Oops, I meant
"Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."
(Gosh, this linguistic analysis is tricky. How come they're so good at tricking us and we're so lousy at seeing through the tricks?)
ed
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Oops, I meant
"Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."
However, Coulter's claim was offered in the context of an assertion that the nation of Canada was once a supportive ally of the United States but no longer is. International alliances are relationships between or among states, that is, governments. In this context, the claim only really makes sense as an assertion about government actions, since the actions of private individuals cannot constitute (or break) an alliance. Moreover, this context also associates the presence of Canadians in the Vietnam conflict with ideological support by the Canadian government for the United States government's position in that conflict.
I agree, by the way, with the interpretation that she likely made this claim from memory (remembering that some Canadians fought in Vietnam), without intent to deliberately deceive, but without checking the facts. It appears further that when exposed to the facts she expressed disdain for those who considered the distinction worth making. For the morality of making rhetoric in this fashion -- which is hardly unique to Ms. Coulter -- I suggest reference to the recent work of Prof. Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University.
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Oops, I meant
"Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."
However, Coulter's claim was offered in the context of an assertion that the nation of Canada was once a supportive ally of the United States but no longer is. International alliances are relationships between or among states, that is, governments. In this context, the claim only really makes sense as an assertion about government actions, since the actions of private individuals cannot constitute (or break) an alliance. Moreover, this context also associates the presence of Canadians in the Vietnam conflict with ideological support by the Canadian government for the United States government's position in that conflict.
While I think it's likely that Coulter just made a mistake regarding the extent of the Canadian government, drawing from memory and hitting just off-center with her facts, I don't think there's enough hard evidence to make any final declarations about the matter. It could very well have been merely a poor choice of phrasing because of the colloquial understanding her words conveyed. You're trying to attach an "official Canadian action" sense to her words and, while she may well have meant that, she also may not have. There's no particular reason to assume she wasn't referring to a general, public support for the US, rather than a specific state of official relations between governments. In fact, considering that she was talking about matters of goodwill (instead of / in addition to) military policy, one might argue that the "public goodwill" argument holds more water.
This factual error, misrepresentation, mistake, lie, or whatever else it might be, is in no way a cut-and-dried case of Coulter being in the right, the wrong, or the sideways. Look for reasons to assume good faith on her part and, if you don't find any reasonable options, THEN declare otherwise. Relying on the word of people like Moore, who has made documented, unavoidably deceptive statements on many occasions, hardly constitutes proper critical analysis of the situation.
That aside, I don't see any reason to do other than simply include all relevant perspectives on the debate in the article. Any actual analysis of the matter should not be the core of the article's text.