That was embarrassing alright.

Axl was always a nutjob. It's part of what made him big, and now it's part of him getting so much shit. Not much he can do about that. At least he's stayed real, more real than probably any major act out there. CD certainly ain't a classic, but it's a decent effort and in no way does it shame the catalogue.

And excuse me if I don't consider the opinions of Hoi Polloi to have any substance in matters Guns N' Roses. Oh, you have 5 year olds thinking Ozzy is a cool dude now. Popular acclaim and $$$ out the ass like he's never ever seen. That doesn't mean the man hasn't become a complete and utter joke to almost any real fan of metal.

To you credibility seems to equal popularity, and in that regard Slash has made himself a very credible man. Doesn't mean I have to buy it.

Good to see Slash keep pissing on the bands legacy. Can't call him changeable, that's for sure!

There was a tour? I'm way out of the loop.

Originally I was not completely sure, and frankly inclined to both. But after giving it some thought my answer has to be that there are no honorable institutions, only honorable men.

I should probably have mentioned that I live in a totalitarian country, so there's a draft. But I did end up in one of the most gung ho, ranger type installations. It's the kind of place where people who don't want a career, but still a juicy experience, applies for service (I ended up there on accident, long story). So I thought it at least somewhat appropriate to compare it to what I assume a professional military is like. I do agree with what you say though, so perhaps "Rambo" is not the proper classification, but the reason I used was to point out that flag and country usually plays a distant role in ones choice to become a soldier. It's more like you say, purpose, being a man, comraderie and all that.

When you say "if not", don't you imply that you are ready to do something dishonorable and still be happy? Or are you referring to general perceptions of what you're doing? Because in the end only you can answer that question. If killing civilians is deemed honorable by you there's really no one to tell you different (personally I don't think it necessarily has to be dishonorable to do something like that)

Not that it should matter, but my opinion is that your intentions are good. However I sense there might be some things you haven't thought through as well as you're conscience would have liked.

You probably noticed that I conveniently didn't answer the parts about Assange. The simple answer is I no longer care to. He might very well be a douchebag (although almost definately not a rapist), and I'm not interested in attaching anything to that kind of star. But concering wikileaks I don't see anything illegal in what they're doing. It's the USGs responsibility to protect their intellectual property, like everybody else. And that's that really. To suggest anything else would in my opinion be extremely "social" (for you fellow Europeans, that actually is a bad word. very very bad)