NationStates Jolt Archive

It was earlier today....around 5:20 PST that Reiley had some Canadian women from some Newspaper Column called the Toronto Globe or something

Anyways....the women was a socialist and she literally used the show to say

If any American soldiers want to not kill anymore, than Canada welcomes you

I remember a topic that raised this argument a couple weeks earlier....I wished I could spit at that lady as she grinned like a moron

My good pal O'Reiley (can't spell his name correctly) mentioned about how the U.S. would boycott imports from Canada should this go on.

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.

And then he cut her off for a commercial break (edited this in to stop a lot of B.S.ing)

....I wished I could spit at that lady as she grinned like a moron.

And then he cut her off

Good to see our neo-con freinds still as sharp as ever on the debating front.

And you've put the willies up Canada, cos France's economy is reeling after you renamed French Fries......geez.

O'Reilly didn't bash her..he challenged her on several points...all of which were valid..The Canadian government's action in allowing these two deserters, not draft dodgers undermines the good order and integrity of the US Armed Forces, the US Constitution, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice which governs US military personnel in peace and war.

These men weren't drafted..they knew what the purpose of the military had been..in fact one of them had even been in Afghanistan....only when their butts were on the line and the prospect of getting shot came into being did they suddenly have an epiphany on the war in Iraq....at any rate, the matter is a matter for the US military court system...their buddies who are in harms way demand that they be returned to answer for the crimes for which they could be charged under the UCMJ.

....I wished I could spit at that lady as she grinned like a moron.

And then he cut her off

Good to see our neo-con freinds still as sharp as ever on the debating front.

And you've put the willies up Canada, cos France's economy is reeling after you renamed French Fries......geez.

Actually..I've read a couple of articles from french sources that they indeed have suffered...tourism is down..sales of certain french products, including wine are down..etc..

If desersion is a criminal act the Canadians should hand them over shouldn't they?
Can't see why people join the forces then complain when combat starts.
We had a similar thing during the Falklands campaign. A number of troops said they did not want to go because they did not sign up for war or to kill people. So what did they learn to use a gun for? It astounds me!

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.

And then he cut her off

Intelligent comments there Colodia :roll: . O Reilly should boycott Canadian goods because of the opinion of one Canadian citizen. It would be interesting to see how much Canada's economy declines (sarcasm). Canada uses the dollar mate, I would have thought you'd know that, seeing as it has the same name as your currency. France lost billions? From Americans calling chips Freedom Fries? :roll: . I didn't see this interview so shouldn't really be commenting, but if O Reilly did cut the woman off, he's a disgrace.. he has to let her voice and opinions be heard if Fox is such an 'unbiased' news network.. (sarcasm galore).

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.

And then he cut her off

Intelligent comments there Colodia :roll: . O Reilly should boycott Canadian goods because of the opinion of one Canadian citizen. It would be interesting to see how much Canada's economy declines (sarcasm). Canada uses the dollar mate, I would have thought you'd know that, seeing as it has the same name as your currency. France lost billions? From Americans calling chips Freedom Fries? :roll: . I didn't see this interview so shouldn't really be commenting, but if O Reilly did cut the woman off, he's a disgrace.. he has to let her voice and opinions be heard if Fox is such an 'unbiased' news network.. (sarcasm galore).

He didn't "cut her off"..he challenged her viewpoints..and she went off on a tangent and didn't address his questions...

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.

And then he cut her off

Intelligent comments there Colodia :roll: . O Reilly should boycott Canadian goods because of the opinion of one Canadian citizen. It would be interesting to see how much Canada's economy declines (sarcasm). Canada uses the dollar mate, I would have thought you'd know that, seeing as it has the same name as your currency. France lost billions? From Americans calling chips Freedom Fries? :roll: . I didn't see this interview so shouldn't really be commenting, but if O Reilly did cut the woman off, he's a disgrace.. he has to let her voice and opinions be heard if Fox is such an 'unbiased' news network.. (sarcasm galore).

2:50 am, I'm not my best at this time

And he isn't talking about a boycott because of one Canadian. He's talking about a boycott because Canada is allowing AWOL American soldiers into Canada, which undermines and demoralizes the War on Terror.

And how am I supposed to know wtf Canada uses if I've never known?

and the rest you talk about is pure, undeniable B.S. that explains it's own idiocity and how ignorant one can be

Actually, he cut her off because a commercial break was in order

These men weren't drafted..they knew what the purpose of the military had been..in fact one of them had even been in Afghanistan....only when their butts were on the line and the prospect of getting shot came into being did they suddenly have an epiphany on the war in Iraq....at any rate, the matter is a matter for the US military court system...their buddies who are in harms way demand that they be returned to answer for the crimes for which they could be charged under the UCMJ.

Bold mine.

So one had already been to a warzone, yet you believe he ran away for being under fire. The why did he go to Afghanistan?

These men weren't drafted..they knew what the purpose of the military had been..in fact one of them had even been in Afghanistan....only when their butts were on the line and the prospect of getting shot came into being did they suddenly have an epiphany on the war in Iraq....at any rate, the matter is a matter for the US military court system...their buddies who are in harms way demand that they be returned to answer for the crimes for which they could be charged under the UCMJ.

Bold mine.

So one had already been to a warzone, yet you believe he ran away for being under fire. The why did he go to Afghanistan?

Actually..he wasn't there for the combat with the Taliban...but I think a rear area position..but in Iraq he'd be definitely in harm's way.

And all that is irrevelent...they should answer for their actions in a military court of law.

And all that is irrevelent...they should answer for their actions in a military court of law.

If it's irrevelent then you should'nt have said it. And I don't think the reasons these men didn't go to Iraq is irrevelent at all - in fact, if they do go to trial it'll be the most relevant thing.

It's possibe these men had convictions about invading Iraq that they wouldn't back down on, and if this is the case, then I applaud them for thinking for themselves and not following orders blindly. Unfotunate choice of job perhaps....

I saw the interview, and it was wonderful. He knocked that socialist down a few pegs. She tried to make it seem like Canada wasn't a left-wing country by saying that, since they're all so far left, she is actually considered more of a centrist.

Canada is a crazy place, man.

And all that is irrevelent...they should answer for their actions in a military court of law.

If it's irrevelent then you should'nt have said it. And I don't think the reasons these men didn't go to Iraq is irrevelent at all - in fact, if they do go to trial it'll be the most relevant thing.

It's possibe these men had convictions about invading Iraq that they wouldn't back down on, and if this is the case, then I applaud them for thinking for themselves and not following orders blindly. Unfotunate choice of job perhaps....

HELLO! ANYONE IN THERE?

These men VOLUNTARILY joined up to the U.S. military

MILITARY! Where you receive orders and do them. No questions asked.

In the military, your supposed to kill. Maybe you'll receive an order to kill someone that you don't agree with. But your in the military life, not the civilian life.

If they wanted to not kill Iraqis, then why didn't I see them protesting? Oh wait, they were busy hanging out with their military-buddies...

My good pal O'Reiley (can't spell his name correctly) mentioned about how the U.S. would boycott imports from Canada should this go on.

Lest it were officially sanctioned by the Canadian government, the US would never boycott Canada over this. This woman does not speak for the Canadian government, or the Canadian populace. The US would never close trade with its biggest trading partner because US deserters started fleeing there. Desertion is a crime, quite a serious one, and we have an extradition treaty with Canada. There are plenty of means to make these soldiers face their actions without threatening boycotts. O'Reilly is an idiot.

Wow is nobody even going to insult Bill O Reilly, I guess I'd better do it myself then.

Bill O Reilly - a lying, blotchy bully who cannot defeat his guests in proper debate and so chooses to shout them down. A man who masquerades as your average working class American without any political bias but who is a registered Republican party member and who grew up in the affluent Westbury suburb, had a private education, attended a private college and took regular holidays to Florida. He compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, who regularly makes up statistics on his show so that he can win arguments.

Wow is nobody even going to insult Bill O Reilly, I guess I'd better do it myself then.

Bill O Reilly - a lying, blotchy bully who cannot defeat his guests in proper debate and so chooses to shout them down. A man who masquerades as your average working class American without any political bias but who is a registered Republican party member and who grew up in the affluent Westbury suburb, had a private education, attended a private college and took regular holidays to Florida. He compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, who regularly makes up statistics on his show so that he can win arguments.

COM-MER-CIALS

COMMERICIALS COMMERCIALS COMMERCIALS

wait...Ou'ran compared to the what now?

As far as I understand, these soldiers are claiming refugee status in Canada. Their objection to continued service in the US military is that they do not wish to follow illegal orders. They feel that the invasion of Iraq is illegal -- an opinion as yet untested either in US or international courts.

Like all civilised countries, Canada has a legal process for dealing with claims like these. Such legal processes take time. Mr O'Reilly might want Canada to abandon its laws and bow to his own personal demands right now, nownownownownow! But he will be disappointed. Poor Mr O'Reilly.

As far as I understand, these soldiers are claiming refugee status in Canada. Their objection to continued service in the US military is that they do not wish to follow illegal orders. They feel that the invasion of Iraq is illegal -- an opinion as yet untested either in US or international courts.

Like all civilised countries, Canada has a legal process for dealing with claims like these. Such legal processes take time. Mr O'Reilly might want Canada to abandon its laws and bow to his own personal demands right now, nownownownownow! But he will be disappointed. Poor Mr O'Reilly.

I'm tired, sick, and over worked. But I'll make an allowance because your acting like a moron

Put Reilly aiside right now

There were no ILLEGAL orders given in Iraq. An illegal order would be an order that was not given by a superior officer.

War is not illegal. Yeah, we went in with pathetic reasons. But that's the Commander-in-Chief's orders to do so. As someone who enlists or is drafted to the U.S. military, it is your duty to follow orders and fight for your country.

They feel the Iraqi war is illegal....okay....did you ask them? Or do you not think that it's an excuse to save thier asses?

Even if it's not an excuse, it's a slap to every man and women that has joined up in ANY military establishment. Period. They went AWOL on a military that needed them for their own thoughts.


They volunteered to join up for the military, if your gonna have all these emotions about illegal wars and needless killing, then MAYBE being a U.S. soldier is not for you


Common sense people...

HELLO! ANYONE IN THERE?

These men VOLUNTARILY joined up to the U.S. military

MILITARY! Where you receive orders and do them. No questions asked.

Even if your orders tell you to jump off a cliff? I'm sorry, but I don't accept that by joining the military, your free will dissapears. Would you, if you were in th army, kill someone you knew had no reason to die, just because you CO told you to?

If they wanted to not kill Iraqis, then why didn't I see them protesting?

Because your not omnipresent?

HELLO! ANYONE IN THERE?

These men VOLUNTARILY joined up to the U.S. military

MILITARY! Where you receive orders and do them. No questions asked.

Even if your orders tell you to jump off a cliff? I'm sorry, but I don't accept that by joining the military, your free will dissapears. Would you, if you were in th army, kill someone you knew had no reason to die, just because you CO told you to?

If they wanted to not kill Iraqis, then why didn't I see them protesting?

Because your not omnipresent?

1. No one in their right commanding mind would tell someone to jump off a cliff.

2. Kill someone I knew had no right to die? Is it an order? If the response is yes to both of my questions, then my answer is yes...yes I would. Doesn't mean I feel good about it. But when you enlist in the military, you gotta expect to kill people you do not want to kill

3. I forget what omnipresent means....

This woman was a socialist?

or was she merely against the war?

Why anyone would call Bil O reilly, and say something like that on his show, I cant imagine.....what kind of response was she hoping for?

O' reilly isnt as bad as some of those of Faux News...

But Hannity is an ignorant ass, and an animal.

I cant believe people actually watch that crap.

This woman was a socialist?

or was she merely against the war?

Why anyone would call Bil O reilly, and say something like that on his show, I cant imagine.....what kind of response was she hoping for?

O' reilly isnt as bad as some of those of Faux News...

But Hannity is an ignorant ass, and an animal.

I cant believe people actually watch that crap.

She clearly said "I am a Socialist"

Would you, if you were in th army, kill someone you knew had no reason to die, just because you CO told you to?

Actually, being a Canadian and not knowing what an army is :wink: , I wouldn't really have a problem with ordered killings. Not to sound sadistic, but being stuck up here in this whole peace country makes me want to join the US army and do something...But that's just me. I'd also want to live in the US becuase I wanna get me one of those gun things, that are close to unheard-of in our so-called country :roll: .

HELLO! ANYONE IN THERE?

These men VOLUNTARILY joined up to the U.S. military

MILITARY! Where you receive orders and do them. No questions asked.

Even if your orders tell you to jump off a cliff? I'm sorry, but I don't accept that by joining the military, your free will dissapears. Would you, if you were in th army, kill someone you knew had no reason to die, just because you CO told you to?

If they wanted to not kill Iraqis, then why didn't I see them protesting?

Because your not omnipresent?

Listen..I'll freely admit that a member of the US military is obligated, no..duty bound to refuse an Unlawful, not illegal..but Unlawful order, Permanent Change of Station Orders to a deploying unit is not an illegal order..in fact..one had been in Afghanistan, albeit it in a safe rear area position.....the only reason these men fled to Canada is the color of their backsides..one of them even damned himself by saying.."I could be shot or even killed"....well..duh...that can happen in a combat zone...I have a nice little scar on my left shoulder where a VietCong got a lucky shot with his AK...yet I still fought.

Bottom line..they still voluntered...the military isn't a democracy..if you feel that at any time you might disagree so vehemently with a given order then perhaps the military isn't for you.

There are at least 3 different sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that these men can be charged with...and a half a dozen smaller ones...if these men believe so strongly in their convictions..present yourself at the US Border, contact the nearest Army Provost Marshal's office and wait to be picked up by the MP's. Then make your case to your peers..your fellow soldiers.

As far as I understand, these soldiers are claiming refugee status in Canada. Their objection to continued service in the US military is that they do not wish to follow illegal orders. They feel that the invasion of Iraq is illegal -- an opinion as yet untested either in US or international courts.

Like all civilised countries, Canada has a legal process for dealing with claims like these. Such legal processes take time. Mr O'Reilly might want Canada to abandon its laws and bow to his own personal demands right now, nownownownownow! But he will be disappointed. Poor Mr O'Reilly.

I'm tired, sick, and over worked. But I'll make an allowance because your acting like a moron

I'm sorry to hear that. I can understand why that might make you a little touchy -- but see if you can keep a lid on the abuse anyway.

Put Reilly aiside right now

There were no ILLEGAL orders given in Iraq. An illegal order would be an order that was not given by a superior officer.

War is not illegal. Yeah, we went in with pathetic reasons. But that's the Commander-in-Chief's orders to do so. As someone who enlists or is drafted to the U.S. military, it is your duty to follow orders and fight for your country.

They feel the Iraqi war is illegal....okay....did you ask them? Or do you not think that it's an excuse to save thier asses?

Even if it's not an excuse, it's a slap to every man and women that has joined up in ANY military establishment. Period. They went AWOL on a military that needed them for their own thoughts.


They volunteered to join up for the military, if your gonna have all these emotions about illegal wars and needless killing, then MAYBE being a U.S. soldier is not for you


Common sense people...

As I said, these soldiers say they believe that the war in Iraq is illegal. It is possible that they are right, since neither the US Government nor the Commander-in-Chief is above the law. US governments, and US armies, can act illegally. This issue of legality has not yet been tested in any court. Canada's own government has its own doubts about the legality of the war, since it was not a) sanctioned by the UN, or b) fought in self-defence. This is why Canada -- a close friend and ally of the USA -- is not a member of the Coalition.

Now, it may be that these men are acting more out of fear than conscience -- but that's not up to you, me or O'Reilly to judge, is it? Maybe they should have put in a request to defend the skies of Texas.

Instead, these soldiers have requested refugee status in Canada. The Canadians would have to break their own laws if they just ignored this and handed the soldiers back, as Mr O'Reilly seems to want them to. Canada isn't going to do this, and I'm sure that the US Army and the US government doesn't expect them to either. Mr O'Reilly should either grow up or shut up.

Soldiers have a responsibility, placed on them after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, NOT to blindly obey orders. They do not sign over their conscience when they enlist. It may be one thing to fight to defend your country; it may be quite another to engage in what you feel to be the illegal invasion of a foreign land.

1. No one in their right commanding mind would tell someone to jump off a cliff.

It's a hypothetical situation. According to your views expressed, you would jump off the cliff if your CO told you to.

2. Kill someone I knew had no right to die? Is it an order? If the response is yes to both of my questions, then my answer is yes...yes I would. Doesn't mean I feel good about it. But when you enlist in the military, you gotta expect to kill people you do not want to kill.

I'm not talking about doubts over fighting people...try this: Your a squaddie in Iraq, advancing on Baghdad. A number of Iraqi soldiers, obviously civilians press-ganged into fighting, give up with no resistance - renouncing Saddam and hailing you as savouirs(hard to believe I know but...). Your CO tells you to shoot them all in the back of the head. You know they've done nothing and this is against the Geneva Convention. What do you do?

3. I forget what omnipresent means....

It means your outside of space/time so you are everywhere at once. Can see everrything at once. The Christian God is seen to be omnipresent.

As far as I understand, these soldiers are claiming refugee status in Canada. Their objection to continued service in the US military is that they do not wish to follow illegal orders. They feel that the invasion of Iraq is illegal -- an opinion as yet untested either in US or international courts.

Like all civilised countries, Canada has a legal process for dealing with claims like these. Such legal processes take time. Mr O'Reilly might want Canada to abandon its laws and bow to his own personal demands right now, nownownownownow! But he will be disappointed. Poor Mr O'Reilly.

Fine then. We'll take them back and ship them to Afganistan... or our base on Greenland.

Deserters in a voluntary military are the worst kind of scum. It's like telling a friend you'll be there for him, and then when he needs you, you don't return his phone calls, etc.

I'm more then willing to let the wheels of extradition turn, if the Canadians believe in the treaties they have with us, then surely they'll realize this is an internal matter to be resolved before a military court-martial. If the men can prove their case that serving in the Iraq theatre of Operations would constitute and Unlawful Order then not only would they acquit themselves but all the anti-war crowd would have legal precedent to challenge the war in Iraq...but the proper thing is and always has been....RETURN OUR TROOPS HOME TO FACE THEIR PEERS, THEIR FELLOW SOLDIERS...ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO ARE NOW IN HARM'S WAY, LET THEM EXPLAIN THEMSELVES TO THEM.

I'm more then willing to let the wheels of extradition turn, if the Canadians believe in the treaties they have with us, then surely they'll realize this is an internal matter to be resolved before a military court-martial. If the men can prove their case that serving in the Iraq theatre of Operations would constitute and Unlawful Order then not only would they acquit themselves but all the anti-war crowd would have legal precedent to challenge the war in Iraq...but the proper thing is and always has been....RETURN OUR TROOPS HOME TO FACE THEIR PEERS, THEIR FELLOW SOLDIERS...ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO ARE NOW IN HARM'S WAY, LET THEM EXPLAIN THEMSELVES TO THEM.

You're agreeing to wait on the decision of the Canadian courts, then. I have no problem with that. It's a hell of a lot more reasonable than the infantile squealing demands of Mr Oh Really.

I'm more then willing to let the wheels of extradition turn, if the Canadians believe in the treaties they have with us, then surely they'll realize this is an internal matter to be resolved before a military court-martial. If the men can prove their case that serving in the Iraq theatre of Operations would constitute and Unlawful Order then not only would they acquit themselves but all the anti-war crowd would have legal precedent to challenge the war in Iraq...but the proper thing is and always has been....RETURN OUR TROOPS HOME TO FACE THEIR PEERS, THEIR FELLOW SOLDIERS...ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO ARE NOW IN HARM'S WAY, LET THEM EXPLAIN THEMSELVES TO THEM.

You're agreeing to wait on the decision of the Canadian courts, then. I have no problem with that. It's a hell of a lot more reasonable than the infantile squealing demands of Mr Oh Really.

I never said await the decision of the Canadian Courts..this has to do with an extradition treaty signed between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America....I expect only the administrative wrangling of any normal bureucracy in getting those two soldiers processed in Immigration or Customs..but send them back they must..if the Canadians have such vaunted respect for the treaties they sign.

I never said await the decision of the Canadian Courts..this has to do with an extradition treaty signed between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America....I expect only the administrative wrangling of any normal bureucracy in getting those two soldiers processed in Immigration or Customs..but send them back they must..if the Canadians have such vaunted respect for the treaties they sign.

I'm not an expert on Canadian law, but I have no doubt that everything will be done lawfully -- and it would be foolish, not to say criminal, to expect anything less. If the soldiers have applied for refugee status then their cases have to get the same level of consideration given to any other applicant. Your opinions, and mine, and those of some media buffoon or other, don't really enter into it. That's the great thing about the law, when used lawfully: it's applied equally in every case, regardless of any sound and fury that may be generated by one side or the other.

I'm more then willing to let the wheels of extradition turn, if the Canadians believe in the treaties they have with us, then surely they'll realize this is an internal matter to be resolved before a military court-martial. If the men can prove their case that serving in the Iraq theatre of Operations would constitute and Unlawful Order then not only would they acquit themselves but all the anti-war crowd would have legal precedent to challenge the war in Iraq...but the proper thing is and always has been....RETURN OUR TROOPS HOME TO FACE THEIR PEERS, THEIR FELLOW SOLDIERS...ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO ARE NOW IN HARM'S WAY, LET THEM EXPLAIN THEMSELVES TO THEM.

You're agreeing to wait on the decision of the Canadian courts, then. I have no problem with that. It's a hell of a lot more reasonable than the infantile squealing demands of Mr Oh Really.

I never said await the decision of the Canadian Courts..this has to do with an extradition treaty signed between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America....I expect only the administrative wrangling of any normal bureucracy in getting those two soldiers processed in Immigration or Customs..but send them back they must..if the Canadians have such vaunted respect for the treaties they sign.

For an extradition treaty to be activated, Country A must submit the proper paper work including a duly signed warrant for arrest to Country B where the suspects are. It does not activate immediately upon entry of someone who is known to have committed a crime but does not have a warrant out for their arrest.

If said individual or individuals claim refugee status based upon possible discrimination or unlawful punishment upon being returned to their country of origin then Canada is legally obligated to conduct a hearing as is the United States mind you. The Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate arbiter or whether or not the claim for refugee status is applicable or not. Which is the case in almost all representative democracies.

I never said await the decision of the Canadian Courts..this has to do with an extradition treaty signed between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America....I expect only the administrative wrangling of any normal bureucracy in getting those two soldiers processed in Immigration or Customs..but send them back they must..if the Canadians have such vaunted respect for the treaties they sign.

I'm not an expert on Canadian law, but I have no doubt that everything will be done lawfully -- and it would be foolish, not to say criminal, to expect anything less. If the soldiers have applied for refugee status then their cases have to get the same level of consideration given to any other applicant. Your opinions, and mine, and those of some media buffoon or other, don't really enter into it. That's the great thing about the law, when used lawfully: it's applied equally in every case, regardless of any sound and fury that may be generated by one side or the other.

I don't believe they should be given the status of refugees..they are criminals, albeit alleged til they have a court-martial proceedings against them...and as such shouldn't be labeled as refugees.. To do so undermines the credibility of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to dispense justice from within the ranks of military personnel..no one is above it..

She clearly said "I am a Socialist"[/quote]


Good God, that's almost tantamount to saying "I worship satan", quick somebody had better call the police before this woman seriously undermines fundamental cultural, social and economic structures within the US and destroy the moral fabric of society. I mean for Gods sake somebody think of the children.

Get the man some tampons (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly)

Sorry, im sure it's been posted before, but i couldn't help it. Colodia, aren't you 13 or something? I honestly do not understand how someone so young can be republican, you should be smarter than that. The person that angers me most is CNNs Tucker Carlson..... I wish I could set him on fire. I'd start with the bow tie.

Bill O'reilly isn't exactly a rational thinker. He tends to ignore other peoples views, and talk about himself all the time. Plus, isn't he on fox? 'Nuff said.

Colodia. Hi. :D

If I am not mistaken (I will check in a moment)*, you are already on an official warning from me. This means that at any moment I see you step over the line marked "respect and civility", I can request the deletion of your account. Which, more often than not, is a formality.

So, can I count on you not openly insulting people in future debates? Thanks.

*EDIT: Yes Colodia, you have two warnings now. Let's not have a Next Time.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Dude, whats so bad about being a socialist? Are you not from the land of the free... where everyone is free to have their view and express it, free to support whatever politics they like and whatever religion they like?

Or are you from the land of hypocrisy?

I agree, socialist want a better life for everyone in general, not a good life for a few, and an adequate life for the rest.

Dude, whats so bad about being a socialist? Are you not from the land of the free... where everyone is free to have their view and express it, free to support whatever politics they like and whatever religion they like?

Or are you from the land of hypocrisy?
I think the American idea these days is, you are free to choose any religion, political ideology and sexual identity you like, but the public is equally free to persecute you. But the government can't, because of all the "We Are Free" laws and stuff.

If desersion is a criminal act the Canadians should hand them over shouldn't they?

I have tried to explain this to people before. There are many cases where Canada has refused to turn over criminals to the United States if they for example face the death penalty.. it's because the death penalty is a breach of human rights. Amnesty International speaks out often about the breach of human rights in the US.

Same is the situation with these two soldiers.. The Canadian government has deemed the war in Iraq as illegal under International law, therefore we would not send back two soldiers who do not wish to fight in what has been deemed an illegal war. You can agree or disagree.. but that is the way my country works.. and few could argue under current terms, that the war in Iraq was legal, you may believe it moral.. but under international law is was most certainly illegal as proved by a many number of countries.

Dude, whats so bad about being a socialist? Are you not from the land of the free... where everyone is free to have their view and express it, free to support whatever politics they like and whatever religion they like?

Or are you from the land of hypocrisy?
I think the American idea these days is, you are free to choose any religion, political ideology and sexual identity you like, but the public is equally free to persecute you. But the government can't, because of all the "We Are Free" laws and stuff.

This is how I intrepret it..as an example....flag burning..not much more then anything else gets to me so badly...for those that burn it..it's a symbol of oppression..for me and my fellow vets..it's more then a symbol of our service to our country..but our comraderie to each other..the blood that we shed..etc...now..I will defend your right to burn my flag..that is your 1st Amendment right...but please don't say anything to me when I express my freedom of speech by splitting your jaw when you do.

I think the American idea these days is, you are free to choose any religion, political ideology and sexual identity you like, but the public is equally free to persecute you. But the government can't, because of all the "We Are Free" laws and stuff.
This is how I intrepret it..as an example....flag burning..not much more then anything else gets to me so badly...for those that burn it..it's a symbol of oppression..for me and my fellow vets..it's more then a symbol of our service to our country..but our comraderie to each other..the blood that we shed..etc...now..I will defend your right to burn my flag..that is your 1st Amendment right...but please don't say anything to me when I express my freedom of speech by splitting your jaw when you do.
Thank you. I can see that we are in agreement on this.

This is how I intrepret it..as an example....flag burning..not much more then anything else gets to me so badly...for those that burn it..it's a symbol of oppression..for me and my fellow vets..it's more then a symbol of our service to our country..but our comraderie to each other..the blood that we shed..etc...now..I will defend your right to burn my flag..that is your 1st Amendment right...but please don't say anything to me when I express my freedom of speech by splitting your jaw when you do.

You don't have the right to assult someone if they burn the flag. You can counter-protest, yell at them, etc., but assulting them crosses over the line.

It is over the line in most peoples' minds, but if he is willing to face the consequences it is his choice. The point is, everything we do or say has consequences. Living in America, gives us fewer legal consequences on the things we say. Just like Tactical Grace said, however, that doesn't necessarily limit the social consequences of the things we say.

This is how I intrepret it..as an example....flag burning..not much more then anything else gets to me so badly...for those that burn it..it's a symbol of oppression..for me and my fellow vets..it's more then a symbol of our service to our country..but our comraderie to each other..the blood that we shed..etc...now..I will defend your right to burn my flag..that is your 1st Amendment right...but please don't say anything to me when I express my freedom of speech by splitting your jaw when you do.

You don't have the right to assult someone if they burn the flag. You can counter-protest, yell at them, etc., but assulting them crosses over the line.

Oh really..burning a flag could be construed as a safety hazard? especially depending on whether or not you use accelerants...is that not an assault on me?

And I'm merely expressing my freedom of speech..my displeasure with that act.

This is how I intrepret it..as an example....flag burning..not much more then anything else gets to me so badly...for those that burn it..it's a symbol of oppression..for me and my fellow vets..it's more then a symbol of our service to our country..but our comraderie to each other..the blood that we shed..etc...now..I will defend your right to burn my flag..that is your 1st Amendment right...but please don't say anything to me when I express my freedom of speech by splitting your jaw when you do.

You don't have the right to assult someone if they burn the flag. You can counter-protest, yell at them, etc., but assulting them crosses over the line.

Oh really..burning a flag could be construed as a safety hazard? especially depending on whether or not you use accelerants...is that not an assault on me?

And I'm merely expressing my freedom of speech..my displeasure with that act.

That's reaching, and you know it. If someone sets fire to a flag in a crowded room with no sprinkler system, sure that's a fire hazard, but people tend to perform these acts outdoors, where people can see them.

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

This is how I intrepret it..as an example....flag burning..not much more then anything else gets to me so badly...for those that burn it..it's a symbol of oppression..for me and my fellow vets..it's more then a symbol of our service to our country..but our comraderie to each other..the blood that we shed..etc...now..I will defend your right to burn my flag..that is your 1st Amendment right...but please don't say anything to me when I express my freedom of speech by splitting your jaw when you do.

You don't have the right to assult someone if they burn the flag. You can counter-protest, yell at them, etc., but assulting them crosses over the line.

Oh really..burning a flag could be construed as a safety hazard? especially depending on whether or not you use accelerants...is that not an assault on me?

And I'm merely expressing my freedom of speech..my displeasure with that act.

It could be, construed as a safety hazard, but it's not directly hurting you like you going up and hitting someone in the face would be.

You can voice your displeasure with the act, but when you violate the rights of others by assulting them, thereby committing an illegal act, you've crossed the line.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go assult someone if you dislike what they're saying.

splitting your jaw when you do.

You don't have the right to assult someone if they burn the flag. You can counter-protest, yell at them, etc., but assulting them crosses over the line.

Oh really..burning a flag could be construed as a safety hazard? especially depending on whether or not you use accelerants...is that not an assault on me?

And I'm merely expressing my freedom of speech..my displeasure with that act.

It could be, construed as a safety hazard, but it's not directly hurting you like you going up and hitting someone in the face would be.

You can voice your displeasure with the act, but when you violate the rights of others by assulting them, thereby committing an illegal act, you've crossed the line.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go assult someone if you dislike what they're saying.

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine

I think Sdaeriji put it best when he said:

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Nope...Battery, according to dictionary.com, is "[t]he unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

By your logic, I could beat up President Bush because I disagree with his policies.

You've got really, really messed up logic if you think the First Amendment covers physical violence.

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine

I think Sdaeriji put it best when he said:

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Nope...Battery, according to dictionary.com, is "[t]he unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

By your logic, I could beat up President Bush because I disagree with his policies.

You've got really, really messed up logic if you think the First Amendment covers physical violence.

I may be splitting hairs but I'm sorry...if the flag burner can commit the physical act of buring my flag...i.e..his protected freedom of speech, then my physical act of my protected freedom of speech, i.e. expressing my displeasure with that flag burner should not be restricted.

I'm sorry..as I said..I'm willing to fight to the death to defend that person's right to burn it..just don't be upset if if express my displeasure over something so heinous to me.

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine

I think Sdaeriji put it best when he said:

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Nope...Battery, according to dictionary.com, is "[t]he unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

By your logic, I could beat up President Bush because I disagree with his policies.

You've got really, really messed up logic if you think the First Amendment covers physical violence.

I may be splitting hairs but I'm sorry...if the flag burner can commit the physical act of buring my flag...i.e..his protected freedom of speech, then my physical act of my protected freedom of speech, i.e. expressing my displeasure with that flag burner should not be restricted.

I'm sorry..as I said..I'm willing to fight to the death to defend that person's right to burn it..just don't be upset if if express my displeasure over something so heinous to me.

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine

I think Sdaeriji put it best when he said:

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Nope...Battery, according to dictionary.com, is "[t]he unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

By your logic, I could beat up President Bush because I disagree with his policies.

You've got really, really messed up logic if you think the First Amendment covers physical violence.

I may be splitting hairs but I'm sorry...if the flag burner can commit the physical act of buring my flag...i.e..his protected freedom of speech, then my physical act of my protected freedom of speech, i.e. expressing my displeasure with that flag burner should not be restricted.

I'm sorry..as I said..I'm willing to fight to the death to defend that person's right to burn it..just don't be upset if if express my displeasure over something so heinous to me.

I may be splitting hairs but I'm sorry...if the flag burner can commit the physical act of buring my flag...i.e..his protected freedom of speech, then my physical act of my protected freedom of speech, i.e. expressing my displeasure with that flag burner should not be restricted.

Well, Salishe, you are splitting hairs. There has to be an element of common sense involved here. Whatever the American Flag may represent or stand for, it is ultimately a non-living, abstract symbol. To equate burning an inanimate object with physical assult on a sentient being is irrational and, frankly, beneath you. I understand why you are disturbed by this, I really do, but to physically harm someone is not a protected right under the Bill of Rights.


I'm sorry..as I said..I'm willing to fight to the death to defend that person's right to burn it..just don't be upset if if express my displeasure over something so heinous to me.

And you should have every right to express your displeasure. You can yell at the person, argue with the person, urge others to share your views and boycott the person's business or whatever. And I agree, as a political gesture, buring the flag has all the subtlety of a temper tantrum from a two year old and serves no constructive purpose whatsoever while in fact simply showing the one burning the flag is an idioic rabble rouser with no real political agenda, just a lot of misplaced hatred and a limited vocabulary of expression. However, under no circumstances is their behavior excuse to inflict physical harm upon them. By doing so, you reduce yourself to their level and rob the symbol of it's power.

it doesnt surprize me at all that a herpes-faced gasbag bully like O'reilly would enjoy bashing a woman

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine

I think Sdaeriji put it best when he said:

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Nope...Battery, according to dictionary.com, is "[t]he unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

By your logic, I could beat up President Bush because I disagree with his policies.

You've got really, really messed up logic if you think the First Amendment covers physical violence.

I may be splitting hairs but I'm sorry...if the flag burner can commit the physical act of buring my flag...i.e..his protected freedom of speech, then my physical act of my protected freedom of speech, i.e. expressing my displeasure with that flag burner should not be restricted.

I'm sorry..as I said..I'm willing to fight to the death to defend that person's right to burn it..just don't be upset if if express my displeasure over something so heinous to me.

The physical act of burning your flag is not infringing upon your rights in any way. But the act of punching someone in the face is infringing upon that other person's rights. Freedom of speech isn't universal; there are limitations and restrictions. The age old cliche is that you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Your freedom of speech isn't valid if it will bring direct harm to another person. You have several means to express your displeasure without resorting to physical violence. Rationalize it as you wish; it's still assault, it's still illegal, and it's still not protected by freedom of speech.

Yeah, I just realised, if the hypothetical flag burner is a woman, you'd have to think hard before punching her. Because that could be uncool.

Why should their act of freedom of speech be allowed and not mine

I think Sdaeriji put it best when he said:

And your freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon other people's rights. You are not within your rights to punch someone who displeases you; otherwise I'd go around all day knocking people out. You have the right to tell them that you are displeased, or to tell them what a fool you think they are, but your freedom of speech does not extend to physical violence.

..and who knows..I might be standing next to that person burning the flag. Technically...battery is raising your finger above your waist..if they raise their arm in my direction with a burning flag..I might just take that they would commit harm to me..and therefore I am legitimate in my self defense.

Nope...Battery, according to dictionary.com, is "[t]he unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

By your logic, I could beat up President Bush because I disagree with his policies.

You've got really, really messed up logic if you think the First Amendment covers physical violence.

I may be splitting hairs but I'm sorry...if the flag burner can commit the physical act of buring my flag...i.e..his protected freedom of speech, then my physical act of my protected freedom of speech, i.e. expressing my displeasure with that flag burner should not be restricted.

I'm sorry..as I said..I'm willing to fight to the death to defend that person's right to burn it..just don't be upset if if express my displeasure over something so heinous to me.

A persons right to burn the US flag is based upon the right of ownership not freedom of speech regardless of if it has been characterised as thus. The flag is their possession to do with as they please, on the other hand you do not own the person who burns the flag and so you cannot use violence against them.

R-E-L-A-X everybody!

Canada will not be allowing these two soldiers to stay here permanently as refugees.

But under our laws everybody who arrives here has the right to make a claim as a refugee and be heard before an Immigration tribunal as such. The process might take a few months. Lots of would-be refugees are turned-down and deported, as these two guys will surely be.

Our government wouldn't want to set the kind of problematic precedent that allowing the two soldiers to stay would create. Think about it eh? Yes we accepted U.S. draft-resisters during Viet Nam; but the average Canadian wanted us to as a matter of principle. We don't feel the same way about deserting volunteers though. Lastly Viet Nam was hugely unpopular here but the Iraq action has (or had) a fair amount of support.

Why be so impatient? Just respect our laws and let things take their proper course.

One question though - are many Americans working themselves into a frenzied rage over the very *idea* of someone possibly being a refugee escaping from the sacred, holy U.S.? :shock:

R-E-L-A-X everybody!

Canada will not be allowing these two soldiers to stay here permanently as refugees.

But under our laws everybody who arrives here has the right to make a claim as a refugee and be heard before an Immigration tribunal as such. The process might take a few months. Lots of would-be refugees are turned-down and deported, as these two guys will surely be.

Our government wouldn't want to set the kind of problematic precedent that allowing the two soldiers to stay would create. Think about it eh?

Why be so impatient? Just respect our laws and let things take their proper course.

One question though - are many Americans working themselves into a frenzied rage over the very *idea* of someone possibly being a refugee escaping from the sacred, holy U.S.? :shock:

Not just someone....two members of the Armed Forces of the United States....and they aren't refugees...they are deserters from the US military during a time of war...treason...desertion....missing a movement, unauthorized absence, disobedience of a Lawful Order, insubordination and disrespect to a Superior Officer, and a whole slew of lesser charges are what they should expect from a jury of their peers..and I'd make those men sitting on their court-martial all married men who'd already sacrificed enough and been to Iraq.

R-E-L-A-X everybody!

Canada will not be allowing these two soldiers to stay here permanently as refugees.

But under our laws everybody who arrives here has the right to make a claim as a refugee and be heard before an Immigration tribunal as such. The process might take a few months. Lots of would-be refugees are turned-down and deported, as these two guys will surely be.

Our government wouldn't want to set the kind of problematic precedent that allowing the two soldiers to stay would create. Think about it eh? Yes we accepted U.S. draft-resisters during Viet Nam; but the average Canadian wanted us to as a matter of principle. We don't feel the same way about deserting volunteers though. Lastly Viet Nam was hugely unpopular here but the Iraq action has (or had) a fair amount of support.

Why be so impatient? Just respect our laws and let things take their proper course.

One question though - are many Americans working themselves into a frenzied rage over the very *idea* of someone possibly being a refugee escaping from the sacred, holy U.S.? :shock:

It's not as simple as you think. If Canada allows these "soldiers" to stay within their nation, then that's the same as saying "Hey U.S.! We don't give a damn about your ****ing war, and we're gonna be taking your soldiers away from you!"

It undermines the purpose of going into Iraq, illegal or not. It undermines the U.S. military. It's a slap in the face to all the servicemen and women who died in Iraq.

And Canada sits by and goes "Yeah, we'll take you two in...make yourselves at home. It must be so tough fighting in a war!"

And they're not escaping the U.S. They're escaping for their asses to be saved. But little do they know that their asses are gonna be frozen off

[...and they aren't refugees....

...which is exactly the conclusion our Immigration tribunal will almost certainly arrive at! What's the problem?

Let me say it again: under our laws NO official under NO circumstance can say "You are not a refugee so just turn around and go back". Everybody who shows up here - military or civilian, peacetime or not - is entitled to a Refugee hearing if they ask for it even if they are clearly not refugees.

In the U.S., even the most clearly guilty confessed murderer gets a hearing right? No official can say "You're guilty - straight to jail" without a hearing being held first. Well, think of our refugee laws the same way.

R-E-L-A-X everybody!

Canada will not be allowing these two soldiers to stay here permanently as refugees.

If Canada allows these "soldiers" to stay within their nation...And Canada sits by and goes "Yeah, we'll take you two in...make yourselves at home.

Did you even read what I said? I repeat - these two will almost certainly not be allowed to stay here. I'd almost be willing to give you my personal guarantee that they won't be. So why keep flogging this dead horse?

Part of being adult is that one waits for legal processes to take their course without bawling "Wah! Want 'dose bad men back here right now! Don't wanna wait!"

One question though - are many Americans working themselves into a frenzied rage over the very *idea* of someone possibly being a refugee escaping from the sacred, holy U.S.? :shock:

Short answer? No. In fact, very few people I know are even aware of this and, not to sound snobish, I know people who are generally well connected to world events. When I mentioned it to some of them, the general attitude was, "Whatever, if they didn't want to fight, they probably shouldn't have joined the armed forces." Really, we're far more concerned with the blatant racisim that Elton John pointed out in the last episode of American Idol.

DP in order to illegitimately raise post count or whatever.

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.


Some facts of an economic nature from the CIA World Factbook 2003:

Canada
Exports: $260.5 billion as of 2002
Imports: $229 billion as of 2002

Export Partners: United States 87.7% (#1 rank) as of 2002
Import Partners: United States 62.6% (#1 rank) as of 2002

United States
Exports: $687 billion as of 2002
Imports: $1.165 trillion as of 2002

Export Partners: Canada 23.2% (#1 rank) as of 2002
Import Partners: Canada 17.8% (#1 rank) as of 2002

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

O'Reilly can wish all he wants, but American consumers are not likely to throw away $207.4 billion dollars in Canadian products. And one can most certainly bet that American businesses are NOT going to throw away the profit to be made from those imports, nor the nearly $159.4 billion dollars worth of exports to Canada either.

Reguardless of what one thinks about the situation in Iraq and with the soldiers seeking asylum in Canada, Canada does represent the majority of the business the United States does with the world. Period.

The idea that American businesses and consumers would throw away that strong economic partnership, especially in times of economic uncertainty, is frankly insane.

[quote=Garaj Mahal]
Yes we accepted U.S. draft-resisters during Viet Nam; but the average Canadian wanted us to as a matter of principle. We don't feel the same way about deserting volunteers though. Lastly Viet Nam was hugely unpopular here but the Iraq action has (or had) a fair amount of support.


Draft-Resisters are different then these two cowards. Most likely the Resisters never had a plan to join the military.

These two are deserters. And they probably will get accepted because I belive Canada took a few Viet Nam deserters.

Carter pardoned all the resisters but not the deserters.

The men are cowards because they ran. If they refused to fight and took their punishment then you can acknowlege their principle.

You don't join the military to learn about morality.

You don't want your soldiers deciding what is a moral war(isn't that an oxymoron? ;) ).

Personally, my family were soldiers longer then we can remember so I take the stance that if Canada want's them, it can have them. Good riddence.


One question though - are many Americans working themselves into a frenzied rage over the very *idea* of someone possibly being a refugee escaping from the sacred, holy U.S.? :shock:

It's not the fact they want to leave the US.

It's the fact they joined up and were probably hoping to take all the benefits(ie GI bill and training....).

But when the war came....."Wait this is not what I signed up for!"

Oh and to the following orders and jumping off cliff arguments are weak at best.

A soldier can not execute people. He can refuse the order.

R-E-L-A-X everybody!

Canada will not be allowing these two soldiers to stay here permanently as refugees.

But under our laws everybody who arrives here has the right to make a claim as a refugee and be heard before an Immigration tribunal as such. The process might take a few months. Lots of would-be refugees are turned-down and deported, as these two guys will surely be.

Our government wouldn't want to set the kind of problematic precedent that allowing the two soldiers to stay would create. Think about it eh?

Why be so impatient? Just respect our laws and let things take their proper course.

One question though - are many Americans working themselves into a frenzied rage over the very *idea* of someone possibly being a refugee escaping from the sacred, holy U.S.? :shock:

Not just someone....two members of the Armed Forces of the United States....and they aren't refugees...they are deserters from the US military during a time of war...treason...desertion....missing a movement, unauthorized absence, disobedience of a Lawful Order, insubordination and disrespect to a Superior Officer, and a whole slew of lesser charges are what they should expect from a jury of their peers..and I'd make those men sitting on their court-martial all married men who'd already sacrificed enough and been to Iraq.

Actually, these men may be able to avoid extradition. The treaties are not absolute.

Where the dificulty may lie is the following: I believe that the US Military still includes the death penalty for desertion in time of war. Canada has provisions in it's legal code that make it very dificult to extradite to face a death penalty as we do not beleive in that penalty.

In 2001 Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that apart from "exceptional cases," no one should be extradited from Canada to the United States or other countries without assurances against execution.

So given that this case represents a possible application of a death penalty for a non-violent crime the concept of "exceptonal circumstances would not apply. As such, the US military will have to swear up and down that this penalty will not be imposed in order for a court here to even consider any petition for extradition.

Without that promise, it is doubtful that any extradition would be successful.

And before anyone jumps down my throat about it - because I don't want the thread to go off topic on a death penalty side-issue - I remember vividly the US being up in arms about a whipping sentance given to an American Citizen for vanadlism in... I think it was Singapore. Every country objects to punishments seens as outside the standards of their own code.

-Z-

Actually, these men may be able to avoid extradition. The treaties are not absolute.

Where the dificulty may lie is the following: I believe that the US Military still includes the death penalty for desertion in time of war. Canada has provisions in it's legal code that make it very dificult to extradite to face a death penalty as we do not beleive in that penalty.

The last time a guy was executed for desertion was I think Eddie Slovac(sp?) during WWII. Today many people question the event as some argue that Eisenhower used him to send a message to anybody planning to desert.

The death penality is not the end result for desertion. If it is employed it is most likely running away during a firefight. Especially if your action got a bunch of other guys killed.

I truely doubt it would even be considered to these two. But I am sure there are command types who think it should....

These guys were on leave so the army will probably deal just to get them. Time in an army prison is not fun!


And before anyone jumps down my throat about it - because I don't want the thread to go off topic on a death penalty side-issue - I remember vividly the US being up in arms about a whipping sentance given to an American Citizen for vanadlism in... I think it was Singapore. Every country objects to punishments seens as outside the standards of their own code.

-Z-

Yup! I remember that. Our "news" media only presented part of the facts.

They made it sound like he was just a wild teen that made a bad choice and was overly punished for it. I remember one story that put a Tale of Two cities spin on how he faced his punishement. :roll: You know he cried like a little girl after the first wack! :lol: (I probably could have held out for 2 or 3 :P ).

For those that don't know. Singapore wanted to keep their air clean so they imposed strict rules and made it near impossible to own a car. So our "representative" of our great nation spray painted a car that cost the owner $240000 (a simple $60000 Mercedes If I remember right).

A US teacher that was a professor there explained that one to us. As I told him, "hell if I knew that I would beat him myself!" ;)

More then once in my travels I have seen the ugly american as they expect our laws to be in affect where ever we go!

The kid was STUPID! Especially when you are entering a country that requires a visa and on that visa in big letters "Drug Trafficing means death!"

Ahh wellll.....

An illegal order would be an order that was not given by a superior officer.


An illegal order would be one that is in violation of established international law and/or treaties. For example, an order to kill non-combatants/civilians/P.O.W.'s would most likely be a violation of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions (to which the United States is a signatory - EDIT: and has ratified), and would therefore be an illegal order.

The rank of the individual giving the order is completely irrevelant. It is important that it be irrevelant so people cannot hide behind the "I was just obeying my superior" excuse.


As someone who enlists or is drafted to the U.S. military, it is your duty to follow orders and fight for your country.


The soldier's duty is to defend the United States and to uphold international law and treaties to which the United States is bound.

A relative of mine shared his experiences with me in basic training when the Navy explained to him how to handle issues of illegal orders. The Navy told him that if he was given an illegal order, his duty was to reply "I'm sorry, sir, that order is illegal and I cannot carry it out." One of the other men listening to this lecture asked what to do if he finds a gun put to his head by the one issuing the order. The lecturer replied very simply: make peace with God, you're about to die.

So no, the soldier's duty is not to follow orders. His duty is to his nation, to that nation's laws, and to the laws and treaties to which his nation is bound. If that means disobeying illegal orders, then that is his duty as a defender of freedom.

And draftees, being the victims of involuntary servitude, haven't got any duty to any nation that would violate their freedom by making them slaves.

Colodia appears to be forgetting that there is such a thing as due process. No matter the situation, there are procedures which must be followed, paperwork which must be done, etc. It could be quick, it could take a while, but the process has to run its course. Domestic laws are a matter of national sovereignty, and Canada is entitled to them.

Regarding the economies of the two countries . . .

Proportion of US natural gas consumption extracted domestically: 82%

Proportion of US natural gas consuption imported from Canada: 17%

Proportion of US natural gas consuption imported from the rest of the world: 1%

Typical current annual decline rate in domestic US natural gas producing areas: 5-10% regionally depending on location, 20-30% for latest generation of fields.

Amount of spare international import capacity: 0%

Projected deficit in 2010: 40%

What does this say? It says that Canada can, with the pressing of a few buttons and closing of a few valves, shut down the US NE electricity grid or, depending on emergency resource allocation, all heat-driven US manufacturing capacity. And the US would have no backup. Apart from summer storage injections, the cannibalisation of which would result in the US NE electricity grid failing the following winter. But that's a complicated discussion in itself.

Anyway, let us be realistic. The US could in theory start a trade war with Canada. However, Canada could switch off the entire US NE electricity grid or much of US heavy industry.

Who is arguing from a position of strength? Who is arguing from a position of weakness?

Enough n00bery. The Canadian legal process must be allowed to run its course, otherwise the US would be undermining its neighbour's democracy and its institutions. Any talk of retaliation is foolish posturing.

Since when did anyone take O'Reilly seriously, anyway? For the love of all that may or may not be holy, he's on FOX!!!

The Canada and the US will deal for these soldiers, they'll do some time, there will be no retaliation and, yet again, attention will be pulled away from issues that truly matter.

Jesus, the macho posturing BS that goes on today is unbelievable. I know, why don't we just have all the leaders of all the nations of the world meet in Switzerland, drop trou and have someone measure them and end this for once and for all?

Actually, these men may be able to avoid extradition. The treaties are not absolute.

Where the dificulty may lie is the following: I believe that the US Military still includes the death penalty for desertion in time of war. Canada has provisions in it's legal code that make it very dificult to extradite to face a death penalty as we do not beleive in that penalty.

The last time a guy was executed for desertion was I think Eddie Slovac(sp?) during WWII. Today many people question the event as some argue that Eisenhower used him to send a message to anybody planning to desert.

The death penality is not the end result for desertion. If it is employed it is most likely running away during a firefight. Especially if your action got a bunch of other guys killed.

I truely doubt it would even be considered to these two. But I am sure there are command types who think it should....

These guys were on leave so the army will probably deal just to get them. Time in an army prison is not fun!



Oh, I agree that this instance would probably not warrant the ultimate penalty, nor will it likely be sought. However it IS on the books for this offence and so COULD be applied - ergo the immediate reaction of any extradition request would be to put it on hold pending a formal declaration of assurance that this will not be used in this case.

Which is to say - it is a legal complication that immediately rears it's head in this instance which is why I doubt any fast-tracked extradition will be forthcoming.

-Z-

Jesus, the macho posturing BS that goes on today is unbelievable. I know, why don't we just have all the leaders of all the nations of the world meet in Switzerland, drop trou and have someone measure them and end this for once and for all?
During one Model UN debate, in Cambridge, I believe, I wrote and submitted a working paper called "Conflict Resolution Through Gladiatorial Combat". You can take a guess at the contents. :wink:

Jesus, the macho posturing BS that goes on today is unbelievable. I know, why don't we just have all the leaders of all the nations of the world meet in Switzerland, drop trou and have someone measure them and end this for once and for all?
During one Model UN debate, in Cambridge, I believe, I wrote and submitted a working paper called "Conflict Resolution Through Gladiatorial Combat". You can take a guess at the contents. :wink:

Heh, or you can measure that type of sword as well. :D

Since when did anyone take O'Reilly seriously, anyway? For the love of all that may or may not be holy, he's on FOX!!! -Berkylvania

Conservative bias is no worse than liberal bias. I just wish Fox would admit that they're conservative, like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC does.
Nothing wrong with being a conservative. Please don't scream in my ear now, fierce liberals of this forum.

This post could be placed on almost every topic in this forum but I feel like posting it here. I have been reading and at times commenting on this topic or that since I began playing Nation States. Not that long surely but long enough to realize that more than a few of those that post really like to 'go off' on things. Geeze people, perhaps you might want to consider directing some of this fervor into your real life situations.

There are those who like 'this' and those that like 'that', wonderful! It is the underlying hate and dislike that disturbs me. Differences in life philosophy and the discussion of these differences nurture growth and acceptance of the obvious truth that there is no absolute.

It would seem that no amount of discourse is going to alter the opinions of others here or even at best, cause most to consider the most minuscule amount of virtue of another view point.

It is not so much the situation that these two deserters represent, it is the degree of over reaction it has caused. One can only trust that the Canadian and U.S. governments will resolve this issue in due time. Personally, I believe that the two individuals should be returned for trial. I also know that there are those that do not agree, that is why civilized people delegate such activities to their respective governments.

This post could be placed on almost every topic in this forum but I feel like posting it here. I have been reading and at times commenting on this topic or that since I began playing Nation States. Not that long surely but long enough to realize that more than a few of those that post really like to 'go off' on things. Geeze people, perhaps you might want to consider directing some of this fervor into your real life situations.

There are those who like 'this' and those that like 'that', wonderful! It is the underlying hate and dislike that disturbs me. Differences in life philosophy and the discussion of these differences nurture growth and acceptance of the obvious truth that there is no absolute.

It would seem that no amount of discourse is going to alter the opinions of others here or even at best, cause most to consider the most minuscule amount of virtue of another view point.

It is not so much the situation that these two deserters represent, it is the degree of over reaction it has caused. One can only trust that the Canadian and U.S. governments will resolve this issue in due time. Personally, I believe that the two individuals should be returned for trial. I also know that there are those that do not agree, that is why civilized people delegate such activities to their respective governments.

Many people have tried to be the peacekeeper and extend the olive branch to both sides of the countless arguments that go on on these forums. Even I tried it at one point. Fact is, you're never going to convince anyone of anything, and this is just going to go on endlessly.

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.


actually, the people in france who suffered the most were the americans who had businesses there, especially those in the tourism industry who catered to mostly americans.

and when you're talking about one lady, it's woman, not women.

O'Reilly is a retard.

My country, Canada, should accept the two deserters. At least they got it into their heads that killing is bad.

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

How horribly considerate of you.

O'Reilly says too many stupid things for a Harvard graduate. Well, wait, Bush is a Yale graduate... I guess that says something about the good old Ivy League. :lol:

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

How horribly considerate of you.
Indeed. It IS rather better than the traitors deserve.

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

How horribly considerate of you.
Indeed. It IS rather better than the traitors deserve.

No. When we resort to those kind of underhanded tactics, we go against the very reasons we entered into this war. We are supposed to be better than that.

Actually, these men may be able to avoid extradition. The treaties are not absolute.

Where the dificulty may lie is the following: I believe that the US Military still includes the death penalty for desertion in time of war. Canada has provisions in it's legal code that make it very dificult to extradite to face a death penalty as we do not beleive in that penalty.

In 2001 Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that apart from "exceptional cases," no one should be extradited from Canada to the United States or other countries without assurances against execution.

So given that this case represents a possible application of a death penalty for a non-violent crime the concept of "exceptonal circumstances would not apply. As such, the US military will have to swear up and down that this penalty will not be imposed in order for a court here to even consider any petition for extradition.

Without that promise, it is doubtful that any extradition would be successful.

And before anyone jumps down my throat about it - because I don't want the thread to go off topic on a death penalty side-issue - I remember vividly the US being up in arms about a whipping sentance given to an American Citizen for vanadlism in... I think it was Singapore. Every country objects to punishments seens as outside the standards of their own code.

-Z-Blah Blah Blah, in all your ramblings about a justice system you know nothing about, the UCMJ of the U.S. Armed Forces, you foget on small thing: this war is undeclared. There is no provision for execution of soldiers who desert during peace time. And by the way, it was just the American Liberal Media up in arms about the canning. Everyone I knew agreed with the punishment.

They went AWOL...

Hey, just like Bush!! :lol:

Who knows, they might end up to be your next president and vice-president :lol:

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

I agree. Personally I can't wait to have the USA send special forces into the White House to capture those traitorous scumbags!! Hang them, you said? :lol:

Actually, these men may be able to avoid extradition. The treaties are not absolute.

Where the dificulty may lie is the following: I believe that the US Military still includes the death penalty for desertion in time of war. Canada has provisions in it's legal code that make it very dificult to extradite to face a death penalty as we do not beleive in that penalty.

In 2001 Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that apart from "exceptional cases," no one should be extradited from Canada to the United States or other countries without assurances against execution.

So given that this case represents a possible application of a death penalty for a non-violent crime the concept of "exceptonal circumstances would not apply. As such, the US military will have to swear up and down that this penalty will not be imposed in order for a court here to even consider any petition for extradition.

Without that promise, it is doubtful that any extradition would be successful.

And before anyone jumps down my throat about it - because I don't want the thread to go off topic on a death penalty side-issue - I remember vividly the US being up in arms about a whipping sentance given to an American Citizen for vanadlism in... I think it was Singapore. Every country objects to punishments seens as outside the standards of their own code.

-Z-Blah Blah Blah, in all your ramblings about a justice system you know nothing about, the UCMJ of the U.S. Armed Forces, you foget on small thing: this war is undeclared. There is no provision for execution of soldiers who desert during peace time. And by the way, it was just the American Liberal Media up in arms about the canning. Everyone I knew agreed with the punishment.


Ooooooooooohhhhh how condescending of you!

And fortunately so wrong too! I love it when people take that tone and wind up with egg on their faces.

For the record, and before you shoot your mouth of any further, perhaps you might want to go and reread your copy of the UCMJ. Nowhere does it define the term "time of war" to only include formally declared wars by congress. It can also be declared as such at the Presidents whim, or determined to be as such based on circumstance.

For example, a "time of war" was declared for Korea even though that was not a declared war.

One wan't declared for Vietnam, which made for many lengthy appeals for soldiers charged with offenses in-country. Because of this, the military courts of appeal developed a set of standards to determine if a UCMJ “time of war” exists. Which is to say, this determination in time of undeclared war CAN be made by the military.

here is a note to that effect from the US military. (http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/jam/Time%20of%20War.doc)

Now while I admit that it is unlikely for a military court to make such a finding outside of the bounds of a declaration by Congress or a Presidential declaration, however it IS still a legal possibility that would need to be recognized during the extradition process, and would certainly be the first thing his lawyer would point out to slow up the process.


-Z-

Please don’t be under the misapprehension that you are a bastion for peace, freedom and goodwill! As with most neo-cons, the admirers of O’Reilly seem better at spouting hyperbole and rhetoric than structuring a coherent sentence or convincing argument. The arming and nonchalance towards Israel’s repeated violations of the UN charter (the sanctity of which Neo-Cons like your good selves fell back on as a cause for hostilities last March) speak volumes about how the UN is used as a useful aid to justifying your actions when your interests overlap and as nothing but a hindrance when you decide that unilateral action is the way forward – after all your coalition was a shambles! Just for that guy on page one who said that the 'deserters' (I use parentheses because I think that the term 'conscientious objectors' is more apt) are letting down the good name of the American armed forces I think that you are forgetting:


SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded
Knee.
ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.
KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA
1898-1900
Troops
Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy
base.
PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.
GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA
1899
Troops
Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops
Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA
1906-09
Troops
Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA
1908
Troops
Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS
1911
Troops
U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA
1912
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA
19l2
Troops
Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS
19l2
Troops
Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO
19l3
Naval
Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval
Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO
1914
Troops
Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against
nationalists.
HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA
1917-33
Troops
Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.

TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA
1925
Troops
Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA
1927-34
Troops
Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval
Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops
Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.

DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval
Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil
war.

CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.

KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.&
South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against
siege.

GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners

LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval
Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA
1958
Troops
Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat
Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA
1964
Troops
Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT
1967
Troops
Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES
1968
Troops
After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops
Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN
1984
Jets
Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets
Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval
Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.

YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond

IRAQ
2003
Illegal occupation of Iraq, upwards of 15,000 Iraqi civilians reported as ‘collateral damage’ by Associated Press and Reuters at start of May 2004. No end of war or exit strategy in sight….

Please don’t be under the misapprehension that you are a bastion for peace, freedom and goodwill! As with most neo-cons, the admirers of O’Reilly seem better at spouting hyperbole and rhetoric than structuring a coherent sentence or convincing argument. The arming and nonchalance towards Israel’s repeated violations of the UN charter (the sanctity of which Neo-Cons like your good selves fell back on as a cause for hostilities last March) speak volumes about how the UN is used as a useful aid to justifying your actions when your interests overlap and as nothing but a hindrance when you decide that unilateral action is the way forward – after all your coalition was a shambles! Just for that guy on page one who said that the 'deserters' (I use parentheses because I think that the term 'conscientious objectors' is more apt) are letting down the good name of the American armed forces I think that you are forgetting:


SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded
Knee.
ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.
KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA
1898-1900
Troops
Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy
base.
PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.
GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA
1899
Troops
Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops
Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA
1906-09
Troops
Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA
1908
Troops
Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS
1911
Troops
U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA
1912
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA
19l2
Troops
Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS
19l2
Troops
Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO
19l3
Naval
Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval
Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO
1914
Troops
Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against
nationalists.
HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA
1917-33
Troops
Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.

TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA
1925
Troops
Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA
1927-34
Troops
Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval
Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops
Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.

DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval
Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil
war.

CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.

KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.&
South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against
siege.

GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners

LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval
Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA
1958
Troops
Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat
Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA
1964
Troops
Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT
1967
Troops
Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES
1968
Troops
After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops
Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN
1984
Jets
Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets
Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval
Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.

YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond

IRAQ
2003
Illegal occupation of Iraq, upwards of 15,000 Iraqi civilians reported as ‘collateral damage’ by Associated Press and Reuters at start of May 2004. No end of war or exit strategy in sight….

Since when did anyone take O'Reilly seriously, anyway? For the love of all that may or may not be holy, he's on FOX!!! -Berkylvania

Conservative bias is no worse than liberal bias. I just wish Fox would admit that they're conservative, like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC does.
Nothing wrong with being a conservative. Please don't scream in my ear now, fierce liberals of this forum.

No, there's nothing wrong with it, so long as you're honest and admit that you're purely a pundit for conservative values and surrender anything approaching journalistic credibility you might have once possessed. O'Reilly hasn't done this, neither has Sean Hannity or any of the other Conservative Brigade of pompus, middle aged white men who are FOX News' answer to Jerry Springer. They do not represent a clear and unbiased reporting of the facts, but do their damndest to further blur the line between news and entertainment while trying to maintain some sort of professional credibility.

And I'll scream in who ever's ear I like. If you don't like it, don't post.

O'Reilly is a retard.

My country, Canada, should accept the two deserters. At least they got it into their heads that killing is bad.

Opps your statement left out a couple words that show where you really stand. Let me add them back.

"My country, Canada, should accept the two deserters. At least they got it into their heads that killing Muslims is bad."

You want them? They are yours!

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

How horribly considerate of you.
Indeed. It IS rather better than the traitors deserve.

No. When we resort to those kind of underhanded tactics, we go against the very reasons we entered into this war. We are supposed to be better than that.
Why not capture them? If the Canadians refuse to honor their treaty obligations on their own, we'll just assist them in the process. Underhanded tactics are very useful, and at times need to be employed. We could always arrange it to look as if they returned to the USA of their own volition after having suffered bouts of conscience.

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

Uh... when did the Mossad do that to Israeli deserters? :?

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

How horribly considerate of you.
Indeed. It IS rather better than the traitors deserve.

No. When we resort to those kind of underhanded tactics, we go against the very reasons we entered into this war. We are supposed to be better than that.
Why not capture them? If the Canadians refuse to honor their treaty obligations on their own, we'll just assist them in the process. Underhanded tactics are very useful, and at times need to be employed. We could always arrange it to look as if they returned to the USA of their own volition after having suffered bouts of conscience.

o0o0o0o0o does that mean the USA should be punished for all the treaties they have broken?

Furthermore, they are not absolute.. Canada has never sent ANY criminals back to the USA (except in extreme circumstance) if they even have a chance of facing the death penalty since it breaches human rights. You should read the treaty before you go talking about some thing you know nothing about. Canada has declared the war in Iraq illegal, therefore we are under no treaty obligations to return them. Our (Canada's) Supreme Court will decide if they will be sent back.. and that will be the final judgement!

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

How horribly considerate of you.
Indeed. It IS rather better than the traitors deserve.

No. When we resort to those kind of underhanded tactics, we go against the very reasons we entered into this war. We are supposed to be better than that.
Why not capture them? If the Canadians refuse to honor their treaty obligations on their own, we'll just assist them in the process. Underhanded tactics are very useful, and at times need to be employed. We could always arrange it to look as if they returned to the USA of their own volition after having suffered bouts of conscience.

o0o0o0o0o does that mean the USA should be punished for all the treaties they have broken?

Furthermore, they are not absolute.. Canada has never sent ANY criminals back to the USA (except in extreme circumstance) if they even have a chance of facing the death penalty since it breaches human rights. You should read the treaty before you go talking about some thing you know nothing about. Canada has declared the war in Iraq illegal, therefore we are under no treaty obligations to return them. Our (Canada's) Supreme Court will decide if they will be sent back.. and that will be the final judgement!
I frankly don't give a damn what a bunch of monkeys in robes decide about the death penalty or the legality of a war. They're our traitors, it is our right to deal with them. As for the precious Canadian Supreme Court having final judgement, they don't. WE do. If you refuse to act as the allies you claim to be, we'll just have to make up for your lack of efforts in that endeavor. In fact, what exactly is the USA getting out of an alliance with Canada other than a lot of grief from leftist morons? It seems to me that we could solve our differences by absorbing your country. Too bad the New York Militia refused to obey orders in 1812. As for the Canadian Supreme Court, if they refuse to send us back our traitors, those arrogant baboons ought to be brought back to the USA and executed along with the deserters.

Uh... when did the Mossad do that to Israeli deserters?
They haven't brought back deserters (not that they'd allow anyone to desert, anyhow), but they have brought traitors (Vasunu or whatever his name is) and other scum (some Nazis, et cetera) back to Israel to face justice.

It was earlier today....around 5:20 PST that Reiley had some Canadian women from some Newspaper Column called the Toronto Globe or something

Anyways....the women was a socialist and she literally used the show to say

If any American soldiers want to not kill anymore, than Canada welcomes you

I remember a topic that raised this argument a couple weeks earlier....I wished I could spit at that lady as she grinned like a moron

My good pal O'Reiley (can't spell his name correctly) mentioned about how the U.S. would boycott imports from Canada should this go on.

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.

And then he cut her off for a commercial break (edited this in to stop a lot of B.S.ing)

shut the fuck up you foul piece of shit

"]Uh... when did the Mossad do that to Israeli deserters?
They haven't brought back deserters (not that they'd allow anyone to desert, anyhow), but they have brought traitors (Vasunu or whatever his name is) and other scum (some Nazis, et cetera) back to Israel to face justice.

Yeah, and Vanunu was JAILED, not killed. Slight difference. Israel doesn't have a death penalty, genius. The only man ever sentenced to death in an Israeli court was Adolf Eichmann.

"]Uh... when did the Mossad do that to Israeli deserters?
They haven't brought back deserters (not that they'd allow anyone to desert, anyhow), but they have brought traitors (Vasunu or whatever his name is) and other scum (some Nazis, et cetera) back to Israel to face justice.

Yeah, and Vanunu was JAILED, not killed. Slight difference. Israel doesn't have a death penalty, genius. The only man ever sentenced to death in an Israeli court was Adolf Eichmann.
Yeah, smartguy, I was talking about kidnapping them and bringing them to justice, not copying Israel's moves to the letter. Learn to read, punk.

"]Uh... when did the Mossad do that to Israeli deserters?
They haven't brought back deserters (not that they'd allow anyone to desert, anyhow), but they have brought traitors (Vasunu or whatever his name is) and other scum (some Nazis, et cetera) back to Israel to face justice.

Yeah, and Vanunu was JAILED, not killed. Slight difference. Israel doesn't have a death penalty, genius. The only man ever sentenced to death in an Israeli court was Adolf Eichmann.
Yeah, smartguy, I was talking about kidnapping them and bringing them to justice, not copying Israel's moves to the letter. Learn to read, punk.

I frankly don't give a damn what a bunch of monkeys in robes decide about the death penalty or the legality of a war. They're our traitors, it is our right to deal with them. As for the precious Canadian Supreme Court having final judgement, they don't. WE do. If you refuse to act as the allies you claim to be, we'll just have to make up for your lack of efforts in that endeavor. In fact, what exactly is the USA getting out of an alliance with Canada other than a lot of grief from leftist morons? It seems to me that we could solve our differences by absorbing your country. Too bad the New York Militia refused to obey orders in 1812. As for the Canadian Supreme Court, if they refuse to send us back our traitors, those arrogant baboons ought to be brought back to the USA and executed along with the deserters.

You seem to have lost all common sense in this debate. You go from attacking the supreme judicial body in a representative democracy for upholding a law recognized by both nations to making ominous threats about absorbing a sovereign nation for no other reason then you dislike when they go through the legal motions.

You have also threatened the lives of the members of said supreme judiciary which are from a NATO, UKUSHA, NORAD and ECHELON ally. This is a federal offence within the United States as well as very serious criminal charge in Canada.

If you continue to make these threats, then you run the very real risk of bringing this site to the attention of law enforcement and internal security service departments. That would not be good for you.

"]Uh... when did the Mossad do that to Israeli deserters?
They haven't brought back deserters (not that they'd allow anyone to desert, anyhow), but they have brought traitors (Vasunu or whatever his name is) and other scum (some Nazis, et cetera) back to Israel to face justice.

Yeah, and Vanunu was JAILED, not killed. Slight difference. Israel doesn't have a death penalty, genius. The only man ever sentenced to death in an Israeli court was Adolf Eichmann.
Yeah, smartguy, I was talking about kidnapping them and bringing them to justice, not copying Israel's moves to the letter. Learn to read, punk.

I can read quite well, actually. You wrote the following:

The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.

Thereby implying that hanging people is part of the "book of the Mossad" you referenced.

Dipshit.

I frankly don't give a damn what a bunch of monkeys in robes decide about the death penalty or the legality of a war. They're our traitors, it is our right to deal with them. As for the precious Canadian Supreme Court having final judgement, they don't. WE do. If you refuse to act as the allies you claim to be, we'll just have to make up for your lack of efforts in that endeavor. In fact, what exactly is the USA getting out of an alliance with Canada other than a lot of grief from leftist morons? It seems to me that we could solve our differences by absorbing your country. Too bad the New York Militia refused to obey orders in 1812. As for the Canadian Supreme Court, if they refuse to send us back our traitors, those arrogant baboons ought to be brought back to the USA and executed along with the deserters.

You seem to have lost all common sense in this debate. You go from attacking the supreme judicial body in a representative democracy for upholding a law recognized by both nations to making ominous threats about absorbing a sovereign nation for no other reason then you dislike when they go through the legal motions.

You have also threatened the lives of the members of said supreme judiciary which are from a NATO, UKUSHA, NORAD and ECHELON ally. This is a federal offence within the United States as well as very serious criminal charge in Canada.

If you continue to make these threats, then you run the very real risk of bringing this site to the attention of law enforcement and internal security service departments. That would not be good for you.
Haha. Yeah right, pal. I said it ought to be done in a hypothetical circumstance, not that I would do it or that I was personally contemplating doing it. There's a world of difference between the two. Plus, as I stated before, I don't care what robed Canadian monkeys may decide. They can go fling their green, neo-hippy, organic poo at their fellows.

I can read quite well, actually. You wrote the following:

Quote:
The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.
Thereby implying that hanging people is part of the "book of the Mossad" you referenced.

Dipshit.
So I guess that no reasonable extrapolation is allowed, eh? The Mossad has really entered Canada and captured American traitors, bringing them back to justice for the USA. I obviously only meant that we ought to copy Mossad tactics where reasonably applicable, jackass. By the way, I am responding to QahJoh, who originally flamed me. I did not instigate the flamewar.

if they refuse to send us back our traitors, those arrogant baboons ought to be brought back to the USA and executed along with the deserters.

You have clearly indicated that if the Supreme Court of Canada does not decide in your favor, they should be abducted and executed. Once again, under Commonwealth law this is an illegal statement to make, which carries a serious penalty.

It was earlier today....around 5:20 PST that Reiley had some Canadian women from some Newspaper Column called the Toronto Globe or something

Anyways....the women was a socialist and she literally used the show to say

If any American soldiers want to not kill anymore, than Canada welcomes you

I remember a topic that raised this argument a couple weeks earlier....I wished I could spit at that lady as she grinned like a moron

My good pal O'Reiley (can't spell his name correctly) mentioned about how the U.S. would boycott imports from Canada should this go on.

That lady, being the ***** she is, talks about "ohh....the Americans are too dependent on our goods and supplies. You'll be the ones economically suffering...in fact your already in an economic crisis...the Americans would never follow it"

O'Reiley: Yeeah...maybe not all Americans will follow, but many will. Causing Canada to lose millions if not billions of whatever currency they use. Look at France, they lost billions.

And then he cut her off for a commercial break (edited this in to stop a lot of B.S.ing)

shut the f--- up you foul piece of shit

Dreamsc, this is an official warning. Stop flaming or you will be deleted.

Myrth
Forum Moderatz0r

if they refuse to send us back our traitors, those arrogant baboons ought to be brought back to the USA and executed along with the deserters.

You have clearly indicated that if the Supreme Court of Canada does not decide in your favor, they should be abducted and executed. Once again, under Commonwealth law this is an illegal statement to make, which carries a serious penalty.
I said that it ought to be done, I did not specify by whom. It was quite obviously a generalized statement. You are quite clearly reaching over reasonable bounds by saying that I stated that I would personally bring the arrogant baboons to justice. I stated earlier that special forces ought to capture the traitors and bring them back to justice, and perhaps do the same with the robed fools. By referring to a governmental apparatus, which special forces most assuredly are, I am clearly exercising my right as an American citizen to demand reasonable action by the government, and thus not implying that I would actually do any of the suggested actions myself. You appear to be saying that I haven't the right to make demands of my democratically appointed governmental representatives. Who appointed you an American Supreme Court justice, with the power to take away my 1st Amendment rights?

I can read quite well, actually. You wrote the following:

Quote:
The USA ought to take a page from the book of the Mossad. Send special forces into Canada to capture these traitorous scumbags and bring them back to the USA. Then hang them.
Thereby implying that hanging people is part of the "book of the Mossad" you referenced.

Dipshit.
So I guess that no reasonable extrapolation is allowed, eh?

Sure it's allowed. A bit of clarification and nuance would have been fine, as well.

The Mossad has really entered Canada and captured American traitors, bringing them back to justice for the USA. I obviously only meant that we ought to copy Mossad tactics

In which case your asinine "Mossad entering Canada" strawman is inapplicable, and ignores my point, which is that you were misrepresenting Mossad tactics, by implying that when Israelis have captured THEIR OWN traitors, they have killed them.

where reasonably applicable, jackass. By the way, I am responding to QahJoh, who originally flamed me.

Actually, all I did was call you a genius, buttface. You then proceeded to lecture me on my allegedly deficient reading skills. I guess some people can't take compliments.

If this is indeed, a "flamewar" (which I certainly don't see it as being), the issue of "who started it" is quite debateable.

Enough.

I'm seeing a lot of flaming in this thread, and I'm just about sick of it. Viciousdolphins, you are on thin ice right now, and I strongly suggest you knock it off, or you'll find yourself sans a nation.

If I see anymore flaming in here, this thread will be locked.

When you hear Wild Bill rant, you know he's "fairly unbalanced".

When you hear Wild Bill rant, you know he's "fairly unbalanced".

Agreed - both politically and psychologically.

When you hear Wild Bill rant, you know he's "fairly unbalanced".

Agreed - both politically and psychologically.

Hehe, that made my day :lol:

Thank you , Hack, for ending that flame war, it kind of made me sick. It makes me sad to see people threatening the lives of anyone, never mind appointed offials who have no choice but to go through the legal system. At least we're fair, and don't just throw them in secret jails without telling their families, or anyone else.