[WikiEN-l] Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article

Wed Mar 9 15:06:23 UTC 2005

Poor, Edmund W said:
> There are three points of view on this
> sub-point:
>
> 1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian
> government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
>
> 2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the
> "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
>
> 3. The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with
> weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North
> Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
>
> 4. Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam
> (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.
>
> Option one definitely implies that Coulter was 100% wrong.
>
> Option two makes Coulter partially wrong, and McKeown partially wrong
> (but McKeown wins the "gotcha" game).
>
> Option three makes Coulter partially right, and McKeown partially wrong
> (i.e., they both were somewhat mixed up; gotcha game ends in a draw!).
>
> Option four makes Coulter 100% right, and McKeown and Moore 100% wrong.
>

I'm sure that Canada sent troops as part of the force that was sent to
monitor the South Vietnam agreed in the Paris Peace Accord.  I'm sure they
were armed and almost certain that they occasionally used those arms.
Here's a VA-Canada page about the service medal they received.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmvn

However this is clearly not the force that Coulter was talking about
(unless she wrongly believed it to be a force sent in aid of the United
States) and that McKeown denied existed.  Coulter said:
"Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean
Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a
threat than Saddam Hussein?"
Note that Coulter specifically was talking about military support for one
side (the USA) in a conflict with another country, and asking why this
wasn't forthcoming in the current conflict in Iraq.
That Coulter misspoke, and McKeown's denial was correct, should be made
clear on the Coulter article by those who are editing it.