It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dec 16th

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 10:03 PM
to add to the fight in summer or winter thing - I thought the bio/chem weapon protection suits they might need would make it better to fight in winter.

Nice poem JB. Sweet and glorious it can be.

posted on Dec, 6 2002 @ 06:01 AM
Bob, I had to just stand around with minimum activity while at MOPP 4 in the summertime (MOPP 4 is full protective gear, mask, suit, gloves and boots), and I promise you that fighting unders such conditions is the last thing we want our troops to have to do.

posted on Dec, 6 2002 @ 07:54 AM


"Sweet and beautiful it is to die for one's country."

Hey, bring it on! I want to be out there. It's just that my age prevents me from it. Let me close with this:

"Terence Taylor, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for four years up to 1997, said he believed Saddams biological arsenal posed the greatest immediate threat. Since 1998, when the UN inspectors withdrew, Iraq has failed to account for 17 tons of growth media used for culturing anthrax and other biological agents."


posted on Dec, 10 2002 @ 12:11 PM

posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 08:47 PM
All advanced armour is or has A/C in fact when they have there hatch closed up they have positive pressure..(to keep the bugs out)...they have way to much electronic equipment to be not cooled..


posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:49 PM
Well, unless something very remarkable happens in the next three days, I think we can safely conclude that these "pundits" were on D-list pundit-wise.
We've had inspectors, dossiers, photocopiers, unauthorised cargoes for Somalia that turned out to be authorised cargoes for the Yemen etc...blah.... none of which suggests the axe has been hoisted just yet.

However, one issue that does interest me is this:
did any posters (be honest) believe there was a possibility of war on 16/12 when Lupe posted this 9-10 days ago? If so -why.
I nailed my colours to the mast immediately and dismissed it as "mainstream hogwash" or something similar.
Did anyone else immediately conclude it was rubbish and why?
Given that it appears to have been manifest cr*p -what are posters' theories as to why it was released?

posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:54 PM
To scare people..nothing more noting a matter of fact i fully expect that next deadline to posted soon..something near christmas so we can here how American familys will recieve coffins instead of Christmas gifts...Thank you Estrogen for standing up..congrats!


posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 03:20 AM
Personally the 16th seems a little abrupt.
the base concensus is that the war will "start" some time.
fact is the wars allready started, we're allready bombing areas of Iraq, we're allready positioning our troops.
Its slightly disturbing how few people realise were allready attacking.

As I see it, the US is really just waiting for an excuse.
I have a worrying feeling public patience won't last long enough for them to find one.

As an interesting side note, the COE came out yesterday to state that a war at this time of year would be "un-christian"

funny little paradox.

posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 07:26 AM

And we all thought the Iraq/al qaida link would never be "proven."

posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 08:04 AM
"government analysts ~suspect~"

"~If~ the report proves true"

"U.S. analysts are said to have ~no evidence~"

"the reported chemical weapon transfer is ~not backed~ by definitive evidence"

Some of us still don't think its been proven.

posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 08:59 AM
Read "I'm being facitious" when I used parenthesis.

posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 09:02 AM
no problem.

It does point out how little we actually have to pin on saddam.
and yet public opinion in the US seems to be that he is in some way responsible for sep 11.

I remember somone pointing out how Orwellian this all is .

The great thing about a "war against terror" is that its a war against no specific enemy. That allows the government to pretty much attack anyone they want to for any reason they like simply by atributing it to being part of the "war against terror"

posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 09:19 AM
Actually, it isn't the US public who believes Saddam is in bed with AlQaida... it's Bush. The public's divided, with many wondering what happened to the Evil Osama and why Shrub is so avid to get Saddam.

(Link to Daryl Cagle's political cartoon pages, with 12 pages of current political cartoons from news sources. You'll see plenty of op-ed cartoons (over time) indicating the reluctance of the public):

posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 02:50 PM
What confuses me is that the reports I have read say that al qaida believes Saddam is an apostate and that he needs to be destroyed just like the West. If tis is the case how is Bush legitimizing connecting the groups? Is he under the assumption that they are working under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" premise? Which falls on its face from the outset if the first line is true, that al qaida thinks Sadamm is an apostate because if he were to sell WMD to them they might turn around and use them on Iraq. I am thinking clearly here?? Iam just not sure anymore. Grad school has officially cooked my cranium.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 02:33 PM
This is interesting considering the main title of this thread.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in