How do you know that she didn't know the truth? She stated something as a fact, and it was incorrect. To me, that's a lie. So he's just supposed to take it? She calls him a faggot, and if he used her quote to earn campaign cash, he's a hypocrite? Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me... Yup. My opinion, that her statements are factually incorrect, and sometimes intended to mislead, is nothing more then an opinion; until the facts surface that proves her statements were incorrect.
Smells like back-pedaling in here Did Ann Coulter say "combat units?" She did, in fact, ask the question about Indochina which is what her premise was based upon. The only reason I can see that anyone would still defend such, in light of the facts being presented, is blind hatred, saving face, or partisanship. Which one do you prefer?
It's a shame you are once again exploiting semantics (that don't exist) GTech. She clearly said in the interview, that Canada was once a friend to the US, using Vietnam as a military example. Canada was not in Vietnam at the behest of America. They were there as part of an international peace keeping contingent. It's fact. ONE casualty from 240 men at the end of the war. We know the Canadian military is a joke, but I'm sure they sent more than 240 men to Korea.
She was correct. Canada did send their military to Vietnam. History shows this. Their roll isn't in question. I'm glad you now agree that Canadians were in Vietnam. That was a huge step forward from your first sentence! I don't suggest Canadian military is a joke at all. They have troops in Afghanistan and their military has helped train Military and Police officers in Iraq. At least we agree...Canada did have military in Vietnam, as Coulter suggested. Can I get some ribs up in here? With some partisan sauce?
Their role is entirely in question. They did not participate in the Vietnam war. They participated in the cease fire. That's a pretty big SEMANTIC difference. GTech, if you aren't getting paid to spin, you should be. Guy is arrogant enough to ask for rib sauce when his lack of credibility or intellectual honesty deserves a big helping of humble pie.
Haha, type in Canada in Vietnam and this is the first thing google shows: Then if you go to that page (wiki), it will show you (about half way down) the list of prerequisites I talked about earlier... (wiki)
In question by whom? The bottom line is, Coulter was correct. Canada did send it's military into Vietnam. The fun part, is watching two partisan hacks trying to backpedal over it. Meanwhile, the same to hacks are defending a man, that by the Constitution that RP supporters claim is their new Bible, has violated that very Constitution. I need some cream and sugar with this cup of hypocrisy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War But, if Ann Coulter says it, no matter who true it is, it must be wrong
Not into the Vietnam war. Into Vietnam after the cease fire was negotiated and the war was over. Coulter was implicitly inferring that Canada went to Vietnam in support of the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. They went as part of the international community. Ah yes, baseless accusations. When the argument is lost, start calling names and tossing out half-truths. The issue (right now, although I would be happy to argue it with you) isn't Ron Paul, the Constitution or partisanship. It's that you are twisting the facts, Canada's own official history that they did not participate in the Vietnam war, to prove that Coulter was correct. When she is totally wrong! So to summarize, she's wrong, and you're wrong in defense of her. Now let's see if we can make two wrongs a right and establish some intellectual honesty to these discussions.
Yup. Of course he's willing to take things out of context to defend ann... Everyone knows Canada refused to send troops to the Vietnam war, otherwise, why would the dodgers went there? Why would Canadians joined the US army to serve in vietnam? In this type of debate, the facts won't matter to him... I've already pointed out one instance where he called a source that I cited "uninformed"; after he had posted the same one earlier...
you and gurilla need to stop...you both have backpedaled so much that you are now on the AGS/gwhirled level...and as you say that Gtech is taking things out of context, I invite the two of you to go back and look at the video's again, because its actually the two of you who are taking things out of context. But hey, when you are a lefist, thats what you do right? you have to make things fit your agenda?