Sorry I was talking about Iraq. My uncle is a Kiwi SAS Veitnam vet, infact they had a conference/reunion last weekend. I apologise for any confusion.
Yeah, well I never said you didn’t. Try reading more carefully next time.
My dipstickery or lack therof has nothing to do with it.
And what I’m trying to say is that the first sentence of what you think he should say is what he meant by the entire thing. In the context of the conversation, “Canada did not send troops” has the “in the sense that you seem to be implying, Ms. Coulter.” implied.
The rest isn’t really relevant to the argument, because they were talking about Canada going with the US. Yes, it would have been more informative if he said the rest, but providing additional information like that is what Cecil’s job would be, not someone who is arguing.
He might technically have been wrong, but for the purposes of the debate he was entirely right.
You surely know that that is a stupid generalization, so then why do you keep saying shit like that?
But Canada was in Vietnam. Twice.
If you disagree that Coulter was wrong by implying that Canada sent combat troops to Vietnam or that McKeown was wrong by stating categorically that Canada sent no troops — period, then kindly provide evidence either that Canada sent battalions or that Canada sent no one. Otherwise, why are you disagreeing other than to disagree?
I will concede (and have conceded) that that is a metaphysical possibilty — but only one among many. Owing to his decision to evoke an intellectual superiority rather than inform, we will never know.
Every implication requires an inference. Whenever an assertion is ambiguous, people may infer whatever they wish. But in this case, the assertionS were not ambiguous at all. They were categorical. And repeated:
“Canada didn’t send troops to Vietnam.”
“Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.”
“Uh no. Canada. Second World War, of course. Korea, yes. Vietnam, no.”
“No, took a pass on Vietnam.”
“No, Australia was there, not Canada.”
“No.”
Were this Geraldo Rivera, I could understand your point. We would have two muckraking gossip editorialists posing as journalists for the purpose of intertainment. But this man is billed by his own employer as Canada’s premier award winning journalist, host of its flagship investigative news program. He has a massively credentialed vitae, and he has forgotten more than Coulter ever knew. He is educated and intelligent enough to know that he was using a litotes: a Catcher in the Rye rhetorical technique — “It isn’t very serious. I have this tiny little tumor on the brain”. His job is not to entertain, but to inform. If you insist that it was the former, then this whole thread is pointless since it is not a matter of Coulter being wrong but of McKeown being more entertaining. If it is the latter, then he deliberately wasted six opportunities to inform according to the facts.
Well, because here you all are. None of you is giving any consideration whatsoever to what I’m saying. The attack guns are on automatic. Cites given are ignored. I’ve been called everything from obtuse to a lunatic. And I have demanded nothing more to change my mind than a set of inferences drawn from true premises. Come sit in this chair, and tell me what your perception is.
Liberal, I’m going to post this again in the hopes of getting a clear answer. I’m really not trying to be obtuse, but the super-flu I have right now seems to be eating large portions of my brain.
Anne Coulter is wrong in her assertion that combat troops were sent into Vietnam despite never specifying “combat” troops vs. peacekeepers or canadian people serving with americans unofficially.
The CBC reporter is wrong about Canada not sending troops because he never specified combat troops vs. peacekeepers/canadians serving unofficially.
If this is the case, why can’t you make the same stretch for the goose as for the gander. If not, let me know where I am mistaken.
I agree with both your assertions. They are plainly true, though the contexts in which the two people are wrong are different. Coulter is wrong because she is ignorant; McKeown is wrong despite that he is not. In other words, Coulter mistakenly misstated the facts, but McKeown deliberately misstated them. Ordinarily, that might give Coulter at least the moral highground, but since her intention was to impugn, she forfeited that. They are two farts that smell different, but both stink.
I wish you a speedy recovery, Harborwolf.
Thanks for the well wishes and the reply.
I can kind of see your point, but I disagree with the motives you are assigning them. What I guess I’m trying to say is that I think you are looking too hard and reading too much into the statements made. It seems far more logical to hold both statements to the same implications. They were both talking about combat troops.
I do think that he would’ve been better off stating how any troops were involved either to Anne in comparison to Iraq (peacekeepers in both cases) or in the voice over afterwards.
I suppose by such a generous reading of the word “troops”, to mean any involvement in any capacity by any members of a nation’s armed forces, the United States was involved in the Falklands War, if it can be shown that there were USMC Embassy guards in London or Buenos Aires.
Heck, that’d show the Americans were supporting both sides! Shocking!
And in any case, such a generous reading is clearly not what McKeon or Coulter had in mind, so it’s irrelevant and best left to the anal-retentive who just don’t want to admit their argument is pointless.
So it comes down to this. It’s just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not even on the side he claims to believe in.
I think there’s a clear difference between playing devil’s advocate, and hijacking threads to Pluto with silly arguments that fit Liberal’s obsession du jour.
Possibly. But quite often, people talk past each other, one going on about one thing, and the other another.
I agree. Especially since, in the voiceover, he sank to her level of impugning.
In the midst of your hysteria, there would be a small point were the US in the Falklands to secure a ceasefire or otherwise participate in the war itself.
Speaking of hijacking threads, why don’t you start your own thread to pit me, rather than constantly pissing all over everyone else’s with your one-note crusade?
Whiny little bitch, aren’t you?
No, no, sorry, I must have misunderstood. You were just taking the devil’s advocate position.
Lots of people think you’re crazy, so you naturally have to assume a contrary position. Even though you admitted in the other thread that you do, in fact, have the affective disorder that lots of people thougth that you must have.
Now there’s a straight line going begging.
You were saying?..
Desmo and others, I’ve done the work for you. Please take your problems with Liberal here and let the rest of us have a discussion. Of course Liberal, you are invited also.
By the way, totally off topic Harborwolf, but I’ve also had a nasty flu since thursday night. I’m taking something called oscillococcinum, a sub lingual over the counter medicine. And although I am not a doctor and am not suggesting that you use this product, I’ve found that it’s worked very well for me. The only catch is that you need to start taking it within 48 hours of when you first get sick.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled nitpick.
Isn’t the fact that he said: “Second World War, of course. Korea, yes.” imply that he was talking about combat troops and only combat troops?