Actually I said “nothing dircetly” in regards to your cite, it is innuendo and infrence.
I also there is** Nothing ** to show complience by Pearson, or Trudeau. You want to stretch meanings go ahead. If you look at the politics of both men there is nothing in their history that would point to them taking such a radical stance as to show military support to The US actions in Vietnam.
For God’s sake Pearson even went into the States and made the big diplomatic faux pas by actively speaking against the war as a visiting dignitary.
Tell you what give me the names of the Candian Units deployed to fight in Vietnam. (I’m talking fight not over see a withdrawl) and I may start to concede. I’m not pigheaded but I have never seen any real evidnece that Canada was involved in Vietnam in anything other than a diplomatic peace keeping.
It isn’t board status, Early. It’s the rather strange and suspicious familiarity. Without any prior interaction, he calls me by my nickname, “Lib”. His remarks indicate that he is familiar with some long history of perception — phrases like “yet again” and “as per fucking usual”, and so forth. And now, he directly disobeys a moderator’s direct ruling, which, I’m going to wager, was likely directed to him: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5048163&postcount=21
Which cite? One was the Canadian government, and the other was the CBC.
Meh. Diplomats have talked out both sides of their mouths for ages. Quite often, there is speech for public consumption (Damn the American infidel imperialists) and then speech for private consumption (Beat up our enemy, and we’ll give you cheap oil).
I really don’t have access to names. Only to numbers. Which I’ve provided courtesy of the Canadian government. Whether you concede is up to you. It’s no biggie.
The fact that you welcome the support of a sock puppet, and even vigorously defend what Veb has called “trolling”, betrays the futility of your position.
Brutus and Liberal: even if you were to accept the argument that either post-war clean-up or soldiers of Canadian origin not sent by the Canadian government might technically count as “Canada sending troops”, it doesn’t support her original statement at all. The only thing that would support her claim is if she meant that the Canadian government actually sent troops to assist in wartime duties, which is how most everyone and their brother (IMHO correctly) interpreted it. She was wrong.
[sub]on preview: my first sentence is more tortured than a Al-Ghraib detainee but you get the gist.[/sub]
Don’t get too excited about Canadian tv interviewers - they’re almost as bad as their U.S. counterparts. the fifth estate is a CBC joint, and they just happen to be about as rabid on the liberal side as Coulter is on the conservative side. Interesting match.
I haven’t seen Coulter before, and I’ve only heard about her through the Dope, but she seems to be completely out of her mind.
Take the beer goggles off there honey. She looks like an anorexic male in drag. Real women, like myself, have what’s called boobs, hips . . . you know, something other than skin to cover the protruding bones . . . something to hold onto. But . . . if you like the 12-year-old boy look in women, more power to you. It’s not my place to try to move men back over to thinking HEALTHY women might be attractive. What is with this Kate Moss, if-I-turn-to-the-side-I’ll-disappear look. Aren’t these girls hungry???
:: stepping off the soapbox ::
A person can be okay to me, but their personality can ruin it. In Ann’s case, she just needs to go away. She’s a disgrace to humanity and an utter embarrassment to America.
I found the video rather amusing. It’s nice to see her smug look just melt when she’s proven wrong. I’m sure she’ll say something smart-ass about the interviewer or find some way to destroy his credibility. Regardless, I love to see her squirm under pressure. :rolleyes:
Oh, I agree she was wrong. As I said early on, I’m certainly not defending her. All I’m saying is that he was wrong too. He could have captured the high ground simply by stating the facts. As you point out, they alone make her seem silly enough. But his categorical denial of Canadian involvement was unfortunate.
Gee, if I were doing that, I suppose it would be futile. Since I’m not, it isn’t.
I think the difference is that, while wrong, calling you by your former name (or in this case, parenthetically referring to a group that carries the same name as your self-identified political affiliation and former screen name) is so mild, that your crying foul, citing your personal ruling, and behaving like a child saying “Ummm! I’m telling!” makes you look like a puss. Don’t be a puss.
It’s the kind of thing I would ignore, or at worst, respond to in kind.
I used the cite to identify the sock. You’re the one all concerned about some perceived"foul" and acting rather like a puss. Oooo, Lib got a ruling but I didn’t get one! Oooo! […shrug…]
Except that there is nothing in the history of Pearson’s political life that would ever point to him sending support to the United States in that particular adventure.
I’m sure you have no idea who I’m talking about so this point is perhaps lost on you. But old “Mike” Pearson tended to devote a fair bit of his diplomatic career into the idea of using international UN peacekeeping forces to settle disputes (He damn well created them) instead of overt force by any one power. If alive today he’d be labled a lefty peacenik. He was hardly the kind of leader to be supporting a war behind the backs of the Canadian people. Politician or not it was not in his nature!!!
You have provided the number of troops involved in peacekeeping observing the ceasation of hostilities, under the UN!!! (Note the dates 1959 French withdrawl, 1973 US ceasefire and withdrawl) Perhaps the number of guys who went south to join the US army could be important but shows no support from Canada.
The reason you can’t find the names of the units involved in the war itself because… well there weren’t any.
If you want a taste of Coulter, featherlou, pick up a copy of the Calgary Sunday Sun. Her weekly column is often in there.
Yep, she’s completely out of her mind. Even out here in right-wing Alberta, she’s farther to the right than any Alberta politician dares to be. I’m still trying to figure out if the Sun editors are picking up her column as a joke, or as some kind of proof that the Canadian right isn’t really as bad as they have the potential to be (as illustrated by Coulter).
But then, my main reason for reading that paper is that it’s always available at the local sports bar for those of us who want to get up-to-date on the sports lines and stats for this week’s Sunday afternoon games. If things don’t look good for my teams, either on TV or in the press, her column provides humourous relief. Then, I move on to the crossword puzzle.
That is patently ridiculous. Give some examples of CBC interviewers spouting half-truths to make some “uber-(small L)liberal” comment. How about showing them rabid about anything besides freedom of the press. Our most obvious example of a biased national news source would be the National Post, a decidedly conservative slanter (though more aligned with the blue wing of the Liberal party since the Izzy influence).
I’m just going by the CBC’s report that I’ve cited (twice) and its reference to the Pentagon Papers. I certainly didn’t know the man personally.
You really should read the cite before commenting. It says specifically that these were not UN missions.
The war itself? I think you’re confused about the “ceasefire”. It happened during the war proper — 30 March, 1972 through 28 January 1973. The communists violated the ceasefire, and the war continued. According to the sources, Canada’s last involvement was with the military evacuation of the American embassy in Saigon. It rescued cars while leaving people behind.
