Bill O'Reilly: Blowhard

Published on May 3, 2004 By IanGillespie In Politics

As the author of a Canadian and American political blog, nothing warms my heart quite like a showdown between Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly and Canada's most respected newspaper, The Globe and Mail:

"On Friday, O'Reilly took exception to reports that he is an 'ultra-conservative' and that he does not like Canada. In recent days, the outspoken American TV personality has been involved in a running dispute with Toronto's Globe & Mail newspaper..."

"But the biggest bone O'Reilly has to pick involves two U.S. army deserters who are seeking asylum in Canada. He has argued that if Ottawa grants that asylum, the U.S. should boycott Canadian products in protest, a move that he says could cripple the Canadian economy."

O'Reilly has said these deserters are being "treated like heroes" by the Canadian media -- and has singled out The Globe and Mail. I can tell you, having followed the Canadian media far more thoroughly than Bill O'Reilly, these guys have barely even been mentioned. The O'Reilly/deserters story has gotten far more play than the actual deserters story.

That being said, if these two soldiers are conscientious objectors they should absolutely be granted asylum. The American military has a track record of denying conscientious objector status on a whim, but we take these issues very seriously. Canada has never accepted a combat draft -- even during World War II. We have a proud tradition of accepting those who refuse to fight in America's many wars. If Bill O'Reilly thinks a boycott is going to change all that, he's underestimating his adversary.

After all, this is country that marshalled every force available to the effort in World War II -- without even a combat draft.

Comments (Page 1)

Marvin Cooley

on May 03, 2004

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.

Draginol

on May 03, 2004

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.

messybuu

on May 03, 2004

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.

Draginol

on May 03, 2004

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!

Saint Ying

on May 03, 2004

...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.

IanGillespie

on May 04, 2004

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.

Mr_Frog

on May 04, 2004

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

Mr_Frog

on May 04, 2004

messybuu

on May 04, 2004

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?

IanGillespie

on May 04, 2004

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

dcarst1

on May 04, 2004

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.

messybuu

on May 04, 2004

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?

IanGillespie

on May 04, 2004

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.

vincible

on May 04, 2004

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.

Erique Dela Crappe

on May 04, 2004

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!