Ann Coulter didn't check her facts....
 

This is pretty funny.....

http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=120992

I actually saw that when it first aired and all I could do was laugh.

What an effing idiot.

I love the interviewer's reaction.

I had a link to that in my sig for a few weeks

Congrats

In her defense, she has a nice rack.

I guess Canada better tear down their Vietnam War Memorial then.

Those Canadians enlisted and fought with the US Army not the Canadian Army. Canada never did send its own troops.

And the Canadian government allowed them to do so; hence their endorsement.

Oh so Canadians are not free and need to get permission from the government.? They were held at gun point not to leave Canada and join up without permisson?

Yes, no nation's citizens should be "free" to violate national policy. The U.S. made such behavior illegal before any of us were born. This was to prohibit U.S. citizens from either being mercenaries, or fighting in conflicts in a way that conflicts with American national interests.

The US did. But did Canada is the question.

Besides the question is did Canada send troops? No they did not. They did not send troops and they did not tell Canadians to go to the US and join the Army.

Saying that the Canadian government sent troops by not stopping its citizens from joining the US Army is a big stretch to try to prove Ann was not wrong.

Also Canada let in our draft dodgers. If they endorsed Vietnam why let them in and not force them back?

Even Ann criticized Canada for not supporting the war and letting in the draft dodgers in this full fox news interview...

full fox news interview...

Covered this in another thread discussing Ann intillegence (or lack thereof in this case). No matter how you try and twist the facts (like Ann does) the answer is NO - Canada did not send troops. Canadian Parliament passed an act prohibiting Canadian citizens from legally serving in Vietnam with the American military - and many had their citizenship revoked as a result. However that does not mean that individuals did (and still do in the case of Iraq) sign on with the US military for service in Vietnam (in fact over 100 names on the memorial would be of people who did just that).

The Canadians that did serve in Vietnam by joining the US Army did so in opposition to the military laws and political stance of the country... so for example Veitnam vets are not considered veterans and therefore not eligible for benifits or recognition. Further if it was a case of a Canadian soldier leaving Canada and signing up with the US army he was considered by Canadian law a deserter (if he failed to leave the Canadian Armed Forces first) or a mercenary (if he left the Canadian Armed Forces first). Ammensty for the mercenary catagory was granted by the Canadian military back in '85; amnesty for the deserter classification was granted in '97.

PS> in case your wondering, the Canadian parliament hasn't passed any similar acts prohibiting Canadian citizens from joining the US military with regards to Iraq - changes in US recruitment regulations pre & post 9/11 more or less accomplished that already... so only 1 Canadian citizen has been killed serving with US forces in Iraq so far; but he was able to sign up because he held dual citizenship.

PPS> oh yeah I did mention in a previous post that this was on a feature program on the CBC - so many Canadians saw the original program or the subsequent repeats. Probibly explains why Ann's book isn't doing so well up here:p

Link Please

Right I'll try and find the links or more specifically a copy of the QR&O (Queen's Regulations and Orders) online that outlines the military classification of those who served in Vietnam. This may take awhile... DND doesn't exactly make a habit of putting manuals or rules online - they still prefer keeping it solely hardcopy...

Although off hand I do know the exact term applied by the military to those who signed on with the US military during Vietnam was:
"dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service"
Or basically a dishonourable discharge that appears on the persons record and prohibits any federal or provincial employment - it also appears on your criminal record too.

Also I know the offical position on the record from the Royal Canadian Legion (veteran's association) is that those wo served are little better than "mercenaries" or "traitors" and are to be treated as such.

Right I have found a current copy of the QR&O... but it doesn't inculde past stricken ammendments.

Link to the QR&O:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/adm...l2/intro_e.asp

Might be a little difficult to read - because of the joint French/English printing of legal language... but hey it's what I deal with (I still can't speak or really read French).

Here is a link discussing numbers and citizenship - taken from a Vietnam veteran's website:
http://www.mystae.com/reflections/vietnam/canada.html
But you'll note that even they mention having trouble determining the disposition of Canadians as the records are retired or closed.

I'll keep looking for direct references - legally speaking - to the disposition of Canadian citizens and soldiers that served with the US military during Vietnam.

Wasnt this a lot like People of the Armed Forces who who fought in may wars?

Flying Tigers in Asia? During The Spanish War? Korean Police Action?

During Viet Nam? Before War or Police Action was declared?:confused:

Rob, tell me if I dont know about this, but, for the unknowing, are there/were there not members of different Military in situations that most never knew about ?:(

Actually quite a few... the situation was reversed in WWI and WWII with many US citizens heading north to sign on to the Canadian military and serve with our miltary during those wars. However since the US eventually did get involved in those wars, the issue never came-up politically (well in a major way)... and many of these "Eagles" as they where called eventually served with the US Army.. including the founder of the Sniper School - and the guy who led the last bayonet charge by US forces (in Korea).

The issue only really comes to a head when politics get involved on way or the other - Vietnam became a major issue because of the "deserter issue". Since the number of deserters fleeing to Canada was a mjor political issue, and the party in power had publically supported granting them asylum here - because of what they saw as the illegal nature of the Vietnam War (deja vu here) - they couldn't very well be seen supporting the position of Canadian citizens participating in that very same 'illegal' war - hence the legal position on those citizens who did (although it was never really enforced).

As for situations where members of the military are where people don't really know about - A fine current example is over in Jordan - yes Canada has sent no troops to Iraq, nor does Canada support the Iraq War... it does however support the reconstruction of Iraq; so thats where the election monitors (headed by Canada) where mainly stationed - and that is where the RCMP and some MPs on loan are training an average of 3000 Iraqi police (civilian and military) every 8 weeks. Does the general public in Canada or America know about it - nope... because they don't want to advertise. It has appeared in some magazines up here, but it never caught the notice of the main stream media - because the military members serving in Jordan are all Reservists who happen to be police officers full time - so technically they are serving in their capacity as police officers and trainers not military members.

All I could do when I saw that on the CBC was shake my head - we Canadians are stupid and don't know a damn thing about our own history, including which wars we did and didn't fight in... :rolleyes:

For those that want to see the whole interview - please use the following link:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

The video is available at the top of the page with the 3 minute exchange concerning Vietnam just under it.

The program Fifth Estate was covering the media and media bias in the US specifically concerning the whole liberal/conservative arguement...

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/part3.html Very interesting article.

Ok they sold stuff to the US. They were taking advantage of the war to boost their economy. They still didn't send troops. Had Ann said they sold supplies to the US during the war she would have been right. ;)

I’m not trying to prove Ann right because honestly I don’t care. But I do understand how someone could be confused about Canada’s involvement in the Vietnam War considering all the facts. The whole topic is pretty interesting and I’ve actually spent some time researching this today.

Yep as part of the NATO and NORAD treaty Canada does produce military equipment used by other nations... just as the US does the same for others in NATO. The same goes for the current conflict in Iraq as well... military equipment wise small arms ammo, LAVs, M16A3, M249s, and GPMGs are all manufactured here in Canada (ironically some parts by Matel).

However you'll note the opening paragraph of the article you referenced:
"The war in Vietnam wasn't Canada's war. Ottawa didn't send troops - but Canada did send a lot of other things, like TB clinics and doctors and nurses. There was also material that was not so benign - from helicopter parts to bomb bays and bulk explosives. That material didn't go directly to Vietnam."

Looks like it mentions the whole Ottawa didn't send troops... ;)

Right I'm sure Ann was confused by the whole no personnel or Canadian military equipment being deployed in Vietnam... then just as now industry takes international orders - and if the orders are to supply 'x' amount of material for 5 years then the contract is fulfilled...

The fact of the matter is Ann looked like the idiot/dolt whater she is on national Canadian television - by being called out on a stupid and false statement... she said Canada had sent troops - Canada didn't - the interviewer even tried to help by explaining Canada's military deployments, and suggesting she had mistakenly thought of the Aussies deployed there - but the fact remains she was wrong no matter how you cut it...

Just curious- the US had to give permission for hte thousands of Americans who fought in the Spanish Civil War? Those that joined with Canada for part of the Korean conflict? (these are the 2 I'm thinking off the top of my head).

Also- does anyone know if those with dual-citizenship need permission from the US to fulfill military requirements of the other nation they have citizenship? (Taiwan, Israel, S. Korea are three that come to mind)

Joined with Canada in the Korean War? Umm the US and Canada entered that one at the same time - so there really was no reason to cross the border and enlist in the other's army. In fact I can't recall a case off hand - other than 3 or 4 US citizen that had served in the Canadian Army during WWII that re-enlisted to serve with there buddies going to Korea.

The two major conflicts that saw US citizens heading north to enlist where the two World Wars - wars in this case that Canada entered but the US chose remain out of for political reasons; until circumstances had changed. Once the US entered either of the two World Wars the flow ceased for obvious reasons.

The Spanish Civil War more likely than not saw the official prohibition of US citizens signing on - again for political reasons, since the vast majority of the volunteers were enlisting in "communist" brigades - something that both US and Canadian governments took a very dim view of...

I am sure, that between Canada and America, there are many times when The Govts. did condone this sort of thing, it was done without knowledge of us Civilians.

One example is Greg "Pappy" Boyington who was officially discharged by The Army and went to Asia to fly with The Flying Tigers against The Red Take over. He was also under orders to do so after He volunteered to do so under Claire Chenault, Gen. of the USA Army Air Corp.

When war was officialy declared, He was brought back into the US Army.

So maybe there is a lot more that we do not know about. Well, on both sides of the border.:)

Canucks
 

Canada will never have a military man as great as John Wayne (SX - USC). I've seen him win several battles on his own.

Re: Canucks
 

My statesman, John Wayne (Winterset, IA) was an amazing man.

Hmmm I'd like to see if any of you discussing Ann even have Ann's stats and credentials.

-Rudey
--If she's dumb, I have no idea what it makes the rest of you

Who cares about her credentials? What does it matter if she is dumb or smart? I do not think people think she is unintelligent. They are just making fun of her mistake because of her more extreme political views. People may view some of her views as dumb just as people may argue John Kerry’s or Bill Clinton’s views are stupid. Would you call those men dumb? People pick on Michael Moore's not so smart statements. I do not believe Moore is dumb either because of what he has achieved in the past. He could not get there by being stupid. Both use their intelligence to push their point of view on the public.

She made a incorrect statement about Canada sending troops to Vietnam. That is what the post is about.

If she went to a "good" school and has a history of political commentary what ever she says is right despite the facts?

It's not the fact that I think she's stupid. I think she's far from stupid.

The thing that is funny (besides her statement being false) was that the fact the she couldn't even admit that she was wrong.

She knows how to market herself. She is a good performer. She is good for entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

She made one mistake. Big? No, not to me. Perhaps to Canadians, it was big.

I didn't say whatever she says is right. I am saying she is incredibly intelligent. Moore is not. However, Moore is not trying to be intelligent. Moore is a film maker and at that he is extremely talented. He doesn't even try to make himself out as "intelligent".

Extreme political views? Well as I've said before regarding anyone: If you find problems with what she writes, present proof otherwise. In this case you got her on one mistake which might embarass her, but doesn't compare with how you can go into Moore's film and take apart all the mistakes and lies.

At the end of the day, she's very intelligent. I think Al Franken is very intelligent as well (probably even more intelligent) and they both function in the same role in American politics.

-Rudey
--For someone who doesn't watch her or read her work, you sure do get upset about her

Actually I think the point is that if she can make a mistake on something supposedly in her field of political commentary - what other mistakes or misrepresentations has she made?

Her points and arguements about Canada-US relations were pretty far off base or just wrong when she was on FoxNEWS discussing Bush's visit to Canada after the election... it was apparent that her points where based more in her political view and less in facts than the other speakers. The sad thing is how dismissive she acts towards those that disagree with her, or try to correct her, ironically becoming just as intractable, fanatical, and denying of reality - as the 'liberals' she demonizes.

If you go to the site and watch the entire 47min program - of which Ann makes up but a portion - you'll at least see the entire Coulter interview... and who stupid she comes off as.

Finally yes I do read and watch her work - remember we do have access to both the internet and TV up here in Canada... so her website with "articles" is available... as is FoxNews (channel 197 on Rogers).

Re: Canucks
 

We prefer ours to be real... so in keeping with Black History month (well for the next two days):

William Hall
first Black recipent of the VC
Nov. 16th 1857
http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/VC_Recipients/hall.htm

Simple if the Canadian Gov't didn't give the ok and they have legislation discussing people who leave the country to sign up then it's clear. They didn't support it.


Kinda like the US didn't fight in the Spanish Civil War because Americans went over there on their own free will. But the Canadians here are doing a great job of explaining that.


BTW, first Jeff "FUNBOY" Gannon, now Ann with "BS" facts. Gotta love it.

As "easy" as it might have been for somebody to dispute Micheal Moore, I could easily rip just about ANYTHING Ann says.

I don't doubt she's intelligent, which makes this flap even more DISGUSTING. She's too smart to do a commentary/write a article/do a interview w/o ALL the facts. An intelligent journalist doesn't make those mistakes unless their intentions are clearly bias or they're trying to hurt somebody. Coulter is nothing more than a politcal hack and her routine is getting old.


As for Moore, what I respect about him, he gives links and tells you where to look up his accusations. If he's wrong or misleading you have the oppourtunity to look into it for yourself.