Poll shows Canadians are split on Afghan training mission - Macleans.ca

Poll shows Canadians are split on Afghan training mission

Majority opposes current combat operations


Canadians are nearly evenly split when it comes to Ottawa’s decision to extend the Canadian Forces’ stay in Afghanistan for a training mission. According to poll by Angus Reid, 48 per cent of respondents agree with the government’s decision, while 44 per cent are opposed. As for the current combat mission, 56 per cent of Canadians say they oppose it, while 36 per cent support it.

The Globe and Mail

Filed under:

Poll shows Canadians are split on Afghan training mission

  1. That's only fair. I am split over the mission, and I am just one person.

    • Me too.


    The weird concept of having done our share according to a timetable is an innovative and bizarre notion pursuant to fighting a war. What kind of world would we be living in today if Churchill and Roosevelt had cut, run and surrendered in 1944 instead of devastating the Germans in Normandy, and the Japanese in Saipan and the Philippines, as well as ending the German blockade of Leningrad? Fortuitously for us that these two world class leaders were not imbeciles like our current naive leaders.


    Terrorists sympathizing politicians who are demanding cut, run & surrender pursuant to our combat mission are notifying the Al Qaeda and the Taliban that to win the Afghanistan war all that is required is to patiently hang on until 2011 when our valiant soldiers will be dishonored as they are commanded to retreat in humiliation. We leave and Al Qaeda will return the following day. Left-wing politicians are further informing the Afghanistan people that they are being forsaken to the embolden terrorists. Canada's far-left politicians are indicating to women and children that they will no longer be liberated, but will be victims of rape and murder; just like in the old days when Afghanistan was a breathing ground for terrorism.


    If Canada surrenders its combat mission we will be abandoning our heroic troops and informing the parents and love ones of our dead troops “that these might not have died in vain” as Lincoln said, and that their terrorist's murders will never be held responsible. Canada's far-left wing, terrorist deferential parties must support our Canadian troops and must be persuaded that terrorism is not endurable, and that we can not condemn society for their contemptible acts.

    War against terrorism is not like a hockey game that you play until the whistle blows after sixty minutes, or a competition which each participant contributes his share according to a timetable. By cutting, running and surrendering we will fortify the terrorists, vitalize Canadian terrorists, dishonor our dead soldiers, and place Canadian citizens in greater danger.


    If we had an authentic small-c conservative government we would continue our combat mission until all terrorist are defeated. Our progressive PM must extend the combat mission in order to demonstrate to Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and other rogue nations that Canada has the necessary staying power and determination to win perilous undertakings. Secondly, Our Canadian government that cowardly refused to support the freedom fighters in Iraqi Freedom must demonstrate to the US, our crucial trading partner, devoted friend, and guardian that we now stand with them through hazardous times.

    • Like Harper you would have had Canadians invade Iraq so Americans could get their oil. Are you delusional ? Chretien stood up to Bush and said no. He said the evidence was not there. Guess what Chretien and most of the sane world were right.

  6. With all due respect the terrorist who were small in number left in the first few months of the illegal invasion and we permitted by the U.S to make it to Pakistan. Most of the 911 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan.
    The war on Afghanistan is a profit driven “resource war”. An American strategic resource war.
    Under US and allied occupation, this mineral wealth is slated to be plundered, once the country has been pacified, by a handful of multinational mining conglomerates. According to Olga Borisova, writing in the months following the October 2001 invasion, the US-led “war on terrorism [will be transformed] into a colonial policy of influencing a fabulously wealthy country.”

    Part of the US-NATO agenda is also to eventually take possession of Afghanistan's reserves of natural gas, as well as prevent the development of competing Russian, Iranian and Chinese energy interests in Afghanistan.

    Its amazing how all the false pretexts being circulated are being swallowed hook line and sinker by a gullible credulous public. The pretexts change regularly.

  7. Once in a while we read in the paper or see on TV, that some global energy firms want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, but of course, the country has to be stable before that is possible. Whenever this piece of info appears, it vanishes very quick. Instead we read about what good work we do to help the puplic with schools and many other infrastructure needs, and of course womens rights etc. I think we are fooled by the Afghan government because they really like our money and all they can get from us, But they seemed to be unable to fight for their rights as we know it. And we are foolish enough to think that we can convert them to democracy. America is the modern Rom and needs resources badly and will do anything to get it. And people can be replaced easily when they die. It is all about oil and mineral resources.