And it’s a stupid argument. In context, he’s clearly asserting that Canada did not send combat troops in support of the US, and not asserting that Canada did not send peacekeepers/observers during attempted ceasefires. His statements are entirely correct.
If he’d said “No uniformed member of the Canadian Armed Forces ever set foot in Vietnam,” then perhaps your response here might have some merit. But he didn’t, and it doesn’t.
I don’t see why everybody is giving that cunt all this attention. Let her go back to masturbating with a belt sander. I most likely would enjoy that but I wouldn’t be wanki’n like Brutis and Liberal.
I haven’t accused him of being a troll. I am unaware of any prohibition against calling out socks.
My irony meter just overloaded.
That’s crazy. Here is what was said:
If you’re going to apply that standard, apply it both ways. Coulter never said that massive divisions were sent by Canada to Vietnam, either. But the CBC guy said repeatedly and categorically that Canada sent NO troops, and that Canada was not there.
>like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam
I never suspected that Iraq had sent troops to Vietnam, but am grateful for the clarification.
Except that he wasn’t. He was gainsaying Coulter’s claim that Canada had fought on the U.S. side of the Vietnam war; he obviously is correct in that statement. He was not stating the position that no Canadian soldier has ever been sent in official capacity to the nation of Vietnam. That isn’t what Coulter was claiming, and so cannot be what he was contradicting. You ADMIT Coulter was claiming the Canadian government deployed troops to fight in the war. Logically, if McKeown contradicts that, he is claiming the exact opposite.
You can yank this out of context all you want, but no sane and honest person would interpret the conversation any other way. I certainly didn’t think they were talking about anything BUT actually fighting on the U.S. side of the war. The only people refusing to acknowledge that are two known jerks.
I just transcribed the whole context. He categorically denied any Canadian presence there.
With respect to logic, one can contradict a proposition without asserting its opposite. “His shirt is red” contradicts “his shirt is yellow”, but the assertions are not opposite.
Stop being obtuse. It doesn’t become you.
Coulter clearly asserting that Canada sent troops to Vietnam as an ally of the US. “Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam…” It’s just stupid to suppose she meant peacekeepers, because it doesn’t make her argument (such as it is) work. Canada’s sending of troops to Vietnam is only evidence for “Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends” if the referenced sending of troops was in support of the US. Sending observers isn’t the act of an ally, but the act of a neutral party.
McKeown is just as clearly contradicting Coulter’s point, i.e., he is denying that Canada sent combat troops to Vietnam in support of the US. The comparison to other conflicts is telling. In both WWII and Korea, Canada was a significant participant in the actual conflict. The comparison to Australia is also telling, because Australia was a again an actual participant in the conflict in Vietnam, while Canada was not.
The standard I’m applying is reasonable interpretation based on the context of the remarks of both Coulter and McKeown. If Coulter is to be understood as making any point at all, she must be understood to be referring to Canada sending combat troops to participate in the actual conflict. Trying to parse her comments as referring to observers renders her statement incoherent, which it is not. It is merely wrongheaded. McKeown must be understood in context to be contradicting Coulter, which means the question is again one of combat troops participating in the war, and not observers.
Sure, the exchange would have been even funnier if McKeown had rattled off the precise details of Canadian actions wrt observers and peacekeepers, and topped it off with a few references to public opposition of Pearson and Trudeau, but I think he was just caught completely offguard by Coulter’s historical revisionism.
Your calling me obtuse does not further your argument. Make a compelling argument. If you convince me, I will admit my error.
I have repeatedly — what four times now? — said that she was wrong.
What is telling, to me, is the insistent and persistent categorical denials. Surely, his expository skills are not so weak that he could not have said what you now are saying: Canada’s military involvement was minimal.
Yes, she was wrong. Five and counting…
I don’t know about funnier, but it would have been correct.
Nurse!
Ideally, if he was debating her and not interviewing her.
The only thing the Vetran’s affair department mentions in conection to Vietnam is a description of a medal
I think the irony meter repairmen are cleaning up in this thread.
So, you concede that Coulter, at least, meant by “Canada sent troops” to be referring to sending combat troops in support of the US? Your question to me, you will recall, was not about whether Coulter was right, but about what standard of interpretation I was applying, and whether I was applying it in the same fashion to both people. So your petulant little counting game here is misplaced - I was attempting to explain to you the way in which I was applying my intepretive standard to Coulter. That you seem to think I was simply arguing that Coulter was wrong indicates either you have difficulties with reading, or you can’t remember your own fucking questions. Either way, stop it with the bullshit intentional misinterpretation of other people. It’s not winning you any points.
What’s telling to me is your complete incapability of recognizing context. First of all, McKeown’s statements aren’t particularly categorical. The first, “Canada didn’t send troops to Vietnam,” is simply the negation of Coulter’s statement: “Canada sent troops to Vietnam,” and should in the context of an interview (as opposed to a polemical essay) be understood as a simple contradiction of the Coulter, who you have already agreed meant by her statement combat troops in support of the US, not any troops whatsoever in any capacity whatsoever. Here it is you, not I, that are applying different standards of interpretation. If Coulter was obviously best understood to be asserting that Canada sent combat troops, then equally obviously McKeown is best understood to be denying the same. His next two statements, “Canada took a pass” and “Australia was there, not Canada” are even less categorical. “Taking a pass” on Vietnam clearly means taking a pass on direct participation, not taking a pass on any and all diplomatic activity that might have been involved in trying to resolve the issue. There is no reasonable interpretation of that sentence that would render it as a categorical denial that any Canadian troops were present in Vietnam in any capacity whatsoever. Likewise, “Australia, not Canada” isn’t remotely categorical. It’s a contrast between the countries, and particularly appropriate due to the likely fact that Coulter most likely was confusing her former British colonies.
Anyways, I’m bowing out of this. You may continue on your Quest for the Ultimate Semantic Nitpick. Any reasonable person who understands a conversational context thinks your take on this issue is that of a raving lunatic.
Lib, what you’re saying is technically accurate if you ignore the entire first conversation that spurred the whole thing. But that’s the entire context for this argument and what you’re claiming ignores the first exchange about Canada. Canada did not send troops in the conventional sense and that is what Coulter is claiming has changed between then and now.
I know you’ve got a contrarian streak but this is pretty nitpicky even by thouse standards. Coulter was wrong and while McKown could’ve been more specific, he’s generally right.
Now you’ve done it, Mojo. You went and spelled McKeown wrong. Prepare to be filleted.
If the Canadian was simply reacting to a statement that was, as used, at face value, false. He had no time to prepare a comprehensive respond that incorporated the myriad ways that assholes may obfuscate the issue.
Okay, after watching more of “the fifth estate” article, I amend my earlier statement. I still contend that CBC is very liberal, but in no way as rabid and just plain crazy as conservative, right-wingnuts Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and our very own lunatic, Rachel Marsden. And they’re freakin’ rude, too. What is Bill O’Reilly’s damage?
The CBC is only “very liberal” from the point-of-view of absurdly reactionary societies like the United States and Alberta. 
Maybe everyone else has it spelled wrong and I’m the one who’s right, hmmm? Who are you going to believe, left-leaning CBC (funded by the draft-dodger-loving, no-troop-sending, used to be our friends but now I’m not so sure anymore neighbor to the north) or loveable old me?