So, are you mongers ready for the big war coming up? Any opinions about it?

Let me give you my two pesos' worth about coming events:

a) Saddam is evil and should go.

b) He probably does have some anthrax lying around.

c) The missile stuff they are talking about today is no big deal, SA-2's have a range of 50 kilometers.

d) The war would be quick, although lots of civilians will be killed off-camera.

Having said that:

a) The war is a real bad idea, unless we can con lots of people from other countries in sending their troops to be killed alongside ours. There is no substitute for a UN resolution.

b) Clearly, Bush/Cheney want the Iraqi oil for Halliburton (Cheney's old company), that's why Bush wants a US commander for occupied Iraq.

c) If we go it alone (or almost alone) bad things will happen post-war. Bush doesn't talk about that.

A few million dead arabs, more or less, will be nobody's loss. What is really pathetic is watching the worthless French, who would have lost WWI if not for us and the UK, and who set a world record for "fastest craven surrender by a major power" in 1940, posture about "peace". France stood by and did nothing during the Rwanda genocide in the 90's, and is presently violently repressing an insurrection in the Ivory Coast, yet presumes to tell US about morality? Fuck them.

Interesting take on morality.

I totally agree that France sucks and they have pissed me off even more in the past week. I think we should send paratroopers in and airlift the Eiffel Tower to NYC alongside the Statue of Liberty (hell take their Statue of Liberty as well) and take all the Da Vinci and works of art out of the Louvre and then ignor France (except their loose women) forever. I hope they never sell another bottle of Evian again!

There are a few arab women I would fuck but allot of them only have one or two teeth. If they were missing all of there teeth that might make for a great BBBJ but the presence of one or two teeth even messes that up. Although war often has a profoundly positive effect on local mongering conditions, I'm just not sure Iraq is someplace I want to fuck all the local tallent. Perhaps we should invade France instead. Mongering in a war torn France seems much more appealing to me. We bomb the fuck out of Paris, then all the young French girlies will be selling their bodies at post war bargain prices. Much better than Iraq I think.

b) Clearly, Bush/Cheney want the Iraqi oil for Halliburton (Cheney's old company), that's why Bush wants a US commander for occupied Iraq.

Then why didn't we just keep it back in '91 when we had to go stop it from burning. IMO, to say this has anything to do with oil is pure bullshit. If it were up to the Bush family I'm sure they would much rather have americans depend on American oil instead of foreign oil so they could get the green light to start tapping Alaska.

Errrr ... back in '91, we never got to the Iraqi oil fields. We *did* get to the Kuwaiti oil fields, thanks for the oil, guys!

Halliburton got an enormous chunk of the Kuwaiti business, Dick Cheney went from Defense Secretary to Halliburton.

1) Fuck the French. That's the Canadian motto, and it holds true in any situation.

2) Sadam and his regime will not stand. If my daddy had started a war with this bastard and not finished it, I'd wanna take him down too.

3) Cuba is the safest island in the Western Hemisphere. I plan to be there when the war starts. And possibly even when it's finished too.

4) Imagine all of the women of ClubHombre wearing a shawl and scarf. Fuck the arabs - they're repressed and frustrated.

Can you find the arab porn?

Errrr ... back in '91, we never got to the Iraqi oil fields. We *did* get to the Kuwaiti oil fields ...whatever, same thing.

While we're going to war, we should do something that should have been done a long time ago, and conquer Canada, and have Alanis Moreset exiled.

Snapper
Conquer Canada? You f*$&ing yanks bring it on!



We'll kick your liberty-lovin' assess



Your blood will flow across the prairies and into the gopherholes of Saskatchewan.

Can we arrange a gangbang for all veteran CH members BEFORE we send Alanis Moreset to the north pole?

Saskatchewan -- A Place Where No Man Can Leap to His Death

The Most Highly Decorated Person in the Canadian Military

OTTAWA -- Inextricably entwined with the United States by economics, migration and geography, Mexico is going its own way in the Iraq crisis despite political pressure from its superpower neighbour.

Mexico's independence and willingness to stand up to Washington should be an example for Canada, Françine Lalonde, the Bloc Québécois foreign-affairs critic, told the Commons yesterday.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said Ottawa needs no lessons from Mexico or anybody else. "We are Canadians."

In other circumstances, Mexico's dovish foreign policy might go unnoticed in Washington and Ottawa. But Mexico now holds one of the elected positions on the United Nations Security Council, and its vote may be pivotal if the United States is to get the nine votes required for an explicit UN mandate to go to war against Baghdad.

UN watchers say that even if France, Russia or China do not veto a second resolution, the United States has, in spite of its lobbying effort, only five sure votes for a use-of-force mandate.

Mexico, Cameroon and Pakistan are supporting France's call for further inspections, but the report today by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix may help some Security Council members decide whether they think an intensified inspection regime will resolve the crisis.

"Our people are not prepared to go to war, which they do not believe is necessary," Maria Teresa de Madero, the Mexican ambassador in Ottawa, said.

Mexico believes the United States and the international community have not yet exhausted all diplomatic and other non-violent means to resolve the crisis over Iraq's clandestine weapons program, she said in an interview.

"Just like Canada, we might feel some pressure from the United States" to fall into line on Iraq, Ms. Madero said.

Mexican President Vicente Fox and his U.S. counterpart, President George W. Bush, seem headed in different directions. Mr. Fox is on the phone frequently these days with French President Jacques Chirac.

The impulse to seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts is deeply imbedded in the Mexican political system, Ms. Madero said.

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids the deployment of military forces beyond the country's own borders, and pledges that Mexico will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

If, at the end of the day, Mexico has to vote against the United States at the Security Council "we are sure President Bush will understand," and will not attempt to punish the Fox government economically or politically, Ms. Madero said.

"We know President Bush is a democrat and he would understand" that Mr. Fox must respect the strong antiwar sentiments of the Mexican people, she said.


source

"The Mexican constitution expressly forbids the deployment of military forces beyond the country's own borders, and pledges that Mexico will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

If, at the end of the day, Mexico has to vote against the United States at the Security Council "we are sure President Bush will understand," and will not attempt to punish the Fox government economically or politically, Ms. Madero said."

If Mexico has no choice based upon their constitution maybe they should get the fuck off the Security Council. This is one of the exact reasons why the UN is fucking irrelevant.

IMO
-snapper-

The war will make for interesting TV in the evenings and weekends before baseball season really gets going and if it goes like the last one, a good year in the stock market. Also, it will get that meglomaniac Saddam out and we can cut some cheap oil deals with the new dictator we put in power. My hotrod requires primo gas and it's cutting into my chica money.

I'm all for war with Iraq. 8^)

"The Mexican constitution expressly forbids the deployment of military forces beyond the country's own borders, and pledges that Mexico will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. "

I have a vague memory that Mexico sent troops to the Phillipines during WWII and did battle with the Japanese. Perhaps someone better versed in history can confirm.

I have to hand it to President Bush!

When he was elected (or rather, chosen), he stated that he wanted to "bring us together". Well, it seems that he has done exactly that. Too bad its everyone against him.

You watch too much TV. I just saw a poll on a liberal news channel stating that %68 of American support the decision to use military for in Iraq. %24 oppose.

How many European countries are against the use of military force in Iraq. Isn't it something like 3? Mexico opposes force only because their constitution keeps them from having a honest opinion, and Canada opposes because their noses are stuck so far up France's ass.

The Democrats are going to get buried even worse in the election just because their strategy is to play this "we need to cry about something" shit.



Again, that's just my opinion...

-snapper-

Getting back to basics here on our Men's Travel Board.



Make Love, Not War

Ha ha, Dongringo, that looks like bush.

Bush eating bush..

Snapper once again you don't know what you're talking about:

"Then why didn't we just keep it back in '91 when we had to go stop it from burning. IMO, to say this has anything to do with oil is pure bullshit. If it were up to the Bush family I'm sure they would much rather have americans depend on American oil instead of foreign oil so they could get the green light to start tapping Alaska." .... "we should do something that should have been done a long time ago, and conquer Canada, and have Alanis Moreset exiled."


Funny shit:

I am sancho, T bone and Powerslave's posts.

Though I'm against killing civilians and soldiers
TAKE SADDAM THE C*CKSUCKER OUT! If we can get some long range snipers and Saddam to show his face that'll be sweet. Low casualties.

Hey DG....did Snapper touch a nerve there buddy?

I can just imagine Canadians firing off a few rounds while doing 60MPH on a snowmobile????

Not sure the US Special Forces would know how to deal with that.

Probably fight from a nice warm helicopter using laser guided missles then return to their barracks for a "Blue" or two!...he he!

Here's to being in Cuba when the fighting begins!

Sandman

It's about the oil, the currency, the jews and the next election.

-Dick

It's about the oil, the currency, the jews and the next election.

DickJohnson, I respect you're opinion, even though it's wrong. Ok, so you're right on the Jews part and the next election.

-snapper-

Fucking yankee imperialist bastards. We're like, not afraid of yous guys, eh?



And if war breaks out, I know where I'll be. Smokin w/my new bud



He said he might be up for cruisin the island w/us, Sandman



Either way, we're supposed to pick him up in front of his place to go dancing

Good, we like dancing.

You guys have too much time on your hands....and too many joke sites on your PC's.

Deeg-he can go anywhere he wants to with us. Can you imagine the chicas we could find with him???

sandman

Explorer, Mexico sent a fighter squadron (P-51's, provided by us) to the Philipines during the war. They were noted for much heavy drinking, not for killing japs. There is nothing in the Mexican Constitution prohibiting the use of the army outside of Mexico, Salinas floated the idea of Mexican troops doing UN peacekeeping during his term.

Mexico needs its troops to guard the narco's drug shipments when they are crossing the border.

As to the oil factor, does anyone really think we would spend more than 5 minutes thinking about Iraq if all they had were sand dunes? Virtually every socalled expert that shows up on TV to analyze the upcoming war makes the point of how important it is to immediately "secure" the oilfields.

I don't believe that Bush and his former oil friends have a conscious plan to siphon off the oil for themselves. Our economy MUST have access to oil and it is obviously better if the control is either directly in our hands or those of someone easily manipulated or bought out.

Looking towards the future, vast amounts of natural resources are not only in and near the Arabian peninsula but also in the former Soviet states with unpronouncable names that border Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Afganistan. These are also areas with growing fundamentalist Islamic groups who advocate turning against the West, especially the US.

Can you imagine how much Bush and company must have promised the Turkish government to allow them land and air passage of US troops? And what happens to the Kurds and their independence movement in Northern Iran after Sadam? On the Turkish side of the border they are definitely under the control of the central government which is unsympathetic towards any granting of autonomy.

And what happens to Iran if they find themselves with US troops on two sides of them? Iran is a far bigger worry to the Gulf States than Iraq. And the Gulf States are the only part of the Arab world that is supporting the US right now.

Wheels within wheels. And the price of gas in Sacramento is $1.73 right now, up over 20 cents in just a few weeks.

As to the oil factor, does anyone really think we would spend more than 5 minutes thinking about Iraq if all they had were sand dunes?

The Gulf War was clearly about oil. Specifically, about keeping Saddam from controlling 50% of the world's supply thereof (Iraq, Kuwait & Saudi Arabia). This time is different. I don't think Bush Jr wants to sit around waiting on Al Qaida to get their hands on weaponized Anthrax or materials for a nuke, which they've amply demonstrated they'd be crazy enough to use. And in any case, the US needs to be done with Iraq. We need to either walk away and tell the rest of the world it's their problem now, or we finish it.

I don't believe that Bush and his former oil friends have a conscious plan to siphon off the oil for themselves. Our economy MUST have access to oil and it is obviously better if the control is either directly in our hands or those of someone easily manipulated or bought out.

Makes sense to me.

Can you imagine how much Bush and company must have promised the Turkish government to allow them land and air passage of US troops?

Probably not as much as you would think.

And what happens to the Kurds and their independence movement in Northern Iran after Sadam? On the Turkish side of the border they are definitely under the control of the central government which is unsympathetic towards any granting of autonomy.

Their independence movement is screwed (as if it's not now?). But at least they could have a voice in the new government that would be put in place in Iraq. Beats getting gassed by your leader.

And what happens to Iran if they find themselves with US troops on two sides of them?

Hmmm, hadn't thought about that. Maybe we should stroll through Iran after we clean up Iraq, and give the Iranian president the power he should have as the peoples' elected leader. I'm guessing about 80% of Iranians would be all for that (kicking out the clerics).

Phoenixguy answers this statement:

"Can you imagine how much Bush and company must have promised the Turkish government to allow them land and air passage of US troops? "

With this answer:

"Probably not as much as you would think. "

Given that it was revealed TODAY that the US offer to Turkey is $28 billion (which Turkey claims is too low), I would suggest that Phoenixguy is wrong on this particular count.

Bomb Turkey too. It'll be cheaper! ;)

How can I argue with logic that is so cogent, and so compelling?

I seriously think it's time to kick all the parking violators out of NYC too.

From CNN:
==============================================
One official said Turkey "appears to have overestimated" the amount it could ask for in U.S. economic assistance as part of any agreement to allow the United States access to its bases.

Turkey's foreign minister and economic minister met with Bush in the Oval Office Friday and sought to increase the aid package.

"The president said he had gone as far he was going to go and told them they had a decision to make," the senior official said. "They appear to have concluded that was a bluff and they could get more. It was not a bluff."
==============================================

Looks like they can ask for $28B, but Bush isn't about to pay that. It'll be interesting to hear what they end up settling for when the alternative is to get nothing. This is starting to sound like negotiating with a puta.

Ok, dumb question. Wouldn't Turkey be better off with an Iraq next door that's not subject to UN sanctions? How much is that costing them in lost trade each year right now?

Actually, Turkey is getting $$ from supporting Iraq's illegal oil exports. So, a war would be a net loss for Turkey.

Which is why Turkey wants us to pay mucho money.

In the end it is all about money in one form or another. Rwanda in Africa was a basket case so no one gave a hoot when one tribe started hacking another to pieces. Ditto with Haiti except that Clinton figured he could score some points with black Americans.

The news is just getting funnier every day. We have now anounced that Iraq with "have to pay" for its own reconstruction out of money earned on oil exports. Of course, we are going to "secure" these oil fields, and later put tamed, I mean trained, Iraquis to run them. You just know that will create another whole generation of Arabs who will love us for the wonderful and giving people that we are.

I am sure that the Israeli leaders, especially Adolf Sharon, are shaking their heads in disbelief. How much easier it would be to simply kill all the dirty Iraquis except for a small group to collect garbage and do the yard work for the new occupiers.

EVERYONE VOTE/BET : WILL THE WAR HAPPEN?

My vote:

YES

US/UK plus some hangers-on go after Iraq. War is quick, everyone forgets about it except for the locals and some terrorists.

I vote: I think it's in our best interest(YES).


Who cares if there's a link between Sadam and Islamic extremist. (Although the first bombing of the WTC was linked right back to Bin Ladin and Sadam.)

We know he is trying to get nukes.

We know he has chemical and biological warfare.

Who could he possibly want to use this stuff on? I think it's in our best interest not to wait and find out.

It's because of those who have that "let's give peace a chance" mind set that the people that died on December 7, 1941, February 26,1993 and September 11, 2001 died in vein.

How soon people forget.

BTW, I'll be holding a Pro-War rally in the Zona in about three weeks. You guys are welcome to join in the fun.

What could Saddam possibly want nukes for?

Hmm ... let's see now .... maybe its that superpower that's chomping at the bit to kill him, do you think? After all, he can't use his WMD if he expects to actually live to the next day, he presumably would only use them if he expects to get knocked off by someone else, kind of a doomsday machine.

Got a second question to add to the one right above. If we go to war and it ends fast and easy will Bush be reelected in 94 or will people immediately forget about foreign policy and solely concentrate on the economy? Second part of the question. If the war does end with a pop instead of a long bang how will the Democrats handle the whole event during the election? Will they simply ignore the war, criticize Bush's actions, or grab on to his coat tails while finding something else to attack? And how will our ex allies act if Sadam folds and WMD are, in fact, found to exist? My bets are that if this is over fast it will be just like yesterday's news with everyone forgetting whatever was said or done.

Stop The Press

Yahoo News is reporting that US troops will now begin directly fighting alongside of Philippino forces in southern areas controlled by the Islamic fighters. Prior to this US troops have been centralized in several points acting as trainers only. The president of the country is reported as saying that her government has seriously underestimated the number of fighters and their strength. The US claims that these fighters are directly allied with Al Queda. The article also briefly notes that the areas in discussion are extremely poor ones. Wow! I wonder if there is a corolation between the poverty and the ease in which the terrorists operate?

Ye gads, the Phillipines situation is oddly remiscent of Vietnam. Although Saddam won't put up much of a fight, jungle guerrilas can be bad news. I guess the only solution is "kill them all, and let God sort them out". At least, that's what the Germans did on the Eastern Front, and it worked for a while.

$26-32 billions to Turkey, hundreds of millions to Jordan, 8-20 billions to Israel, billions of dollars to Russia and a free hand in Chechnya for human rights violations, billions of dollars to Qatar, and other Middle Eastern countries, billions more to UN Security council memebers to go along with the next week's proposed new resolution.

At what point someone will do the math and see if it is really worth it to go to war with Iraq? This is our tax money and could be used a lot wiser here at home. Give it to department of education, aids research, help poor people, and so on. Saddam Hussein is a problem but I am sure he could be removed just for millions of dollars by contacting the Russian Mafia or South American assasins trained by Israel. These people will get rid of Saddam a lot cheaper than giving money to every country that matters to go along with us. A few hundred million will get rid of Saddam and his sons too.

My 2 cents.

JKarp

Good ideas jkarp. But they won't fly. Too many different groups have their greedy fingers in this mess to take an easy solution.

Israel wants an invasion so as to further marginalize the Palestinians except for a small select group that will be their Uncle Toms. Plus, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that US Jewish financial and political interests which enjoy dual citizenship have, or shortly will, cut deals to latch onto to the oil for Israeli "security".

The US government and oil interests are practically drooling at the idea of "caring for" Iraqui oil fields until the native people are "ready" to assume control. You know that day will never come until massive resentment and terrorist attacks finally force the US out.

How do you suppose the Saudi royal family views the idea of a near permament US occupation of the second largest oil reserves in the world? That would have to be a strong message to them also as to the extent that the US will go to preserve access to the oil that it must have for its own economy. This will probably hasten the eventual overthrow of this monarchy meaning more US intervention in the name of peace.

Why is Russia opposed to war in Iraq? ...could it be that their stance is motivated by $$$

"Recent reports that Russia has agreed to upgrade Iraq's air-defense system raise the question of how successfully Baghdad could use the new technology to challenge U.S. and British planes. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel reports.

Prague, 18 April 2000 (RFE/RL) -- Britain's "Sunday Telegraph" newspaper this week said it has reliable information that Russian military officials have negotiated a $90-million deal to improve the efficiency of Iraq's air-defense systems."

http://www.rferl.com/nca/features/2000/04/F.RU.000418131525.html

"Although the Soviets might not receive payments for several years, the sale of military hardware remained a critical source of revenue for them, and they have tried to retain Iraq as a customer. In May 1987, for example, the Soviets provided Iraq with better financial terms in a successful effort to prevent Iraq from buying sixty French Mirage 2000 fighters for an estimated US$3 billion. An additional US$3 billion in sales of helicopters and radar equipment may also have been denied to the French, although it was not possible to determine whether the Soviets agreed to fulfill both requirements. In early 1988, Iraq owed the Soviet Union between US$8 billion and US$10 billion in military debts alone."



Why is France opposed to war with Iraq? ...could it that their stance is motivated by $$$

"Between 1977 and 1987, Paris contracted to sell a total of 133 Mirage F-1 fighters to Iraq. The first transfer occurred in 1978, when France supplied eighteen Mirage F-1 interceptors and thirty helicopters, and even agreed to an Iraqi share in the production of the Mirage 2000 in a US$2 billion arms deal. In 1983 another twenty-nine Mirage F-1s were exported to Baghdad. And in an unprecedented move, France "loaned" Iraq five SuperEtendard attack aircraft, equipped with Exocet AM39 air-to- surface missiles, from its own naval inventory. The SuperEtendards were used extensively in the 1984 tanker war before being replaced by several F-1s. The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million, a part of which was paid in crude oil.

In 1987 the Paris-based Le Monde estimated that, between 1981 and 1985, the value of French arms transfers to Iraq was US$5.1 billion, which represented 40 percent of total French arms exports. Paris, however, was forced to reschedule payment on most of its loans to Iraq because of Iraq's hard-pressed wartime economy and did so willingly because of its longer range strategic interests. French president François Mitterand was quoted as saying that French assistance was really aimed at keeping Iraq from losing the war. Iraqi debts to France were estimated at US$3 billion in 1987."

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html


Selling arms to Iraq was perfectly legeal before 1991, but selling to Iraq after that isn't. The following needs to be considered.

"France is actually much deeper involved with Iraq than anyone has publicly admitted, and that French (and German) companies may have been routinely violating the sanctions in fact (and not just in spirit), and may even have sold equipment to Iraq which aided the production of weaponry, some of which may get used against our soldiers when the time comes."

witch brings us to...


Why is Germany opposed to war with Iraq? ...could it be that they have been selling components after '91 to Iraq

"Iraqi scientists know, for example, how to cast uranium metal into bomb parts in a vacuum furnace. The vacuum prevents molten uranium from burning in air. At Al Atheer, U.N. inspectors found vacuum furnaces made by a German firm, Arthur Pfeiffer Vakuum Technik. The inspectors rejected Iraq's claim that the furnaces were for scientific research."


Why is Japan opposed to war with Iraq? ...could it be fo the same reason as Germany

"To design a successful bomb, the Iraqis also needed computing power to solve the hydrodynamic equations that predict the behavior of shock waves. The inspectors discovered that Iraq was running the equations on a mainframe computer from the Japanese company NEC. Another Japanese firm, Hamamatsu, sold Iraq two "streak cameras," sensitive instruments that can photograph a high-speed shock wave as it implodes. The inspectors confiscated both cameras after determining that they were rapid enough for nuclear weapon work."

Has anyone seen the edition of The Sun (UK) from last week, which has the front page in French, and a big picture of a worm with Chirac's head on it? It is funny as heck, and has Chirac super pissed off. In France, that bastion of human rights, it is a CRIME to criticize the president, and the government is trying to fine The Sun 45,000 Euros for having the temerity to do so.

"the sale of military hardware remained a critical source of revenue for [the Soviets]"

And if we blow them up, won't the Soviets get to sell more?

"The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million"

And if we shoot them down, won't the French get to sell more?

"Iraqi scientists know ... how to cast uranium metal into bomb parts in a vacuum furnace."

*I* know how to cast molten metal in a vacuum furnace. It's a good thing GWBush hasn't gotten around to making all union metalworkers into criminalized non-persons...

"To design a successful bomb, the Iraqis also needed computing power to solve the hydrodynamic equations that predict the behavior of shock waves"

Yeah. I mean, back sixty years ago when computers were mechanical, there's no way that you could have built an atomic bomb. And if you did, it wouldn't work.

Snapper, do you actually READ the stuff you're posting?

New moon in Iraq next week.

Tommy Franks just arrived in Qatar today.

March will come in like a lion.

Let's roll!!!