Whether Canada sent its troops to Vietnam or not, Canada does not have to remain US's royal friend when Canadian people feel that they can't support what the US is doing.
Most people would ask themselves a question, "Did I do anything wrong to lose his/her friendship?" when their former best friend has become critical about them.
But Ann Coulter kind of people won't ask the question and concludes, "My friend has become jealous of me, because I'm always right, good and beautiful."
Your info from wiki came from a user-created page with few citations, and the ones used do not necessarily lend themselves to the page. Additionally, the user page is biased beyond reasonability.
Regardless, Canada's stance on the war was neutral which was not the argument being made; it's the same way, despite Americans being stationed currently in Okinawa, we don't say we're sending troops to Japan.
Arguing semantics to defend an invalid conclusion is useless.
@101Pilgrim - Technically, the United States congress never declared war on North Vietnam. We were there as advisers and to assist the South Vietnamese. Canadians were there to monitor the Paris peace accords. So, by the same token, the United States never sent troops to Vietnam either. Merry Christmas.
@NAGGERNUTZ A red-herring. How original. No, the GTR was not a formal declaration. What's your point? It still called for conventional military protocol; I'm unaware of Canada having any similar resolutions to that affect.
But that's besides the point: the formality of the definition doesn't change the problems with your sources, or your argument. Canada was neutral. We were not. And no, the GTR was more than advising, but again, good try.
@101Pilgrim - I love it when you take the same scenario and somehow spin it different... not even a nice try. Conventional military protocol? You mean like carrying weapons and firing back when fired upon? So the Canadians that were KIA weren't exercising standard military protocol? They didn't return fire? Again, the US military were there as advisers and to assist and train the South Vietnamese military. You seem to be interested in video games. Are you good at it? Stay with what you know.
@NAGGERNUTZ Nope. Not spinning anything. The GTR had very specific clauses that all but sanctioned open war. Perhaps you should read up on it before responding. You might learn something. I'm still waiting for the link to the Canadians' eqvuivalent.
I'm also still waiting for a response that actually deals with the problems I mentioned with your argument: bad sources, bad use of terminology. Canada didn't send troops into the battle. If you want to argue that America didn't either, then okay.
@101Pilgrim - Oh Skippy, please. Perhaps you should stop talking about a subject that you read about on the internet. One thing that you can't get from a web site... experience. I was there little brother. I love how the overwhelming majority of the liberal comments on this video seem to come from, young, idealistic, post-adolescents. You can't possibly understand what you've never experienced and couldn't experience in your wildest dreams. Please drop it and go away.
@101Pilgrim - Yawn! Are you back again? Look, if you don't like my answers, you're free to go. You have my permission. You don't like my answers therefore you're right and I'm wrong doesn't make it either Skippy. I refuse to lay down and accept your all knowing opinions. This is going nowhere, but you should go somewhere other than here.
@NAGGERNUTZ I didn't ask a question. Therefore no answers. The word you were looking for is "response." Additionally, I made no argument. I simply said yours is incomplete. I'm still in a defacto position because the evidence I brought to question is incomplete. When I brought this to your attention, you went on a smear campaign, changed the subject and appealed to ethos.One more time: address the issue I raised with your source base.
Also, I'll stay. Unless you'd like to move me like a fascist.
@101Pilgrim - Read the first 2 lines of the video description. I'm tired of this nit picking. The evidence is all over the internet. Please be my guest and go read. If all you want to do is slam Ann Coulter, I'd respect you a whole lot more if you'd just do it and get it over with.
Made one. You decided to go off topic. The evidence is clearly not all over the internet; you chose sources that I've called into question, and instead of being the good little boy and discussing them and attempting to show their credibility, you've run in circles and attempted to get around the fact that someone is informing you that your sources are bo schitt.
I don't need to make fun of Coulter. She does a good enough job herself.
@NAGGERNUTZ cont. Furthermore, I find it ironic that this, to you, is how a liberal debates: "About Me:
How a liberal debates:
1. They shift the subject
2. They ignore the facts
3. They name call when you pin them down"
when you consistently shift the subject away from the illogicality of your argument, and call me names when I've asked, several times, for you to explain the problems with not only your source base, but the fallacies in reasoning you've demonstrated along the way.
Because then you're still wrong. How is "oh well then America didn't send troops in either hurr durr" a valid response? It completely destroys your argument. I may not agree with that rebuttal, but for the sake of argument, fine. Congratulations, you just backstabbed your own argument. You used terrible sources, and you're trying to stress the validity of an argument based on semantics. If I presented that to another professor, or at a conference, I'd be laughed at.
@NAGGERNUTZ Seriously, there is no point trying with you anymore. You are so thick-headed, I'm beginning to think that you are satirizing the stupidity of Coulter and her followers.
@HappyColouredMarbles - You are certainly free to move on and view other videos. I'm also skeptical as to your claim of being a conservative. Ann Coulter is one of the few conservative columnists that takes liberals to task and challenges their lies and spin. She's outspoken and correct 99.9% of the time. And I understand that because of that, she rubs liberals the wrong way, but in my mind, that's an asset. Somebody has to. Have a very Merry Christmas and may God bless.
@NAGGERNUTZ Well here I am getting dragged into it again: A person like Coulter isn't given the time of day in Canada, by conservatives or liberals. She is a fear mongerer, an islamophobe, and a patriarch. If any of her views were actually taken seriously, freedom and liberty in the USA would be severely limited...
@HappyColouredMarbles - You aren't getting dragged into anything. Am I to expect your response to every comment made on this video?
A fear mongerer? Clarify please. Islamophobe? Only the ones who are trying to kill us... and you too if they had the chance. You're just as much an "infidel" as I am. Patriarch? In what sense?
@NAGGERNUTZ In Canada, whether liberal or conservative, we value multiculturalism and tolerance - principles that Ann Coulter would love to do away with based on her own fallicious beliefs and lack of understanding of others who are different from her. In Canada we have far less extremism on either side of the political spectrum, and people like Ann Coulter simply don't get publicised just because they make outrageous statements...
@HappyColouredMarbles - In the US, we also value multiculturalism and tolerance. We just don't lay down and coddle those who try to destroy the country. You have far less extremism? I'll buy that, but you aren't the leader of the free world either. Nobody depends on Canada for aid, then turns around and tries to kill you. Canada enjoys that lifestyle merely because of their geographic proximity to the United States.
@HappyColouredMarbles - In the US, we also value multiculturalism and tolerance. We just don't lay down and coddle those who try to destroy the country. You have far less extremism? I'll buy that, but you aren't the leader of the free world either. Nobody depends on Canada for aid, then turns around and tries to kill you. Canada enjoys that lifestyle merely because of their geographic proximity to the United States.
@HappyColouredMarbles - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're a conservative, but I'd be interested in knowing just what conservative principles that you adhere to. So far, you haven't displayed much. Canada doesn't have a free press either, yet Canadians attack Fox News? So much for freedom of speech in "Oh Canada".
@NAGGERNUTZ Canada does have free speech but we try to keep our media neutral and unbiased - although some news outlets, such as the National Post, CTV, MacLeans or Sun TV are more right wing, while the CBC, The Globe and Mail and the Walrus are more left wing, they are nothing like media in the states. Fox has a clear conservative bias, by straight up endorsing political candidates, and skewing facts to serve their purposes. MSNBC is Fox's left-wing equivalent. That is not news.
@HappyColouredMarbles - My friend, "keeping our media neutral and unbiased" is in itself banning media outlets. Banning any station just because you perceive them to be biased or not, is in itself biased. We let the people decide. All people, not just political preferences. We watch what we want, the ratings tell the story.
@NAGGERNUTZ "Banning any station just because you perceive them to be biased or not, is in itself biased."
I think you may need to look up the definition of "bias," because I don't think it happens to mean what you think it means and I don't think the argument you're trying to make matches the definition you're trying to force; letting people decide is necessarily decided based on perception. Assessing bias, without metaphysical bull, is largely an objective process.
@NAGGERNUTZ Which is short for, "I can't defend my own source base."
There's a reason rational people have a hard time understanding irrational conservatives. Too much cognitive dissonance I suppose.
I'll feel better when you be the bigger man and admit when there's a problem, instead of running and circles and trying to be right on such an inane issue as a technicality. It's actually a touch pathetic.
@101Pilgrim - Which is short for you're boring me and you make no sense. You're starting to cross the line between intelligent comment and being a troll/hater. Actually those who would argue that Canada didn't send troops would be nit picking a technicality. And yes, it is a touch pathetic. Bye now.
ATTENTION: The user Theobrothers has been blocked from further comments on my videos. He was clearly owned here, so he created his own video, using the same losing talking points in a desperate attempt to "win" an argument. I am only blocking him AFTER he blocked me from his videos. He loses not only on merit, but by default.
@Theobrothers - And tell me Einstein, how would the context of whatever change the fact that Canada did in fact send troops to Vietnam? Ask ANY combat veteran if he gave a shit why he was sent into battle. And yes, if you weren't desperate to "win" this dialog, any normal person would have moved on by now. But you can stalk me all you want if it makes you feel better.
"Ask ANY combat veteran if he gave a shit why he was sent into battle"
Exactly the point, no troops were ever sent into battle by Canada in Vietnam. Some were their on their own volition, some were there during cease fires / Peace agreements to essentially take notes under the UN, not Canada. Heck there were even some under the UN in international waters checking boats.
However, NO troops were ever there sent there by Canada to support the war. Period.
@Theobrothers - Simply amazing! They weren't sent into battle by Canada, but I guess those soldiers who gave their lives didn't get the memo. "Some were their on their own volition, some were there during cease fires / Peace agreements to essentially take notes under the UN, not Canada. Heck there were even some under the UN in international waters checking boats." They had to be there to do it, didn't they? A Canadian who'll trample on the graves of those brave men just to win a YT debate. Sad.
"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."
In that context she is arguing we sent them in support of the war, as she is comparing it to the fact that we weren't sending troops to IRAQ. If you can't admit that then you are the one twisting shit.
She definitely meant in support of the war, not the "idea" that some Canadians might be there making bibles.
@Theobrothers - ROFLMAO...you're sounding desperate. All she's saying is Canada sent troops to Vietnam, which they did. Now you want to again nit pick the reason why they were there. Very desperate.
1. North Wall - Funded by Americans, Canadian Gov denied petition to place it on Gov land. This is actually a horrible argument as its so easily refuted.
2. Medal's aren't given for combat only, we have lots of UN medals, I'll link you. Again horrible argument.
3. ICSC and ICCS were UN mandated, multilateral neutral parties sent to oversee peace, I.e when the war wasn't on. Best argument people have come up with, unfortunately still wrong.
The point is that the troops didn't go as ALLIES of the USA. That was the point Coulter was trying to make and obviously a non-combat mission does not pertain to her argument. Canada did not fight in that war because it did not support it, nor did Canada go to Iraq because Canadians did not think it was a just war. One of Chretien's finest moments as PM.
@HappyColouredMarbles - Gee, I can't understand why Canada would erect a monument (the North Wall) to Canadian soldiers killed in Vietnam. Medals were awarded for service in Vietnam. But wait, they weren't really there were they? Maybe it's a big Canadian conspiracy theory.
@NAGGERNUTZ You just totally ignored my point about the context of Ann Coulter`s statement. The crux of her argument was that Canada had been longtime allies of the USA and that the Iraq case was a rare exception to Canada fighting ALONGSIDE Americans. But Canada did not go to Vietnam as allies of the USA: they were a non-belligerent, neutral presence in the conflict and did not take one side or the other. Her point falls flat because Canada didn`t go there to fight.
@HappyColouredMarbles - Dude, at least you admit they were there, kudo's for that. What does context have to do with it? Let me ask you a question? Imagine yourself in a fire fight and you're being shot at by multiple AK-47s... with me?... would you give a flying fuck what the reason was that you were there? Believe me, when that first round snaps past your head, politics is the last thing on your mind. That's my whole point. They were there, which is all Ann Coulter is saying.
Canadian sent troops never fought in Vietnam as they never sent any. Men who crossed the border and joined the USA military don't fit the definition of "troops sent by Canada™" nor does a delegation under the UN charter made up of multiple countries.
The fact that there were troops in Vietnam, who happen to be Canadian, does not make her claim correct, as the second portion of that claim cannot be met.
@Theobrothers - Again you make the liberal argument that the reason why they were there somehow makes it different. Have you even looked at the Canadaian Department of Veterans Affairs web site? And who gives a shit who funded the North Wall? Do you think it was erected for giggles? It's there to honor Canadian Troops killed in action in Vietnam!
But that isn't the argument. You are using the North Wall as an example of the Canadian Government's admittance that they "sent" troops to fight or support militarily the WAR.
The government did no such thing. They did not fund it and turned down the request to place it on official land as that would have been a sort of admittance.
Are you blind to logic.... Logic is why it matters who funded it and where it was placed.
Private land owned by Americans, think about it...
I've been to every website imaginable researching this. I even went to the site Black666 quotes in his video, the one that misreports that the Canadian government funded the North Wall, lol...
@Theobrothers - You're starting to get on my nerves with the denial. And I'm starting to think that you're stalking my videos as a means to get even for the intellectual ass whooping that you've taken. Again the liberal spin on "why" they were there, instead of just admitting that they were in fact there and they were sent by Canada. Now please go away. I really don't care to hear anymore of your ridiculous liberal spin.
I tried to message you personally so we wouldn't have to waste more time with character limits. I've been to one of your video's, exaggerate much? Again, what point have you one on that other video? lol.
I came here because I already destroyed Black666 and it was funny another American was attempting to tell me what my country has done, especially in an area I have researched Ad Nauseum.
She was claiming that our government 1. Officially 2. Sent our military to Vietnam 3. to support the US.
Do you agree all three of these criterion must be met for her claim to be true? If not we simply end it here as we obviously have very different conceptions of the English language.
@Theobrothers - I've listened to this video a few thousand times and I never heard Ann Coulter say any such thing. All she said was Canada sent troops to Vietnam, which they did... and you even admit! So why are you nit picking the reason why they were there? They were there. For Christ's sake drop it. You lost. Be a man and accept it. Just because you keep coming back with the same ridiculous denials doesn't make it any less obvious that you're trying to get even for your ass whooping.
@NAGGERNUTZ "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice versa and Canada sent troops to Vietnam, was Vietnam less containable...?" In the CONTEXT of LOYAL FRIENDS, aka. ALLIES. You really are nutz. :)
@HappyColouredMarbles - Question: Were Canadian troops in Vietnam? It's a simple question with a simple answer... either yes or no. We know that they were, so what difference does it make why they were there? Leftists, such as yourself, are only after one thing and that is to discredit Ann Coulter. Why? because she tells the truth and you can't stand it. How many Canadian soldiers would have had to die before you'd admit that they were there? If that makes me crazy, then so be it.
@NAGGERNUTZ Actually, I'm a conservative, born and raised Albertan which is something along the lines of what americans understand as a blue state - so odds are I'm being honest. I just have appreciation for context which people like Coulter so often demand be applied to their quotes. That's all I'm doing here - holding her to her own standard. They aren't just arguing if Canada was in Vietnam or not for kicks - there is a point she is trying to make and she FAILED.
@HappyColouredMarbles - I would have never made this video if Ann Coulter's interviewer hadn't said "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" and "No, they took a pass". As far as the reason why they were there, if you wish to split hairs, the United States never declared war against Vietnam. So by your logic, neither the US or Canada was there. It's just simple logic. I won't dishonor those who were KIA by denying that they were there. I think it's deplorable to do otherwise.
@HappyColouredMarbles - I would have never made this video if Ann Coulter's interviewer hadn't said "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" and "No, they took a pass". As far as the reason why they were there, if you wish to split hairs, the United States never declared war against Vietnam. So by your logic, neither the US or Canada was there. It's just simple logic. I won't dishonor those who were KIA by denying that they were there. I think it's deplorable to do otherwise.
No Ann Coulter was claiming that Canada, as a federal municipality sent troops to support the United States during the Vietnam War.
Canada did no such thing. They sent troops to be part of a UN treaty monitoring delegation during peace time. That's it. Not to support the US's War, but quite the contrary, to monitor the peace.
The fighting you are describing would have been by volunteers, again, not sent by Canada. Individuals who illegally joined on their own volition.
@Theobrothers - Google "Operation Gallant". Those Canadian troops killed in action were serving their country... Canada. Canada awarded medals to their troops, serving their country. I'm sick of your lame excuses. How badly do you have to be owned before you try harassing someone else?
Again, we award medals for LOTS of non combat missions, UN and otherwise. Do you want to know the truth or are you simply wanting to be right.
I'm getting the feeling you are just like that Black666 guy. No matter how much evidence I threw at him he simply denied it's meaning. I originally thought you might be different but I'm starting to feel otherwise.
I can prove beyond a logical doubt that we did not send troops in the capacity Ann claimed. If I can, can you accept it?
Also, you guys can give your opinions and claim you are attempting to open someones eyes, but if I do the same I'm harrassing. Get off your high horse prick.
Because Canada didn't? It was funded by three vets from the states. The Canadian government turned down their petition to erect it on federal land.
A local municipality allowed them to purchase the land, which they did. Canada, had nothing to do with it. Unless you consider municipal the same as Federal, and unless you consider allowance of purchase equatable to giving? Do you lol?
We award medals for all sorts of UN delegated missions, is that strange?
A mission chartered under the UN is not the same as a mission chartered by your own country. Both missions were multilateral UN delegations which had both military and civilian personnel involved. Were there Canadians in Vietnam, sure. Did Canada send troops to Vietnam, nope, not unless you want to attempt to bastardize the linguistics to support that asinine position.
Regardless, Coulter had no idea of whether Canada had troops in Vietnam or not. She was making shit up to make a point, which is one of her favourite trolling methods.
@NAGGERNUTZ There's a couple of Youtube videos regarding this matter; "Vintage Keith: Ann Coulter's lies" gives some examples from one of her books if you can stomach Olbermann, and Al Franken brought this up during his famous debate with her from a few years back (check out "Al Franken Challenges Ann Coulter on Slanting the Truth "). She's one of the most over-rated conservative commentators in history.
Conservatives: Look at the facts, then form an opinion. Liberals: Make up an opinion, then rearrange the facts. Yes, Canada did send troops and even though it was for a limited amount of time, nothing that Ann Coulter was incorrect.
@NAGGERNUTZ You are the man and you are eactly right. Who said anything about any kind of role at all? She just said that they were sent and he said they werent. Its pretty simple folks. Anne was right and the turd was wrong. I dont get where all these other nonarguements are coming from. certainly not any source of relevance I'm sure. Good work Mr.NAGGERNUTZ . Nothing will ever change though because libs dont mind being wrong obviously. They just like being antagonistic-turds hence "tic-turds"
@NAGGERNUTZ You are the man and you are eactly right and have of the liberals are endorrsing your research by saying "yeah but not in a combat role". Who said anything about any kind of role? She just said that they were sent and he said they werent. Its pretty simple folks. Anne was right and the turd was wrong. I dont get where all these other nonarguements are coming from. certainly not any source of relevance I'm sure. Keep up the good work Mr.NAGGERNUTZ
Canada did not partake in the Vietnam War. They had troops sent under the Paris Peace Accords, but they officially declared themselves uninvolved or "non-belligerent" as your friend wikipedia uses. Having troops sent under an international standard is NOT partaking in a war.
@Thanato26 The correct wording of your comment would be: Canada did send troops to Vietnam, just not under the Canadian flag. Be careful how you word things, don't wanna be like a liberal always distorting the truth.
@tangram108 Canada did send troops to Vietnam, for a UN Mission while wearing a Canadian Flag. They were not under US Command nor did they take part in the war. They were observers.
@Thanato26 I misunderstood your comments then. But as long as you are aware that her statement about Canada sending troops to Vietnam is accurate, then the rest is all irrelevant.
@tangram108 however listen to how she says it, she is clearly under the assumption that the few dozen (to just over a hundred) troops we sent, were their to support the US mission which they were not. We were not there as a belligerent in the War but rather as an outside observer. As such her statement is incorrect with the way she intended it to be understood.
@Thanato26 Regardless of what you perceive to be her intended effect (I can guarantee you that you have made a similar mistake at least somewhere in your life), she was making a point that Canada used to be a better friend to the United States. Did Canada send any troops to Iraq? She parallels how Canada used to be to the U.S. to how they are today. Canada viewed Iraq and the Vietnam more or less the same, so where were the Canadian observers? That was her whole point.
@tangram108 There is a reason Canada did not send troops to Iraq, it was not sanctioned by the United Nations, had it be we would of sent troops under Canadian Command. However high ranking Canadian officers have served in US commands in Iraq and Canadian Observers have deployed to Iraq.
Also, Canada has been one of the US' closest allies in Afghanistan, for 3 years Canada took the fight to the Taliban in its home, the province of Kandahar. We have lost 157 Men and Women in Afghanistan.
@tangram108 I clarify, for 3 years Canada took the fight to the Taliban in its home with out outside ground support. In 2009 the US started deploying units to Kandahar under Canadian Command.
Topics: Terrorism, War, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, About the END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com, etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc3.yolasite.com, etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com, announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com, etc.
I love how Liberals think facts only apply when they support their opinion. It's a conservative woman talking, of course she has to be stupid. They just work from that assumption and try to figure out how she's wrong. Just remember how hilarious it is that they think they were right. She made the Honour roll at Cornell University with her BA in History. She knows her facts.
@jasonfkg - 99% of the comments are exactly that. Hate Ann Coulter first, spin the facts second. Even though they were there, they were shot at and returned fire, they were KIA, liberals nit pick about the reason why they were there. It's like saying, "I had my ass shot off, but we weren't at war". It's almost laughable.
@jasonfkg Ann Coulter is owned before she even speaks. She may have an education but it's wasted on someone as BATSHIT as she is. It's not about hate, it;'s about reality. She's even stated that she thinks women should not be allowed to vote.
@jasonfkg Because Vietnam was 40 years ago, and this is now. I didn't approve of that "war" either because it's the same as Iraq and Afghanistan. It's so rich people can get richer. As for Coulter,she's BATSHIT. All she does is whine and make rational people want to bash her in the head with a bat to make her shut up. She's uselesss. Nothing but Limbaugh with a cunt.
@Mozart1220 I'm not really sure how that answered my question, but my question was confusing because I should have specified that I was Canadian. If you're so focused on reality, then it's contradictory to say that she got owned in a video where she was correct and the CBC newscast was wrong. Ann doesn't just whine either. She makes backs up her interesting theses with facts. I've learned a lot from her and you probably would too with an open mind. Rational people are not violent.
@jasonfkg I'm not really sure that as a Canadian you have any relevence in American politics. If you have "learned" from Coulter, I am thankful you cannot vote here. Go back to your Mooseheads, they will do more for your brain than that harpy.
@Mozart1220 Over 80% of our trade is with the US. Of course we know their politics. I guess vice versa on the voting thing. I love the xenophobia too <3 Peace.
@jasonfkg It's not xenophobia. It;s just YOU. If you thnk Coulter is anything but a mouth looking for an oroginal idea, then PLEASE stay out of American politics.
@Mozart1220 I'm also not really sure how this is American politics. She is discussing Canada's history in Vietnam on publicly funded Canadian television.
@jasonfkg Because her job is to go on TV and tell ONE SIDE in an insulting and extremist manner. Most of what she says are outright lies, but Republicans depend on their "followers" to do just that. Follow everything and think about nothing. She's out there to makethe rest of the pack look sane by comparison, just like Limbaugh and Beck. Anyone even considering the idea that she is in any way accdeptable should excuse themselves from rational conversation.
@jasonfkg It has relevence to my assertion that Coulter cannot and should not be taken seriously by anyone, and anyone who DOES take her seriously has issues.
@jasonfkg Bottom line... what she actually said was incorrect. Canada did not send troops to Viet Nam. Many Canadians volunteered for military service in the US Army. There is a difference, and it matters because she was speaking directly about the Canadian government.
Much like Couler you are distorting the facts. Canada had troops in Vietnam, in 1973. The Vietnam war started in 1955 and ended in 1975. Canada was there in a very limited role, and NOT involved in the American conflict (which is what the Vietnam war is classified as). There were soldiers from many countries present in Vietnam at that time, it does not mean they were part of the war. Your distorting facts to fit your opinion.
Alot of Canadians joined the US forces during Vietnam...Somewhere in the numbers of 30,000.....During the withdrawl Canada sent a small contingent of peace keepers and diplomats...to oversee the smooth withdrawl....I dont actually know ...but could educationally assume that they saw no combat. Canada was never an official beligerant...Anne YOU ARE MISINFORMED! Hence Why she never got back!
@MrFreedomrequired - You were correct up until where you assumed they saw no combat. They did. They were fired upon and returned fire. Canadian troops were also KIA. Medals were awarded by the Canadian government (and I'm not referring to Canadian troops that served in the US military). As a former soldier, I can assure you, politics go out the window when bullets start snapping past your head. Of course if you're an Ann Coulter hater, it won't make any difference to you anyway.
@NAGGERNUTZ If you would reread my post...I said " I dont know if they saw combat"....you assumed the rest...and as from a retired Canadian service member (20Yrs) I can assure you that when bullets fly I know......And Anne Coulter has nothing to do with that!
@NAGGERNUTZ 2 things. I am very much a Liberal. I do hate Ann Coulter. That being said... I do know of Canadian involvement in the Viet Nam conflict. In fact one Canadian was also awarded the Medal of Honor for his service. 110 Canadians died in combat, 7 are listed MIA. BUT, the truth of the matter is that Canada's military did not send any troops to Viet Nam. All of the Canadians that were killed or saw combat were volunteers to the US Army. At the end of the war Canada was part of the ICCS
@gbyrnes51 - Number one, Google "operation gallant". Operation Gallant was a Canadian operation, which blows your theory that they were Canadian troops serving in the US military.
Number two, if Canada didn't send troops then why would they issue a medal based on length of tour? Was it for Canadian soldiers that weren't there? Bottom line? No matter how much you hate Ann Coulter and want desperately to discredit her, she was right on this one. Have a nice day.
@NAGGERNUTZ Not a problem, thanks for seeing it. I love how the liberals or just plain ignorant people love to adjust the truth for their own agendas. So, I first saw that video and had to set the record straight. How can a report (bob mckowen) be so stupid?
@Bllackguard666 - Simple. He's a liberal. Scroll down and take a look at some of the comments. Be prepared, this is what you're going to see on your video. I've deleted the really nasty ones.
@NAGGERNUTZ Oh, they are just ruthless. This guy (thebrothers) was just spamming saying my proof was wrong and even said proof about the North Wall was "asinine" LOL! Oh, you have to see it, it's...funny? Sad? I don't know. Just has no logic, but funny to read. So, I made a video response to my video. Strange, but I was hoping to add more to it.
I ripped all your arguments to shreds, then you blocked me for spamming because you had no defence and proceeded to make 2 more videos cause you were so pissed at me...
All my points were very logical and factual. Yours, not so much.
@Theobrothers No, not really. Your perception told you that, but in reality, you just don't like the truth. I know, it hurts. Go to the North Wall, and tell them what you think.
@NAGGERNUTZ Canada awarded zero combat medals for Viet Nam service. They issued an award (based on length of tour only) to some members of the ICCS. Since we are nit-picking the facts so vehemently.
Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War and diplomatically it was "officially non-belligerent" "Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War, by Victor Levant (1986).". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2010-07-15.
Canada sent humanitarian help and had quite a few individuals join U.S. forces, but Canada never went to war by any congressional delegation. In fact, their protesting of the war was heavier than their Iraq protests.
@rhslinebacker33 - *sigh* Why don't you Ann Coulter haters ever check before you comment? Google "Operation Gallant"... or read this: tinyurl*com/39ahsfv. Not even mentioning the Canadian Department of Veterans Affairs web site where they admit that Canadian troops served in Vietnam. Go back to sleep now.
@NAGGERNUTZ your argument is the use of the peace advisers? That was to observe a peace process as dictated by the Paris Accords. They did not serve in the Vietnam War. Way to reinterpret history though to defend a moron like Coulter. And yes, I dislike her, because she is what is wrong with the conservative wing of this country.,
@rhslinebacker33 - First off, I'm not arguing anything. You are. Canada sent troops to Vietnam to enforce the Paris peace accords. While they were there, they were fired upon and returned fire. They received casualties and KIA's as a result. Medals were awarded. If that's not fighting, I don't know what is. I'm not going to disrespect those soldiers by nit picking the definition of war with someone who's never served and probably never will. Hate Coulter if you want, she's right on this one.
The Canadian government is pretty adamant in this stance. They maintain they did not send troops to the war. Even their own encyclopedias maintain the same response. They sent troops as dictated by the Paris accords as part of the rotation oversight. After they left, Iran then saw the peace process. Yes, Iran....had the same roll in the aftermath of the war as Canada. But that is the key word, the Aftermath. Canada did not send troops during the war. You can spin the definition however you want.
@rhslinebacker33 - Tell ya what you do... go ask any of the Canadian troops who were there during Operation Gallant if they give a flying fuck about the politics of why they got their asses shot off.
@NAGGERNUTZ oh I can tell you're a Coulter follower. If we can't win we throw a tantrum instead of trying to logically defend our position. lol. you're a joke.
B....b.....b...but......Ann Coulter can't be right.......I don't want her to! I am going to do the only sane and logical thing and dislike this video.
The whole point was to discredit Canada for its anti war stance on Iraq. She picked Vietnam as an example to show that C had loyaly supported the US in similar wars and one would expect them to do the same in Iraq. But the argument doesn't hold b/c as others have said C did NOT support the War in Vietnam. That's all there is to it. Whether Canada took part in an international peace force or whether certain individuals joint the US troops is not the point here.
Canada sent troops as peacekeepers, not combat troops. Peacekeepers are there for both sides as opposed to combat troops which are there supporting one side or another, that is a very significant difference. From Wikipedia you should have seen that Canada was referred to as officially non-belligerent, that means non combative, again a rather important point. Individuals did go to Vietnam under the American flag, but that was their personal choice.
@severedtesticles - Um... maybe you should check the Canadian Department of Veterans Affairs. Google Operation Gallant. Canadian troops were KIA. Medals were awarded.
@NAGGERNUTZ Canadian troops were part of a an international mission sent to Vietnam to monitor the Paris Peace Accords. They were clearly NON combatants. Neither were those from Poland, Hungary (both then in the Soviet bloc) and neutral Indonesia also there in that capaciy.. There WERE Canadians in the US armed forces, some of whom fought and died in Vietnam, but Canada clearly was not officially involved in the conflict, so the Coultergeist gets out of this one clearly on a technicality.
@NAGGERNUTZ But they wore American Uniforms , And faught for the USA NOT CANADA. My uncle was a Huey pilot in that conflict and can nolonger recieve his military pension in Canada caus he served the US Forces in that conflict. Operation Gallant was an American Operation they stacked with the Canadians that joined the US Forces during Vietnam.Yes Canadians faught in Vietnam , but for the US Forces not Canadian Forces.
@420Leprikon - "Yes Canadians faught [sic] in Vietnam". Operation Gallant was a mission to uphold the provisions of the Paris peace accords... which was obviously a combat operation. They weren't there to slap wrists. There were wounded and medals were awarded by the Canadian government as evidenced by the Canadian Dept of Veterans Affairs web site. In any soldier's eyes, regardless of what country he fights for, once that first bullet goes past your ear, the reason is irrelevant.
@NAGGERNUTZ So Canada fought in Vietnam after the Vietnam war(the American war with North Vietnam) was over.When people say the" Vietnam war" they are generally talking about the war between the U.S. and Peoples Republic of Vietnam(North Vietnam).Canada sent no troops to Vietnam while American fo0rces were fighting there;so yes Coulter got owned.She was wrong on the facts.
@NAGGERNUTZ Very true. Canadians soldiers did serve under the U.N. as "Peace Keepers" in Operation Gallant. Look it up and don't argue it. 240 Canadians risked their lives to Peace Keep: something that is twice as hard as going in and dropping napalm on every one like the Americans did.
Don't want to be the one to prove you wrong or nothing but "Operation Gallant" was not a combat operation nor were the 300 odd personel sent by Canada to Vietnam there in a combat role or as support of American operations in Vietnam.
What "Operation Gallant" literally was, is a superviosry action whose goal was to maintain order in the relitivaly peaceful and democratic Southern Vietnam, while the American operation in Vietnam was a combat mission against the communist north.
While it is true that thousands of Canadians flocked to America to help, and should be commended for their bravery, they did so as a group of individuals not as representatives of the country.
And while it is true that 300 Canadian personel did serve in Vietnam, the context in which Culter expressed, that Canada assisted in Vietnam but not in Iraq is untrue.
Canada's military did not assisnt in a SINGLE american combat operation in Vietnam. 100 Canadians participated in the Invasion of Iraq... yet Canada is not in the Iraq war, the circumstaces are roughly the same Canadians were involved but Canada did not participate in niether the Iraq nor Vietnam wars.
The simple fact is there is a difference between having Canadian citizens participate and haveing a country participate...
oh and there is a differnace between aiding in American operations Babylify, Steel Tiger, Flameing Dart, to name a few, and participating in an ICCS operation (Canada was a member of ICCS at the time) galant was an ICCS operation.
So Canada didn't participate in the Vietnam, at least, no more then they participated in the Iraq war, I really hope you understand the differance.
Canada did send troops to Vietnam. I am not a fan of Ann, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. After seeing the video I did some research and she was wright, Canada sent troops to Vietnam in 1973. They were sent to enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
Actually, the Canadian government did not send troops to Vietnam, what happened was that some Canadians went to the US and volunteered in the armed forces, most of these Canadians were people that had a citizenship to America, so they were also effectively American, so no, Canada didn't send anyone to Vietnam. Their is a stark difference between a nation sending troops and people going themselves.
Eeerrr..actually 40 000 Candians seved in the Vietnam war, IIRC. There's that whole "dual citizenship" thing, Also, Australia and South Korea were both heavily involved in the Vietnam War as well. So, technically, the government of Canada didn't "send" troops to Vietnam (if anything, Canada at the time probably would have preferred to send troops to aid the North Vietnamese!) clearly a great number of Canadians thought their government was f***ed up!
oh and when you say send troops the normal person infers a combat force not a few observers because then most minor conflicts can be considered world wars because a world war is defined by the number of countries involed
the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action. that's a dictionary definition and i feel that represents the concept of hate well.
hate is ann coulter saying that jewish people need to be fixed. it's saying that in a perfect world everyone would be republican. by blatantly disregarding other peoples' opinions she is being hateful.
@myexposeinstrain - So simply disagreeing with someone means you hate them? Really? I'm republican and I think that if everyone was republican we'd be better off. Does that mean I hate anyone who disagrees with me? I blatantly disagree with other people's opinions every day. Does that mean I hate them too? I think deep down inside the reason why people don't like Ann Coulter is because she's not politically correct, she speaks her mind, she voices her opinions, but I don't think she hates.
@NAGGERNUTZ People do not like coulter because she is a thinker, she will not be right all the time, but she digs deep and is not afraid to talk about controversal subjects, the left hates anyone with real knowledge.
i completely disagree, i think she is a disgrace to the right. Not only has she been caught lying, but she has insulted many a peoples with her lies. Apparently she just released a topic that she says that the people of Japan who have been affected by the radiation won't get cancer. She gives no real scientific proof, she gives no examples, and she most of all, has probably convinced people to get inject high levels of radiation in them.
@helix4811 according to politifact she is on the half true scale the vast majority of the time, I do not agree with everythign she is saying, and I certainly did not take it as she says any amount of radiation is good, what she did say is some radiation does have beneficial effects and there is scientific data to back that up. I think at a time when people are running around with the "sky is falling" worrying about radiation from japan, that is a good thing, a UN study showed that more people
Seeing as Chernobyl was completely different from this, i don't really think the comparison was fair or appropriate. While i agree small doses of radiation are beneficial, she didn't state that, she said and i'm typing this from my memory here, "the good news for the Japanese is, they don't have to worry about cancer anymore." or something of the sort. She fails to realize radiation is also what causes cancer.
She doesn't tell half truths, she just uses the truth as a base for her lies, that is different from telling half truths. Where as a half truth is, you tell half the truth and say no more, using truth to spread lies is different, because you tell the truth in the beginning, but change it to suit your interests.
I do think that people are over reacting to the radiation leak, but she is taking advantage of the situation to make money. As you well know crisis=profit.
@helix4811 I have no problem with her making profit from the disaster, again, keeping people calm is paramount at this time and I am going to go ahead and assume you have nothing difinitive which shows she repeatedly lies, You can however look at say Rachel Maddow (arguably the left side of her) who according to politifcat flat out lies consistently.
Ann Coulter is amazing and cannot be toppled so easily. What liberals don't understand is her central ethic, which I understand, and which i think you understand, as evidinced by your choice in topics. Basically she's the female embodiment of all that is right with conservatism and she's quite beautiful at that. I suffer from brains damage as a child.
I'm a conservative, but Ann Coulter is an embarrassment and does nothing good for our cause. Every time that dumb ugly cow opens her mouth, our entire movement is set back 30 years. All she is interested in, is garnering publicity and selling books.
@spacemanspiff33 - If you're truly a conservative, then you have to love how Ann Coulter drives liberals absolutely crazy. She really brings out the rabid vitriol that they spew. And the beauty of it is... she just tells the truth.
@NAGGERNUTZ Not at all...I find her just as repulsive as the Liberal media, spewing half truths and tall tales just in order to get a reaction. I don't think she gives 2 hoots about our cause, all she wants is to sell her books. If all we want to do is piss off Liberals, then we achieve nothing really, sure its 'fun' for a bit....but ultimately, it only rallies them together even more.
Whether Canada sent its troops to Vietnam or not, Canada does not have to remain US's royal friend when Canadian people feel that they can't support what the US is doing.
Most people would ask themselves a question, "Did I do anything wrong to lose his/her friendship?" when their former best friend has become critical about them.
But Ann Coulter kind of people won't ask the question and concludes, "My friend has become jealous of me, because I'm always right, good and beautiful."
wakarai09 1 week ago
Quite true: CBC has called it 'Canada's Secret War'
Canada was officially a non-belligerent and had troops to preserve the southern regions after 1954.
On this topic, the Vietnam War isn't something we should be arguing over at all.
Both Canada and the United States, along with the West, attempted to preserve the south of Vietnam from a communist assault.
It was an honourable attempt, and there is a large Vietnamese diaspora that is thankful for the years spent to preserve Saigon.
LiamUe 1 month ago
I appreciate the points you make.
However, I think perhaps the source of your disagreement is semantic rather than historic, and furthered by lack of context.
I watched the original tv show.
Coulter brought up Vietnam in her criticism of the Canadian government for not sending combat troops to fight in Iraq.
To be fair, the troops Canada sent in '54 and then to keep the Paris Accord did not meet the kind of hostility that coalition forces met in Iraq...
mybagitchesalot 1 month ago
Your info from wiki came from a user-created page with few citations, and the ones used do not necessarily lend themselves to the page. Additionally, the user page is biased beyond reasonability.
Regardless, Canada's stance on the war was neutral which was not the argument being made; it's the same way, despite Americans being stationed currently in Okinawa, we don't say we're sending troops to Japan.
Arguing semantics to defend an invalid conclusion is useless.
Good try though.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - Technically, the United States congress never declared war on North Vietnam. We were there as advisers and to assist the South Vietnamese. Canadians were there to monitor the Paris peace accords. So, by the same token, the United States never sent troops to Vietnam either. Merry Christmas.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ A red-herring. How original. No, the GTR was not a formal declaration. What's your point? It still called for conventional military protocol; I'm unaware of Canada having any similar resolutions to that affect.
But that's besides the point: the formality of the definition doesn't change the problems with your sources, or your argument. Canada was neutral. We were not. And no, the GTR was more than advising, but again, good try.
Happy holidays, and L2H.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - I love it when you take the same scenario and somehow spin it different... not even a nice try. Conventional military protocol? You mean like carrying weapons and firing back when fired upon? So the Canadians that were KIA weren't exercising standard military protocol? They didn't return fire? Again, the US military were there as advisers and to assist and train the South Vietnamese military. You seem to be interested in video games. Are you good at it? Stay with what you know.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Nope. Not spinning anything. The GTR had very specific clauses that all but sanctioned open war. Perhaps you should read up on it before responding. You might learn something. I'm still waiting for the link to the Canadians' eqvuivalent.
I'm also still waiting for a response that actually deals with the problems I mentioned with your argument: bad sources, bad use of terminology. Canada didn't send troops into the battle. If you want to argue that America didn't either, then okay.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - Oh Skippy, please. Perhaps you should stop talking about a subject that you read about on the internet. One thing that you can't get from a web site... experience. I was there little brother. I love how the overwhelming majority of the liberal comments on this video seem to come from, young, idealistic, post-adolescents. You can't possibly understand what you've never experienced and couldn't experience in your wildest dreams. Please drop it and go away.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ And now an appeal to ethos. "I was there so I was right." Unverified anecdotes are not support for an argument.
There's no bias to my post. I'm pointing out why your argument is crap.
Biased sources, logical fallacies, baseless appeals, and necessary invalidity. That's not a liberal comment; that's pointing out flaws.
You made an argument. I explained its faults. Either fix it, or accept it. Rambling isn't going to make you look less illogical.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - Yawn! Are you back again? Look, if you don't like my answers, you're free to go. You have my permission. You don't like my answers therefore you're right and I'm wrong doesn't make it either Skippy. I refuse to lay down and accept your all knowing opinions. This is going nowhere, but you should go somewhere other than here.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ I didn't ask a question. Therefore no answers. The word you were looking for is "response." Additionally, I made no argument. I simply said yours is incomplete. I'm still in a defacto position because the evidence I brought to question is incomplete. When I brought this to your attention, you went on a smear campaign, changed the subject and appealed to ethos.One more time: address the issue I raised with your source base.
Also, I'll stay. Unless you'd like to move me like a fascist.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - Read the first 2 lines of the video description. I'm tired of this nit picking. The evidence is all over the internet. Please be my guest and go read. If all you want to do is slam Ann Coulter, I'd respect you a whole lot more if you'd just do it and get it over with.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ "Intelligent comments are welcomed."
Made one. You decided to go off topic. The evidence is clearly not all over the internet; you chose sources that I've called into question, and instead of being the good little boy and discussing them and attempting to show their credibility, you've run in circles and attempted to get around the fact that someone is informing you that your sources are bo schitt.
I don't need to make fun of Coulter. She does a good enough job herself.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - OK, goodbye. Have a nice day. I'm tired of beating a dead horse. Feel better now? Good. Canada still sent troops to Vietnam.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ cont. Furthermore, I find it ironic that this, to you, is how a liberal debates: "About Me:
How a liberal debates:
1. They shift the subject
2. They ignore the facts
3. They name call when you pin them down"
when you consistently shift the subject away from the illogicality of your argument, and call me names when I've asked, several times, for you to explain the problems with not only your source base, but the fallacies in reasoning you've demonstrated along the way.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ continued:
Because then you're still wrong. How is "oh well then America didn't send troops in either hurr durr" a valid response? It completely destroys your argument. I may not agree with that rebuttal, but for the sake of argument, fine. Congratulations, you just backstabbed your own argument. You used terrible sources, and you're trying to stress the validity of an argument based on semantics. If I presented that to another professor, or at a conference, I'd be laughed at.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Seriously, there is no point trying with you anymore. You are so thick-headed, I'm beginning to think that you are satirizing the stupidity of Coulter and her followers.
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - You are certainly free to move on and view other videos. I'm also skeptical as to your claim of being a conservative. Ann Coulter is one of the few conservative columnists that takes liberals to task and challenges their lies and spin. She's outspoken and correct 99.9% of the time. And I understand that because of that, she rubs liberals the wrong way, but in my mind, that's an asset. Somebody has to. Have a very Merry Christmas and may God bless.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Well here I am getting dragged into it again: A person like Coulter isn't given the time of day in Canada, by conservatives or liberals. She is a fear mongerer, an islamophobe, and a patriarch. If any of her views were actually taken seriously, freedom and liberty in the USA would be severely limited...
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - You aren't getting dragged into anything. Am I to expect your response to every comment made on this video?
A fear mongerer? Clarify please. Islamophobe? Only the ones who are trying to kill us... and you too if they had the chance. You're just as much an "infidel" as I am. Patriarch? In what sense?
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ In Canada, whether liberal or conservative, we value multiculturalism and tolerance - principles that Ann Coulter would love to do away with based on her own fallicious beliefs and lack of understanding of others who are different from her. In Canada we have far less extremism on either side of the political spectrum, and people like Ann Coulter simply don't get publicised just because they make outrageous statements...
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - In the US, we also value multiculturalism and tolerance. We just don't lay down and coddle those who try to destroy the country. You have far less extremism? I'll buy that, but you aren't the leader of the free world either. Nobody depends on Canada for aid, then turns around and tries to kill you. Canada enjoys that lifestyle merely because of their geographic proximity to the United States.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - In the US, we also value multiculturalism and tolerance. We just don't lay down and coddle those who try to destroy the country. You have far less extremism? I'll buy that, but you aren't the leader of the free world either. Nobody depends on Canada for aid, then turns around and tries to kill you. Canada enjoys that lifestyle merely because of their geographic proximity to the United States.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ So yes, I am a conservative, but that doesn't mean I support Ann Coulter. Merry Christmas to you too.
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're a conservative, but I'd be interested in knowing just what conservative principles that you adhere to. So far, you haven't displayed much. Canada doesn't have a free press either, yet Canadians attack Fox News? So much for freedom of speech in "Oh Canada".
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Canada does have free speech but we try to keep our media neutral and unbiased - although some news outlets, such as the National Post, CTV, MacLeans or Sun TV are more right wing, while the CBC, The Globe and Mail and the Walrus are more left wing, they are nothing like media in the states. Fox has a clear conservative bias, by straight up endorsing political candidates, and skewing facts to serve their purposes. MSNBC is Fox's left-wing equivalent. That is not news.
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - My friend, "keeping our media neutral and unbiased" is in itself banning media outlets. Banning any station just because you perceive them to be biased or not, is in itself biased. We let the people decide. All people, not just political preferences. We watch what we want, the ratings tell the story.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NAGGERNUTZ "Banning any station just because you perceive them to be biased or not, is in itself biased."
I think you may need to look up the definition of "bias," because I don't think it happens to mean what you think it means and I don't think the argument you're trying to make matches the definition you're trying to force; letting people decide is necessarily decided based on perception. Assessing bias, without metaphysical bull, is largely an objective process.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
Comment removed
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Which is short for, "I can't defend my own source base."
There's a reason rational people have a hard time understanding irrational conservatives. Too much cognitive dissonance I suppose.
I'll feel better when you be the bigger man and admit when there's a problem, instead of running and circles and trying to be right on such an inane issue as a technicality. It's actually a touch pathetic.
101Pilgrim 2 months ago
@101Pilgrim - Which is short for you're boring me and you make no sense. You're starting to cross the line between intelligent comment and being a troll/hater. Actually those who would argue that Canada didn't send troops would be nit picking a technicality. And yes, it is a touch pathetic. Bye now.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
Comment removed
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
ATTENTION: The user Theobrothers has been blocked from further comments on my videos. He was clearly owned here, so he created his own video, using the same losing talking points in a desperate attempt to "win" an argument. I am only blocking him AFTER he blocked me from his videos. He loses not only on merit, but by default.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - And tell me Einstein, how would the context of whatever change the fact that Canada did in fact send troops to Vietnam? Ask ANY combat veteran if he gave a shit why he was sent into battle. And yes, if you weren't desperate to "win" this dialog, any normal person would have moved on by now. But you can stalk me all you want if it makes you feel better.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
"Ask ANY combat veteran if he gave a shit why he was sent into battle"
Exactly the point, no troops were ever sent into battle by Canada in Vietnam. Some were their on their own volition, some were there during cease fires / Peace agreements to essentially take notes under the UN, not Canada. Heck there were even some under the UN in international waters checking boats.
However, NO troops were ever there sent there by Canada to support the war. Period.
End of story.
L2Read.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - Simply amazing! They weren't sent into battle by Canada, but I guess those soldiers who gave their lives didn't get the memo. "Some were their on their own volition, some were there during cease fires / Peace agreements to essentially take notes under the UN, not Canada. Heck there were even some under the UN in international waters checking boats." They had to be there to do it, didn't they? A Canadian who'll trample on the graves of those brave men just to win a YT debate. Sad.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
"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."
In that context she is arguing we sent them in support of the war, as she is comparing it to the fact that we weren't sending troops to IRAQ. If you can't admit that then you are the one twisting shit.
She definitely meant in support of the war, not the "idea" that some Canadians might be there making bibles.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - ROFLMAO...you're sounding desperate. All she's saying is Canada sent troops to Vietnam, which they did. Now you want to again nit pick the reason why they were there. Very desperate.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
This is so simple.
1. North Wall - Funded by Americans, Canadian Gov denied petition to place it on Gov land. This is actually a horrible argument as its so easily refuted.
2. Medal's aren't given for combat only, we have lots of UN medals, I'll link you. Again horrible argument.
3. ICSC and ICCS were UN mandated, multilateral neutral parties sent to oversee peace, I.e when the war wasn't on. Best argument people have come up with, unfortunately still wrong.
See... that wasn't so hard.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@jjtheslayer69 Spelling is your friend.
Bllackguard666 2 months ago
@jjtheslayer69 Ann* Troll*
Bllackguard666 2 months ago
The point is that the troops didn't go as ALLIES of the USA. That was the point Coulter was trying to make and obviously a non-combat mission does not pertain to her argument. Canada did not fight in that war because it did not support it, nor did Canada go to Iraq because Canadians did not think it was a just war. One of Chretien's finest moments as PM.
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - Gee, I can't understand why Canada would erect a monument (the North Wall) to Canadian soldiers killed in Vietnam. Medals were awarded for service in Vietnam. But wait, they weren't really there were they? Maybe it's a big Canadian conspiracy theory.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ You just totally ignored my point about the context of Ann Coulter`s statement. The crux of her argument was that Canada had been longtime allies of the USA and that the Iraq case was a rare exception to Canada fighting ALONGSIDE Americans. But Canada did not go to Vietnam as allies of the USA: they were a non-belligerent, neutral presence in the conflict and did not take one side or the other. Her point falls flat because Canada didn`t go there to fight.
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - Dude, at least you admit they were there, kudo's for that. What does context have to do with it? Let me ask you a question? Imagine yourself in a fire fight and you're being shot at by multiple AK-47s... with me?... would you give a flying fuck what the reason was that you were there? Believe me, when that first round snaps past your head, politics is the last thing on your mind. That's my whole point. They were there, which is all Ann Coulter is saying.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
Canadian sent troops never fought in Vietnam as they never sent any. Men who crossed the border and joined the USA military don't fit the definition of "troops sent by Canada™" nor does a delegation under the UN charter made up of multiple countries.
The fact that there were troops in Vietnam, who happen to be Canadian, does not make her claim correct, as the second portion of that claim cannot be met.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - Again you make the liberal argument that the reason why they were there somehow makes it different. Have you even looked at the Canadaian Department of Veterans Affairs web site? And who gives a shit who funded the North Wall? Do you think it was erected for giggles? It's there to honor Canadian Troops killed in action in Vietnam!
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
But that isn't the argument. You are using the North Wall as an example of the Canadian Government's admittance that they "sent" troops to fight or support militarily the WAR.
The government did no such thing. They did not fund it and turned down the request to place it on official land as that would have been a sort of admittance.
Are you blind to logic.... Logic is why it matters who funded it and where it was placed.
Private land owned by Americans, think about it...
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
I've been to every website imaginable researching this. I even went to the site Black666 quotes in his video, the one that misreports that the Canadian government funded the North Wall, lol...
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - You're starting to get on my nerves with the denial. And I'm starting to think that you're stalking my videos as a means to get even for the intellectual ass whooping that you've taken. Again the liberal spin on "why" they were there, instead of just admitting that they were in fact there and they were sent by Canada. Now please go away. I really don't care to hear anymore of your ridiculous liberal spin.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
I tried to message you personally so we wouldn't have to waste more time with character limits. I've been to one of your video's, exaggerate much? Again, what point have you one on that other video? lol.
I came here because I already destroyed Black666 and it was funny another American was attempting to tell me what my country has done, especially in an area I have researched Ad Nauseum.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
She was claiming that our government 1. Officially 2. Sent our military to Vietnam 3. to support the US.
Do you agree all three of these criterion must be met for her claim to be true? If not we simply end it here as we obviously have very different conceptions of the English language.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - I've listened to this video a few thousand times and I never heard Ann Coulter say any such thing. All she said was Canada sent troops to Vietnam, which they did... and you even admit! So why are you nit picking the reason why they were there? They were there. For Christ's sake drop it. You lost. Be a man and accept it. Just because you keep coming back with the same ridiculous denials doesn't make it any less obvious that you're trying to get even for your ass whooping.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice versa and Canada sent troops to Vietnam, was Vietnam less containable...?" In the CONTEXT of LOYAL FRIENDS, aka. ALLIES. You really are nutz. :)
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - Question: Were Canadian troops in Vietnam? It's a simple question with a simple answer... either yes or no. We know that they were, so what difference does it make why they were there? Leftists, such as yourself, are only after one thing and that is to discredit Ann Coulter. Why? because she tells the truth and you can't stand it. How many Canadian soldiers would have had to die before you'd admit that they were there? If that makes me crazy, then so be it.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Actually, I'm a conservative, born and raised Albertan which is something along the lines of what americans understand as a blue state - so odds are I'm being honest. I just have appreciation for context which people like Coulter so often demand be applied to their quotes. That's all I'm doing here - holding her to her own standard. They aren't just arguing if Canada was in Vietnam or not for kicks - there is a point she is trying to make and she FAILED.
HappyColouredMarbles 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - I would have never made this video if Ann Coulter's interviewer hadn't said "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" and "No, they took a pass". As far as the reason why they were there, if you wish to split hairs, the United States never declared war against Vietnam. So by your logic, neither the US or Canada was there. It's just simple logic. I won't dishonor those who were KIA by denying that they were there. I think it's deplorable to do otherwise.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles - I would have never made this video if Ann Coulter's interviewer hadn't said "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" and "No, they took a pass". As far as the reason why they were there, if you wish to split hairs, the United States never declared war against Vietnam. So by your logic, neither the US or Canada was there. It's just simple logic. I won't dishonor those who were KIA by denying that they were there. I think it's deplorable to do otherwise.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
No Ann Coulter was claiming that Canada, as a federal municipality sent troops to support the United States during the Vietnam War.
Canada did no such thing. They sent troops to be part of a UN treaty monitoring delegation during peace time. That's it. Not to support the US's War, but quite the contrary, to monitor the peace.
The fighting you are describing would have been by volunteers, again, not sent by Canada. Individuals who illegally joined on their own volition.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers - Google "Operation Gallant". Those Canadian troops killed in action were serving their country... Canada. Canada awarded medals to their troops, serving their country. I'm sick of your lame excuses. How badly do you have to be owned before you try harassing someone else?
NAGGERNUTZ 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
You don't need to educate me, I know far more on this subject than you, lol.
Operation Gallant was not a military combat mission. It was a mission mandated under the UN.
Canadian Task Force Name Mission Statement for Gallant:
To provide a neutral party to investigate compliance and to conduct monitor the enforcement of the terms of the Paris Peace Agreement.
They were not sent as an official ally to the US but rather as part of a neutral multilateral group.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
Again, we award medals for LOTS of non combat missions, UN and otherwise. Do you want to know the truth or are you simply wanting to be right.
I'm getting the feeling you are just like that Black666 guy. No matter how much evidence I threw at him he simply denied it's meaning. I originally thought you might be different but I'm starting to feel otherwise.
I can prove beyond a logical doubt that we did not send troops in the capacity Ann claimed. If I can, can you accept it?
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
Also, you guys can give your opinions and claim you are attempting to open someones eyes, but if I do the same I'm harrassing. Get off your high horse prick.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
Because Canada didn't? It was funded by three vets from the states. The Canadian government turned down their petition to erect it on federal land.
A local municipality allowed them to purchase the land, which they did. Canada, had nothing to do with it. Unless you consider municipal the same as Federal, and unless you consider allowance of purchase equatable to giving? Do you lol?
We award medals for all sorts of UN delegated missions, is that strange?
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
A mission chartered under the UN is not the same as a mission chartered by your own country. Both missions were multilateral UN delegations which had both military and civilian personnel involved. Were there Canadians in Vietnam, sure. Did Canada send troops to Vietnam, nope, not unless you want to attempt to bastardize the linguistics to support that asinine position.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
Regardless, Coulter had no idea of whether Canada had troops in Vietnam or not. She was making shit up to make a point, which is one of her favourite trolling methods.
Useless2112 3 months ago
@Useless2112 - Can you give an example?
NAGGERNUTZ 3 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ There's a couple of Youtube videos regarding this matter; "Vintage Keith: Ann Coulter's lies" gives some examples from one of her books if you can stomach Olbermann, and Al Franken brought this up during his famous debate with her from a few years back (check out "Al Franken Challenges Ann Coulter on Slanting the Truth "). She's one of the most over-rated conservative commentators in history.
Useless2112 3 months ago
Conservatives: Look at the facts, then form an opinion. Liberals: Make up an opinion, then rearrange the facts. Yes, Canada did send troops and even though it was for a limited amount of time, nothing that Ann Coulter was incorrect.
xs3icyfd 5 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ You are the man and you are eactly right. Who said anything about any kind of role at all? She just said that they were sent and he said they werent. Its pretty simple folks. Anne was right and the turd was wrong. I dont get where all these other nonarguements are coming from. certainly not any source of relevance I'm sure. Good work Mr.NAGGERNUTZ . Nothing will ever change though because libs dont mind being wrong obviously. They just like being antagonistic-turds hence "tic-turds"
GeorgeBonez 5 months ago 2
@NAGGERNUTZ You are the man and you are eactly right and have of the liberals are endorrsing your research by saying "yeah but not in a combat role". Who said anything about any kind of role? She just said that they were sent and he said they werent. Its pretty simple folks. Anne was right and the turd was wrong. I dont get where all these other nonarguements are coming from. certainly not any source of relevance I'm sure. Keep up the good work Mr.NAGGERNUTZ
GeorgeBonez 5 months ago
Canada did not partake in the Vietnam War. They had troops sent under the Paris Peace Accords, but they officially declared themselves uninvolved or "non-belligerent" as your friend wikipedia uses. Having troops sent under an international standard is NOT partaking in a war.
RenegadeD2 5 months ago
@Thanato26 The correct wording of your comment would be: Canada did send troops to Vietnam, just not under the Canadian flag. Be careful how you word things, don't wanna be like a liberal always distorting the truth.
tangram108 6 months ago
@tangram108 Canada did send troops to Vietnam, for a UN Mission while wearing a Canadian Flag. They were not under US Command nor did they take part in the war. They were observers.
~Thanato
Thanato26 6 months ago
@Thanato26 I misunderstood your comments then. But as long as you are aware that her statement about Canada sending troops to Vietnam is accurate, then the rest is all irrelevant.
tangram108 6 months ago
@tangram108 however listen to how she says it, she is clearly under the assumption that the few dozen (to just over a hundred) troops we sent, were their to support the US mission which they were not. We were not there as a belligerent in the War but rather as an outside observer. As such her statement is incorrect with the way she intended it to be understood.
~Thanato
Thanato26 6 months ago
@Thanato26 Regardless of what you perceive to be her intended effect (I can guarantee you that you have made a similar mistake at least somewhere in your life), she was making a point that Canada used to be a better friend to the United States. Did Canada send any troops to Iraq? She parallels how Canada used to be to the U.S. to how they are today. Canada viewed Iraq and the Vietnam more or less the same, so where were the Canadian observers? That was her whole point.
tangram108 6 months ago
@tangram108 There is a reason Canada did not send troops to Iraq, it was not sanctioned by the United Nations, had it be we would of sent troops under Canadian Command. However high ranking Canadian officers have served in US commands in Iraq and Canadian Observers have deployed to Iraq.
Also, Canada has been one of the US' closest allies in Afghanistan, for 3 years Canada took the fight to the Taliban in its home, the province of Kandahar. We have lost 157 Men and Women in Afghanistan.
Thanato26 6 months ago
@tangram108 I clarify, for 3 years Canada took the fight to the Taliban in its home with out outside ground support. In 2009 the US started deploying units to Kandahar under Canadian Command.
~Thanato
Thanato26 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK TO READ FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT
Topics: Terrorism, War, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, About the END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com, etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc3.yolasite.com, etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com, announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com, etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
I love how Liberals think facts only apply when they support their opinion. It's a conservative woman talking, of course she has to be stupid. They just work from that assumption and try to figure out how she's wrong. Just remember how hilarious it is that they think they were right. She made the Honour roll at Cornell University with her BA in History. She knows her facts.
jasonfkg 7 months ago 3
@jasonfkg - 99% of the comments are exactly that. Hate Ann Coulter first, spin the facts second. Even though they were there, they were shot at and returned fire, they were KIA, liberals nit pick about the reason why they were there. It's like saying, "I had my ass shot off, but we weren't at war". It's almost laughable.
NAGGERNUTZ 7 months ago
@jasonfkg Ann Coulter is owned before she even speaks. She may have an education but it's wasted on someone as BATSHIT as she is. It's not about hate, it;'s about reality. She's even stated that she thinks women should not be allowed to vote.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@Mozart1220 If it's about reality, then why is it irrelevant to you that we did actually send troops to Vietnam, not once, but twice?
jasonfkg 6 months ago
@jasonfkg Because Vietnam was 40 years ago, and this is now. I didn't approve of that "war" either because it's the same as Iraq and Afghanistan. It's so rich people can get richer. As for Coulter,she's BATSHIT. All she does is whine and make rational people want to bash her in the head with a bat to make her shut up. She's uselesss. Nothing but Limbaugh with a cunt.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@Mozart1220 I'm not really sure how that answered my question, but my question was confusing because I should have specified that I was Canadian. If you're so focused on reality, then it's contradictory to say that she got owned in a video where she was correct and the CBC newscast was wrong. Ann doesn't just whine either. She makes backs up her interesting theses with facts. I've learned a lot from her and you probably would too with an open mind. Rational people are not violent.
jasonfkg 6 months ago
@jasonfkg I'm not really sure that as a Canadian you have any relevence in American politics. If you have "learned" from Coulter, I am thankful you cannot vote here. Go back to your Mooseheads, they will do more for your brain than that harpy.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@Mozart1220 Over 80% of our trade is with the US. Of course we know their politics. I guess vice versa on the voting thing. I love the xenophobia too <3 Peace.
jasonfkg 6 months ago
@jasonfkg It's not xenophobia. It;s just YOU. If you thnk Coulter is anything but a mouth looking for an oroginal idea, then PLEASE stay out of American politics.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@Mozart1220 I'm also not really sure how this is American politics. She is discussing Canada's history in Vietnam on publicly funded Canadian television.
jasonfkg 6 months ago
@jasonfkg Because her job is to go on TV and tell ONE SIDE in an insulting and extremist manner. Most of what she says are outright lies, but Republicans depend on their "followers" to do just that. Follow everything and think about nothing. She's out there to makethe rest of the pack look sane by comparison, just like Limbaugh and Beck. Anyone even considering the idea that she is in any way accdeptable should excuse themselves from rational conversation.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@Mozart1220 None of that has any relevance to your assertion that this video does not relate to Canadian politics.
jasonfkg 6 months ago
@jasonfkg It has relevence to my assertion that Coulter cannot and should not be taken seriously by anyone, and anyone who DOES take her seriously has issues.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@jasonfkg Bottom line... what she actually said was incorrect. Canada did not send troops to Viet Nam. Many Canadians volunteered for military service in the US Army. There is a difference, and it matters because she was speaking directly about the Canadian government.
gbyrnes51 3 months ago
@jasonfkg OMG, they are so stupid and dense it drives me nuts.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
Comment removed
jasonfkg 7 months ago
Comment removed
jasonfkg 7 months ago
Comment removed
jasonfkg 7 months ago
Much like Couler you are distorting the facts. Canada had troops in Vietnam, in 1973. The Vietnam war started in 1955 and ended in 1975. Canada was there in a very limited role, and NOT involved in the American conflict (which is what the Vietnam war is classified as). There were soldiers from many countries present in Vietnam at that time, it does not mean they were part of the war. Your distorting facts to fit your opinion.
VanyarIngwe 7 months ago 16
Alot of Canadians joined the US forces during Vietnam...Somewhere in the numbers of 30,000.....During the withdrawl Canada sent a small contingent of peace keepers and diplomats...to oversee the smooth withdrawl....I dont actually know ...but could educationally assume that they saw no combat. Canada was never an official beligerant...Anne YOU ARE MISINFORMED! Hence Why she never got back!
MrFreedomrequired 7 months ago
@MrFreedomrequired - You were correct up until where you assumed they saw no combat. They did. They were fired upon and returned fire. Canadian troops were also KIA. Medals were awarded by the Canadian government (and I'm not referring to Canadian troops that served in the US military). As a former soldier, I can assure you, politics go out the window when bullets start snapping past your head. Of course if you're an Ann Coulter hater, it won't make any difference to you anyway.
NAGGERNUTZ 7 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ If you would reread my post...I said " I dont know if they saw combat"....you assumed the rest...and as from a retired Canadian service member (20Yrs) I can assure you that when bullets fly I know......And Anne Coulter has nothing to do with that!
MrFreedomrequired 7 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ 2 things. I am very much a Liberal. I do hate Ann Coulter. That being said... I do know of Canadian involvement in the Viet Nam conflict. In fact one Canadian was also awarded the Medal of Honor for his service. 110 Canadians died in combat, 7 are listed MIA. BUT, the truth of the matter is that Canada's military did not send any troops to Viet Nam. All of the Canadians that were killed or saw combat were volunteers to the US Army. At the end of the war Canada was part of the ICCS
gbyrnes51 3 months ago
@gbyrnes51 - Number one, Google "operation gallant". Operation Gallant was a Canadian operation, which blows your theory that they were Canadian troops serving in the US military.
Number two, if Canada didn't send troops then why would they issue a medal based on length of tour? Was it for Canadian soldiers that weren't there? Bottom line? No matter how much you hate Ann Coulter and want desperately to discredit her, she was right on this one. Have a nice day.
NAGGERNUTZ 3 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Not to mention the North Wall, a memorial to fallen Canandian troops in Vietnam. Glad to see another one who see the truth! Props, man.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 - Thanks bro, and thanks for the video upload.
NAGGERNUTZ 3 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Not a problem, thanks for seeing it. I love how the liberals or just plain ignorant people love to adjust the truth for their own agendas. So, I first saw that video and had to set the record straight. How can a report (bob mckowen) be so stupid?
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 - Simple. He's a liberal. Scroll down and take a look at some of the comments. Be prepared, this is what you're going to see on your video. I've deleted the really nasty ones.
NAGGERNUTZ 3 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Oh, they are just ruthless. This guy (thebrothers) was just spamming saying my proof was wrong and even said proof about the North Wall was "asinine" LOL! Oh, you have to see it, it's...funny? Sad? I don't know. Just has no logic, but funny to read. So, I made a video response to my video. Strange, but I was hoping to add more to it.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666
I ripped all your arguments to shreds, then you blocked me for spamming because you had no defence and proceeded to make 2 more videos cause you were so pissed at me...
All my points were very logical and factual. Yours, not so much.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers No, not really. Your perception told you that, but in reality, you just don't like the truth. I know, it hurts. Go to the North Wall, and tell them what you think.
Bllackguard666 2 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Canada awarded zero combat medals for Viet Nam service. They issued an award (based on length of tour only) to some members of the ICCS. Since we are nit-picking the facts so vehemently.
gbyrnes51 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry folks, Ann is correct here. It may be difficult for some liberals but, a 30 second google search is all it takes.
AtlasObjectivist 7 months ago
Ann Coulter can be wrong on her facts sometimes, but she's a character and fun to watch kind of like a political Don Rickles.
nevrgreen 7 months ago
Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War and diplomatically it was "officially non-belligerent" "Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War, by Victor Levant (1986).". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2010-07-15.
Canada sent humanitarian help and had quite a few individuals join U.S. forces, but Canada never went to war by any congressional delegation. In fact, their protesting of the war was heavier than their Iraq protests.
Get of the Coulter bandwagon, NAGGERNUTZ
rhslinebacker33 8 months ago
@rhslinebacker33 - *sigh* Why don't you Ann Coulter haters ever check before you comment? Google "Operation Gallant"... or read this: tinyurl*com/39ahsfv. Not even mentioning the Canadian Department of Veterans Affairs web site where they admit that Canadian troops served in Vietnam. Go back to sleep now.
NAGGERNUTZ 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NAGGERNUTZ your argument is the use of the peace advisers? That was to observe a peace process as dictated by the Paris Accords. They did not serve in the Vietnam War. Way to reinterpret history though to defend a moron like Coulter. And yes, I dislike her, because she is what is wrong with the conservative wing of this country.,
rhslinebacker33 8 months ago
@rhslinebacker33 - First off, I'm not arguing anything. You are. Canada sent troops to Vietnam to enforce the Paris peace accords. While they were there, they were fired upon and returned fire. They received casualties and KIA's as a result. Medals were awarded. If that's not fighting, I don't know what is. I'm not going to disrespect those soldiers by nit picking the definition of war with someone who's never served and probably never will. Hate Coulter if you want, she's right on this one.
NAGGERNUTZ 8 months ago
The Canadian government is pretty adamant in this stance. They maintain they did not send troops to the war. Even their own encyclopedias maintain the same response. They sent troops as dictated by the Paris accords as part of the rotation oversight. After they left, Iran then saw the peace process. Yes, Iran....had the same roll in the aftermath of the war as Canada. But that is the key word, the Aftermath. Canada did not send troops during the war. You can spin the definition however you want.
rhslinebacker33 8 months ago
@rhslinebacker33 - Tell ya what you do... go ask any of the Canadian troops who were there during Operation Gallant if they give a flying fuck about the politics of why they got their asses shot off.
NAGGERNUTZ 8 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ oh I can tell you're a Coulter follower. If we can't win we throw a tantrum instead of trying to logically defend our position. lol. you're a joke.
rhslinebacker33 8 months ago
@rhslinebacker33 - Stop whining.
NAGGERNUTZ 8 months ago
B....b.....b...but......Ann Coulter can't be right.......I don't want her to! I am going to do the only sane and logical thing and dislike this video.
nofalltoofar 8 months ago
The whole point was to discredit Canada for its anti war stance on Iraq. She picked Vietnam as an example to show that C had loyaly supported the US in similar wars and one would expect them to do the same in Iraq. But the argument doesn't hold b/c as others have said C did NOT support the War in Vietnam. That's all there is to it. Whether Canada took part in an international peace force or whether certain individuals joint the US troops is not the point here.
Bluetenstaub 10 months ago 2
Don't always trust wiki!!
robynnmichelle 11 months ago
Canada sent troops as peacekeepers, not combat troops. Peacekeepers are there for both sides as opposed to combat troops which are there supporting one side or another, that is a very significant difference. From Wikipedia you should have seen that Canada was referred to as officially non-belligerent, that means non combative, again a rather important point. Individuals did go to Vietnam under the American flag, but that was their personal choice.
tonybugeja 11 months ago
@severedtesticles - Um... maybe you should check the Canadian Department of Veterans Affairs. Google Operation Gallant. Canadian troops were KIA. Medals were awarded.
NAGGERNUTZ 11 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Canadian troops were part of a an international mission sent to Vietnam to monitor the Paris Peace Accords. They were clearly NON combatants. Neither were those from Poland, Hungary (both then in the Soviet bloc) and neutral Indonesia also there in that capaciy.. There WERE Canadians in the US armed forces, some of whom fought and died in Vietnam, but Canada clearly was not officially involved in the conflict, so the Coultergeist gets out of this one clearly on a technicality.
steveinchelsea 11 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ But they wore American Uniforms , And faught for the USA NOT CANADA. My uncle was a Huey pilot in that conflict and can nolonger recieve his military pension in Canada caus he served the US Forces in that conflict. Operation Gallant was an American Operation they stacked with the Canadians that joined the US Forces during Vietnam.Yes Canadians faught in Vietnam , but for the US Forces not Canadian Forces.
420Leprikon 10 months ago 2
@420Leprikon - "Yes Canadians faught [sic] in Vietnam". Operation Gallant was a mission to uphold the provisions of the Paris peace accords... which was obviously a combat operation. They weren't there to slap wrists. There were wounded and medals were awarded by the Canadian government as evidenced by the Canadian Dept of Veterans Affairs web site. In any soldier's eyes, regardless of what country he fights for, once that first bullet goes past your ear, the reason is irrelevant.
NAGGERNUTZ 10 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ So Canada fought in Vietnam after the Vietnam war(the American war with North Vietnam) was over.When people say the" Vietnam war" they are generally talking about the war between the U.S. and Peoples Republic of Vietnam(North Vietnam).Canada sent no troops to Vietnam while American fo0rces were fighting there;so yes Coulter got owned.She was wrong on the facts.
johndgray1 10 months ago 2
@johndgray1 - Yawn...
NAGGERNUTZ 10 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Very true. Canadians soldiers did serve under the U.N. as "Peace Keepers" in Operation Gallant. Look it up and don't argue it. 240 Canadians risked their lives to Peace Keep: something that is twice as hard as going in and dropping napalm on every one like the Americans did.
PolskaProdigy 9 months ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
Don't want to be the one to prove you wrong or nothing but "Operation Gallant" was not a combat operation nor were the 300 odd personel sent by Canada to Vietnam there in a combat role or as support of American operations in Vietnam.
What "Operation Gallant" literally was, is a superviosry action whose goal was to maintain order in the relitivaly peaceful and democratic Southern Vietnam, while the American operation in Vietnam was a combat mission against the communist north.
footaballa 8 months ago
@footaballa - You're absolutely correct. They did it in Vietnam, right? Thanks.
NAGGERNUTZ 8 months ago
While it is true that thousands of Canadians flocked to America to help, and should be commended for their bravery, they did so as a group of individuals not as representatives of the country.
And while it is true that 300 Canadian personel did serve in Vietnam, the context in which Culter expressed, that Canada assisted in Vietnam but not in Iraq is untrue.
footaballa 8 months ago
Canada's military did not assisnt in a SINGLE american combat operation in Vietnam. 100 Canadians participated in the Invasion of Iraq... yet Canada is not in the Iraq war, the circumstaces are roughly the same Canadians were involved but Canada did not participate in niether the Iraq nor Vietnam wars.
The simple fact is there is a difference between having Canadian citizens participate and haveing a country participate...
footaballa 8 months ago
oh and there is a differnace between aiding in American operations Babylify, Steel Tiger, Flameing Dart, to name a few, and participating in an ICCS operation (Canada was a member of ICCS at the time) galant was an ICCS operation.
So Canada didn't participate in the Vietnam, at least, no more then they participated in the Iraq war, I really hope you understand the differance.
footaballa 8 months ago
Canada did send troops to Vietnam. I am not a fan of Ann, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. After seeing the video I did some research and she was wright, Canada sent troops to Vietnam in 1973. They were sent to enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
LoveAllOver1 11 months ago
@LoveAllOver1
The issue being, in context she was saying that they were sent there to support the US, which was not the case. They were a neutral party.
Stakhanov 11 months ago
Actually, the Canadian government did not send troops to Vietnam, what happened was that some Canadians went to the US and volunteered in the armed forces, most of these Canadians were people that had a citizenship to America, so they were also effectively American, so no, Canada didn't send anyone to Vietnam. Their is a stark difference between a nation sending troops and people going themselves.
helix4811 11 months ago
Eeerrr..actually 40 000 Candians seved in the Vietnam war, IIRC. There's that whole "dual citizenship" thing, Also, Australia and South Korea were both heavily involved in the Vietnam War as well. So, technically, the government of Canada didn't "send" troops to Vietnam (if anything, Canada at the time probably would have preferred to send troops to aid the North Vietnamese!) clearly a great number of Canadians thought their government was f***ed up!
bcfsl 11 months ago
SHES SO STUPID
definition of dumb blonde much?
oh and when you say send troops the normal person infers a combat force not a few observers because then most minor conflicts can be considered world wars because a world war is defined by the number of countries involed
rugbylover100 1 year ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action. that's a dictionary definition and i feel that represents the concept of hate well.
hate is ann coulter saying that jewish people need to be fixed. it's saying that in a perfect world everyone would be republican. by blatantly disregarding other peoples' opinions she is being hateful.
myexposeinstrain 1 year ago
@myexposeinstrain - So simply disagreeing with someone means you hate them? Really? I'm republican and I think that if everyone was republican we'd be better off. Does that mean I hate anyone who disagrees with me? I blatantly disagree with other people's opinions every day. Does that mean I hate them too? I think deep down inside the reason why people don't like Ann Coulter is because she's not politically correct, she speaks her mind, she voices her opinions, but I don't think she hates.
NAGGERNUTZ 1 year ago
@NAGGERNUTZ People do not like coulter because she is a thinker, she will not be right all the time, but she digs deep and is not afraid to talk about controversal subjects, the left hates anyone with real knowledge.
SlayerofFiction 11 months ago
@SlayerofFiction - Exactly! I couldn't agree with you more.
To anger a conservative, tell him a lie.
To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.
NAGGERNUTZ 11 months ago
@SlayerofFiction
i completely disagree, i think she is a disgrace to the right. Not only has she been caught lying, but she has insulted many a peoples with her lies. Apparently she just released a topic that she says that the people of Japan who have been affected by the radiation won't get cancer. She gives no real scientific proof, she gives no examples, and she most of all, has probably convinced people to get inject high levels of radiation in them.
helix4811 11 months ago
@helix4811 according to politifact she is on the half true scale the vast majority of the time, I do not agree with everythign she is saying, and I certainly did not take it as she says any amount of radiation is good, what she did say is some radiation does have beneficial effects and there is scientific data to back that up. I think at a time when people are running around with the "sky is falling" worrying about radiation from japan, that is a good thing, a UN study showed that more people
SlayerofFiction 11 months ago
@SlayerofFiction
Seeing as Chernobyl was completely different from this, i don't really think the comparison was fair or appropriate. While i agree small doses of radiation are beneficial, she didn't state that, she said and i'm typing this from my memory here, "the good news for the Japanese is, they don't have to worry about cancer anymore." or something of the sort. She fails to realize radiation is also what causes cancer.
helix4811 11 months ago
@SlayerofFiction
(conti...)
She doesn't tell half truths, she just uses the truth as a base for her lies, that is different from telling half truths. Where as a half truth is, you tell half the truth and say no more, using truth to spread lies is different, because you tell the truth in the beginning, but change it to suit your interests.
I do think that people are over reacting to the radiation leak, but she is taking advantage of the situation to make money. As you well know crisis=profit.
helix4811 11 months ago
@helix4811 I have no problem with her making profit from the disaster, again, keeping people calm is paramount at this time and I am going to go ahead and assume you have nothing difinitive which shows she repeatedly lies, You can however look at say Rachel Maddow (arguably the left side of her) who according to politifcat flat out lies consistently.
SlayerofFiction 11 months ago
@helix4811 died from the stress of chernobyl than from radiation.
SlayerofFiction 11 months ago
I just read on Wikipedia that Coulter admitted she was wrong about Canada sending troops to Vietnam in a 2005 interview with the Washington Journal.
I just hope someone had the sense to film her saying the words "I was wrong"
That I would love to see.
yoursuchagoodguy 1 year ago
Ann Coulter is amazing and cannot be toppled so easily. What liberals don't understand is her central ethic, which I understand, and which i think you understand, as evidinced by your choice in topics. Basically she's the female embodiment of all that is right with conservatism and she's quite beautiful at that. I suffer from brains damage as a child.
jlcapaz 1 year ago
I'm a conservative, but Ann Coulter is an embarrassment and does nothing good for our cause. Every time that dumb ugly cow opens her mouth, our entire movement is set back 30 years. All she is interested in, is garnering publicity and selling books.
spacemanspiff33 1 year ago
@spacemanspiff33 - If you're truly a conservative, then you have to love how Ann Coulter drives liberals absolutely crazy. She really brings out the rabid vitriol that they spew. And the beauty of it is... she just tells the truth.
NAGGERNUTZ 1 year ago
@NAGGERNUTZ Not at all...I find her just as repulsive as the Liberal media, spewing half truths and tall tales just in order to get a reaction. I don't think she gives 2 hoots about our cause, all she wants is to sell her books. If all we want to do is piss off Liberals, then we achieve nothing really, sure its 'fun' for a bit....but ultimately, it only rallies them together even more.
spacemanspiff33 1 year ago