CAN ANYONE VARIFY THIS STORY

[Caleigh]

chefmike, thanks for the IVAW link

[fishman33]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4222364.stm
Sean Penn took his boat personally to the Gulf there to rescue victims of the hurricane.
FK

uhg...If he was truly intent on saving as many lives as possible, why did he allow a couple of camermen to ride along in the boat with him? Couldn't a better use for that space have been found? And big deal, Alec Baldwin built one habitat for humanity house. What the fuck else did he have to do? Kevin Garnett personally pledged to build like 20+ homes for victims of Katrina and no one gives a shit about that, so I'm supposed to respect Alec because he sacrificed one of his busy Saturdays? Shit, I spent a couple of weekends driving supply trucks down there, where's my medal?

And don't take that as a personal attack, Miss Katt, I just get really sick of these self important assholes that everybody seems to be in love with.

[fishman33]

Mega, apparently the closest that you ever got to military service is through your new GF, congrats...at least you aren't on here cryin about your broken heart...

When it comes to what american citizens think about the war, I don't give a shit about their service record...but since you brought it up...My father (RIP) was a Marine who served in the Korean war, and I'm a veteran as well...here's the history of the chickenhawk COWARDS that started this POINTLESS war that you are glorifying...choke on it...then go watch FOX news...



Military Service Records...

Service in the Armed Forces

Democrats:


Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.

David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.

Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.

Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.

Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,Vietnam.

Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.

John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,Purple Hearts.


Republicans

Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.

Dennis Hastert: did not serve.

Tom Delay: did not serve.

Roy Blunt: did not serve.

Bill Frist: did not serve.

Mitch McConnell: did not serve.

Rick Santorum: did not serve.

Trent Lott: did not serve.

John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.

Jeb Bush: did not serve.

Karl Rove: did not serve.

C'mon, Chef, That's pretty weak. You can make a list of hundreds on either side and their service(or lack there of) for their country. Too list Gephardt's run in the Air National Guard after so many have blasteds Bush because that's all he did? Then to mention Al Gore's service as 'journalist', when we all know daddy Gore got him some choice spots so he would have military service on his political resume and Daschel was basically an errand boy at SAC. And where's people like McCain and other republicans who went to war? You know I respect your opinions, even though I usually disagree with them, but you have to admit that's a pretty weak stab.

[WendyWilliams]

Mega I still love ya you just get carried away but always man enough to admit it too,,,,,,,,,,,
Wendy

[Felicia Katt]

uhg...If he was truly intent on saving as many lives as possible, why did he allow a couple of camermen to ride along in the boat with him? Couldn't a better use for that space have been found? And big deal, Alec Baldwin built one habitat for humanity house. What the fuck else did he have to do? Kevin Garnett personally pledged to build like 20+ homes for victims of Katrina and no one gives a shit about that, so I'm supposed to respect Alec because he sacrificed one of his busy Saturdays? Shit, I spent a couple of weekends driving supply trucks down there, where's my medal?

And don't take that as a personal attack, Miss Katt, I just get really sick of these self important assholes that everybody seems to be in love with.

I don't take things personally unless they are directed that way. and I am not a big Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin fan, either. But there was a post about Denzel that greatly magnified his generosity and made others out as blowhards, when the truth in all cases was to the contrary.

As far as photographers in the boat, I don't know if he did that or not. If he did, I'd say pulling people's attention to a problem is as valuable as pulling people off their rooftops. And Alec spent a week, not a Saturday, and brought a tool box, not a soapbox. The whole point was that they all did something positive to help and like your own commendable efforts, that should be recognized and not criticized.

FK

[hondarobot]

This would be one of the first times that I would have to disagree to some extent with J, Felicia, and Chef. Wars, on many occasions, have "solved" things. It sucks that that is the case, but in some times through history, the only possibility of maintaining balance and relative order in the world has been to go apeshit and kick the bad guys asses.

I am not refering to what's going on currently in the mid-east. That would be an example of a bad war fought for the wrong reasons, lashing out against irrational fear and forcing an agenda on people. But, that's just my opinion. I suppose history will be the judge. It's also an inescapable truth that a great deal of the worlds population WILL have someone's "agenda" forced upon them to some extent, for good or bad, there doesn't seem to be a workable solution to that yet.

A lust for control, driven by fear of people and concepts unfamiliar or "unacceptable" to a given group controlling power, is the real problem. When those people start getting violent on a large scale, the rest of the world has to hit back. And no, this is not a call for an American Revolution or something, OR a continuation of this "War against 'radical' Islamists". I don't like the current administration, but our system of governence has them somewhat under control and personally I hope things will change in the next election.

Dr. Seuss did a much better job of examining this subject in "The Butter Battle Book", but then again the guy really knew his shit on virtually every subject. I imagine that's why he was a "doctor".

There are always two sides to any debate, this is just my take on things.

[hondarobot]

Pssst. . .I'm conceding things a bit to the conservative side in an attempt to bolster my "tough guy" image. Don't pass it around.

[NYC-TATTOO]

It's "verify"...with an E

Ya'll ain't done learnt your grammers.

[SidChromeAU]

Firstly, I must start by saying that I am not an American, and that I don't want to lecture you guys on your internal politics, nor do I wish to show any disrespect for you as a group.
Having said that, the policies and actions of your country have enormous impact on the rest of the world (the price you pay for appointing yourselves 'world police'), including Australia - my home - thus entitling me to some right to comment. We have a saying here: "If America sneezes, we catch cold" - an indication of how close our ties are.
To the best of my knowledge, Australia was the first of your allies to support your war in Afghanistan, and was/is one of your most steadfast supporters over Iraq. We have personnel in both theatres.
Mega, I think it's important to differentiate between criticism of your government and its war in Iraq (strangely, Afghanistan is barely mentioned here, despite that, too, turning into a quagmire), and the actual troops in theatre. I suspect that many individuals are loathe to subject troops to the type of disgusting behaviour that Vietnam veterans were - the same thing happened here, we were your only Western ally in theatre, and our public turned on our troops in a similar manner. I haven't read any anti-serviceman/woman comments here - in fact, even the anti-war posters have been careful to avoid that. They have opposed the war, not the warriors. What they have done is criticise the adminstration that sent them there, and (IMHO) rightly so. It has become clear that the Iraq War is solely a for-profit venture. Coalition troops went in, effected regime-change, then didn't know what to do. Companies like Haliburton certainly did. Clearly, there was no strategy for managing the nation following the initial action. Why not? Our troops are now facing an insurgency of monumental proportions, yet US commanders (safely in the rear echelon, all the way back in the US) refuse to prosecute the war. The same thing happened in Vietnam. Interestingly, Australian troops were fairly successful in that war, in the main because they used a different strategy - a similar strategy to that which the recently retired commander of the SAS has stated should be applied in Iraq. And no, I'm not saying that we won Vietnam and you lost, just that in our zone of operations our strategy was generally more effective. US doctrine tends to demand the use of overwhelming force, and too much reliance on technology. Unfortunately, people die in war - ask the 2000-odd kids that have died in Iraq (not counting of course, the locals). If they must die, let them die for a purpose. Use them correctly - that correct usage would result in less casualties. Fight small-unit actions, get out in the mud (sand?) and do it right. And stop using Reserves and National Guardsmen (the overwhelming use of force I referred to - flood the zone with bodies, irrespective of their combat effectiveness or level of training. Training saves soldiers lives, yet poorly trained and equipped NG are in the front line? Please!). To me, that is one of the greatest obscenities of the Pentagon's war - using kids as cannon fodder. It appears to me that the current strategy is aimed at consolidating while the energy interests that seem to run your government fully entrench themselves, rather than at winning the war. Could that be because the stated aims and the actual aims are so very different? Again: it's your government, and your business, but it effects me and mine. It's up to you to fix the problem, but I'm entitled to comment on it.
In short: The government that has promulgated this war appears (from here) to be both corrupt and incompetent. They should be held accountable for the situation at hand - for the abuse of the troops in the field, and for the continuing abuse of you American citizens. As it appears that while you are in Iraq, we'll be in Iraq, I feel I have the right to express this opinion.

[hondarobot]

Firstly, I must start by saying that I am not an American, and that I don't want to lecture you guys on your internal politics, nor do I wish to show any disrespect for you as a group.
Having said that, the policies and actions of your country have enormous impact on the rest of the world (the price you pay for appointing yourselves 'world police'), including Australia - my home - thus entitling me to some right to comment. We have a saying here: "If America sneezes, we catch cold" - an indication of how close our ties are.
To the best of my knowledge, Australia was the first of your allies to support your war in Afghanistan, and was/is one of your most steadfast supporters over Iraq. We have personnel in both theatres.
Mega, I think it's important to differentiate between criticism of your government and its war in Iraq (strangely, Afghanistan is barely mentioned here, despite that, too, turning into a quagmire), and the actual troops in theatre. I suspect that many individuals are loathe to subject troops to the type of disgusting behaviour that Vietnam veterans were - the same thing happened here, we were your only Western ally in theatre, and our public turned on our troops in a similar manner. I haven't read any anti-serviceman/woman comments here - in fact, even the anti-war posters have been careful to avoid that. They have opposed the war, not the warriors. What they have done is criticise the adminstration that sent them there, and (IMHO) rightly so. It has become clear that the Iraq War is solely a for-profit venture. Coalition troops went in, effected regime-change, then didn't know what to do. Companies like Haliburton certainly did. Clearly, there was no strategy for managing the nation following the initial action. Why not? Our troops are now facing an insurgency of monumental proportions, yet US commanders (safely in the rear echelon, all the way back in the US) refuse to prosecute the war. The same thing happened in Vietnam. Interestingly, Australian troops were fairly successful in that war, in the main because they used a different strategy - a similar strategy to that which the recently retired commander of the SAS has stated should be applied in Iraq. And no, I'm not saying that we won Vietnam and you lost, just that in our zone of operations our strategy was generally more effective. US doctrine tends to demand the use of overwhelming force, and too much reliance on technology. Unfortunately, people die in war - ask the 2000-odd kids that have died in Iraq (not counting of course, the locals). If they must die, let them die for a purpose. Use them correctly - that correct usage would result in less casualties. Fight small-unit actions, get out in the mud (sand?) and do it right. And stop using Reserves and National Guardsmen (the overwhelming use of force I referred to - flood the zone with bodies, irrespective of their combat effectiveness or level of training. Training saves soldiers lives, yet poorly trained and equipped NG are in the front line? Please!). To me, that is one of the greatest obscenities of the Pentagon's war - using kids as cannon fodder. It appears to me that the current strategy is aimed at consolidating while the energy interests that seem to run your government fully entrench themselves, rather than at winning the war. Could that be because the stated aims and the actual aims are so very different? Again: it's your government, and your business, but it effects me and mine. It's up to you to fix the problem, but I'm entitled to comment on it.
In short: The government that has promulgated this war appears (from here) to be both corrupt and incompetent. They should be held accountable for the situation at hand - for the abuse of the troops in the field, and for the continuing abuse of you American citizens. As it appears that while you are in Iraq, we'll be in Iraq, I feel I have the right to express this opinion.

As a war gamer, although not a soldier (I'd compromise the integrity of the squad by worrying about spiders, lousy food, angry opponents and a number of other things), I agree with everything you said.

But I've got Valentines Day coming up, so I'm puffing my chest out and trying to act tough. If you think the war in Iraq is bad, try walking a mile in my shoes. . .still trying to impress a girl.

Good post, though.