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.

Frogboy: Perhaps "Royalists" is the American version of the term "Loyalists", which refers to those loyal to the British crown. I don't know.

The immigration of Loyalists to Canada continued long after the American War of Independence, however. If memory serves this issue was involved in the War of 1812, which was itself fought largly over issues of conscription.

As for what does and does not constitute a tradition, who cares? My point stands whether this was a tradition or just something Canada did a couple of times. I doubt whether you think Canada should be accepting U.S. draft dodgers (or those who aren't given a fair hearing when it come C.O. status) is really gonna rest on how often Canada has done this in the past.

Super Baby: 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.

Hey Super Baby....just to clarify I hope you don't mean that if you're against the war and don't like President Bush then your against America. Hopefully that isn't your meaning, cause I've heard about enough of that shit. "America is a free country but if you don't agree with the war and love the president your ANTI-AMERICAN".....thats a bunch of crap. The right to choose what you believe in and disagree with something or someone you don't like is the basis of this country, or at least it used to be.

If you join the military, you should be expected to go to war. The Vietnam War had more people enlisting every year than were drafted anyway, so now the military is completely voluntary. Why should you join the military if you're opposed to war? What kind of idiot does that make you?

BTW, there was no draft in the American revolutionary war. Royalists weren't forced to fight. They simply emmigrated.

this is a bit off-topic but im appalled to see so little support for those stalwarts of revolutionary-era colonial conservativism (better known as tories). but what can you expect when the liberal press is so biased in favor of their fair-haired radical liberal heroes like paine, jefferson, and all the rest of those traitors.