Clearly the government of Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. Clearly also, Canadian citizens fought alongside Americans in the Vietnam.
However, I believe the only reasonable neutral interpretation of "Canada sent troops to Vietnam", in the context provided (when talking about the actions of the Canadian government w.r.t. wars) is that the Canadian government sent soldiers from its army to Vietnam.
I quite agree that the anti-Coulter arguments deserve balance, and I think it's important to mention that Canadians did serve there (in Coulter's defence). But I also think that suggesting that Canada *did* send troops is an inaccurate characterization of the facts surrounding that particular POV.
Steve
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I agree that the [[Ann Coulter]] article should mention that (to use exact words):
* Canadians did serve there
Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform" to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this sub-point:
1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
3. The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
4. Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.
Option one definitely implies that Coulter was 100% wrong.
Option two makes Coulter partially wrong, and McKeown partially wrong (but McKeown wins the "gotcha" game).
Option three makes Coulter partially right, and McKeown partially wrong (i.e., they both were somewhat mixed up; gotcha game ends in a draw!).
Option four makes Coulter 100% right, and McKeown and Moore 100% wrong.
I don't think options #1 or #4 are correct, not based on reading [[Canada and Vietnam]] and Ray (Eclecticology)'s recent post.
Then there's the other slant: to what extent is a person "wrong" if they say "the country sent troops" (possibly meaning its government) rather than "men from that country fought" (could be either gov't troops or citizens who joined another country's army)?
Coulter's slant is that she was wrong (but she seems to regard it as a misstatement more akin to a slip of the tongue or choosing the wrong word.
Moore's slant is that she was dead wrong (probably even *knowingly* wrong, i.e., lied on purpose; or possibly just ignorantly wrong, i.e., thought it was the government sending active duty personnel).
The anti-Coulter crowd in general (based on blog posts) seems to regard this as Coulter being "exposed" as a deliberate liar. Finally, they have clear, definitive proof that the B###h (or Wh###) just goes around making stuff up even though she really has no case at all.
I don't think the Wikipedia should take the side of the anti-Coulter crowd, but I have no objection to letting the article recount or summarize their argument.
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W said:
There are three points of view on this sub-point:
- No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian
government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
- Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the
"served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
- The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with
weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
- Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam
(at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.
Option one definitely implies that Coulter was 100% wrong.
Option two makes Coulter partially wrong, and McKeown partially wrong (but McKeown wins the "gotcha" game).
Option three makes Coulter partially right, and McKeown partially wrong (i.e., they both were somewhat mixed up; gotcha game ends in a draw!).
Option four makes Coulter 100% right, and McKeown and Moore 100% wrong.
I'm sure that Canada sent troops as part of the force that was sent to monitor the South Vietnam agreed in the Paris Peace Accord. I'm sure they were armed and almost certain that they occasionally used those arms. Here's a VA-Canada page about the service medal they received.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/gr...
However this is clearly not the force that Coulter was talking about (unless she wrongly believed it to be a force sent in aid of the United States) and that McKeown denied existed. Coulter said: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" Note that Coulter specifically was talking about military support for one side (the USA) in a conflict with another country, and asking why this wasn't forthcoming in the current conflict in Iraq. That Coulter misspoke, and McKeown's denial was correct, should be made clear on the Coulter article by those who are editing it.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:32:56 -0800, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform" to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this sub-point:
- No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian
government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
- Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the
"served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
- The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with
weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
I agree with your breakdown of the various interpretations on this matter. I also agree that 1) and 4) appear to be false.
I don't think 3) is true either, since the only deployment I know of, from web searches anyway, is this ICCS thing (Operation Gallant), which Tony Sidaway has also commented on. But these were non-aligned peacekeepers, which I presume is exclusive from active duty soldiers.
To me, Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans.
So, as far as I can tell, there seem to have been no troops sent by the Canadian government to Vietnam to assist the American side. To me, this makes Coulter's claim unambiguously wrong.
The article should note this. However, it should also mention the possible charitable explanations for her false claim, by mentioning Canadians who enlisted in the U.S. army and the peacekeeping Operation Gallant, or possibly just providing a link to the relevant section of [[Canada and the Vietnam War]], since much of the content would be the same. We should of course also mention how this claim is interpreted by her critics.
Coulter's slant is that she was wrong (but she seems to regard it as a misstatement more akin to a slip of the tongue or choosing the wrong word.
Yes, that seems to be her take on things.
Moore's slant is that she was dead wrong (probably even *knowingly* wrong, i.e., lied on purpose; or possibly just ignorantly wrong, i.e., thought it was the government sending active duty personnel).
I do not this incident or any of the facts about Vietnam and Canada suffice to prove that Coulter is or is not a deliberate liar. (My personal conclusion is that, like many claims she has made before, she was simply pulling facts from memory and hoping they were right, or at least not challenged.)
Steve