Oreilly didn't sound like he was in top form. He should have pointed out more clearly that a) our armed forces are volunteer-only, b) that doesn't mean soldiers should be free to pick and choose what engagements they fight in, c) there are no "children" in the armed forces, d) only a complete idiot would claim you didn't have to remove the Taliban to go after Al Qaeda, e) Michael Moore is a communist sympathiser who wasn't the slightest bit interested in seeing the fall of the soviets, and f) he has shown himself to be more interested in making a fast buck than freeing anyone from tyranny.
He certainly wasn't good. I was shouting the right answer to O'Reilly too.
There is no realy easy answer to the 'son' question, but OReilly shouldn't have had ~nothing~ to say. Lives given in service will never feel to the family members to have been worth losing for only the small gain in any particular battle. They risk their lives for a small part of the greater ideal. You can't look at it through a microscope and have any perspective of what the whole looks like.