There has been a lot of noise recently in the blogosphere (local and nat’l) concerning Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, and their statements regarding Iran.
Hillary Clinton: “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”
John Edwards: “ALL options must remain on the table.”
Barack Obama: Iran “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace”
If Iran developes nuclear weapons and declares an intention to use them against Israel, I would expect any President, Democrat or Republican, to use military action as a last resort against this threat. The difference between the Democrats running for President and Bush is that the current President has no credibility on the world stage. Clinton, Edwards, or Obama, if elected, will have the chance to use the diplomatic tools Bush and Company have declined to use for most of his seven years in office.
There are some on the Left who are, post-Iraq war, a bit gunshy when Democrats use tough terms to describe the nature of our relationship with Iran. I have heard nothing from Democratic contenders that would lead me to believe that a new administration would be anything other than a total 180 degree change from what we’ve seen under Bush.
Chad (The Left) Shue spews:
The fact that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all reacting to the same saber rattling intelligence that Bush is spewing (and that Clinton and Edwards both voted FOR invading Iraq) is what has this person from the left concerned.
You say you haven’t heard anything from these Democrats that would lead you to believe they won’t be different from the current administration. What I haven’t heard is any talk of diplomacy from this trio or even where they are getting their intelligence on Iran from. From everything I have read, the intelligence on Iran is about the same as it was on Iraq. We have no solid intelligence to indicate that Iran is developing a weapon or is posing any threat to us or their neighbors. As a matter of fact, the only thing we know is that they have oil and are in the vacinity of Israel.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Chad, I agree with you: You have no solid intelligence.
Just wait until the proof is literally explosive.
John Barelli spews:
I can see a very fine line here. Iran is a current threat, and the President, regardless of our opinion of the man, has to be able to speak for the country in dealing with them. A bunch of candidates, almost two years before the election should not be tying his hands.
But he’s done so badly over the last few years, and it seems that sabre rattling is his only recourse.
So, what do we do? Tie his hands and take away any military option? Let him loose to start another war?
What I would like to hear from our Democratic candidates is something like “War is only an option once all diplomatic means have been exhausted“, and “war is the ultimate diplomatic failure“.
Lay it out, in no uncertain terms, that if another war happens, it is an abject failure of diplomacy. Put it in terms that the average person can understand, and put pressure on the administration to open diplomatic channels with folks that they would rather fight than talk to.
I wish that I could read that in any of the statements from the current Democratic front-runners. Has anyone seen a statement from Governor Richardson on this?
You mean like “waiting for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud”??
Jesus, what a fucking gullible chickenshit you are.
Iran is a current threat? Because they’ve moved 3 aircraft carriers into Long Island Sound? Because they’ve invaded Mexico?
2009 is 2009, but folks, at the moment we still have 2007 to deal with. It sounds like a lot of Democrats may end up flabbering a lot of platitudes and then sit on their butts and nod while the Crawford Caligula wheedles us into another war in Iran to divert attention from how badly he’s screwed the pooch in Iraq. I’ll betcha that when a lot of people went and voted for Democrats last year, this wasn’t exactly what they wanted them to do.
4 “Lay it out, in no uncertain terms, that if another war happens, it is an abject failure of diplomacy.”
John, WHAT “diplomacy”
The Bush Gang wouldn’t know diplomacy if it bit ’em on the you-know-what.
Let’s think about this, which I know isn’t the popular theme of this board.
Iran has called us Satan for 28 years.
Iran is killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Iran is supplying Hezbollah
Iran has threatened Israel with extermination
Iran has centrifuges buried underground. That is the UN talking, not me.
But no, Iran is not a threat to the US. It has cruise missiles that can hit Israel, Germany, and France. But no ICBM’s.
So, I guess we shall wait for the mushroom cloud. It is good Democratic politics after all. Don’t want to upset the peaceniks in an election cycle.
Stephen Schwartz spews:
Adults and Iran
There are many answers that could happen if we had a functional POTUS.
1. re-establishing US leadership and then working with our allies to segregate any nut regime.
2. WE could close the straights of Hermuz for say 6 months. Oil rese4rves in the rest of theorld could hanlde that but Iran would be bankrupt.
1. Someone’s called us a name, after the US overthrew their government and then installed a dictator that tortured the populace for 30 years. By all means that’s a reason to invade or nuke them.
2. We don’t have any evidence of Iranians killing US soldiers. It does seem like the US is suppling weapons to terrorists inside Iran to try to provoke another war or to destabilize the country.
3.So they are supplying Hezbollah, so what?
4.The extermination ‘reason’ is a mistranslation of what the president of Iran said. Even if he was in a position to try to exterminate Israel, Israel has a much larger military and 200-400 nukes.
5.Centrifugies buried underground do not equal nukes. Iran’s allowed to research nuclear power.
10 Stephen, your number two is actually pretty interesting…basically we’d close the straits before they did.
Mind you, we’d better be prepared to deal with a very large increase in energy prices as everybody and his sister Kate got into a bidding war over the remaining oil supplies. Also, some other nations who are among Iran’s leading oil customers (most notable China).
Still, it’s probably a better idea than to start dropping nukes (if a little less…uh…exciting).
12 Forget to make sure I finished the sentence. I meant to say that China and other countries who buy oil from Iran might be a trifle displeased. Remember we’re pretty far in the hole to the Chinese bankers to pay for the war we’re already fighting.
proud leftist spews:
The Iran issue needs to be addressed. No one says otherwise. Firing first and asking questions later, however, is bad foreign policy no matter what the neocons might argue. Many nations in the world hate us and many of them are poised to harm us if they decide to do so. Should we launch a preemptive strike on all of them? The reality is that the Bush Administration’s incompetence has made a military option with regard to Iran virtually ridiculous–we don’t have the manpower and our credibility with potential allies is nil. We can deal with Iran diplomatically. There are many Iranians who loathe their government, but will become nationalistic in the event of an attack from us. Starting another war in the Middle East would be insanity.
The Guy spews:
Diplomacy is our ONLY option. If we bomb Iran we will open a Pandoras box ten times worse then in Iraq. Has anyone visited a military hospital lately? There is a song about a WW1 soldier’s grave where the visitor asks, Willy did they tell you this was the War to end War???? Well Willy it all happened again and again and again.
Iran Rejects U.N. Resolution – Calls Effort To Prevent Nuclear Activities ‘Illegal And Illogical’
TEHRAN, Iran, Sept. 25, 2005
IAEA Resolution on Iran (February 4, 2006)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors adopted a resolution expressing “serious concerns” about Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran holds a document “on the production of uranium metal hemispheres,” which is a process related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components. The resolution requests the IAEA to report to the UN Security Council the steps required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Council all IAEA reports and resolutions relating to this issue. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)
Report of the IAEA on the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in Iran (March 8, 2006)
In this report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voices concern that Iran has not clarified “uncertainties related to the scope and nature of its nuclear program after three years of intensive Agency verification.” As a result, the IAEA will forward the report to the UN Security Council. The Agency’s Director General hopes that pressure by the Council will encourage Iran “to go back to negotiation and take measures” to convince the international community that its program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Statement by the President of the Security Council on Non-Proliferation (March 29, 2006)
In this statement, the Security Council expresses concern that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not provided assurances that Iran is not secretly developing nuclear weapons. It calls on Iran to comply with the agency’s demand to halt all of its uranium enrichment activities to “build confidence” that Tehran’s nuclear activities are for an “exclusively peaceful purpose.” The Council calls on IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to report on “the process of Iran’s compliance” in 30 days.
Security Council Pressures Tehran (March 30, 2006)
Following three weeks of bruising negotiations, the Security Council unanimously adopted a presidential statement asking Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities. But to secure Russian and Chinese support, the US, Britain, and France softened the tone of the statement by eliminating language suggesting that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes a “threat to international peace and security.” The Council also extended the deadline for Iranian compliance from 14 to 30 days and gave the International Atomic Energy Agency continuing shared authority over the Iran issue. According to Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov, the text changes were necessary: “Any ideas involving the use of force or pressure in resolving the issue are counterproductive and could not be supported.” (Washington Post)
Report of the IAEA on the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in Iran (April 28, 2006)
This International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report informs the Security Council on the developments that have taken place since March 2006 on Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA regarding its nuclear program. According to the Agency’s Director General, Iran has failed to cooperate actively and transparently with the IAEA in demonstrating the exclusively peaceful purposes of Tehran’s nuclear activities. The report could pave the way for the Council to adopt a resolution invoking Chapter 7of the UN Charter, which allows enforcement measures, including sanctions.
Resolution 1696 (June 31, 2006)
In this resolution, the Security Council endorses the offer of diplomatic and economic incentives put forward by the P5 and Germany and demands that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. Acting “under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the United Nations in order to make mandatory the suspension required by the IAEA,” the Council threatens Iran with sanctions in case of non-compliance, but avoids any implication that use of force may be warranted. Iran has rejected the resolution claiming that it has only made negotiations more difficult.
IAEA Implementation Report (August 31, 2006)
On August 31, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the UN Security Council on Iran’s nuclear activities. The report looks at whether Tehran is in compliance with the IAEA and whether it has suspended uranium enrichment as called for.
Resolution 1737 (December 23, 2006)
The Security Council unanimously imposed sanctions against Iran. The text, calling for steps required by the IAEA, bans trade with Iran of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Tehran’s uranium enrichment program and contains a list of persons and entities, whose assets are subject to a freeze. It also established a new sanctions committee to monitor compliance of the resolution.
If you Moonbat!s could just set aside your hatred and look on the net you’d find that Iran ignores diplomacy!
Resolution 1696 – IGNORED
Repeated resolutions cannot resolve nuclear standoff: official
Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN – The repeated adoption of resolutions against Iran cannot help resolve the nuclear standoff, Ali-Akbar Velayati, the international affairs advisor of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said here on Saturday.
“Those who really want to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue should sit at the negotiating table, and the Islamic Republic will welcome negotiations with open arms,” Velayati told the Mehr News Agency.
The West has been demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities. However, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right to enrichment.
In a report issued on February 22, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Iran had not suspended its nuclear fuel enrichment as the UN Security Council had demanded.
Velayati called Iran the most influential country in the Middle East region, saying, “No proposed solution to regional problems can bear fruit without taking Iran into consideration.”
Moonbat! err… Tehran Times
Resolution 1737 – IGNORED
GBS@5 – Dumb ass.
proud leftist spews:
How the hell have you held a job?
John Barelli spews:
Just for argument’s sake, let’s look at our options.
Remember, our military options are very limited. It seems that most of our troops are tied up in the civil war next door to Iran, and they’re stretched pretty thin all over.
We could turn the country into a huge, glow-in-the-dark parking lot, killing millions of civilians and incurring the condemnation of the entire civilized world.
While it isn’t well known, the Army has already been calling on the Navy and Air Force to provide additional support. A lot of those folks out there in desert cammies have “U.S. NAVY” on that strip above the pocket. We’re not just talking about Corpsmen here. This is Yeoman, Boatswain’s Mates, Quartermasters, Hull Maintenence Technicians, etc… Perhaps they could find a few more people there, but not many, and these folks are not trained for ground combat.
We might be able to round up a few more troops by calling up the last of our reserves. There are still over 100,000 members of the Inactive Ready Reserves that can be called up. These are the folks that have done their active duty obligation, but are still on the rolls until they have completed a total of eight years.
Hey, we also have all the category II retirees. Folks like yours truly that have done over twenty years active, but we haven’t hit 60 yet. Guess I’d better shave the beard and get fitted for some desert gear. I’ve been wanting to lose a bit of this gut, but running around in the sand dodging bullets wasn’t my first choice of ways to do that.
We’re the folks you’re talking about when you advocate military action in Iran. People who have done their active service, old men (like me), Sailors and Airmen that have no ground combat training (again, like me).
Then there’s the fact that we don’t even have enough modern gear for the troops that are currently in combat, so I can expect to be issued stuff from the Vietnam era.
After our fearless leader has used up the military, we’re all that’s left.
If we are called upon to fight, we’ll fight. I’m still military and will do what I’m told. But don’t you think that we should do everything we can using diplomacy and diplomatic pressure first?
Proud Leftist: You libtards said the Moonbat!s stated above would use diplomacy if they were/are/want to be POTUS. Well what are those warnings and resolutions?
John Barelli and his Libtard friends where did I say anything about attacking IRAN?
In your puny minds you surmised I did. I suggest you feed those single cell organizms! All I proved again was your feckless argument against GWB! All I did was provide evidence your argument is vacuous!
And… Proud Leftist, I do well thank you very much! But not as well as GBS!
So Proud Leftist: Why didn’t you post those resolutions. All you had to do was visit the UN. That’s all I did!
SOOOOOOOOOooooooooo Proud Leftist: here is one for your side:
Where are the stories? Where is the outrage?
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD STILL DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM, DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS CONFERENCE ON TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN AND GIRLS
John Barelli spews:
Ok, Puddybud. If we aren’t going to use diplomacy, and we aren’t going to use the military, exactly what are we going to do?
Probably the one thing we agree on here is that the status quo is unacceptable.
Wait… This just in from Clueless…
The UN Web Site is run by Faux News, funded by Richard Scaife, edited by Rush Limbaugh!!
Waaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!
Not for me to answer John Barelli. It’s your side that keeps saying “give peace a chance”. All I did was post the resolutions your side either:
1) Didn’t know about
2) Didn’t want to know about
Whackminojob said he’ll remove Israel from the map. What will Libtards do?
Question for “K”: What did your Cornell education get you anyway? I asked Voice of Chalk Scratching, but he only writes to me when he outs a nick!
John Barelli spews:
While a few folks around here might consider holding hands in a big circle while singing “Kumbaya” to be an appropriate response, most of us really do know better. Even out here in the wilds of Pierce County, the local paper carries a bit of international news, back among the crop reports and recipies for Aunt Mabel’s pecan pie.
Iran is run by a bunch of nutjobs. No argument from anyone here. Diplomacy will be difficult, and will require talking to a few other countries that are, shall we say “less than friendly” to the U.S.
But all of our other options are worse. While the Iranian government may be a bunch of lunatics, they are not stupid. While they are probably underestimating the reserves we still have available, they aren’t underestimating them by much. We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. No insult to our troops here. That “bottom of the barrel” includes me.
Diplomacy doesn’t just include face-to-face talks with Iran, although that should be a part of it. Somehow, we have to find a way to bring the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world into the talks on our side.
Considering the last few years, that is going to be a good trick. I really don’t have much confidence that the Bush administration can pull it off.
But if they don’t start trying a lot harder than they currently are, then they have absolutely no chance of success.
Considering that failure in this case gives us those same Iranian nutjobs with nuclear weapons, I really am hoping that I’m wrong about the President this time.
So far, over the last six years, he’s lived down to my worst expectations every single time.
Chad: For the record, I know Obama has called for negotiations, though I am still concerned about his “saber-rattling.”
John, you not singing Kumbaya?
Voice of Chalk Scratching will be pissed John.
Mr Stupid will ask you to use the Hubble Telescope so you can suck a lower appendage.
Clueless will laugh at you.
Headlice will want to meet you at the Cheesecake Factory.
Roger Rabbit spews:
“If Iran developes nuclear weapons and declares an intention to use them against Israel, I would expect any President, Democrat or Republican, to use military action as a last resort against this threat.”
If Iran develops nuclear weapons and declares an intention to use them against Israel, no U.S. president will do anything except get some popcorn, kick back, and watch the show. Israel won’t need our help.
John, I’ll agree Iran is run by the nutjobs. What I dislike is the comparison the ASSWipes here make to GWB.
When did GWB threaten to wipe a country off the map?
When did GWB say the Holocaust was fake?
When did GWB say Kill the Infidels?
Now I see why ‘Wipes has been so quiet this evening.
All the ‘bats were in Tacoma. I bet they were blocking supplies to the troops. Just like a ‘tard!
Charlie Smith spews:
Don’t worry, Puddybud. You’re finally protected by the state civil rights act, and you might even get the right to enter a civil union with your partner.
Broadway Joe spews:
I think I had put up a pretty good post about this a few weeks ago. But let’s look at the facts:
Yes, Iran is run by a bunch of nutjobs.
Yes, their president is a vicious anti-Semite, who has declared it his duty to ‘wipe Israel from the map’.
Yes, they are in violation of the UN for refusing to end its nuclear programs.
But let’s look at some realities here that no one seems to notice:
The Iranian people are getting restless. The president they put into power to make their lives better has failed in his domestic policies, and his attempt to distract their attention with the smoke and mirrors of his neo-Fascist jibes against Israel and the West (not to mention his own people) has brought the economy in Iran closer and closer to collapse.
Ahmadinejad and his master, the Supreme Ayatollah Khameini, have already seen their cronies been defeated in local elections in recent months, and Ahmadinejad himself is up for reelection in 2009.
So how do we deal with these lunatics? I remember reading an aricle in Esquire (of all places) that suggested a simple approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions: Let them have nukes, provided they do two things:
Renounce their support of terrorism and terrorist organizations,
Recognize, and establish peaceful diplomatic relations with the state of Israel.
The idea is that this would establish a balance of power in the Middle East between Iran and Israel, similar to the balance between the US and USSR during the Cold War. ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ can be a powerful incentive to play nice. And while the idea of dimplomatic relations between the two may seem far-fetched, they have worked together before, when Saddam Hussein was a legitimate threat to both countries, and their intelligence services cooperated to thwart Hussein’s own nuclear ambitions.
And what about those nuclear ambitions, anyway? Those in the know have weighed in, and from what I’ve heard from a variety of sources, the best estimate of when Iran could assemble nuclear weapons is another 9 or 10 years off, while Ahmadinejad could very well be out of power in two. That gives the UN, the West, hell, everyone plenty of time for diplomacy to work.
And if all else fails, a handful of SEALs could accomplish more than a wing of B-52’s when used properly. But let’s hope it doesn’t have to come to that.
Broadway Joe: You forget some facts.
China and Russia are not keen on making Iran toe the line. Until C&R decide to provide the political teeth into any UN Resolution besides just lip service, Iran will not cave.
We’ve seen the “Recognize, and establish peaceful diplomatic relations with the state of Israel.” in action everyone. Didn’t we do this with ol’ Yezzir Arafat? What happened to all those $$$ Billions we sent to the Palestinians? When I placed the stories from the WA Times (Moonie Paper) which was finally reprinted by the WA Post (libtard MSM) proving Yezzir was lining his, his wife living in French luxury in Paris, and his cronies pockets, what did the ASSWipes say? Can’t be true. Puddy stop using Moonie Times. Well it was true. What did the Scratchy Voice led ‘tards say? NUTHIN
Didn’t Israel withdraw from the Gaza area, giving the ‘rabs pre-made farms, water desalination plants and infrastructure and didn’t the ‘rabs blow them all up ‘cuz they were made by Israelis?
When someone is hell bent on Your destruction you watch their every move! You can trust him Broadway Joe but I don’t!
Hence when I post the UN Resolutions and the prima facie IDIOT of the day, Proud Leftist, can’t figger it out, well pox on his house!
KIRO 710 Talk Radio
1820 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98102
Frank Shires/ Dori Monson KIRO Staff and Management,
This letter is in response to my on air exchange with Frank Shires on 8 March 2007.
I have had three on air exchanges with Frank Shires, the first two exchanges we discussed his disapproval of Native American (especially the local tribes) gaming rights and land use and development rights. Which I thought ironic, because the Emerald Queen Casino
(Puyallup Tribe) and the Tulalip Tribe’s casinos are sponsors of KIRO and its talk radio programming. Both times I debated Mr. Shires and he found himself intellectually outmatched. He then became rude and tried his best to be insulting. He seemed to be bigoted and racist against Native people and their right to own and use their lands under tribal treaty law. Dori Monson has in several shows and two personal appearances has been anti-tribal concerning their treaty right and the tribes right of land use and public use and sale tobacco in their places of business, along with public uses of roads and why aren’t the tribes paying for new roads. I think the correct term for both men would be water cooler racists or closeted racist. They try to justify their racism by saying they like people of color, which really means they like people of color as long as they act like them. But quoting Dori Monson, “ You know how those rap guys are”, when he referred to the basketball fight that black players had been involved and Ron Artest being a rapper.
When challenged by people who are intellectually superior Mr. Shires and Mr. Monson become insulting and rude and then angered, which results in them ending conversation or going to break. After his tirades, Mr. Shires justifies his lack of civility; by saying it’s for entertainment purposes. Mr. Shires’s says he was a debate coach at high school, he must of not been a very good coach, because he is easily beaten in debate and then acts like a high school student resorting in name calling and insults, it seems, that ratings must go high, when Frank and Dori use terms like, punk, dude, pal, moron and beat down or just aren’t smart enough to think of a rebuttal answer. Frank Shires always retorts that everyone is welcome to his show, and then says if you don’t agree with him, he’ll “break out his size 9 and put it you know where”. And “he wears his anger on his sleeve”. Dori Monson repeatly says when people don’t agree or say things he doesn’t agree with; they are morons that or those “punks need a beat down”. My question would be who was the last person Franko Shires gave his size 9 to?
And who was the last guy Dori Monson called punk and gave a beat down to? Wasn’t it Dori Moron that said he was at Costco when he cut off some guy in line and the guy chewed him out, why didn’t he call him a punk and give him the old beat down? Old Dori Monson put his tail between his leg and his head down and told his wife come on honey… my point is, do these guys think because they sit in a safe studio and hide behind a microphone they can insult and talk tough to callers, government officials, show guests and the general public for the sake of entertainment? Is this the ideology of KIRO talk radio? Brian Stival gets offend when people refer to him as an entertainer. I have never heard Dave Ross do this, he engages the guest and then offers opinion and point and calls it a show, he doesn’t have to resort to insults and rage, because he is getting out played on the field of open debate. I think it was Tom Lycus, who thought he could call people names, insult and demean people on his show and then had to pay a price. Then he spent a week trying to justify why he didn’t give those punks the old beat down.
In my last conversation with tough guy Frank Shires, he couldn’t handle my challenge to his point and then resorted to calling me a drunk, even thought I don’t drink alcohol, knowing that I was Native American, it was his way of using a racial slur, and then before I could respond, he hung up.
In conclusion I have a challenged to Frank Shires and Dori Monson and to KIRO Talk Radio.
I am offering a challenge to Frank Shires and Dori Monson. A MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) or what is commonly known as UFC or Ultimate Fighting match at one of the local casinos. Being a tribal member I think we could approach one of the tribes and have a fight sanctioned. The tribes do not have to have fights sanctioned by the state of Washington. They have had fights at their facilities in the past. This event could be billed as “The Battle of Seattle” or “The Rumble in the Jungle” or “Pros vs. Joes”. KIRO Talk Radio could have Dave Ross and New York Vinnie to do ringside play by play and commentary. To enhance these fights, if Frank or Dori win, I will donate $10,000 dollars to each of their charities of choice. If I win, they will donate $20,000 to the United Native American College Fund, or to the tribe that hosts the fight. The proceeds of said funds going to the educational fund of the host tribe. These fights will run concurrent, 3- rounds at 3- minutes each, or until someone taps out or panel judge decision rule. I will fight both men with a 15-minute rest in between fights. I would also offer that all ticket proceeds go to local charities. After paying all cost of promoting and hosting said event. This event will be in name of charity and to quote both men… ENTERTAINMENT.
So to Frank and Dori, YOU BITCH MADE PUNKS, I promise I will punish and choke Frank Shires out… he will not last 3-rounds…I promise to choke out or break Dori Monsons arm or one of his extremities. He will not last 3-rounds…so put you mouth and your money where your mouths are… Dori talks like he is some kind of athlete; well here it is… you punk…I’ll give you a beat down I promise you’ll never forget. And Frank I know you will not answer this call, but I guarantee you will give me an apology, one way or the other.
Gordon Frank Storm
PS. I am not a professional MMA or UFC fighter. I am a Native American man, average guy, business owner and family man.