PDA

View Full Version : Rambo Returns


Almansurah
01-25-2003, 05:44 PM
The Return Of John Rambo Smoking Out Bin Laden
Jan 24, 2003
Source: NNI

If Bush can't kill bin Laden in real life, he might as well have Rocky do it in the movies.

Showbiz reporter for the UK Sun Online, Jacqui Smith, says the 56 year old Sylvester Stallone will once again bring the Rambo character to life, this time to fight the forces of evil, namely the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Stallone was so keen to see bin Laden brought to justice -- something Bush is unable or unwilling to do -- he wrote the script himself.

Initially, the aging Sly was scripted to kill the Evil One all on his lonesome, but he had second thoughts because, as a Hollywood type told the Sun, the actor "thought that was beyond the imagination," which is to say, I suppose, the idea of a middle aged Rambo doing what the US military was unable (or not permitted) to do in the span of more than a year is "beyond the imagination."

Nonetheless, Americans need closure on the bin Laden thing, and if the US military can't deliver justice maybe Hollywood can, at least on the big screen, according to a Counter Punch report.

Millions of Americans will trek enthusiastically to mall cinemas far and wide to indulge vicariously in the murderous and patriotic rampages of John Rambo (who in an earlier movie went back to Vietnam to finish what Johnson and Nixon didn't have the balls to see through). Rambo will slaughter the straggling Taliban and al-Qaeda bad guys Rumsfeld overlooked.

No laser-guided missiles or JDAMs needed, no bunker busters or cluster bombs designed to resemble food packages required -- Rambo will do the job himself and not one innocent citizen will fall victim to "collateral damage." Rambo will hunt down and smoke out the Omars of this world and kill each and every last one with his bare hands, no pansy-*** Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles needed. It will be justice delivered 70mm cowboy style. No doubt Miramax, makers of the original Rambo movie, are anticipating handsome returns at the box office.

Stallone and Miramax, however, are a little behind the curve. In the months since 911, bin Laden has slipped under the Bu****e radar screen, especially now that they have their sights fixed on Iraq and its bounteous oil fields.

If Hollywood is sincerely interested in producing a topical movie, they'd have Rambo parachuting into Baghdad under the cover of darkness with a grenade launching AK47 slung over his shoulder, bayonet clenched between his teeth, and his naked chest crisscrossed with teflon hollowpoint cartridge belts (a few depleted uranium shells thrown in for good measure). Rambo would sneak into one of Saddam's many palatial residences and slit his throat while he dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. But then, considering no intelligence service or covert op team has been able to get anywhere near the slippery Iraqi dictator -- not with Saddam's al-Bu Nasir praetorian guards lurking about -- this scenario may be even more "beyond the imagination" than the idiotic bin Laden idea. But then idiotic movies are Hollywood's stock and trade.

But why stop with Rambo in Afghanistan or Iraq making toast and just deserts of America's enemies? Miramax may want to hire a swarm of scriveners to write any number of "prequels" to the bin Laden bedtime story. Imagine John Rambo blowing up the An Nasiriyah chemical warehouse in Iraq in advance of US ground troops arriving, thus saving thousands of red-blooded American boys and girls from Gulf War Syndrome. Maybe casting would be able to entice April Glaspie into a cameo role. Or Tarek Aziz. Somebody needs to see if Tom Clancy's available to write the script.

Truly, we Americans live in a land of unending absurdity and ignorance. Hollywood knows its game well enough to understand that a movie where bin Laden and assorted al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives are hunted down and killed by a lone wolf all-American mercenary will be a good investment (no matter if Stallone is pushing 60; John Wayne was offing various gooks, injuns, and mobsters on the big screen well into his 60s).

Just as the mild antiwar second thoughts of the soldiers portrayed in Mark Bowden's book Black Hawk Down were cut when Hollywood made it into a movie, Miramax's effort will be devoid of any historical or political context or appraisal. Americans do not cotton to such glaring realities in their blood-drenched fantasies where the Good always prevail and the Bad are brought to justice.

Nor will there be scenes of disemboweled wedding guests near the village of Deh Rawud, no portrayals of slaughtered Taliban prisoners at Mazar-i-Sharif, no sweeping pans of starving refugees massed at the borders of Pakistan and Iran seeking to escape US military bombardment. In the Great American Fantasy, the Good and the Bad slug it out on the tundra (or deep within remote jungles), far away from babies, grandmothers, and humanitarian workers. Of course, as in a previous John Rambo movie, a peacenik or two might get slugged in the face. Serves 'em right for going up against the Good and Righteous.

As John Rambo represents a grotesque cardboard personage, so does the unelected and increasingly acerbic (and detestable) president George W. Bush. Junior told the American people in his dim-witted and unimaginative way a few short months ago the perps of 911 are "wanted dead or alive" and would be hunted down and smoked out like renegade Comanche who terrorize womenfolk and scalp god-fearing sodbusters.

Go forward a few months in time. Now bin Laden's name is never mentioned and the half-*** dictator Saddam Hussein (when compared to any number of US-supported dictators, say Indonesia's Suharto or Chile's Pinochet) has inherited bin Laden's iniquitous cloak of unquestionable evil.

The former CIA asset bin Laden served his purpose for Dubya and his clatch of empire-mad neocons who are attempting to create their own renovated version of Manifest Destiny on a global scale. Only this time the natives will not stay on the reservation. This time around they will not be easily cowed into pitiful submission.

If Bush is allowed to bring his war to the people of the Middle East (and Central Asia, South America, and wherever else people resist the brutal encroachment of empire) the ensuing cataclysm will be of truly historic proportions. Our children will not sing great songs, as the neocon Richard Perle would have it, but mournful laments.

Not only will oil wells burn and millions of people die horrible deaths in far away lands but war will spread like wildfire to the tinderbox shores of America. The police state Bush has in mind for the American people will not stop it. No way are there enough Marines, Army Rangers, Delta Forces, Seal Teams, Special Forces, CIA operatives to contain its spread and wrathful violence. Not even John Rambo will make America feel good about itself in the aftermath.

Professor S
01-25-2003, 06:08 PM
Firstly, I can't believe I just read all of that:D

Secondly, its RAMBO. No Americans take Rambo seriously besides maybe slack jawed yokels.

Thirdly, "Not only will oil wells burn and millions of people die horrible deaths in far away lands but war will spread like wildfire to the tinderbox shores of America. The police state Bush has in mind for the American people will not stop it. No way are there enough Marines, Army Rangers, Delta Forces, Seal Teams, Special Forces, CIA operatives to contain its spread and wrathful violence."

LOL!!! Yeah... ok. I'll just let the absurdity and melodrama of that statement speak for itself.:D

Almansurah, please try and look past your religion and see a tyrannical madman who slaughters his own people for who he is. There are coalitions of Arab-Americans who fled from Iraq after the first war who are ENCOURAGING the U.S. to get involved because they actually know what goes on.

Ask yourself this: If all this attention and threat of war was towards North Korea, and not an Islamic state, would you be so empassioned in your speech? As a good muslim you should want Saddam deposed and good muslim leadership to take his place.

Oh, looks like I won't let your silly rhetoric speak for itself :D

Bond
01-25-2003, 06:19 PM
Another "insightful" post from our friend Almansurah.

Almansurah
01-25-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by The Strangler

Almansurah, please try and look past your religion and see a tyrannical madman who slaughters his own people for who he is. There are coalitions of Arab-Americans who fled from Iraq after the first war who are ENCOURAGING the U.S. to get involved because they actually know what goes on.

Ask yourself this: If all this attention and threat of war was towards North Korea, and not an Islamic state, would you be so empassioned in your speech? As a good muslim you should want Saddam deposed and good muslim leadership to take his place.

Oh, looks like I won't let your silly rhetoric speak for itself :D

Yes you're right he is tyrannical, and he has committed many wrong actions, and he has used gas against his own people. No one said he's a good person. I dont support him. But nor do I support a US attack on Iraq.

Islam is a religion of Justice. So you said would i be so empassioned in my speech the thread of war was towards North Korea? Well if someone was unjustly attacking North Korea, then I should state so, just like I should state America is launching a unjust war on Iraq.

Perfect Stu
01-25-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by The Strangler
No Americans take Rambo seriously besides maybe slack jawed yokels.

never underestimate the now endangered slack-jawed yokel

http://springfield-shopper.de/Information/listen/cletus.gif

Professor S
01-25-2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Almansurah
Islam is a religion of Justice. So you said would i be so empassioned in my speech the thread of war was towards North Korea? Well if someone was unjustly attacking North Korea, then I should state so, just like I should state America is launching a unjust war on Iraq.

The United States is not an Islamic state. We have different views of Justice than you probably do. Personally, I think justice will finally be served if and when we depose Saddam. I think that Saddam ignoring UN regulations for over 7 years, his banning UN inspections from military bases, increasingly uincooperative stance during the inspections and his support of terrorism make this a just enough war.

Almansurah
01-25-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by The Strangler
The United States is not an Islamic state. We have different views of Justice than you probably do. Personally, I think justice will finally be served if and when we depose Saddam. I think that Saddam ignoring UN regulations for over 7 years, his banning UN inspections from military bases, increasingly uincooperative stance during the inspections and his support of terrorism make this a just enough war.

Yeh sure. I understand.

Yes he has broken some UN regulations.

But what about Isreal too?

Here is a short list of UN Resolutions, 1955-1992:

* Resolution 106: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid";

* Resolution 111: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people";

* Resolution 127: ". . . 'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem";

* Resolution 162: ". . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions";

* Resolution 171: ". . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria";

* Resolution 228: ". . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control";

* Resolution 237: ". . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees";

* Resolution 248: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan";

* Resolution 250: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem";

* Resolution 251: ". . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250";

* Resolution 252: ". . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital";

* Resolution 256: ". . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"";

* Resolution 259: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation";

* Resolution 262: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport";

* Resolution 265: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan";

* Resolution 267: ". . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem";

* Resolution 270: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon";

* Resolution 271: ". . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem";

* Resolution 279: ". . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon";

* Resolution 280: ". . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon";

* Resolution 285: ". . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon";

* Resolution 298: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem";

* Resolution 313: ". . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon";

* Resolution 316: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon";

* Resolution 317: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon";

* Resolution 332: ". . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon";

* Resolution 337: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty";

* Resolution 347: ". . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon";

* Resolution 425: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon";

* Resolution 427: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon';

* Resolution 444: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces";

* Resolution 446: ". . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention";

* Resolution 450: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon";

* Resolution 452: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories";

* Resolution 465: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program";

* Resolution 467: ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon";

* Resolution 468: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return";

* Resolution 469: ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians";

* Resolution 471: ". . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention";

* Resolution 476: ". . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'";

* Resolution 478: ". . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'";

* Resolution 484: ". . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors";

* Resolution 487: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility";

* Resolution 497: ". . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith";

* Resolution 498: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon";

* Resolution 501: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops";

* Resolution 509: ". . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon";

* Resolution 515: ". . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in";

* Resolution 517: ". . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon";

* Resolution 518: ". . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon";

* Resolution 520: ". . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut";

* Resolution 573: ". . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters;

* Resolution 587: ". . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw";

* Resolution 592: ". . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops";

* Resolution 605: ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians;

* Resolution 607: ".. . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention;

* Resolution 608: ". . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians";

* Resolution 636: ". . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians;

* Resolution 641: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians;

* Resolution 672: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount;

* Resolution 673: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations;

* Resolution 681: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians;

* Resolution 694: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return;

* Resolution 726: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians; and

* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

DeathsHand
01-25-2003, 06:52 PM
*chuckles* oh that silly Israel...

But that's OK because it's the US's buddy! *pats Israel on the back* Oh what a character you are!

Professor S
01-25-2003, 07:04 PM
I agree with almost everything Isreal has even done since they became a state. Imagine being a country and being declared war on from day one, being suicide bombed for 30 years and losing over 20,000 people to terrorism over the years. They are a very different kind of Jew. Put yourself in their shoes and see how much you love them. If you think the U.S. feels threatened, imagine how Isreal feels being surrounded by hostile nations and having your enemies knowingly living in your communities. BTW, have Isreal's actions ever been completely out of the blue, or are they almost always attacked beofore doing any of the "horrible" things that you have quoted. Next time tell the whole story.

But I wouldn't expect that from any of you. After all, I just brought up valid points as to why going to war with Iraq is just, and you point the finger toward Isreal and say "look over there, don't look over here!" How typical.

But back on the topic at hand, that Almansurah brought up and then went off of I might add, I just noticed something in your first post: You admit that Saddam is a tyrannical despot that has killed and oppressed his own people, but then state that it would be an unjust war to remove him from power WHICH IS THE U.S.'S GOAL (I'm sure you'll spout twisted propoganda that claims otherwise, though). So please explain how you feel the upcoming war as unjust.

Ravishing Rick Rude
01-25-2003, 11:01 PM
What was that war they faught against Egypt many years ago?

The Isrealis that is, meh i saw a movie on it a few days ago, they sure disposed of those Egyptians lol

Joeiss
01-25-2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by DeathsHand
*chuckles* oh that silly Israel...




:lol:

Professor S
01-26-2003, 12:55 PM
Case in point... the Gaza Strip. Isreal gives up the Gaza strip and what happens? The Palestinians start stockpiling weapons and shooting missiles into Isreali communities. The militant Palestinians want ALL of Isreal, not just a little.

I blame Isreal for NOTHING.

Almansurah
01-28-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by The Strangler

But back on the topic at hand, that Almansurah brought up and then went off of I might add, I just noticed something in your first post: You admit that Saddam is a tyrannical despot that has killed and oppressed his own people, but then state that it would be an unjust war to remove him from power WHICH IS THE U.S.'S GOAL (I'm sure you'll spout twisted propoganda that claims otherwise, though). So please explain how you feel the upcoming war as unjust.

USA has it's own motives which are pretty obvious to why they are going to war on Iraq, they need some oil, since they cant always rely on Saudi, particularly after 9/11.

Yeh Yeh, there only goal is to remove Saddam, if only the world was so simple.

gekko
01-28-2003, 03:52 PM
If only the world didn't unclide complete idiots.

*points at the post above this*

And I just love NNI. Pakistan news! w00t! Hey guys, let's go watch Al-Jazeera next!

Professor S
01-28-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Almansurah
USA has it's own motives which are pretty obvious to why they are going to war on Iraq, they need some oil, since they cant always rely on Saudi, particularly after 9/11.

Yeh Yeh, there only goal is to remove Saddam, if only the world was so simple.

Almansurah, you do realize that only 20% of the oil used by the US comes from the Middle East right? Yeah, the US is going after Iraq only to get their greedy little paws on some oil. Now who's oversimplifying things here?