up removed from the ordinary issues that impact the people.
The threats of terrorism, both real, and imagined, have put yet another layer of isolation into the process.
From that end, as issues come forward, they seem to be far too widely removed from what people are saying or concerned with. Top bureaucrats end up making decisions based on statistical papers, without any reference to anything real.
The more that happens, the less people in general believe politicians.
Harper and the Conservatives came to power with Canadians saying "We will try you, cause we are a little tired of the Liberals".
As the latest SES Research Poll shows, perhaps the Conservatives efforts over April showing their political might have turned off voters?
Showing off their war-room, arguing that either you're with us or against us, has made the Conservatives look like typical politicians.
08 May 08:50
Bernie
NNL. I certainly agree with those comments and you've expressed them better than I could.
08 May 11:51
Candace
Bernie, we are in Afghanistan because we are members of NATO. That PMPM used our presence in Afghanistan as an excuse to stay out of Iraq is moot.
NATO has accomplished far more than the UN ever will when it comes to humanitarian and peace-making or -keeping missions. Bosnia was FIRST a peace-MAKING mission, much like Afghanistan is today. For the most part, it worked. We may not agree with the elected governments resulting, but the genocide has ended.
We haven't invaded Afghanistan - we are there at the request of the elected government. Granted, there are issues with that government, but Rome wasn't built in a day. A country can't be expected to go from a wartorn theocracy to a full-blown democracy in the space of a year or two.
Roughly five years ago, women were being herded into the soccer stadium and shot for breaking the rules (leaving the house without the man of the house, going to school, allowing their daughters to go to school, teaching, etc). That is no longer the case.
Can you honestly say that isn't worth it? Did you think the Canadian lives lost in Bosnia weren't worth it? What of the Canadian that died this weekend - the peacekeeping air traffic controller? Was that worth it?
[updated Wed May 09 00:57:27 -0400 2007]
09 May 00:57
Bernie
Candace, we are in Afghanistan because Geaorge Bush wanted us to go in, Martin was too chicken to say no.
NATO is an adjunct of the US. It should have disbanded after the breakup of the USSR. It should have no relavance in our world today. The purpose for which it originated no longer exists. NATO went in Afghanistan under UN sanctions because of the overriding influence of the US. Anyone who went into Afghanistan are there under US proxy.
NATO will never equal the UN in its comtribution to the world. The only thing that keeps the UN from function even much better is the overwhelming power of the US. (and of course the member nations who have veto rights. Take away the veto and distribute powers more easily to other nations, then you will se how effective the UN can be. Anything NATO did the UN could have done better. if it was not stopped by the US. The US invade Afghanistan and pressured our weak government to follow. Of course they made it look like the UN through NATO, just to deflect some of the flak away from themselves.
"Their government invited us" A US proxy, pseudo elected government with a US Karsai as head, half its members warlords and drug trafficers. We were not invited in. We were told by George Bush. We have no right to impose our system on theirs. They have a completely different culture and a completely different way of looking at things. They are well justified in being suspicious of foreigners in their country.
No none of those deaths were worth it. They died in vain. So that we could appease George Bush. Nothing has been accomplished and won't be until the Afghanis decide for themselves what they wish for themselves.
Do your work for our government? or the military? If you do the research into the background of what's really going on you will change your opinions
09 May 07:52
Candace
Bernie, I have absolutely no idea where you come up with your arguments. Can you provide some links? If not, I'd argue that you are spouting nonsense.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Created I believe after WWII. As a protective agency for all signatories.
George Bush wasn't born yet, I don't think, and if he was, he was a toddler and not a signatory.
Give your head a shake.
No, I do not work for the government or the military, never have.
[updated Thu May 10 02:48:24 -0400 2007]
10 May 02:48
Bernie
"I have absolutely no idea where you come up with your arguments"
Candace, I was about to ask you the same thing. You seem to think that I said George Bush created NATO. or signed it. How did you read that from my comments? Either your reading is bad or my communication is. Poor George never created anything except trouble.
Which of my agruments are nonsense? Please specify.
The only links I have are to my brain.
You wouldn't want to go there. :-)
10 May 07:47
wyly
"we are there at the request of the elected government of Afghanistan"-Candace
you're entire arguement is nulified by that. The government of Afghanistan at the time of invasion was not elected and it was the Taliban
[updated Fri Oct 10 11:39:33 -0400 2008]
10 Oct 11:39
scottbelyea
<<so few reports on what the mission is all about.
I disagree. I've seen several sizable columns and news pieces about the non-military aspects of the mission in Afghanistan. I suspect that if all you see is headline-oriented TV news, you won't find much of this. However, the info is out there.
I fault the government for doing a lousy job (really, almost a non-existent job) of discussing the mission and having any sort of debate beyond Harper's incessant "with me or against me" comments.
07 May 08:42
NNL
An interesting website is the Canadian Army site which includes video links and reports.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1.asp
I of course realise that some are not likely to agree with those reports and will call them one-sided.
However, to look at the site, and the information, and then at the long-standing media reports and various blog sites gives you a wider balance of information to make an informed decision.
Most of the "embedded media" in Afghanistan never leave the secure Kandahar Airbase.
When dignataries arrive, or soldiers are killed or wounded, we then see news coverage.
I agree with you, the concept of "with me or against me" is not an effective communications strategy, and the Conservatives are, once Quebec troops are deployed to Afghanistan are likely to take a serious hit in the polls.
What impact that will have in Ontario is yet to be seen.
NNL
07 May 09:21
Bernie
The way politicians communicate their message about the issues, namely foreign and domestic may determine whether those priorities take precedence. Judging from the mood of the voters now it would appear that it would beneficial for the Conservatives to focus on domestic and to play down the foreign. The Liberals would be doing the reverse.
I would place the environment first and make Afghan a secondary or lower issue
I agree that it would be unusual for foreign policy to be the number one issue. Since the opposition parties seem to be scoring more points on this issue it would be wise for them to keep that in the limelight.
Personally I find the polls do not to correspond to what I think most Canadians think about these issues. I don't have much interaction with people across Canada so my opinions are based on those I do communicate with, people I associate with and with gut feeling. On Afghanistan, the environment and many social issues I find myself agreeing with the majority of opinion coming out of Quebec. I have a feeling that a greater percent of Canadians across Canada have the same feelings but the media or politicians (or the polls) are not recoginizing this.
Most people I talk to, deplore our "mission" in Afghanistan. I put mission in quotation because it is a misnomer. It's used incessantly by politicians and the media and I cringe when I hear it. Mission, to me, is a good positive word. The debacle in Afghanistan is not. It's a craven, grovelling ass kissing to George Bush Chretien was wise enough to say NO to Iraq, but the obsequious Paul Martin was quite willing to sacrifice Canadian citizens lives to appease Bush.
Harper is trying to elevate such vassalage to a higher level (an oxymoron) The whole charade is a farce, an insult to Canadian decency. Everytime Harper, O'Connor, or Hillier says otherwise it lowers any respect I may have had for them. Most Canadians know this already and soon practically all of them will.
To me the casualties don't alter my position. It would be the same whether there were one or one thousand. It.s wrong to be there under those circumstances. Nothing else matters. It's more important to be on the side of righteousness.
For thinking Canadians it is not the issues, whether foreign or domestic, that matters most. It's how the politicians deal with them. I am sure that if politicians had real true beliefs and policy positions based on those beliefs they would get much more support. If they explained what they were going to do, why and how and did so truthfully we may accept them. For example the Conservatives if they were honest about Afghanistan or about the environment many say, ok. we'll give them a try. But so much of what they say about those two issues are blatant lies. It is not the way they say it is and most Canadians can see that. This propensity to try and fool the electorate is doing them in.
So for me and many other Canadians, it is not foreign nor domestic policy, but the honesty in presenting their position that determines who we support. And as of this moment none of the top three will get my vote.
06 May 09:50
6 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Mike
Hi Nik
The Conservatives have claimed the Afghanistan mission as their own. One of their first moves when taking power was to force an extension of the Afghanistan mission by two years. The timing of the vote in the house was intended to take advantage of the leaderless liberals and trap the opposition into supporting the extension. In the publics mind it became “Harpers war”
Of course if casualties rise, this will bring attention to the conservative’s foreign policy, including their position or opposition to the Kyoto protocol, the measured response by Israel against Lebanon. Obviously foreign affair is not the conservative’s strong suite, unless they are using it to distracting attention from their dismal domestic policy. I seriously doubt Canadians want to experience the G. W. Bush’s right wing tactics north of the border.
06 May 15:50
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
icecoolputer
What is the primary job of a soldier? His/her job is to kill the enemy, as ordered by his leaders. The human in the soldier knows that this is usually against his morals, and will do so only when they don't have a choice. We have a higher moral standard to follow, and this is not the same standard that is in the Taliban. This war is different. There are no uniforms and no government to oppose. Instead, we are fighting the ideal of radical Islamic Jihad. They do not want to lose their power and are resorting to fighting in the dirtiest of ways, and with our morals, we cannot fight at their level. Will this possibly lead to Taliban doing something in Canada? It could, but I will not worry about that. I know that if they do our mission will change. Our people will want to bring our soldiers home. Our mission cannot change!
I do not like the fact that our soldiers are getting killed by cowards. Those cowards would rather send desperate people to destroy themselves and those who are trying to help a population who has seen nothing but wars for the past 60 or so years. I have no respect for the suicide bombers and their ilk. I respect our soldiers for putting their lives on the line. it takes a person with a lot of courage to go knowing that you are possibly going to die. Despite the fact that you are there trying to rebuild schools and hospitals, and try to bring a semblance of normalcy to a country which has pretty much never had some, well you need your country to back you 100% Both Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Our country's leaders made a difficult choice to send our soldiers to a war torn country to try and help them become able to take care of themselves without the danger of the Taliban and Al-quaida. You don't change a way of thinking overnight and throw on a band-aid fix. It is going to be a long a dirty situation, one that could last 20 years.
Our leaders don't like that idea, and will jump on the bandwagon to blame the party in power over the losses in personnel, and expenses over the war, and so on. Sorry folks, but this is a long haul mission, and leaving in 2008 or 2009 is not going to be enough. Our politicians may force us out of there by then, but leaving when the job is only 20% done???
At that point the war might be over for us, but in 20 years when the Taliban has taken over the country again, and is building nukes for use in the USA, we will be looking back with 20/20 eyes, knowing we could have helped the Afgany people become a thriving peaceful economy selling something other than the opium and drugs they presently produce.
Until the Afghan people see that things are better FOR THEM, they are only going to see the deaths caused by Allied forces and are not going to be willing to walk up to the Allied soldiers and say "Hey! That guy is Taliban and blows people up! Arrest him!".
Will this be an election problem? You bet! Should it be? For the sake of the Afghanistan people, I hope it isn't because this will come back and bite us in the ass!
[updated Sun May 06 15:53:00 -0400 2007]
06 May 15:53
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
supper
No doubting that Afghanistan and the Harper war policy are the elephant in the living room. No one wants to dis our soldiers, but very few are in favor of this war. If Harper wants to win the next election, he has to hope that his buddy Jack keeps him in power long enough to wind down this war. Than they both have to hope for no bad news on the climate change front.
[updated Sun May 06 17:45:07 -0400 2007]
06 May 17:45
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Regina Beach Boy
Let me get this straight:
The Liberals got us into the war--Conservatives pay the price
The Liberals sign the original detainee agreement--Conservatives pay the price
The Liberals sign Kyoto,do nothing for 10 years--Conservatives pay the price
Where would we be without the Globe, CBC and Toronto star to tell us what to believe!!! LOL
Just when I was feeling good about being a traditional Canadian again.
[updated Mon May 07 00:37:10 -0400 2007]
07 May 00:37
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Smitty
The question "should Canada pull out if casualties continue" is based on the false premise that opposition to the war is caused by the "body bag syndrome". Yet Quebec has not yet had its turn in Southern Afghanistan and opposition there is the highest. Nor are there any body bags coming back to Canada from Iraq, yet opposition to that war is also intense in Quebec. SImilarly, opposition to Canada's support of Israeli bombing of Lebanese civilians was strongest in Quebec.
At most the bodies coming home highlight that a war is taking place. If the war was seen to be justified, necessary and internationally supported, Canadians, including Quebec, would support it regardless of the casualties. Your survey would best focus on the reasons for opposition to the war - but that might cause even greater shock to Mr Harper!
[updated Mon May 07 01:17:15 -0400 2007]
07 May 01:17
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Pressman
Wars are seldom good politics. The fighting in Afghanistan is no exception. We are apparently going to be there no matter what happens for at least several more years. The body count will continue to grow and so will the political discontent. Victory will be as elusive a goal to define as will progress. The Prime Minister and his front bench say repeatedly in the House those who don't support the war aren't supporting the troops and are Tailban sympathisers. Why should Canadians trust a government who equates patriotism with partisanship and whose only goal is to get a majority even if it means using wedge politics to create divisions among us?
07 May 11:39
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Hello Nik:
Personally I feel that Afghanistan will be a big election issue, and that we can no longer
dismiss Foreign policy, which now has a huge impact on all Countries. France voted right-
wing, G.Britain will also be more to the right, with Brown...Qc voted for the adq, which is
more to the right, however, I do not parallel this change with more votes for the Harper
gov't. at all! More casualties in Afghanistan will influence Canadians negatively, however,
this is not the real issue. Just as in Iraq, very few people know the real truth out there, and
what is really happening. Same in Afghanistan. Canadians do not know why they are fighting
out there, since the peace-keeping mission has changed drastically, and are beginning to
understand that it is not their war!!! That as the Americans are realizing, they have become
more unpopular with the rest of the world, and may be attracting more terrorist for the
future, out here! Contrarily to what they had been told by the 'bush' and cronies' administration.
Only Tony Blair, and against his own good judgment, joined the US in Iraq, but the rest of
the Countries refused to support the war in Iraq...We shall have the same dilemma in
Afghanistan, however, will it be too late to pull out? It's not like World War 11 where
everybody was fighting for a united cause. Remember last year, Nik, when the Harper gov't
did not want to have public funerals for the soldiers, because they did not want us counting?
Amnesty International had to send petitions so that the last World War 11 soldier could
have a memorial service, and that veterans had proper, and decent pensions? Now, the Harper gov't, and Rick Hillier caught on to the message
that they should really honour our fallen soldiers, and in public, in order to boost this war.
It's definately going to be a big issue in the next Federal election, along with a lot of other
important issues whereby this gov't is not giving us adequate info, and where is the
accountability and transparency that they had promised, and campaigned on?
12 May 16:39
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
wyly
I knew it was an unwinable war when we went in...Politicians are lousy at history and ignore it repeatedly, we stumbled into a civil war we had no business taking sides in, al queda was removed and that should have been the end of the mission...the Taliban was for the Afghanstan people to remove not us...
[updated Fri Oct 10 12:14:28 -0400 2008]
10 Oct 12:14
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.