U2 — One Tree Hill
Album: The Joshua TreeAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 3683
Length: 5:20
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share
tweet
We turn away to face the cold, enduring chill
As the day begs the night for mercy, love.
A sun so bright it leaves no shadows
Only scars carved into stone on the face of earth.
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes.
You run like a river on to the sea
You run like a river runs to the sea.
And in the world, a heart of darkness, a fire-zone
Where poets speak their heart then bleed for it
Jara sang, his song a weapon in the hands of love.
You know his blood still cries from the ground.
It runs like a river runs to the sea.
It runs like a river to the sea.
I don't believe in painted roses or bleeding hearts
While bullets rape the night of the merciful.
I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill.
We run like a river runs to the sea
We run like a river to the sea.
And when it's rainin', rainin' hard
That's when the rain will break my heart.
Rainin', rainin' in your heart
Rainin' in your heart.
Rainin', rain into your heart
Rainin', rainin', rainin'
Rain into your heart.
Rainin', hoo, hoo... yeah.
(To the sea)
Oh great ocean
Oh great sea
Run to the ocean
Run to the sea.
As the day begs the night for mercy, love.
A sun so bright it leaves no shadows
Only scars carved into stone on the face of earth.
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes.
You run like a river on to the sea
You run like a river runs to the sea.
And in the world, a heart of darkness, a fire-zone
Where poets speak their heart then bleed for it
Jara sang, his song a weapon in the hands of love.
You know his blood still cries from the ground.
It runs like a river runs to the sea.
It runs like a river to the sea.
I don't believe in painted roses or bleeding hearts
While bullets rape the night of the merciful.
I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill.
We run like a river runs to the sea
We run like a river to the sea.
And when it's rainin', rainin' hard
That's when the rain will break my heart.
Rainin', rainin' in your heart
Rainin' in your heart.
Rainin', rain into your heart
Rainin', rainin', rainin'
Rain into your heart.
Rainin', hoo, hoo... yeah.
(To the sea)
Oh great ocean
Oh great sea
Run to the ocean
Run to the sea.
Comments (500)add comment
I know the RP Slideshow has a tough time with some titles, but you'd think this one would be easy - and yet - most of the images are of hills with several trees.
This oughta mean we have a few more good years before the machines take over.
This oughta mean we have a few more good years before the machines take over.
Superb. Takes me back to their Auckland concert many years ago with One Tree Hill standing behind d the stadium with the full moon standing above that. Sent shivers down the spine and the crowd just erupted. Surreal. RIP Greg Carroll.
Chewie wrote:
why would anyone 'thumbs down' this comment?
One thing that has always slightly puzzled me with One Tree Hill, is why, on the CD release of this album, does the slow-sung reprise at the end of the song, actually appear at the beginning of the following track, Exit, instead of being part of the same track? 
why would anyone 'thumbs down' this comment?
Their Greatest!!! 10
zestybelieve me, the maori strum is not one that a guitar player should aspire to
Ditch999 wrote:
Shall i alert the media
The only U2 song I can tolerate. It's good though. That'll be all for now
Shall i alert the media
The only U2 song I can tolerate. It's good though. That'll be all for now
Hard to listen without a tear welling up, especially if you know the story behind the song. Beautiful.
One thing that has always slightly puzzled me with One Tree Hill, is why, on the CD release of this album, does the slow-sung reprise at the end of the song, actually appear at the beginning of the following track, Exit, instead of being part of the same track?
psb wrote:
What the fuck should you care about his personality (what little you actually know about it) when it comes to enjoying his music?
It remains impossible to judge the art by the artist, and this is a
perfect example…. Beautiful music, hard to believe that such an ass
like Bono could have produced it…
What the fuck should you care about his personality (what little you actually know about it) when it comes to enjoying his music?
jmkate wrote:
And this song is so emotionally drenched.
Such a marvelous album.
And this song is so emotionally drenched.
Such a marvelous album.
psb wrote:
I'm not a huge U2 fan, I love a few of their albums but don't follow them. I find the vitriol thrown in Bono's direction rather perplexing. Seems like a lot of shadow casting.
It remains impossible to judge the art by the artist, and this is a
perfect example…. Beautiful music, hard to believe that such an ass
like Bono could have produced it…
perfect example…. Beautiful music, hard to believe that such an ass
like Bono could have produced it…
I'm not a huge U2 fan, I love a few of their albums but don't follow them. I find the vitriol thrown in Bono's direction rather perplexing. Seems like a lot of shadow casting.
I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill.
It remains impossible to judge the art by the artist, and this is a
perfect example…. Beautiful music, hard to believe that such an ass
like Bono could have produced it…
perfect example…. Beautiful music, hard to believe that such an ass
like Bono could have produced it…
lynn01 wrote:
Funny, because usually, this isn't even the fourth- or fifth-most played song from this album.
RP is the best station ever, and U2 is a great band, but this is the single most overplayed song here. This is the 2nd time today I have heard this song within a 12 hours period - granted the first time was the live version, but this song gets too much rotation.
Funny, because usually, this isn't even the fourth- or fifth-most played song from this album.
The Joshua tree has been voted,best album of the 80’s and deservingly so,awesome 10 😊
RP is the best station ever, and U2 is a great band, but this is the single most overplayed song here. This is the 2nd time today I have heard this song within a 12 hours period - granted the first time was the live version, but this song gets too much rotation.
Truly is a 10 - " Godlike"
h8rhater wrote:
Maybe just a filter of all comments that contain the letters 'PSD', since they're all so trite and predictable.
Yes! I hit PSD now and then, but I don't trash talk the song I don't like before I leave it.
Maybe just a filter of all comments that contain the letters 'PSD', since they're all so trite and predictable.
Yes! I hit PSD now and then, but I don't trash talk the song I don't like before I leave it.
SpencerAR wrote:
That reminds me - Bill, would you mind playing some more of The Monkees? Thanks...
Ha! Yes! I would like to hear some Monkees as well!
That reminds me - Bill, would you mind playing some more of The Monkees? Thanks...
Ha! Yes! I would like to hear some Monkees as well!
sxediy wrote:
Maybe your just an asshole with no taste
primitive music, too overrated band
Maybe your just an asshole with no taste
Always a good track to crank up the volume from one of the best albums of all time. IMHO. Even had to name my son Joshua. Finally visited the Joshua Tree national park last year and it did mot disappoint.
Always 10
Nice Kiwi link up there, Bill.
Beautiful tune. Never gets old.
BCarn wrote:
Oh bullshit. You like them and you know it. They're good. Really good.
And no one cares about what you call your "U2 bombs". I'm sure you're sitting there thinking "Yup, I'll show those U2 lovers...yup, I sherrrrrrr will, yup."
And by the way it's "Monkees".
Git.
That reminds me - Bill, would you mind playing some more of The Monkees? Thanks...
Oh bullshit. You like them and you know it. They're good. Really good.
And no one cares about what you call your "U2 bombs". I'm sure you're sitting there thinking "Yup, I'll show those U2 lovers...yup, I sherrrrrrr will, yup."
And by the way it's "Monkees".
Git.
That reminds me - Bill, would you mind playing some more of The Monkees? Thanks...
primitive music, too overrated band
below72 wrote:
Oh bullshit. You like them and you know it. They're good. Really good.
And no one cares about what you call your "U2 bombs". I'm sure you're sitting there thinking "Yup, I'll show those U2 lovers...yup, I sherrrrrrr will, yup."
And by the way it's "Monkees".
Git.
The most over rated and over played musical group since The Monkeys. In 50 years people will be saying what?? How did this band get out of the bowery? Never ceases to amaze me how repetitive and boring this band is. You keep playin' em' Bill...I'll keep trashin' em'
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
Oh bullshit. You like them and you know it. They're good. Really good.
And no one cares about what you call your "U2 bombs". I'm sure you're sitting there thinking "Yup, I'll show those U2 lovers...yup, I sherrrrrrr will, yup."
And by the way it's "Monkees".
Git.
I disagree with the last comment. This IS the best song on the album. Death runs down to the ocean and becomes what it is.
not even close to the best song on this album, but then this is one of those albums that's best listened to all together.
ecojot wrote:
I think you can tolerate U2 far more than you admit.
This song is hardly alone in the rough, even on the album that it comes from. Much less the many other stellar albums in the U2 catalog. Releases that run right up to 2017 (so far).
There's really no need to be a sheeple and share the twisted "U2 Sucks" ethos so deeply ingrained in these boards.
Cannot normally tolerate U2, but this song is fantastic. Diamond in the rough
I think you can tolerate U2 far more than you admit.
This song is hardly alone in the rough, even on the album that it comes from. Much less the many other stellar albums in the U2 catalog. Releases that run right up to 2017 (so far).
There's really no need to be a sheeple and share the twisted "U2 Sucks" ethos so deeply ingrained in these boards.
This was always my favorite song from this album. maybe my favorite U2 song of all time...
fraserji wrote:
Maybe just a filter of all comments that contain the letters 'PSD', since they're all so trite and predictable.
I really like the PSD option on Radio Paradise. What I'd really like, though, is a U2 filter button.
Maybe just a filter of all comments that contain the letters 'PSD', since they're all so trite and predictable.
cosmiclint wrote:
Always been my favorite of theirs. It's a 10 for me.
Don't know why I had this at nine. In my top 3 as far as U2 songs go.
Always been my favorite of theirs. It's a 10 for me.
Don't know why I had this at nine. In my top 3 as far as U2 songs go.
7 - Quite Likeable only
The story behind this song is so powerful.
-John
-John
Don't understand how anyone can not like U2......especially Joshua Tree U2
I really like the PSD option on Radio Paradise. What I'd really like, though, is a U2 filter button.
Don't ask me why, but when he's torturing his vocal cords towards the end of this I am inexorably reminded of someone trying to wring the last drops of water out of a wet cloth.
I think your playlist is stuck on repeat...
Can't listen to this without breaking out into a cry.
In my Top Ten. Desert Island Discs.Kickass song.
I my Top Ten
Clyde_Bedow wrote:
pretty sure it's "monkees" but maybe not.
I guess I am a troll too. And I don't mind. Music is subjective, and its just an opinion, but I am with below72, except I would take it further to say there are Monkeys songs I'd rate higher. It would be a rare U2 song that registered over a 4 for me.
I have never understood the intense love many people have for this band personally. Just don't get it. But I have that right, troll or not.
I have never understood the intense love many people have for this band personally. Just don't get it. But I have that right, troll or not.
pretty sure it's "monkees" but maybe not.
justin4kick wrote:
i love this entire album, but this one is pretty special to me. might be my fav track of theirs.
The best track of their best album. Bono and The Edge at their very best
i love this entire album, but this one is pretty special to me. might be my fav track of theirs.The best track of their best album. Bono and The Edge at their very best
Great song!
I've just been writing about this song in my memoirs. "One Tree Hill" was written for Greg Carroll, Bono's personal roadie, who was tragically killed in an accident in Dublin. He was back in New Zealand 6 months before his death, and spent an afternoon among friends at my home on Takapuna Beach. His death made that gathering even more special.
Posted: Mar 12, 2017 13:30, below72 wrote:
The most over rated and over played musical group since The Monkeys. In 50 years people will be saying what?? How did this band get out of the bowery? Never ceases to amaze me how repetitive and boring this band is. You keep playin' em' Bill...I'll keep trashin' em'
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
jbuhl wrote:I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
Internet Troll is a real personality disorder and we understand the struggle. You have taken the first step at recovery and there are many great resources out there for you so don't be afraid. I am sure all of RP users wish you the best.
So....on the one hand I want to 72% agree with below72, as U2 is one of those bands that I've very slowly started to appreciate, and even then I'm way off the mark compared to the U2 fans out there.
Now, on the other hand, after I read jbuhl's reply, I laughed so hard that my rear end fell off my torso. Although as far as negative comments go, below72 did give some reasoning and thoughts about it, and didn't just say "U2 sux"
I've got this song rated a 6, and I think the highest U2 song I have rated might be a 7. And that's OK...we can't all like the same music.
Long Live RP!
Just saw U2 perform this live at Levi Stadium - powerful performance, especially with the backstory. Great, great performance.
coloradojohn wrote:
Ditto.
Every time, when the guitar-strumming begins its dance with the drums, the bass, the voice and synthesizers, this song hits me hard.
Ditto.
I guess I am a troll too. And I don't mind. Music is subjective, and its just an opinion, but I am with below72, except I would take it further to say there are Monkeys songs I'd rate higher. It would be a rare U2 song that registered over a 4 for me.
I have never understood the intense love many people have for this band personally. Just don't get it. But I have that right, troll or not.
I have never understood the intense love many people have for this band personally. Just don't get it. But I have that right, troll or not.
below72 wrote:
Internet Troll is a real personality disorder and we understand the struggle. You have taken the first step at recovery and there are many great resources out there for you so don't be afraid. I am sure all of RP users wish you the best.
The most over rated and over played musical group since The Monkeys. In 50 years people will be saying what?? How did this band get out of the bowery? Never ceases to amaze me how repetitive and boring this band is. You keep playin' em' Bill...I'll keep trashin' em'
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
Internet Troll is a real personality disorder and we understand the struggle. You have taken the first step at recovery and there are many great resources out there for you so don't be afraid. I am sure all of RP users wish you the best.
Yep rare 10 for me. The shuffle percussion and the guitar that sounds like church bells and yes the singing.
Yes run to the ocean
Yes run to the ocean
Every time, when the guitar-strumming begins its dance with the drums, the bass, the voice and synthesizers, this song hits me hard.
Coming (maybe) to a venue near you....
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/09/u2-santa-clara-lands-joshua-tree-tour-date/
I'll be seeing them in Santa Clara in May. Should be a great show.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/09/u2-santa-clara-lands-joshua-tree-tour-date/
I'll be seeing them in Santa Clara in May. Should be a great show.
Love One tree hill. Just voted it a godlike 10, and yes I mean it. (part of the soundtrack to my life)
On_The_Beach wrote:
What, you haven't heard?
It's no longer cool to like U2, and definitely not cool to like Bono!
Don't go with your honest opinion; post "Bono sucks!" like all the other haters.
Yah, then you'll be cool man, and that's what really matters.
May be you are right when we talk about U2 and their records today, but you are wrong and uncool if we talk about their songs out of the eighties like this one here!
What, you haven't heard?
It's no longer cool to like U2, and definitely not cool to like Bono!
Don't go with your honest opinion; post "Bono sucks!" like all the other haters.
Yah, then you'll be cool man, and that's what really matters.
May be you are right when we talk about U2 and their records today, but you are wrong and uncool if we talk about their songs out of the eighties like this one here!
what a voice...amazing still after so many years
Classic group, classic album and classic song! Rock on Bill. Thanks for playing non traditional U2 Song!
easmann wrote:
Dude, dude...you wanna' caucasian?
I'm the bowling ball...
U2 are the pins
Dude, dude...you wanna' caucasian?
I'm the bowling ball...
U2 are the pins
The most over rated and over played musical group since The Monkeys. In 50 years people will be saying what?? How did this band get out of the bowery? Never ceases to amaze me how repetitive and boring this band is. You keep playin' em' Bill...I'll keep trashin' em'
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
I also get doubled over in fits of uncontrollable laughter, at how the U2 army gets so upset at my U2 bombs. It's a crack up!
Bill, I just found out about the death of an old, dear fellow Coast Guard friend of mine - from Montana. I tuned in at the beginning of the last three songs (Cold Montana Waters, Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, and One Tree Hill), which all relate both personally and in the larger sense to him and our friendship. Thanks man. A balm in tough times.
below72 wrote:
I like 'em.
And one more thing...I don't really give a hoot about Utoo's political commentary. The band freakin' SUCKS - always have - always will. Worst guitar sounds ever recorded.
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
I like 'em.
below72 wrote:
8.1 average out of 1800 plus, get your fricking ignorant head out of your ass! you are in the minority BIG TIME SPARE US YOUR DRIVEL!
And one more thing...I don't really give a hoot about Utoo's political commentary. The band freakin' SUCKS - always have - always will. Worst guitar sounds ever recorded.
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
8.1 average out of 1800 plus, get your fricking ignorant head out of your ass! you are in the minority BIG TIME SPARE US YOUR DRIVEL!
Wow. The transition from La Bamba to One Tree Hill ... I don't know why but that just really got to me. Even though I don't particularly like either song, this combination just made sense.
this track just made my day. Great job Bill (as always!)
below72 wrote:
Is baby having a tantrum?
And one more thing...I don't really give a hoot about Utoo's political commentary. The band freakin' SUCKS - always have - always will. Worst guitar sounds ever recorded.
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
Is baby having a tantrum?
And one more thing...I don't really give a hoot about Utoo's political commentary. The band freakin' SUCKS - always have - always will. Worst guitar sounds ever recorded.
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
I'll listen to 5 days of CCR's Proud Mary, Def Leppard, Hootie, Bon Jovi, Kanye West, Tupac, Jay Z, NAS and hip-hop in my sleep - if you STOP THE U2 MADNESS!
below72 wrote:
HEY BILL - This is the deal... I'm going to count U2 songs today - (You clearly are not getting my message so you must be a big Utoo) fan.That being said - if you play more than the number in my head...then I don't send you any more money...
g
g
HEY BILL - This is the deal... I'm going to count U2 songs today - (You clearly are not getting my message so you must be a big Utoo) fan.That being said - if you play more than the number in my head...then I don't send you any more money...
g
g
cool to actually see a photo of it on the slide show 
Their best album, for me
U2's greatest achievement as a song came together in a perfect, albeit sad, storm
Wow, this bass guitar...
Cannot normally tolerate U2, but this song is fantastic. Diamond in the rough
Always loved this song. Years later, I somehow I ended-up getting married on the doorstep of The Joshua Tree National Park on a natural oasis. I am very lucky.
Hard to believe it's been almost 29 years since this magnificent testament to poetic emotion manifested in sublime musicality on every level... I recall tokin' up, cruising in to Sequoia Nat'l Park at sunrise with this on the tape-deck after an all-night trip party in SLO-town.
Whoa. The transition from Cowboy Junkies - Common Disaster to U2 was pretty freakin sweet! This is what makes RP so awesome. And rum too.
Bill, didn't you play this, like, three days ago?
stunix wrote:
I'm with you
the best album U2 did, I'll rate this a 2.
I'm with you
Beautiful song - much better than that La Bamba nonsense.
easmann wrote:
thank you for this.
"The track was written in memory of Greg Carroll, a Māori man the band first met in Auckland during The Unforgettable Fire Tour in 1984. He became very close friend with lead singer Bono and served as a roadie for the group. Carroll was killed in July 1986 in a motorcycle accident in Dublin. Following the funeral in New Zealand, Bono wrote the lyrics to 'One Tree Hill', which he dedicated to Carroll. The lyrics reflect Bono's thoughts at the funeral and reflect on his first night in New Zealand when Greg took him up Auckland's Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill, as well as paying homage to Chilean singer-songwriter and activist Víctor Jara."
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song)
"On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. A car had pulled in front of him, and unable to stop in the rain, Carroll struck the side of the car and was killed instantly."
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song), Inspiration, writing, and recording
"And when it's rainin', rainin' hard
That's when the rain will break my heart." ...
"I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill."
— U2, One Tree Hill
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song)
"On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. A car had pulled in front of him, and unable to stop in the rain, Carroll struck the side of the car and was killed instantly."
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song), Inspiration, writing, and recording
"And when it's rainin', rainin' hard
That's when the rain will break my heart." ...
"I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill."
— U2, One Tree Hill
thank you for this.
the best album U2 did, I'll rate this a 2.
"The track was written in memory of Greg Carroll, a Māori man the band first met in Auckland during The Unforgettable Fire Tour in 1984. He became very close friend with lead singer Bono and served as a roadie for the group. Carroll was killed in July 1986 in a motorcycle accident in Dublin. Following the funeral in New Zealand, Bono wrote the lyrics to 'One Tree Hill', which he dedicated to Carroll. The lyrics reflect Bono's thoughts at the funeral and reflect on his first night in New Zealand when Greg took him up Auckland's Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill, as well as paying homage to Chilean singer-songwriter and activist Víctor Jara."
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song)
"On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. A car had pulled in front of him, and unable to stop in the rain, Carroll struck the side of the car and was killed instantly."
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song), Inspiration, writing, and recording
"And when it's rainin', rainin' hard
That's when the rain will break my heart." ...
"I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill."
— U2, One Tree Hill
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song)
"On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. A car had pulled in front of him, and unable to stop in the rain, Carroll struck the side of the car and was killed instantly."
— Wikipedia, One Tree Hill (song), Inspiration, writing, and recording
"And when it's rainin', rainin' hard
That's when the rain will break my heart." ...
"I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky
And the moon has turned red over One Tree Hill."
— U2, One Tree Hill
When visiting the Josua Tree National Park this record was my soundtrack in the car, I have been playing it since it was released and never get feed up of it. And this is one of the hidden treasures in this album!
One of my favorite U2 songs. Makes my Sunday :)
Biscobret wrote:
Then you're not sure, right?
Everyone in my church is dancing... and I'm agnostic!
Then you're not sure, right?
The best song on the album. Loved it when the remastered CD put the end of the song back where it began, instead of putting it at the beginning of the next one. And yes, I even love Bono's mispronunciation of "Jara" - if you haven't heard any of Victor Jara's songs, take a look. Haunting stuff.
boober wrote:
My original comment was responding to Lazarus for a comment that was related to the music because it dealt with the lyrics. He deleted the bulk of his comment after I wrote my response. Kcar is obsessed with what I write here at RP. I no longer read or respond to kcar's psychotic ravings, which are deeply disturbing to see I agree. I am surprised any one could equate my comments with kcar's --- I don't agree with that at all. BTW...No one sent me a private message concerning the factual content of my comments here at RP.
KCAR and RDO.......get back to the music.
Tired of reading your B.S. !!!!
My original comment was responding to Lazarus for a comment that was related to the music because it dealt with the lyrics. He deleted the bulk of his comment after I wrote my response. Kcar is obsessed with what I write here at RP. I no longer read or respond to kcar's psychotic ravings, which are deeply disturbing to see I agree. I am surprised any one could equate my comments with kcar's --- I don't agree with that at all. BTW...No one sent me a private message concerning the factual content of my comments here at RP.
Back when U2, you know, mattered and made music
boober wrote:
Everybody in my alien space craft loves this song, and this marvelous album...
hope life is marvelous for you right now, boober...
KCAR and RDO.......get back to the music.
Tired of reading your B.S. !!!!
Everybody in my alien space craft loves this song, and this marvelous album...
hope life is marvelous for you right now, boober...
Love watching fog roll in listening to this song........
where poets bleed...
KCAR and RDO.......get back to the music.
Tired of reading your B.S. !!!!
Seems like Edge wants to give us a hint a Maori strumming in the guitar intro. It's been posted, but for those who don't know, "One Tree Hill" is a famous Auckland, NZ landmark. And formerly it was an important Maori landmark.
OMG! It is hard to decide which U2 song is my most favorite, but I do love this one. I gave it a 10!
Had to check in to make sure I had rated this a 10 already.
Check!
Check!
scrubbrush wrote:
Not only one of the best U2 songs, but perhaps one of the most beautiful songs ever written and produced. Whole album is a 10!
Beautiful song. I still have the vinyl. I agree that U2's star has faded a bit, but they have produced some songs that are so amazing that they will certainly be played and apprciated by genrations to come for hundreds of years to come.
Not only one of the best U2 songs, but perhaps one of the most beautiful songs ever written and produced. Whole album is a 10!
10.
Timeless
Classic
Love this song
goodving wrote:
.... why not use the PSD button - it works fine when U2 comes on
Every time I hear U2 on RP I change the station and listen to something else.
.... why not use the PSD button - it works fine when U2 comes on
True nostalgia
rdo wrote:
Kcar. —- i no longer read your posts because they are lame propaganda
For the rest of you all... let it be known that Lazarus deleted his obnoxious comments which was my primary objective. Mission accomplished
Let it also be known that if anyone thinks i have posted comments that are not supported by facts. —- mark it, send me a private message and i agree to respond to the comment where it was posted. this i promise
Note the weasel words "US supported". If you believe the US "supported" "death squads" then you do not know history. My guess is you are a conspiracy nut. In Chile the worst the US has been accused of by serious historians is meddling. No one even accusses the CIA of ever pulling a trigger to oust Allende. The US did back some bad guys with aid. It was the Cold War. If we back bad guys who were courting our sworn enemy USSR I do not see what sense it would make strategically. No one cares about this. We one the war and we did the best we could, and no one supported death squads.
In the above post you promise to respond to complaints that post comments not supported by facts. Yet when I post substantive information—the CIA sent a secret cable to Washington reporting on mass murders by right-wing groups; Amnesty International was publicly accusing that the Guatemalan government "of routinely killing and torturing political opponents" and the US under Reagan began around that time to resume military aid to the country, as reported in a published Miami Herald Article—you do not respond.
Rather than countering my post with your own facts or evidence, all you have to offer is a comment about "lame propaganda."
IF IT'S LAME PROPAGANDA, THEN SHOW UP WITH YOUR OWN COUNTER-STATEMENT BACKED BY FACTS. Can you prove that my posts are propaganda?
Is this Washington Post article on the polarizing legacy of Ronald Reagan just propaganda?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html
You promise on February 6 to back all your comments up with facts, yet on March 6 you write:
"If you believe the US "supported" "death squads" then you do not know history. My guess is you are a conspiracy nut."
WHERE WERE YOUR FACTS ON MARCH 6?
Did Bill Clinton publicly apologize in March '99 for US support of Guatemalan government atrocities for nothing?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/12/jeremylennard.martinkettle
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/11/world/clinton-offers-his-apologies-to-guatemala.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/clinton11.htm
Is this chronology of US Govt. policy in Guatemala 1966-1996, backed by photos of actual State Dept., CIA and DIA documents, just propaganda? I don't think so:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB11/docs/
rdo, I have no problem with people disagreeing me. If someone proves my assertions wrong, I am willing to state I was wrong. But it's unfortunate that you are not willing to continue a serious discussion on American foreign policy when faced with evidence that refutes your assertions.
Kcar. —- i no longer read your posts because they are lame propaganda
For the rest of you all... let it be known that Lazarus deleted his obnoxious comments which was my primary objective. Mission accomplished
Let it also be known that if anyone thinks i have posted comments that are not supported by facts. —- mark it, send me a private message and i agree to respond to the comment where it was posted. this i promise
Note the weasel words "US supported". If you believe the US "supported" "death squads" then you do not know history. My guess is you are a conspiracy nut. In Chile the worst the US has been accused of by serious historians is meddling. No one even accusses the CIA of ever pulling a trigger to oust Allende. The US did back some bad guys with aid. It was the Cold War. If we back bad guys who were courting our sworn enemy USSR I do not see what sense it would make strategically. No one cares about this. We one the war and we did the best we could, and no one supported death squads.
In the above post you promise to respond to complaints that post comments not supported by facts. Yet when I post substantive information—the CIA sent a secret cable to Washington reporting on mass murders by right-wing groups; Amnesty International was publicly accusing that the Guatemalan government "of routinely killing and torturing political opponents" and the US under Reagan began around that time to resume military aid to the country, as reported in a published Miami Herald Article—you do not respond.
Rather than countering my post with your own facts or evidence, all you have to offer is a comment about "lame propaganda."
IF IT'S LAME PROPAGANDA, THEN SHOW UP WITH YOUR OWN COUNTER-STATEMENT BACKED BY FACTS. Can you prove that my posts are propaganda?
Is this Washington Post article on the polarizing legacy of Ronald Reagan just propaganda?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html
You promise on February 6 to back all your comments up with facts, yet on March 6 you write:
"If you believe the US "supported" "death squads" then you do not know history. My guess is you are a conspiracy nut."
WHERE WERE YOUR FACTS ON MARCH 6?
Did Bill Clinton publicly apologize in March '99 for US support of Guatemalan government atrocities for nothing?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/12/jeremylennard.martinkettle
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/11/world/clinton-offers-his-apologies-to-guatemala.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/clinton11.htm
Is this chronology of US Govt. policy in Guatemala 1966-1996, backed by photos of actual State Dept., CIA and DIA documents, just propaganda? I don't think so:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB11/docs/
rdo, I have no problem with people disagreeing me. If someone proves my assertions wrong, I am willing to state I was wrong. But it's unfortunate that you are not willing to continue a serious discussion on American foreign policy when faced with evidence that refutes your assertions.
dingleberry wrote:
Note the weasel words "US supported". If you believe the US "supported" "death squads" then you do not know history. My guess is you are a conspiracy nut. In Chile the worst the US has been accused of by serious historians is meddling. No one even accusses the CIA of ever pulling a trigger to oust Allende. The US did back some bad guys with aid. It was the Cold War. If we back bad guys who were courting our sworn enemy USSR I do not see what sense it would make strategically. No one cares about this. We one the war and we did the best we could, and no one supported death squads.
rdo, the statements you make such as
"It is very hard to know what is going on when these things happen. They are always highly debated and contentious. Also, both sides in the Central and South American wars committed mass murders, whether their leaders were backed by the US or Russia or neither. It was the way things always went there..."
this is pure revisionism.
Lots of people (who weren't around in the early 80's) might read your comments and think, Oh, there was bad on both sides. It was all "equal."
But my rather clear memory of that time is how v. obvious it was what was going on in central and s. america. I will reference the Costa Gavras film Missing, which came out in '82. About Chile but widely seen as a parallel to the disappearances that were going on at the time in Guatemela, El Salvador and elsewhere. It was the govt and US supported death squads who were rounding up peasants, not hardly the other way round.
The backing of Russia or Cuba for what were largely indigenous movements has always been overstated. That was the card the US played at the time, much in the way Al Qaeda is used now.
"It is very hard to know what is going on when these things happen. They are always highly debated and contentious. Also, both sides in the Central and South American wars committed mass murders, whether their leaders were backed by the US or Russia or neither. It was the way things always went there..."
this is pure revisionism.
Lots of people (who weren't around in the early 80's) might read your comments and think, Oh, there was bad on both sides. It was all "equal."
But my rather clear memory of that time is how v. obvious it was what was going on in central and s. america. I will reference the Costa Gavras film Missing, which came out in '82. About Chile but widely seen as a parallel to the disappearances that were going on at the time in Guatemela, El Salvador and elsewhere. It was the govt and US supported death squads who were rounding up peasants, not hardly the other way round.
The backing of Russia or Cuba for what were largely indigenous movements has always been overstated. That was the card the US played at the time, much in the way Al Qaeda is used now.
Note the weasel words "US supported". If you believe the US "supported" "death squads" then you do not know history. My guess is you are a conspiracy nut. In Chile the worst the US has been accused of by serious historians is meddling. No one even accusses the CIA of ever pulling a trigger to oust Allende. The US did back some bad guys with aid. It was the Cold War. If we back bad guys who were courting our sworn enemy USSR I do not see what sense it would make strategically. No one cares about this. We one the war and we did the best we could, and no one supported death squads.
rdo, the statements you make such as
"It is very hard to know what is going on when these things happen. They are always highly debated and contentious. Also, both sides in the Central and South American wars committed mass murders, whether their leaders were backed by the US or Russia or neither. It was the way things always went there..."
this is pure revisionism.
Lots of people (who weren't around in the early 80's) might read your comments and think, Oh, there was bad on both sides. It was all "equal."
But my rather clear memory of that time is how v. obvious it was what was going on in central and s. america. I will reference the Costa Gavras film Missing, which came out in '82. About Chile but widely seen as a parallel to the disappearances that were going on at the time in Guatemela, El Salvador and elsewhere. It was the govt and US supported death squads who were rounding up peasants, not hardly the other way round.
The backing of Russia or Cuba for what were largely indigenous movements has always been overstated. That was the card the US played at the time, much in the way Al Qaeda is used now.
"It is very hard to know what is going on when these things happen. They are always highly debated and contentious. Also, both sides in the Central and South American wars committed mass murders, whether their leaders were backed by the US or Russia or neither. It was the way things always went there..."
this is pure revisionism.
Lots of people (who weren't around in the early 80's) might read your comments and think, Oh, there was bad on both sides. It was all "equal."
But my rather clear memory of that time is how v. obvious it was what was going on in central and s. america. I will reference the Costa Gavras film Missing, which came out in '82. About Chile but widely seen as a parallel to the disappearances that were going on at the time in Guatemela, El Salvador and elsewhere. It was the govt and US supported death squads who were rounding up peasants, not hardly the other way round.
The backing of Russia or Cuba for what were largely indigenous movements has always been overstated. That was the card the US played at the time, much in the way Al Qaeda is used now.
kcar wrote:
Don't know much about this discussion you're having with Lazarus or Guatemala's history but I disagree with your assertion that "The POTUS could not possibly have known what a thug like Montt was up to." Wikipedia isn't always the greatest source, but you should check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt
and especially the section titled "US backing." The CIA was and is quite incompetent (I highly recommend Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes", winner of the National Book Award) but it was reporting on human riots violations and right-wing murders on a large scale in at least one secret cable in February '83. A June '81 Palm Beach Post article cited by the Wikipedia article mentioned that Amnesty International was accusing the Guatemalan government "of routinely killing and torturing political opponents." Given that the article was largely about the sale of US military trucks to Guatemala and its significance as a possible start to Reagan's reversal of the Carter administration's formal decision to end military aid to Guatemala in light of human rights violations, it's quite likely that Reagan knew full well what Montt and his predecessors were up to.
Reagan was quite willing to back right-wing leaders in South America as allies against the spread of Cuban influence in the region. Nixon did the same thing with Augusto Pinochet, although it appears that the CIA was not involved in the Chilean military's coup against President Salvador Allende in 1973. Reagan likely did have some power to reign in the excesses of Montt, Pinochet and the like. CIA Director Bill Casey may have shielded Reagan from detailed knowledge of Montt's program of torture and killing, but such crimes were known by groups like Amnesty International. Those crimes weren't a deep dark secret to Washington or Reagan.
The responsibilities of US Presidents are not limitless and unknowable, rdo, even when it comes to foreign policy. Reagan apparently had to certify to Congress that human rights in Guatemala were improving under Montt in order to send military aid and materiel to Guatemala, so he certainly had the duty to investigate the issue and make a decision. I'd say he failed in that duty and I also doubt that he was largely powerless to rein in the excesses of the foreign leaders he supported.
Kcar. --- i no longer read your posts because they are lame propaganda
For the rest of you all... let it be known that Lazarus deleted his obnoxious comments which was my primary objective. Mission accomplished
Let it also be known that if anyone thinks i have posted comments that are not supported by facts. --- mark it, send me a private message and i agree to respond to the comment where it was posted. this i promise
Don't know much about this discussion you're having with Lazarus or Guatemala's history but I disagree with your assertion that "The POTUS could not possibly have known what a thug like Montt was up to." Wikipedia isn't always the greatest source, but you should check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt
and especially the section titled "US backing." The CIA was and is quite incompetent (I highly recommend Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes", winner of the National Book Award) but it was reporting on human riots violations and right-wing murders on a large scale in at least one secret cable in February '83. A June '81 Palm Beach Post article cited by the Wikipedia article mentioned that Amnesty International was accusing the Guatemalan government "of routinely killing and torturing political opponents." Given that the article was largely about the sale of US military trucks to Guatemala and its significance as a possible start to Reagan's reversal of the Carter administration's formal decision to end military aid to Guatemala in light of human rights violations, it's quite likely that Reagan knew full well what Montt and his predecessors were up to.
Reagan was quite willing to back right-wing leaders in South America as allies against the spread of Cuban influence in the region. Nixon did the same thing with Augusto Pinochet, although it appears that the CIA was not involved in the Chilean military's coup against President Salvador Allende in 1973. Reagan likely did have some power to reign in the excesses of Montt, Pinochet and the like. CIA Director Bill Casey may have shielded Reagan from detailed knowledge of Montt's program of torture and killing, but such crimes were known by groups like Amnesty International. Those crimes weren't a deep dark secret to Washington or Reagan.
The responsibilities of US Presidents are not limitless and unknowable, rdo, even when it comes to foreign policy. Reagan apparently had to certify to Congress that human rights in Guatemala were improving under Montt in order to send military aid and materiel to Guatemala, so he certainly had the duty to investigate the issue and make a decision. I'd say he failed in that duty and I also doubt that he was largely powerless to rein in the excesses of the foreign leaders he supported.
Kcar. --- i no longer read your posts because they are lame propaganda
For the rest of you all... let it be known that Lazarus deleted his obnoxious comments which was my primary objective. Mission accomplished
Let it also be known that if anyone thinks i have posted comments that are not supported by facts. --- mark it, send me a private message and i agree to respond to the comment where it was posted. this i promise
Beautiful song. I still have the vinyl. I agree that U2's star has faded a bit, but they have produced some songs that are so amazing that they will certainly be played and apprciated by genrations to come for hundreds of years to come.
Of all U2 songs, this is the only one I really actually have any affection for. Love it.
rdo wrote:
Don't know much about this discussion you're having with Lazarus or Guatemala's history but I disagree with your assertion that "The POTUS could not possibly have known what a thug like Montt was up to." Wikipedia isn't always the greatest source, but you should check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt
and especially the section titled "US backing." The CIA was and is quite incompetent (I highly recommend Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes", winner of the National Book Award) but it was reporting on human riots violations and right-wing murders on a large scale in at least one secret cable in February '83. A June '81 Palm Beach Post article cited by the Wikipedia article mentioned that Amnesty International was accusing the Guatemalan government "of routinely killing and torturing political opponents." Given that the article was largely about the sale of US military trucks to Guatemala and its significance as a possible start to Reagan's reversal of the Carter administration's formal decision to end military aid to Guatemala in light of human rights violations, it's quite likely that Reagan knew full well what Montt and his predecessors were up to.
Reagan was quite willing to back right-wing leaders in South America as allies against the spread of Cuban influence in the region. Nixon did the same thing with Augusto Pinochet, although it appears that the CIA was not involved in the Chilean military's coup against President Salvador Allende in 1973. Reagan likely did have some power to reign in the excesses of Montt, Pinochet and the like. CIA Director Bill Casey may have shielded Reagan from detailed knowledge of Montt's program of torture and killing, but such crimes were known by groups like Amnesty International. Those crimes weren't a deep dark secret to Washington or Reagan.
The responsibilities of US Presidents are not limitless and unknowable, rdo, even when it comes to foreign policy. Reagan apparently had to certify to Congress that human rights in Guatemala were improving under Montt in order to send military aid and materiel to Guatemala, so he certainly had the duty to investigate the issue and make a decision. I'd say he failed in that duty and I also doubt that he was largely powerless to rein in the excesses of the foreign leaders he supported.
Lazarus, in Guatemala, right now as we discuss this, Rios Montt is on trial for the alleged genocide. The Guatemalans will decide his fate in a court of law, the evidence will be weighed, and justice will very likely be served. I don’t know if he is guilty (he probably is), I was not there. Neither were you. Even the CIA does not know for sure (then or now). People like Chomsky have always wildly over-estimated the competence and efficacy of the CIA. There is a recent in-depth analysis of the Montt trial by Aryeh Neier, in NYRB, which I read long before this discussion began between you and I, so I am not ignorant of it. It quotes the same Reagan “man of integrity” quote. The POTUS could not possibly have known what a thug like Montt was up to. Do you think a third world banana republic dictator like that just phones up his CIA backers and blithely informs them “hey, here’s an FYI, just a heads up for ya'all, I’m just gonna go ahead and kill a bunch of innocent peasants for no reason”. How would a senile, 80-year old Reagan have known about this? How would this information come to his desk? and then what? do you think he just signs some slip that says “mission approved, go for it Montty”. Why on earth would he do this? The POTUS has myriad responsibilities that neither you nor I could possibly fathom. Let’s say he did know beforehand that Montt was a murderer, and so instead he'd decided to back the “moderately liberal” communists (moderate communists, that’s very funny, Lazarus). The results would have been the same. We’d be talking about a left-wing murderer instead (as was the case in SE Asia).
Don't know much about this discussion you're having with Lazarus or Guatemala's history but I disagree with your assertion that "The POTUS could not possibly have known what a thug like Montt was up to." Wikipedia isn't always the greatest source, but you should check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt
and especially the section titled "US backing." The CIA was and is quite incompetent (I highly recommend Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes", winner of the National Book Award) but it was reporting on human riots violations and right-wing murders on a large scale in at least one secret cable in February '83. A June '81 Palm Beach Post article cited by the Wikipedia article mentioned that Amnesty International was accusing the Guatemalan government "of routinely killing and torturing political opponents." Given that the article was largely about the sale of US military trucks to Guatemala and its significance as a possible start to Reagan's reversal of the Carter administration's formal decision to end military aid to Guatemala in light of human rights violations, it's quite likely that Reagan knew full well what Montt and his predecessors were up to.
Reagan was quite willing to back right-wing leaders in South America as allies against the spread of Cuban influence in the region. Nixon did the same thing with Augusto Pinochet, although it appears that the CIA was not involved in the Chilean military's coup against President Salvador Allende in 1973. Reagan likely did have some power to reign in the excesses of Montt, Pinochet and the like. CIA Director Bill Casey may have shielded Reagan from detailed knowledge of Montt's program of torture and killing, but such crimes were known by groups like Amnesty International. Those crimes weren't a deep dark secret to Washington or Reagan.
The responsibilities of US Presidents are not limitless and unknowable, rdo, even when it comes to foreign policy. Reagan apparently had to certify to Congress that human rights in Guatemala were improving under Montt in order to send military aid and materiel to Guatemala, so he certainly had the duty to investigate the issue and make a decision. I'd say he failed in that duty and I also doubt that he was largely powerless to rein in the excesses of the foreign leaders he supported.
Back when U2 were good, before bono started acting like a deity.
"I don't believe in painted roses or bleeding hearts
While bullets rape the night of the merciful."
Great lyrics. And there's lot's more great work on this album. I think it's probably their best. Not sure what all the haters are about.
While bullets rape the night of the merciful."
Great lyrics. And there's lot's more great work on this album. I think it's probably their best. Not sure what all the haters are about.
I know the RP Slideshow has a tough time with some titles, but you'd think this one would be easy - and yet - most of the images are of hills with several trees.
This oughta mean we have a few more good years before the machines take over.
from what I've been reading, we've got some time as the AI that's out there still makes mistakes, does broader searches than a human, turns out adequate writing (ChatGPT).
Back to the music...