"Strategic" Polling On Afghanistan (Bumped)

Transparent as plate glass.

Note at the very end, Wollstencroft alludes to how things will change when the Vandoos land in Afstan this summer. An innocuous statement, but you can tell, the pollsters are salivating over prospects of Quebec casualties.

Absolute clarity here, and I am not normally a fan of Adler.

There always seems to be a results motive when polls are taken so that alone makes polls useless.

Polls could be useful when a professional poll revue board oversees the questions as un-biased and non-leading.

Until such a fair minded authority can validate the poll as clear and free of leading bias, no one can take them seriously. = TG

Salivating at the propect of Quebec caualties is an understatement.

More like Pavlovic drool.

Great work Richard.

And you people think Harper can win a majority? LMFAO! He's not even going to win another minority.

Excellent job! Statistically speaking, the question is not biased, but, if you have a client that wants you to prove something, you can easily make that happen. For instance, they call me and ask that question, and I ask them who the Taliban are, what did they tell me? That's the point that Adler made that helps make the results questionable, but of course the client got the results they wanted from a Liberal hack and trumpets them on TV and in the paper. Much like Kyoto, they never explain what it means, all most people know is that it is a legally binding international agreement to reduce "pollution", who wouldn't support that?

And you people think Harper can win a majority? LMFAO! He's not even going to win another minority.
I'm guessing you came to this conclusion after reading a poll...

Regarding Richard's statement on the videoblog "I thought it meant that 63% of Canadians are ignorant" (paraphrased).

That's much more polite than what I thought when I saw that poll.

Quantum

If Harper hangs on until the AG can get a good look at the books of all PMJC's foundations...well a week is a long time in politics..thirteen years of corruption is an eon.

Syncro

BINGO !!!

This is a great example of the 'new media' times that we are living in. Instant, hard hitting, the truth. Brought into our homes without liberal filters. No weasels :)

The knock out punch was near the end of the interview. The weasel admitted that high knowledge about the Taliban leads to high mission support.

The media, by playing down and ignoring Teliban atrocities, can affect public opinion. Coupled with intentionaly skewed questions, they can then provide poll results to fit their agenda. To affect public opinion.

Of course they could always fiddle with the poll results anyway as they are never, to my knowledge, published or verified.

"I'm guessing you came to this conclusion after reading a poll..."

Lol, not one but all of them.

Face it, if "THE GREAT LEADER" couldn't get a majority after adscam and is still behind (the Bloc and Libs) in Ontario, and especially in Quebec, even after a 2 billion dollar bribe BEFORE the Van Doos start taking casualties, then he'll never get one.

His one and only window of oppurtunity was a spring election, before Dion could get his feet under him and the LPC could raise enough cash for an election.

That's gone, and now the "genius" is looking to Afghanistan to get him out of trouble? In Quebec and Ontario? While his neocon (read war mongering idiot) buddy Bush accelerates the destruction of Iraq and possibly the rest of the Middle East? Plese pass whatever substance you're abusing over here, I could use something to distract me from this thesis for a few hours.

Harper is against public opinion on just about every major issue including gun control, Kyoto, foreign relations, tax cuts, health care (nobody bought his wait times guarantee BS), and more.

Harper is against public opinion [skewed manipulative polls, that is]

on just about every major issue including gun control [which is better, controling innocent people's guns OR controling the criminals ?]

Kyoto [kyoto is a fraud, the media is still hiding the fact]

foreign relations [Canada is no longer the laughing, Chretien/Kinsella, stock of the world],

tax cuts 7% >6%, more to come],

health care [decades of liberal rule got us this health care mess, takes more than a few months to clean up]

(nobody bought his wait times guarantee BS) [well, maybe liberals don't buy it, still waiting for adscam $$ to buy theirs],

and more. More ?? Haven't provided one(1) yet :)

Quantum

.Er..um...I stand corrected..the intellectual power that you obviously exude is beyond the paramaters of my potential perifidy.

Syncro

p.s. Shelia Fraser.

Hmmm,

Tim stepped in it. His proper answer should have been rightly or wrongly the majority of Canadians think there should be

However Tim is accurate in saying that the Canadian politicians operate in a Canadian political environment...and the ignorance or non ignorance of Canadians on a particular issue is what theyhave to deal with.

I will dissent on this being push polling. But I do believe it yields an unsurprising answer. I am sure there were a large number of candians who thought the policy of unconditional surrender in WW2 was controversial.

Canadians are there to hold off, kill and destroy the Taliban when encountered. They will do this until there is a relatively strong and stable governmnet that can command the on going support of the afghani people. It isnt to defeat the taliban, since that is really an undefinable mission, except in a given battle.

Force of arms is a tactic, develpment projects are a tactic, leaving poppy fields alone is a tactic toward a larger goal of a stable afghanistan that will not harbour terrorists that launch attacks on us or our allies.

I think most people agree that the best path to that, while we are there, is to encourage development and strong and effectve civil institutions. In the long run the path that Afghanistan follows is up to afghani's.

Back to the poll. It is legitimate to ask the question that they did but it is legitimate after that to provide a descripion of the taliban and ask if that changes people's opinion.

Polls are always interesting but they often dont yield the conclusion you originally intended. And this one I would attach the meaning of Canadians don't understand the mission and purpose, and without proper explaination the support for military aspect of the mission will melt away.

The unasked question is when that proper explaination is supplied do the people still support the mission? That question has yet to be posed properly.

Mission needs to be explained, not sold.

hey, quantum idiot.....go back to your trough and wallow in it for a while....once the Canadian public get a good look at your "fearless leader", they will be running to the CPC in droves....with chimpy mcarsehole sullying your brand(sic) everyday with his incompetence on many files, Ontarions(outside of the trawna latte sipping moonbats)are very uncomfortable with librano idiocy....interesting times ahead

It is all in the wording. Here is a poll I would like to see. "It is a scientifically proven fact that if Iran was blown off the face of the earth, it would send a clear message to rest of the warmongers in the ME, that their days are numbered. It would bring our troops home much quicker, and put an end to much of the strife in the middle east. Do you agree it is the logical thing to do?"

Found the poll question:

"It has been suggested that Canada and the NATO forces sit down with the Taliban and try to negotiate and end to the violence in Afghanistan. Do you think this is a; very good, good, poor or very poor idea? (21) (42) (18) (14)"

The question itself is leading as it's always a good idea to try to end violence but the real push comes from the question asked just before it;

"As you may know, there has been discussion about the treatment of Taliban detainees captured by Canadian forces and handed over to the Afghan authorities.
There have been allegations that they have been mistreated. Some people say that Canadians should be outraged by these allegations and that Canada’s reputation in the world has been hurt. Other people say that the Canadian government and forces should not be held responsible for what happens to prisoners held in Afghan controlled detention centers. Which view is closest to your own?; Canadians should be outraged by the allegations and Canada’s reputation has been hurt" or "Canadian government and forces should not be held responsible for what happens to prisoners held in Afghan-controlled detention centers"

Notice that the pollsters gave a lot of info on the supposed "mistreatment" of "detainees" but none whatsoever, as Adler noted, on the taliban themselves.

The poll primed the pump by creating the impression of a quagmire in Afstan and then follow through by asking if we shouldn't be trying to end the violence...

Hmm. If 70% of the people think we should be negotiating with the Taliban and 40% support what our armed forces are doing in Afghanistan, that leads me to believe that at least 10% of the population thinks we should kill the Taliban and then negotiate with them.

Leave it to polls!

here's a couple of questions that gregg and his fellow dips$%^s will never ask

1. do you support bombardion's Kyoto objectives, even though you will have to pay $2.50 per litre for gasoline?

2. do you support negotiating with a gang of thug criminals who behead women and children because they do not bow to a pedophile martyr?

3. do you support day cares spaces being built and payed for by taxpayers, when said daycare spaces will be used by overpayed librano trough wallowers in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal?

let's see if they have the balls to ask those tough questions?

Folks Don’t argue with the Quantum Liberal Idiot, because you can’t argue with a idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The Liberal media is carrying the Opposition's agenda issues because Dijon is so weak in the house...frankly this tells me we need a change of media as badly as we needed to tass the Liberals out...how do you get rid of a partisan media that thinks it sits in the opposition benches too?

Maybe yank their licence for unbalanced content?

love the weasel

Oh for the good old days in Quebec. Remember the stories and tv footage of terrorist bombs blowing up postal boxes on street corners. With all the junk mail flying around, on ALMOST wishes one could turn back the clock.

As for Afganistan, Iraq well thats just different, silly. Not the same class of lowlife scum at all.

A very interesting bit of writing about this part of the world and its people is

The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War

damn good read and a picture of what we where before we lost all confidence in our selves. Also how culture matters and how persistent culture is
book can be had for free download at
http://onlinebooks authors Churchill

I have no objection to Canada negotiating for the Taliban's unconditional surrender

I put the same weight behind the ex ambassador to the mafi, er, uh, Milan's poll, as I would the ex ambassodor to Denmark's.

Ignore the poll; it is invalid because the questions are heavily biased. It is not a genuine scientific poll but a partisan manipulation of the public to obtain a specific answer - and then publicize that answer for political purposes. It is not a poll; it is a political strategy by the Liberals to manipulate Canadians.

Ignore quantum liberal - who is either writing or reading a thesis, and is, in both cases, eminently unqualified to do either. Why? Because he is unable to use data and evidence; he rejects logic, and instead, is 'stuck on stupid', ie, he operates only within his partisan emotions.

As another example of Liberal MSM bias, take a look at Jim Travers diatribe in the Toronto Star today. He criticizes the NATO action to remove the Taliban control of Afghanistan; he says that we took out their 'local government', and this phrase ignores that this local government was a dictatorship that destroyed all freedoms in the country. Travers doesn't criticize the Taliban.

In fact, Travers says that we shouldn't 'demonize' the Taliban. Heck; I thought the Taliban did that to themselves, all by themselves. They certainly don't need us to define them as demons.

He then claims that Harper's trip there and his support of Afghanistan, is for 'political agendas'. This is a typical Liberal perspective; remember, the Liberals have no policies and have only one agenda. Power. They have no morality and have only one agenda. Power. So, Travers the Liberal, can only 'understand' actions that are carried out for political agendas. He simply can't comprehend ethics, morality, principles. [Same with quantum liberal, who is a typical Liberal].

And, Travers inserts the usual Liberal anti-Americanism.. His column is a textbook example of Liberal media bias. Same with this poll. Same with Greg Weston's column the other day whitewashing Monaghan and claiming that Harper's Clean Air act was simply 'Tory propaganda'.

The MSM - totally Liberals. And Liberals - without principles, without any capacity for logic and reason and rejecting evidence in favour of one thing only. Power.

[quote]I could use something to distract me from this thesis for a few hours.
[/quote]

Looks like you could use a few years in the real world and away from the moonbat university scene. You'd be singing a different tune once you start paying taxes and actually participate in society rather than reading textbooks, listening to communist professors and making judgment on things you know nothing about.

Say what you want about Strategic, they are the most aptly named company in the world.

The only way anyone could beat them is if CBC renamed itself Al Jazeera.

I think QL offers some insights into Lib thought. Criticize, never offer policies (where are the votes in that?). Tell us how Tories will lose next election, you know, the election Liberals afraid to force.

Yes, Kingstonlad, wait until electorate, not engaged in politics (hockey playoffs anyone?), seeing, often for the first time, dear leader Dionsky and his non-policy approach, where we make megatons of money buying Kyoto credits. Kind of amazing, Libs tied with Tories in polls (rarely accurate anyway), yet still not prepared to fight election.

So, QL, why are Libs afraid of election?

A Quantum Liberal said:

"Harper is against public opinion on just about every major issue including gun control, Kyoto, foreign relations, tax cuts, health care (nobody bought his wait times guarantee BS), and more. "

Perhaps. But by that measure Dion and his "dream team" should be well within majority territory. This is actually more of indictment of the Liberals than the Tories. Shouldn't you be off doing better things than posting here like maybe sharpening your knife?

A Quantum Liberal said:

"Harper is against public opinion on just about every major issue including gun control, Kyoto, foreign relations, tax cuts, health care (nobody bought his wait times guarantee BS), and more. "

Perhaps. But by that measure Dion and his "dream team" should be well within majority territory. This is actually more of indictment of the Liberals than the Tories. Shouldn't you be off doing better things than posting here like maybe sharpening your knife?

I'd like to see some pollster ask the Question,"what do you think the result of negotiation will be"?

Negotiation can mean going around in circles for years, accomplishing nothing, while the less scrupulous party uses the cease fire that always accompanies "negotiations" to strengthen itself.

Remember Vietnam, and the Vietcong's well coordinated stalling tactics at the table, while troops entrenched themselves deep in enemy territory.

The terminally naive undoubtedly envision an everlasting peace, with all parties singing "Kumbaya" together. What in this case is more likely, is thousands of jihadists travelling to Pakistan, ready to invade Afghanistan, once the Taliban "negotiaters" give the command.

Then the UN will declare Af'stan "freed" and our troops will come home, to the joy of the "peace" faction, while Af'stan slips back into the seventh century.

May 24th article in the Red Star "Prime Minister avoids contact with reporters on trip":

..."with reporters who fork out thousands of dollars to accompany him."

Yeah, right! That's shoveling the stuff rather too much, even for the braindead who read that rag.

"It has been suggested that Canada and the NATO forces sit down with the Taliban and try to negotiate and end to the violence in Afghanistan. Do you think this is a; very good, good, poor or very poor idea? (21) (42) (18) (14)"

Why should we negotiate. What ever happened to the much heralded Taliban spring offensive of 2007. Truth to the matter is that they have lost that offensive, but ofcourse our MSM will not report that fact. No, they want to spin that Harper is in trouble.

Yes, I am with McKenzie Redux, pull their licences for biased and unbalanced reporting. Canadians have a right to learn the truth and make up their own minds.

Hamid Karzai has in the past stated a willingness to negotiate a ceasefire with the Taliban. The Afghan government has evidently been in talks with Taliban fighters since at least the spring. The Afghan Senate recently passed a resolution calling for peace talks with the Taliban and the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.

While I agree that the majority of respondents of the SC poll are likely not well informed of the Taliban's past and present acts of brutality, it seems that their views are shared at least to some degree by the Afghan government itself.

Maybe the duly-elected Afghan government should negotiate whatever ceasefire with Taliban, who themselves seized power, with lots of help from Pakistan. Unless there is some kind of lasting peace brokered (unlikely at this time), ceasefire is futile, IMHO.

Alinated,

Sounds like "But I bought you dinner!!!"

"Personally we think the poll showed 63% of Canadians are ignorant."???

When you consider the other 37% of Canadians can be blindly led around by the nose by fear and words like "terrorist", I don't believe that statement above is all that accurate. Once again the leaders of the right want you to focus on the surface hoping you won’t take the trouble to question their leadership and look to see what lies beneath their version of the truth. Let’s not forget that most held in Iraqi prisons are just average Iraqis that were unfortunate enough to be hauled out of their bed in the middle of the night and thrown into Abu Gareb, abused then stamped with the moniker “terrorist”. All without the benefit of a trial, fair or otherwise.
The fact is the Taliban are not the problem and Al Qaeda is not the problem. The problem is that the US has found a willing foe in the Middle East that gladly supplies fighters willing to die for their religion and the US along with it’s willing allies are willing to kill them for it, after all it’s profitable to do so. This of course keeps Americans leaders happy since they can spend vast amounts of money on munitions fighting the boogieman of the day. This particular bogie man came at the right time since there is no longer a Soviet Union to spend the billions defending against evil “communists”. Ah “communist” the previous word used to lead the gullible right around by the nose with.
The problem isn’t the Taliban, the problem is our “friends” in the Middle East, the Saudis, the Pakistanis and those who allow the madras’ operate in their countries teaching the youth that they have a religious duty to fight and die against us infidels. Afghanistan and Iraq are simply the playground for the fight, the fighters end product of the madras’ and without these fighters the Taliban is toothless. The question is, why is the focus of the fight not in preventing the manufacture of these Islamic fighters in their source countries, instead of their never-ending conveyor of their product that ends up in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The bottom line is, the US doesn’t want to rock the boat or in this case, the oil tanker and they like spending those billions on bullets, especially when they can use them on someone else’s land.
Without a fighting force, the Taliban can be negotiated with. For the rest of the Middle East the answer to the problems have been ignored. We rely on them for oil, but they also rely on us for their food because they can’t grow enough of their own to support their populations. Food is a pretty big bargaining chip for peace and stability.

This goes along with my above post.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4502cbd5-c5f1-4c82-8c11-4eaf02af9ad8#

Can you imagine the howls from the latte-crowd if Canada used our food exports as a weapon ?? Even if it was against Dick-tators, such as Saddam, ect.

Alby

Librium

Syncro

"Can you imagine the howls from the latte-crowd if Canada used our food exports as a weapon ?? Even if it was against Dick-tators, such as Saddam, ect.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at May 24, 2007 4:28 PM"

I do believe the “Food for Oil” program was a product of the Clinton's government, wasn't it? I'm sure a similar arrangement could be sorted out if the end result was peace in Afghanistan and Iraq. All that would be needed is their co-operation in controlling what is taught in the madras' and their export of Islamic extremist fighters.
I'm sure the "latte-crowd" as you call them would welcome an alternate solution to war.

Syncro

Librium? No Socialist!

ohhhhh, albatross, you are so wise. How do you come by your information? How???

You inform us that most detained in Iraqi prisons are just your 'average Iraqi Joe on the street', harmless, a good citizen and all. Ooohhh. How do you know this? Please tell us!! Tell us why they were 'hauled out of their bed in the middle of the night'! Gosh, is that how and where they were arrested? All were in bed? All in the middle of the night? None as they were looting, as they were firing their weapons, as they were burning homes? None? Oooh, alby - tell us how you know this.

Ahh - and now you've told us the real cause of Islamic fascism. It's not the Taliban, it's not Al Qaeda. They are harmless Joes, just going about their ordinary jobs. No, it's the US, it's the Americans. Now- why am I not surprised that you, albatross, have come up with this 'splat' on the road as you walked through this thread today???? Is it because this is your normal splat?
Blame the Americans.

Now, you've focused your blame, alby; now, it's the military industries of the USA. Wow. So, are you going to suggest that, let's see..what is making the Taliban and Al Qaeda act as terrorists, act as fascists? How does the US get them to do this? After all, according to you, they are utterly not to blame or responsible for their actions. So tell us, alby, how does the US military make the Taliban and Al Qaeda into terrorists?

Now, you are trying to locate them geographically in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Wait - are you now claiming that it's NOT the US military that is behind the Taliban and Al Qaeda? That it is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Please, albatross, please make up your mind. Oh - and how do you know this.

Do you think that it could be ALL of them? Do you not realize what Afghanistan and Iraq are about? Ever heard of democracy and how it can confront fascism and reject it?

Now - you are back to 'its' all about the US military'. Why is that? Do you know anything about Islamic fascism, about tribalism, and social dysfunctionality? No - you don't. You just splat us with Conspiracy Theories.

ET- Cause and effect.

Cause and effect ET

...Who wants to tell Alby what Librium is...??

Tim said at the end of the discussion that he agreed with Charles Adler's comment that the more information people have, the better they can answer a question.

I never trusted the Strategic Counsel polls....nor the polls by Earnescliffe.

Please anon#31, fill me in.

alb39: "I do believe the 'Food for Oil' program was a product of the Clinton's government, wasn't it?"

And a product of Maurice Strong, past employee of Power Corporation, Ontario Hydro, and the UN, good friend of Paul Martin and his Liberal Party, board member of the David Suzuki Foundation, now living in China manufacturing cars soon to flood the North American market. China has no regulatory laws concerning pollution and very few standards regulations: How very convenient for Mr. Strong and his Liberal friends.

So, what was your point?

Well alby ...if it was a political system, you would know all about it , wouldn't you?
'cuz you know so much about those world regimes,eh?
Maybe Synchro(Doc, right?) will fill you in.
liberal, liberate,line-em-up,librium.
yeah...I can see how you would get them mixed up.