Bill O'Reilly: Blowhard

IT IS NOT AMERICA WHO DISLIKES CANADA, IT IS CANADA WHO HATES THE UNITED STATES. WHERE WOULD CANADA BE WITHOUT AMERICAN MILITARY PROTECTION? AND IN WORLD WAR TWO, CANADA DONATED 10 OR 15 THOUSAND MEASLY TROOPS WHILE THE UNITED STATES SENT MILLIONS............THE U.S. SENT MORE TROOPS TO EUROPE THAN ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED. FRANCE WAS SO COWARDLY, THEY DID NOT EVEN FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN LIVES.

IF THE UNITED STATES DISAPEARED, THERE WOULD BE A NEW DARK AGE. IN FACT, IF THE U.S. HAD NOT BEEN AROUND THE LAST 100 YEARS, THERE WOULD BE ONE DESPOT AFTER ANOTHER RULING THE WORLD WITH BLOOD AND DEATH. YOU UNAMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO UNGRATFUL. WAIT UNTIL A CRUEL UNITED EUROPE RISES. YOU WILL THEN FIND OUT WHAT ITS LIKE TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD WHICH HAS BEEN 90 PERCENT OF HISTORY.

Oh yea, Canada, land of heroes.

Are you aware that the US military is voluntary? These aren't conscientious objectors, these are cowards. They volunteered for the ARMED FORCES.

What "many" wars are you referring to btw? World War II? You just mentioned Canada was in it. Or maybe you mean the Korean War which, if it weren't for Americans, would now be part of what is today North Korea. I suspect a good chunk of your computer equipment you're currently using was made in South Korea. My monitor and the memory in my computer was manufactured in South Korea. You can thank the United States for that.

Or maybe you mean the Civil War where the North's victory meant an end to slavery. Perhaps there are some other wars, other than Vietnam, that you are referring to for this "proud" tradition to have come to be.

So in Canada, I could join its military, and when it's time to go to war, I can decide not to go, and Canada won't do anything to me? I guess the Canadian soldiers that do go to war then have death wishes.

And in Canada that would be a real problem because they've only got a few dozen soldiers or so anyway. So any soldier leaving is going to have a real impact!

...And then he asked me if I was a socialist, and I said, "Certainly," and it was as if I'd said I like donkey semen in my latte instead of milk. He then went into a mad rant about lefties like Mr. Doyle and how I was a typical Globe columnist. I said, no, truthfully, I think I'm regarded as "idiosyncratic" (the first six-syllable word ever spoken on the O'Reilly show), and he erupted again.

BTW, those of you trying to 'promote' America's superiority to Canada, as if that is somehow a moral responsibility of yours, must be pretty desperate if all you can come up with is the same 'If America didn't exist everything would suck' tract. Either that, or you have no intellects. You cannot even begin to look back in history, say 'disappear America', and then announce the result as if you'd performed some simple mathematical operation. So don't.

As for Marvin Cooley, your just CRAZY! But because I can't let such wacko-ness go unanswered, I'll bite:

"Where would Canada be without American military protection?" Just fine, everybody in the world isn't out to get US!?

"The U.S. sent more troops to Europe then all other nations combined." This is true, but irrelevant. The U.S. was the only country outside Europe with that many people. I mean, Australia and Canada combined are only one sixth the size of the U.S.. Wouldn't it be a bit embarrassing if you hadn't sent more troops?

"And in World War II, Canada donated 10 or 15 thousand measly troops while the United States sent millions." Are you on crack? More than a MILLION Canadians served in WWII. And we didn't wait three years to entered the damn war in the first place.

But that was different -- that was Hitler -- everybody knew he had weapons.


Super Baby: No, Canada has the same policy regarding conscientious objectors as the U.S. military does. If one becomes a conscientious objector while serving they must apply for C.O. status. The difference is that such status is almost never granted the U.S. and apparently many believe that objectors are just dismissed out of hand.


Draginol: Wars: Canada, Mexico, Spain, Philippines, Moro Campaigns, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Cuba, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq I, Afghanistan and Iraq II.

Of course, some of these wars I would have agreed with (particularily: WWI, WWII, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan), but that's a lot of wars any way you count.

When I referred to draft dodgers fleeing to Canada, I was thinking of 1812 and Vietnam. I have never personally met a Canadian that wasn't proud of our opposition to the draft in general, or to accepting U.S. draft dodgers specifically.

I don't think that Canadians a particularily heroic as individuals, but we have a long track record of pursuing the global interest without overriding regard for our own interests. The same simple cannot be said of the United States.

Wow, I see a lot of Canada bashing here by my fellow Americans. It's really sad because I think it's opinions like these that cause the rest of the world to percieve us as warmongers.

Ian, good for you for standing up for your country. I think a lot of American people are very snobbish about our military staus in the world because it is so overpowering, and because we think that we should be the police of the world.

-- B

Wow, I see a lot of Canada bashing here by my fellow Americans. It's really sad because I think it's opinions like these that cause the rest of the world to percieve us as warmongers.

Ian, good for you for standing up for your country. I think a lot of American people are very snobbish about our military staus in the world because it is so overpowering, and because we think that we should be the police of the world.

-- B

Super Baby: No, Canada has the same policy regarding conscientious objectors as the U.S. military does. If one becomes a conscientious objector while serving they must apply for C.O. status. The difference is that such status is almost never granted the U.S. and apparently many believe that objectors are just dismissed out of hand.

And everybody who wants to become a conscientious objector in Canada is granted that status, right?

Super Baby: No, but from what I've read virtually no one in U.S. military does.

I'm hearing alot of points on both sides here....

First of all claiming that Canada wasn't commited too much to World War 2 is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Whoever said that should just park your car in the garage and sit with the engine running for a few hours. Like Ian said over a Million Canadians served in the war and they were fighting in the Battle of Britain well before the United States entered the war. Also the Royal Canadian Air Force allowed black fighter pilots to fly way before the US even toyed with the idea of doing that. I just hate it when fellow Americans are so ignorant about shit like that. Anyway....
Lets remember the real point of this forum...Bill O'Reilly is a Jerkoff. Bill O'Reilly is all about Bill O'Reilly. Your kidding yourself if you think he does anything that isn't for the express purpose of getting lots of people to watch his show. He'd support or oppose any issue if he thought it would get him good ratings. My whole problem with O'Reilly and alot of people in the media today is that they claim that their opinion is the opinion that is good for everyone. If you can think for yourself you should be offended by anyone who presumes to know whats good for everyone else. Thats the exact opposite of what this country is about and its going on way too much lately.
Also, I don't know if I agree with Draginol's view that these Concientious Objectors are "cowards." If someone totally doesn't believe in something and then goes and does it anyway and ends up getting killed I think I'd call them STUPID. Granted they joined the military, but if Draginol is so supportive of the war maybe he should think about joining the military to take their place.....if more of these arm chair hawks were willing to do that then nobody would be talking about reenstating the draft in the United States. I was already over there and I can kind of understand why anyone would not want to go back there. Blindly dying for no good reason isn't my idea of patriotic. This isn't World War Two...the reasons for this war are not nearly as well defined. If I'm going to risk dying for my country I at least want to feel like I know it was really necessary for the safety and freedom on the United States.

Super Baby: No, but from what I've read virtually no one in U.S. military does.

In other words, Canada will still force many of its troops to go into a war in which they do not want to participate?

It's very simple: In Canada or the United States soldiers can apply for conscientious objector status. The difference is that -- apparently -- many in the U.S. are not given a fair hearing.

I'm not saying that soldiers shouldn't have to follow orders. I'm quite clearing saying that they should also have certain rights -- like the right apply for C.O. status and the right to have their argument heard with an open mind. Simple.

From what I've read most American military hearings on the subject come into the room predesposed to your attitude that anyone applying for status has just "decide[d] not to go". But obviously people really can become conscientious objectors. You either respect that, or you don't.

AFAIK these people would not receive CO status in the US. To qualify as a CO you have to think that *all* war is morally wrong, not that the particular war in which you are being asked to serve is morally wrong--so the objection can't be political. From what I have heard, the deserters object only to this particular war, and not all war.

So the fairness of the hearing would have nothing to do with their rejection. They don't meet the standard.

YOU UNAMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO UNGRATFUL. WAIT UNTIL A CRUEL UNITED EUROPE RISES. YOU WILL THEN FIND OUT WHAT ITS LIKE TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD WHICH HAS BEEN 90 PERCENT OF HISTORY.

Hahaha, just wait Marvin, you will be first on my personal list once I head the Evil European Empire. But for now, please give me my caps lock back.

I personally find this a tough one. Once you go into a voluntary army, I feel you give up your freedom to decide for yourself in certain respects, chosing where to fight and where not being one of them. Imagine soldiers deciding before a patrol if this specific route is acceptable to them or not. That being said, if they do have a problem with going to a specific war, why let it come to desertion? Why not just fire them, just like any employee who refuses to follow his/her company? Why would you want such an employee in the first place?

Also a thing to consider; After many, many wars with many, many atrocities, it was decided that "Befehl ist Befehl" just doesn't cut it, everyone has his own personal responsibility to refuse to carry out orders that are morally wrong. Who is to decide that the morals of these two guys are wrong? Then again, they did join the army which tells me they don't have grave moral problems with killing fellow human beings.

As a said, a tough one. I personally would kick both their arses for being stupid and leave it at that.

Sometimes people give rhetoric that they probably regret.

This article is a good example.

Ian wrote originally:

We have a proud tradition of accepting those who refuse to fight in America's many wars.

To which I responded above pointing out that the only wars that would have seen Americans going to Canada (i.e. wars that involved a significant force and likely involved draftees in one form or other) were either ones that Canada agreed with (or should have) or participated in.  The one exception being Vietnam which doesn't make a "tradition".

And this is what ian writes as his "response". This is the best he can apparently muster:

He then answers:

Draginol: Wars: Canada, Mexico, Spain, Philippines, Moro Campaigns, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Cuba, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq I, Afghanistan and Iraq II.

That's nice. That's a list of places the US has sent troops to.  Which doesn't answer the question I asked. 

So let's just get the fact out there: Canada doesn't have any such tradition because the number of conflicts that the US has been involved with that Canada didn't either support or was involved in in which US troops would have wanted to flee is basically just Vietnam. Unless you can provide a legitimate source for Americans fleeing Canada because they feared going to Somalia or Greneda then your rhetoric is just more mindless left-wing rhetoric that reminds us all of the unthinking anti-Americanism that O'Reilly and others have been pointing out.

In other words, you make O'Reilly's point for him because you're reflexively anti-American. 

Americans don't dislike Canada. I like Canada. I like Canada like any other US state.  That's how Americans tend to think of Canada - just another state. We don't mean that in any negative way. It's a country nearly the same size as the United States with a population less than at least 1 US state.

I tend to think of Canada's anti-Americanism coming from insecurity on the part of Canada rather than any sort of principled position. Your response only reinforces that. You make lofty statements of Canadian tradition for being a refuge for those who don't want to fight in America's "many wars" and when pressed you show that you really didn't know what you were talking about.  What's really amusing is that you then (in the same post) take pride for getting involved in World War II sooner. Indeed. We Americans aren't nearly as war happy as Canadians I guess.

Canada does have traditions I'm sure.  There's hockey for example. Canadians have a proud hockey tradition. They also have..well, they really have that hockey thing nailed down.

Incidentally, according to Vietnamwar.com, more Canadians crossed the border to go to Vietnam than Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the draft: http://www.vietnamwar.com/CanadianCasualties.htm

 

In other words, you make O'Reilly's point for him because you're reflexively anti-American.

And you're doing a pretty good job of Canada-bashing there, Brad. I don't see how his retort to your comment was reflexively Anti-American. With comments like these from armchair generals such as yourself...

Oh yea, Canada, land of heroes.

I wouldn't be suprised that Canadians are anti-American by default. Thankfully most of them seem to be able to see through people's egos such as yours, touting such American elitism.

Canada does have traditions I'm sure. There's hockey for example. Canadians have a proud hockey tradition. They also have..well, they really have that hockey thing nailed down.

Wow Brad. You're really showing your ignorance on Canadian culture and tradition here. Hockey is the only thing sacred to Canadians, eh?

What's really amusing is that you then (in the same post) take pride for getting involved in World War II sooner. Indeed. We Americans aren't nearly as war happy as Canadians I guess.

Why is that amusing? Maybe they saw the threat before it came knocking at their door *cough*Pearl Harbor*cough*. There's a phrase "nipping it in the bud". Perhaps their involvement in the war was a case of this?

-- B

Ian, thank you for posting that. People like you help me remember that not all North Americans are morons. We do have our friendly neighbors up north to flee to should the devil...uh, I mean Bush get re-elected. I am a C.O., well at least in theory. I have not wasted time attepmt to apply because I know that it would be futile. The only war in American history that I agree with is WWII. Not even this Civil War that "ended slavery". Do people really think that was the point of the Civil War? I thought we learned in like 7th grade that it wasn't true. The Civil War happened because the South ceded from the North. Lincoln didn't want that to happen, something about he wanted their tax money and didn't agree with the "Declaration of Independence" that gave the South the right to do that. Lincoln declared an "Emancipation Proclimation" during the Civil War, but look closely at what the executive order did. It freed all slaves in Southern States, which we had no power over. The Northern states that allowed slavery still had slavery. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Amendments that slavery was actually banned. Especially look at the 13th amendment. The South had every right to leave te Union. And with the elections coming up, I'd be happier if they were their own nation and couldn't give Bush automatic votes.

So, back to my main point. There are rumors of plans to reinstate the draft if Bush gets reelected. I plan on seeking refugee status in Canada should that happen and pray that Canada will grant me it. Canada is a much better place than the US, no Bush family, Socialism (well, some form of it at least), and gay marriage (which is important to me). So thank you Canada for putting up with the assholes to your south.

I'm not saying that soldiers shouldn't have to follow orders. I'm quite clearing saying that they should also have certain rights -- like the right apply for C.O. status and the right to have their argument heard with an open mind. Simple.

An open enough mind that some people are still denied it even if they are against the war?

Lincoln didn't want that to happen, something about he wanted their tax money and didn't agree with the "Declaration of Independence" that gave the South the right to do that.

Isn't an official government document.

It seems that this is all political. The same people who are approving of these "conscientious objectors" are the same people who are against the whole thing with Iraq, Bush, and America. I have a feeling that if Canada supported the war, these "conscientious objectors" would get their asses thrown right back into the U.S.

Mr. Frog - Ah I see, Ian and you aren't arrogant. Just "elitist" Americans like me. And when Canada runs off to join World War II years before the United States, it's "nipping a problem in the bud". But when the United States does the same, it's more of our war mongering that builds a ficticious "tradition" of poor Americans running to Canada to escape our "many wars".

And despite living only 15 miles from the border of Canada, yes, I fully admit to not being that familiar with various Canadian cultural issues outside hockey and anti-Americanism. Then again, I doubt the average Canadians knows very much about say Greenland and Iceland (I know the Canadians here don't).

In America, people who run from their pledged duties are called cowards. In Canada, they're welcomed as heroes. I think that provides enough of a distinction for anyone.

It seems that this is all political. The same people who are approving of these "conscientious objectors" are the same people who are against the whole thing with Iraq, Bush, and America. I have a feeling that if Canada supported the war, these "conscientious objectors" would get their asses thrown right back into the U.S.

Precisely. And it's so transparent. You have Ian being proud that Canada got involved in the fighting in World War II years before the USA. How would Canada have treated American servicemen who went to Canada to avoid fighting? I think the answer is obvious.

This has nothing to do with any sort of principle. It's just crass anti-Americanism in its basest form. And those who try to argue otherwise reveal more about themselves than anything else.

I don't know if it is anti-americanism as much as its just basic human nature with an anti-Bush post thrown in for good(annoying) measure. The problem here is, neither side is willing to admit anything(just like any people in any fight) and instead just throw an insult back. That's all this is, its happening on both sides here. I live not too far from the border with Canada. I'm friends with some people who moved here from Canada a few years back...guess what? They are big big hockey fans. I also tend to agree with the statement that Americans tend to view Canada as just another state. It's true. Going to Canada doesn't really feel like a different country. Seriously, if the world was being destroyed and I could pick 3 countries to save, it would be the US, Canada, and Japan.

My first post here, so please excuse me if the formatting ends up being all over the map.

It seems that this is all political. The same people who are approving of these "conscientious objectors" are the same people who are against the whole thing with Iraq, Bush, and America. I have a feeling that if Canada supported the war, these "conscientious objectors" would get their asses thrown right back into the U.S.

If Canada had supported the war they would certainly have been treated in precisely the same way. They'll get a bit of time to cool their heels, they'll have their day in court, then assuming there's a reasonable certainty their home country will treat them in a way that's not out of line with what a Canadian soldier could expect in the same circumstances, they'll be sent home to face the music (or lack thereof).

And Brad, yes, the answer is obvious. There would have been no difference. Public opinion on the matter may have been different, but unless I'm misreading what you're getting at, that's neither here nor there.

I read the Globe pretty regularly, and Ian's right, this hasn't been a major story up here. I was aware that there was some kind of kerfuffle between this O'Reilly guy and a couple of the Globe's entertainment and lifestyle columnists, but I don't remember reading about the refugee claimants and until I saw this and decided to do a bit of background reading it hadn't ocurred to me to give much thought to what the fuss was about.

In case you're wondering what kind of paper the Globe really is: It's considered the "grey lady" of Canadian newspapers. The core of its target market would be roughly the same as the Economist's, literate members of the professional and managerial classes. Its editorial policy is slightly to the right of centre, but it makes an effort to publish a broad range of opinion. It was in favour of Canada joining the US in Iraq, putting it at odds with most Canadians on the issue, though at the time not an overwhelming majority, and probably not a majority of its readership. Its business section, the Report on Business, is Canada's leading business newspaper.

If Bill O'Reilly really did call it "far-left" then yes, he's a blowhard.

Here's a link to a recent editorial to give you a flavour.

I have never personally met a Canadian that wasn't proud of our opposition to the draft in general, or to accepting U.S. draft dodgers specifically.

You've got one here. I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances, but it's not something it would ever occur to me to point to with pride. And I hope I'm not offending anyone by saying this: left-wing Americans aren't exactly my idea of the ideal immigrant (I'm saying that in general, there are some left-wing Americans I'd be happy to have here.)

Draginol: When I referred to accepting draft dodgers, I was referring to British Loyalists and Vietnam. You may not think that these two instances qualify as a tradition, but on that we'll have to disagree.

When I referred to America's "many wars" I was referring to them in general, not just to the wars in which Canada's accepted draft dodgers. That's why when you asked "what 'many wars'" I simply responded with a long list of wars.

I can see how you could easily think that I was saying 'Canada has accepted American draft dodgers from many American wars' -- I apologize for my imprecise phrasiology, but I still hold fast to my opinion that Canada should be proud of it's willingness to accept American draft dodgers.

Whether it's draft dodgers, runaway slaves or those facing execution, it's important that Canada remain true to it's values and objectivity.

You see, it isn't that the United States is an evil country -- in fact, it's just the opposite. If we were talking about sending people back to Uzbekistan or Burma or Sudan or Saudi Arabia or even China, it would be easy for us to stand up for what we believe in.

It's that were willing to do so even in face of opposition from the strongest country in world, our closest ally and a nation we still respect a great deal that makes our actions meaningful. Values don't mean much if your only willing to stand by them when it's easy.

Your idea of a tradition is royalists from the 1770s -- before the US even existed and then an event 2 centuries later?

I guess I'd have to just disagree then. People who joined the armed services knew what they were doing.