rollins is crazy as hell. that's why i love his music so much. Also it was damn decent of him to come over to Iraq to meet and greet with the troops when i was there. This guy is a #1 in my book for sure.

I had a couple of his spoken word cds. They were excellent. Don't recall them being unusually political. Maybe I'm just on his wavelength.

I agree Pablo, his doing the USO thing was way cool.

I may have to do some browsing on iTunes this weekend.

By the way Echo. That last one? Thanks for making me cry asshole...

Seriously though. You want a reality check? Go to walter reed. It's horrifying the kind of crap soldiers go through. The pain experienced by the soldiers and their families is the most gut-wrenchingly real thing you'll ever see.

I hear you Pablo. Good for Henry for not sticking his head in the sand.

Thanks for the lecture. Pat yourself on the back for being the first person against the war I guess.

Well "Randall" As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I'd recommend you shut your damn pie hole on issues you know absolutely jack shit about. Morons like you were the kind that were spitting on vets when they came home from Vietnam in the 60's. You sound like one of those Fundamentalist christian assholes protesting at veteran's funerals.

You may not believe this, but soldiers, sailors and airmen are all real people, with real hopes and dreams. Not caring when members of OUR OWN MILITARY are getting mangled and killed in a foreign country is the most asinine thing I've heard all day. But it's early yet and I'm sure you'll amaze me further by the end of the day.

I was in Iraq, AND calling bush a Moron in 2003. Try being a soldier who thinks bush is a retard if you want difficult.

By the way, those soldiers? their job now entails taking a weapon and killing others on the orders of Mr. Hope and Change himself.

Pull Keith Olbermann's dick outta your mouth and chew on that.

Ooooh... Someone pass the popcorn.

Dammit Lost, how am i supposed to stay pissed if you keep crackin me up bro? lol

Well said Pablo. Don't know what that dude was on about. You are right he does remind me of those wacko preachers. I've seen them here in Denver once or twice. Truly fucked up.

Sorry, Sheriff Pablo, but the only ones spitting on Vets after Vietnam were nut cases who were pro-war, and they spit on Vietnam Vets Against the War.

I'm not saying I agree with Randall Schwartz above, but you can't seriously name a single conflict in which the forces of another nation actually attempted to take away our freedoms/resources/territory. I mean, the only country to even attack us was Japan and they immediately sued for peace. The message from Japan was simple, leave us alone, or we can hurt you. We did not like that message and kicked their ass, but that is not the same as fighting for our freedoms.

Every soldier who fights in a war for the U.S. may honestly believe that they are fighting for freedom and liberty, and I appreciate that they are willing to do that for me, but lets be adults here and face facts. No one since the Revolutionary War has fought for American freedom.

Dr. Z - "No one since the Revolutionary War has fought for American freedom."

But what about the defense thereof?

Late to the show, sorry....

but I have to take umbrage with Randall's use/misuse of the words "gaping vagina"...excuse me, but unless you were part of some miracle or alien fertility treatment (and I say alien, because IVF still involves the vagina), you wouldn't be here to rant against us if it weren't for a vagina a long, long time ago in your past.

I'm sorry if there's a chance that that was the last one you have seen up close and personal, but please don't call anyone who you feel is a coward a vagina. A vagina is a sacred place, a fun place, but not a substitute for the word douchebag.

Please edit and re-post your piece, replacing the words "gaping vagina" with "worthless douchebag"

Thank you,
Sarcky

Personally, I'm kind of glad we won WWII. That Hitler guy was a douche.

I am glad we beat Hitler as well, but in neither WWI or WWII did Germany ever attempt or as far as we know contemplate an invasion of the United States. Neither did Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-sung, Manuel Noriega, or any of the other dictators that the U.S. has overthrown. I agree that the U.S. was fighting for freedom, just not our freedom. I think it is legitimate to ask the question of wether or not it is acceptable for Americans to fight (and kill) for other people's freedoms. In the case of South Korea and South Vietnam, we fought for them to have the right to a capitalist dictatorship as opposed to a communist dictatorship.

I'm enjoying the irony of a person who gave himself a Russian name explaining freedom and the U.S.'s fight for it...

I understand the distinction that you are making, Dr. Z. Thank you for clarifying it.

As you would surmise, however, I disagree that we have to be attacked first on our own soil in order to justify fighting to defend our freedom. Your position implies that in order for us to have a legitimate right to defend our freedom, it has to be reasonably threatened. Who defines this level of reasonable threat? Does anyone in the world currently believe that the United States can be reasonably threatened other than the people living within our borders?

If the U.S. appears to be the aggressor, the world sees us as the bully. If the U.S. waits for an attack before dealing with the situation, we risk that the attacker might have the capability (and wisdom) to know that it better be a knockout punch or they will be history.

Let's face it, the U.S. is in a lose-lose situation and the only thing we can do is act in a reasonable manner in order to best protect our citizens and, by extension, our way of life.

In today's world, if a people were to sit back and wait for another to follow through on their desire to rid the earth of your way of life, they may not be a people much longer. These threats need to be identified and confronted head-on; whether through diplomacy or military action.

P.S. Hitler had subs all along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard well before we entered the war. It is well-documented that had no intention of stopping with Europe ... and probably would have bombed NYC if he could have gotten his bombers here. As far as Japan in concerned, the military knew full well that if they were to bomb Pearl Harbor, they would have to occupy our soil in order to defeat us. Thankfully, other than some weather balloon bombs dropped over the Pacific Northwest, it never got to that.

Well said Tim.

You make some good points, Tim.

I have to agree with some of the issues you raise. I disagree with the historical accuracy of your WWII info (Germany and Japan's intentions with regards the U.S.), but I definitely think that defeating Germany at that point in time may have been the last opportunity to do so, and was a wise decision. But you also raise an interesting question: Who defines the reasonable threat needed for the U.S. to take military action? I agree that threats need to be identified and confronted head-on, but I believe we need to have more of an active debate within the U.S. on whether or not a small group of people with political and economic interests should make those decisions. I think our history clearly shows that a reasonable group of people would make different decisions on when to use said military force.

The war with Japan was forced upon us, but what if we had not had an oil and steel embargo on them? Lets say for sake of argument that we treated them decently and they never attacked Pearl Harbor. It is entirely possible that we would have found a reason to go to war with Germany anyway and defeated them in less time. It is possible that the people of Asia would then be subject to repressive Japanese rule for decades, but instead the people of Eastern Europe may have been free. As it was, Stalin and Mao easily killed more of their own people than Hitler killed of his. Which scenario would be better? Or what if we had listened to Ho Chi Minh when he told us in 1945 that he wanted his country free from French colonialism instead of backing a supporting a French military dictatorship? Or what if we had listened to the democratically elected prime minister of Iran who wanted the oil resources to go toward the people of Iran instead of overthrowing and replacing him with a tyrannical king? Or what if we listened to Sadam Hussein in 1990 when he told us that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil and he wanted a U.N. investigation?

I think if we cut our military spending by two thirds and then put every war to a public vote, accept in the cases in which we are under direct attack or invasion, then the U.S. would be just as safe and we could have universal healthcare, universal college education, and we would not have so many dead young Americans. I think that supporting wars just because political leaders say, "these are the bad guys you need to kill, trust us" only gets more people of every kind killed.