Christ, arguing with Liberal is like trying to teach a pig calligraphy.
No, that’s a lie. They were talking about Canada sending combat troops to fight as a combatant in the Vietnam War. There is no other rational interpretation; it’s as clear as day, and you’re being a jerk.
What the hell’s wrong with you?
Make a compelling argument. If the best you can do is call me names, you have nothing.
I’d like to begin by positing that the United States asserted a foreign policy interest in pursuing a military mission in the Vietnam conflict of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
The tone and wording of Ms. Coulter’s remarks suggest that she was asserting that the nation of Canada, as an ally of the United States, sent troops to Vietnam in support of that foreign policy interest, and the associated military mission.
The fact that neither Ms. Coulter nor Mr. McKeown used the word “combat” in their exchange does not mean that they weren’t talking about that. The fact that Ms. Coulter has shown no inclination to follow up on her stated intention to “get back to [McKeown] on that” is strong evidence in support of the contention that they were talking about that.
Liberal, I’m asking this honestly and not trying to be dickish.
Do you think that Anne meant troops in general or combat troops when making her remarks on Fox News?
If she did mean combat troops, why is it impossible for the gentleman from the CBC to also simply mean combat troops?
I’m hoping the answers will keep this thread from rotating around the same points for another 8-10 pages 
Liberal, to me it’s bleedingly obvious from the context that Ann is talking about combat troops. I’m trying to be absolutely objective here. I don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion when you read her statement in context. The point of her argument was that Canada used to be America’s friends, to the extent of providing troops in the military effort in Vietnam. Clearly, while she did not explicitly say so, she did not mean peacekeeping troops in a non-combative role. Her statement would have absolutely no point otherwise. Any reasonable person that’s not playing semantic games would come to this assertion. Once again, Liberal, language is not exact like math or as nit-picky as philosophy. “Troops,” taken in the context of that conversations, cannot mean anything but military troops. Just because the word isn’t explicitly states does not mean it’s not implied. Read the exchange again. I don’t see how anybody can make an honest and compelling argument otherwise.
Holy crap, Lib.
Are you aiming for a tenacious sophistry medal, or something?
Can you decontextualize it any further?
She is clearly saying that Canada allied with the United States in its Vietnam campaign. She implies that we should support the Bush doctrine in Iraq, just like we supported the Eisenhower doctrine in Vietnam, which is asinine, since we never did.
Look, suppose George asks Paul for help in organizing a New Year’s neighborhood block party, and Paul declines, because he knows how George’s block parties turn out from past experience. Then along comes one of George’s syphilitic, crack-addled hangers-on, who remarks that Paul used to be a true friend of George’s, after all, he helped organize last year’s party. “No he didn’t,” remark the neighbors who actually remember that ill-fated night. “Well, actually, he and his family did help clean up all the broken glass, soiled underwear, blood, and vomit on January 1st, and his son Paul Jr. attended the party, and even supplied most of the cocaine.” “You’ve got to admit,” says an observer, “she’s right: Paul helped out with the party.”
Canadian troops did not support the United States against the NVA. We did not ally in the Vietnam war. We will in all probability send peacekeepers to Iraq after the occupation ends, but that won’t make us retroactive members of the “Coalition of the Willing.”
Dead wrong. Coulter was talking about Canada supporting the U.S in Vietnam. The U.S. was conducting combat operations in Vietnam (you must remember it - it was in all the papers). The only way Canadian troops could have supported the U.S. effort would necessarily have been in a combat role. Or perhaps as caterers. Or drivers. Or medics. They provided troops in none of those roles. They did not “support” the U.S. effort in any way, shape, or form. The CBC interviewer was making this point, and no other. Any other reading of the exchange requires a flagrant disregard for the plain meaning of the words of the participants.
If this obstinacy on your part were a one-off phenomenon, I’d worry. As it is, however, it’s depressingly familiar.
One wonders exactly how long you have to be a jerk before they decide you’re in violation of Rule #1. Evidently it’s possible to get beyond 20,000 posts.
Im not entirely convinced I can make a compelling argument, in fact even trying is a bit scary, but…
Officially Canada did not send in peacekeepers, the United Nations did. Yes the Canadian govt has control over their forces (where they go, if they go etc) but the UN decides if peacekeepers are needed and officially sends them in.
So the Canadian govt did not send troops to fight in the Veitnam war but the United Nations used some Canadian people on their peacekeeping mission.
See not that compelling…but worth a shot. 
So aside from the ridiculous argument, I think we are all in agreement that Coulter was talking out of her ass… which by strange coincidnece happens to be the resting place of her late brain. Even Liberal seems to agree with that.
Say Liberal, by the way which side did Canada side with In Cyprus? I know we sent peacekeepers er sorry troops there. I just wanted to know who we supported Greece or Turkey?
Seems to me I recall Joe Clark expressing a desire for a Canadian foothold in the Mediterranean Sea.
It’s pretty funny that the show was about Americans’ brains turning into mushola from listening to Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly’s insane made up blathering and when I look at the Straight Dope there is actually an argument about whether or not Ann Coulter is still just as accountable as the CBC because in the theory of infinite realities Canada must have been in Vietnam and what the fuck kind of journalist only counts the reality he’s broadcasting in and who is he to call her wrong?
Well, I checked the historical record and by gum, Canada was fighting in Vietnam.
That’s in Eastasia, right?
Nope Eurasia… we have always been allies with East asia and have always been at war with Eurasia
Wait… you go off topic to attack Liberal and when he responds, you criticize him for not talking about this topic? … Way to go…
But really, Lib, what the hell is wrong with you anyway? People here have been making arguments. The CBC guy was correct because he meant that Canada didn’t send troops in the way that Anne Coulter said they did.
It seems rather petty to insist that he was false. What he said was true, although it may not have been The Whole Truth.
Between the Brutus Fact ™ and the Liberal Truth ™, or is it the Liberal Fact ™ and the Brutus Truth ™, or is it . . . oh hell . . . the important thing is that these two should be able to revise our history based on their knowledge of . . . er . . . ah . . . well . . . their knowledge of . . . (what exactly is it that they know about Canadian history?)
Um, what exactly makes this a Liberal thread? The fact that he started posting crazy shit in it, perhaps? Anyway, go fuck yourself.
Including me, back on the first two pages, dipstick. :rolleyes:
They reported Ms Coulter’s faux pas on Fox News?
Have they no loyalty?
A nice try indeed, except for the fact that niether of the Vietnam missions for Canada were UN sanctioned missions. Please see the links to official Canadian government data on previous pages.