(ellipses mine).
It seems likely to me that Coulter mistakenly believed that we had combat troops in Indochina/Vietnam, which is patently not the case. However, I suspect that she will glom onto the fact that there were uniformed Canadians in-country, sent by our government, to weasel out of an embarassing situation.
For those interested, here is the official list of historic and current “peacekeeping” missions undertaken by the Canadian Armed Forces, with personnel numbers. This list includes UN, non-UN, and NATO missions:
I never read the Toronto Star but you are correct as far as public policy goes and what’s “allowable”. I was merely disagreeing that CBC interviewers are rabid lefties and offered a better example of a slanted source in Canada. Even if I agree that CBC staff may be generally left of centre on an American scale re social issues, I’m not sure they would mirror Coulter’s spot on the right. YMMV.
It should be remembered that Canada’s economy is completely intertwined and in large part actually owned by American interests. This was the case during Vietnam as well, which led to Canada being (one of?) the largest importer(s) of war goods to the US for use in that war. Then, as now, Canada has little choice but to support the American military effort in some manner. The supply of troops can be seen as strong censure against not going through the UN.
Since he drew very different conclusions, perhaps he will. It appears that you used the information to suggest that the reporter was wrong.
But as to the other matter, you are entirely right. My heartfelt secret desire is to have the ability to whine like a puss about what people here are calling me. Help me! Please be my simpering puss sherpa.
As a minor note regarding context: Coulter’s statement that led into this whole Vietnam thing was the following:
Used to be? By any measure and with none of this pointless hairsplitting, Canada’s official presence in Afghanistan was (and still is) far larger, better armed and hugely more combat-ready than its official presence in Vietnam ever was. In fact, calling the Vietnam years a period of greater friendship is downright bizarre. The Iraq War has so distorted things in Coulter’s world that she can’t tell friend from foe any more.
What? Too high on the horse to look down at the little people? Point being – as you continually appear to miss it – that you’re a pathetic yet petulant a-hole, putting on your usual display of misguided logic in order to defend the indefensible.
Try to pound this through your incredibly thick skull: no matter how you attempt to twist the FACTS, Canada did NOT participate ALONGSIDE the USA in their criminal endeavour in Vietnam. IPOF, as already demonstrated by kingpengvin, both Pearson and Trudeau openly spoke out against the American war efforts.
How any sane person could infer from the known facts that Canada somehow supported and participated in the Vietnam debacle is beyond me. Or maybe not – operative word being “sane.”
Oh, BTW, I don’t give two shits whether you “know” me or not. So don’t bother asking.
You’re a hopeless dumbass. As already covered, the “who again” is a reference to the poster’s status as a returned former user, not as a newbie. Try to keep up in the future.
And sent uniformed personnel (most people call these “troops”) all the same.
So, you’re saying that the Canadian government is lying about its own involvement?
I know you. You’re a pathetic dick, but at least you have the courage to identify yourself.
PS-To those that find Coulter “attractive,” remember, this is The Straight Dope. No need to sugarcoat things; it’s OK to tell us about your equine fantasies.
I think most people would only call them “troops” if they were armed and might be authorized to enter combat. That does not seem to be the case here. It seems a very brass heavy contingent was sent as observers.
Keep up? With your tripe? What on earth for? Seen enough of your backpedals and absurd bickering when caught in a hole – namely, most of the time – to last me several lifetimes. And just in case I’d forgotten, this very reply of yours is just such an example.
To wit:
In what capacity, you disingenuous twit? Not exactly a chimp you’re talking to, ya know.
Just what the fuck does that cite have to do with what you’re responding to? When in hole, quit digging, scuzzball.
I can also rub my tummy and pat my head at the same time – which is a lot more than can be said about the likes of you.
Mustta fried your one remaining braincell coming up with that one.
Why are you spamming the thread with irrelevancies?
The fact is that she claimed that the Canadian government sent troops to fight in the Vietnam War (Clintonian attempts to parse the statement to mean something else notwithstanding), and was shown to be wrong.
Why did this get missed? Seems to me to end the whole argument.
If “peacekeepers” count, than Canada has done now exactly as it has done in Vietnam; so claiming that Canada has somehow ‘worsened’ since then is bogus.
I’m unclear. I thought we weren’t supposed to publicly accuse someone of being a sock or troll at all. Is it now OK as long as we’ve reported it to the mods first?