So... no troops, no war. Can someone tell me what the London Blitz was?

[sibelian]

I'd really like to know what the right word for it is because she grew up in it in a bomb shelter and she's always called it war, but obviously she's wrong and I'd like to point this out to her and tell her to use the appropriate terminology.

Thanks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. No one not even this president is calling for Blitz

no one has said "ground and pound" to use an MMA reference. Strategic strikes against weapons and the means to deliver said weapons

[sibelian]

2. So you're completely ignoring my question, are you?

Why are you doing that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. I answered your question...

your premise is false...

[sibelian]

10. No, you did not answer my question and I have no "premise".

Could you attempt respond to me in plain English, please?

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. your premise is Blitz...

there is no plan to Blitz...

[MADem]

53. You're completely ignoring what the President said to create a false and self-centered construct.

It's centered around a phony premise that Obama plans on "blitzing" the people of Damascus.

That's just not true.

You're dialing it up to create drama and division on the board. It's obvious what you're doing, and it doesn't add to the conversation about this topic at all.

[cali]

3. Civilians will die from our Cruise missiles. That's just a fact.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. and scores more will die from the use of chemical weapons all over the world if we don't

if we look the other way this time....its tacit approval of their use.

[sibelian]

12. Of course it isn't "approval of their use".

That's meaingless gibberish. Have you cured cancer? No? Does that mean you "approve " of it? Idiotic drivel.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. No its not.....do you think it will never happen again if we do nothing?

THAT is idiotic drivel.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. So do you approve, tacitly or otherwise, of Saudi Arabia's horrific treatment of

LGBT people, minorities and women? John Kerry is so proud that they support the war he wants so that's not so tacit, that's his clear approval for the beheading or jailing of gay people by our 'allies' and he's sending the message that such actions are acceptable to bigots all over the world.

[dionysus]

83. extra points for somehow managing to work in "kerry is a homophobe"

into the thread somehow...

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. WTF?

this is ridiculous....

when did we sign that treaty? So are you saying we should bomb all the homophobes in Saudi Arabia?

this is the most stupid argument yet....Kudos to you for that....its something...I guess...

[sibelian]

32. Of COURSE it will happen again.

WHETHER THEY ARE BOMBED OR NOT.

The way to stop them using chemical weapons on each other is to reorganise the way they think about each other. Oooooh, tough one, huh? No fun there.

It will certainly happen again if the UK is permitted to carry on SELLING them the damn things, and to all and sundry in the Middle East, gosh isn't it useful to keep the region unstable. Makes it look like bombing them's a good idea.

Do you think we're all six year olds?

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. another way is to take those weapons away...

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

[sibelian]

77. Incidentally, I notice that you still haven't answered my original question.

What's your word for the London Blitz?

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. the London Blitz perhaps?

You havent answered mine....were you expecting a Blitzkrieg? You are going to be disappointed.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

110. Do you think it will never happen again if we do something?

... both are drivel.

[cali]

13. turning away from using bombs may well be the least lethal option for the people

of syria and the region.'

And we know for a certainty that civilians will die from our cruise missiles. we don't know for a certainty that others will use chemical weapons if we don't bomb.

but keep panting for our bombs, hon.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. least lethal? by removing the chance that they will be exterminated again?

We DO know for sure they will be used again....

How can you even say that with a straight face?

[sibelian]

33. How can YOU suppose that bombing them will stop anything after the idiocy of Iraq?

Iraq's STILL trundling on down the spiral of madness and despair. Are you completely uninterested in reality?

[LittleBlue]

90. Putin will just re-arm Assad if we strike

Putin has already publicly declared he will arm Assad more heavily if we strike.

This is not speculation, he said it at the G20. So no, it will only lead to more deaths as Putin is looking for any excuse.

[Thor_MN]

108. The entire world will forever base their decisions on the future use of CW on a US strike or not?

What an utter pile of unprovable rubbish. You, personally, are able to determine that the mindset of every present and future leader hinges on if the US conducts a strike weeks after CW were used in Syria?

[MADem]

56. Perhaps you'll share the targeting lists with us, since you know this for a "fact?" nt

[cali]

71. are you actually claiming that there will be no collateral deaths

from the proposed military strikes?

Incroyable.

[MADem]

87. Well, you are "actually claiming" that there will be, so I'd like to see the targeting list.

See how that works?

"Incroyable," not so much. It's basic logic.

You somehow "know" they are going to hit areas where civilians are situated. Since you "know" this, you must "know" the targeting list.

So please provide it....or just stop speculating.

[cali]

88. it's called history. duh.

and the Pentagon sure as shit won't deny that there will be collateral damage.

It's absurd to claim that there won't be- particularly in Syria and particularly with the expanded list of targets.

[MADem]

91. No, it isn't "called history. duh." You are making a claim, and you just aren't backing it up.

You are free to do that if you'd like but you'd better expect to be vigorously challenged when you don't back up your pontifications.

Please provide the lists--expanded or otherwise, so we can determine if your assertions are valid.

Mushmouthy, dire "suggestions" are not fact.

[RetroLounge]

5. WARGASM!

RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. How bout "rid the world of chemical weapons gasm"?

we are 78% of the way there already...

[RetroLounge]

9. But we still have ours!

Wargasm!!!



RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. and ours are being destroyed as we speak....all of them to be gone by 2017...

so you are wrong gasm!

[RetroLounge]

15. BOMBS! SURGICAL STRIKE! NO BOOTS (YET)!

WARGASM!



RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. Yep....thats true...

we have been developing the technology to destroy them for over 10 yrs....watch and be astonished!

[RetroLounge]

26. WARGASM!!!!

Astonishing BOMBS!

THOUSANDS OF DEAD KIDS!

'MURICA!

WOO HOO!!!!!

RL

[sibelian]

42. "watch and be astonished"

So you can't be THAT bothered about sarin gas, really, can you? What's it about it that pisses you off? The hissy sound as it leaks from the cannister? The creepy "S" sound at the beginning of the word?

If there was anything oridnary, human or wholesome about you you'd understand that the appropriate reaction should be "watch and be disgusted".

Are you telling me that the Londoners of the 1940s should have been impressed by the Blitz?

[NuclearDem]

69. At our disposal site in Fallujah!

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. Nope Nuke...

You are wrong too:

Since then, millions of pounds of chemical warfare agents have been destroyed safely using the incineration technology at chemical agent disposal facilities in

Tooele, Utah;
Anniston, Alabama;
Umatilla, Oregon;
Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and
Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/demil/methods.htm

[NuclearDem]

76. Well, of course we're getting rid of those!

Have to make room in the armory for the daisy cutters, Mark 77s, white phosphorous shells, and bunker busters.

[cali]

17. Let me join you

I'd like to puke all over the vile war mongers.


'

[RetroLounge]

20. ...

RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. puke washes of.....chemical weapons....not so much...

[cali]

27. bomb, bomb bombs away. Blow those children to smithereens and save them

from the sarin gas!

Sick shit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Sorry but much to your dismay...no on is planing on bombing children

read and be edified...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

We have been working on such technology for over 10 yrs now....

[sibelian]

49. Do you know what you can do with your sexy technology?

Would you like me to tell you what to do with it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. "sexy technology" your soaking in it........

[sibelian]

68. I suspect, out of you and I, one of us is a little more saturated in it's dirty glow.

There are bound to be websites for people like you somewhere...

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. You mean Anarchy Underground?

I am not an Anarchist...or an Isolationist....I am a Democrat...why would I go anywhere else.

[cali]

73. and the stupid fucking lie that the U.S. can take out

the chemical stores with that sexy smart technology.

I know where I'd like to see it go.

[Erose999]

95. We didn't plan on "bombing children" in Afghanistan or Iraq either, but it happens. Bombs go where

they're sent (most of the time, every now and then one will go off course) and even the smartest ones aren't capable of telling whether or not civilians are around before they detonate.

You can use the sanitized language of the MIC if you want, but smart bombs and guided missiles are still essentially just delivery systems for explosives in order to kill people and/or destroy buildings and property.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

109. Children tend to be at wedding parties. Even chessmasters know that.

[Erose999]

115. Its not a proper game of chess until somebody dies at a wedding...

[sibelian]

34. Incendiaries are so much cleaner.

Look better on camera, too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. incendiaries will be used to incinerate the chemical weapons yeah...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[sibelian]

43. No, they won't.

Scuse me? It's AMERICAN military we're talking about. The guys that pile people up into naked pyramids? The guys that blow up weddings and hospitals? The guys that use depleted uranium and white phosphorus? The guys that won't release photos of their abuse techniques on their prisoners for fear of causing more terrorist attacks? THOSE guys. And theyre saying what, "we'll only bomb the chemical plants"? Yeah, right.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Yes they will

Air Force to be exact....read and be edified:

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[sibelian]

67. Get yourself and that link a nice private room, would you?

If you think it'll end with the use of that sexy bomb you're drooling.

[Erose999]

100. "Passive Attack Weapon"? So we have a smart bomb that will write a note on the whiteboard on Assad's

fridge that says "its your turn to do the dishes"? Man, the MIC is even more fucked up than I thought.

[Erose999]

96. And they smell like...... *snifffffff*..... VICTORY!!!

[HardTimes99]

7. The Pentagon was reported yesterday or the day before to be drawing up an expanded list

of targets (beyond CBW sites) in Syria. Saw the reportage here on DU but neglected to bookmark. You may want to edit your post (specifically the words "No on&quot to hedge your verbal bets a bit, as DU can be merciless in recalling hasty, intemperate remarks.

Might help to keep in mind the aphorism about the "road to hell being paved with good intentions."

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. so we wait until the next chemical attack when thousands of children are exterminated

like cockroaches?

[RetroLounge]

18. WARGASM!

All war, all the time!

Fight them there before we have to fight them here!

YELLOW CAKE!

WARGASM!

'Murica!

RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. Snoregasm

where you sleep through it...

[RetroLounge]

102. WARGASM!

All War, All the time!

MURICA!!!!

RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. Go back to your Snoregasm....

You can pretend babies weren't gassed like cockroaches...

[RetroLounge]

104. So you think Syrian kids are cockroaches?

That's pretty sad.

WARGASM! Kill them for killing them!

RL

[cali]

23. I know! Let's blow those kids to bits and save them

a chemical attack.

so much more humane!

war monger bomb lovers are sick.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. did you even watch that video

and quit pretending you haven't read about this:

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[cali]

55. yes and I posted links to why we can't destroy chemical weapons

Now continue your disgraceful and disgusting use of dead children to kill people with bombs to keep more children from being killed with gas.

bye bye. I'm so disgusted with your posts I'm done with you, honey.

[HardTimes99]

25. Deflection: the question the OP posed is whether one can call it 'war' when no troops

are deployed on the ground and used the Blitz as historical analogy. You replied that no one was considering Blitz-like tactics. To which I responded that the Pentagon is drawing up Blitz-like targeting plans.

But since you've deflected, I'll take the bait. How about we put the case before the U.N. Security Council if it's so open and shut? It was good enough for Adlai Stevenson back in 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis, speaking of the Blitz), so I don't see why it's not being done now to keep us in compliance with international law, Obama being a Con Law expert or some such.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. No they aren't

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[HardTimes99]

59. Sigh. Here 'ya go (link to NY Times article about expanded target list):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html?_r=0

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. that was not what I was say....

just because they expand "potential" does not mean they will all become targets. Also, do you think we create plans of war on the fly? We have a contingency plan for probably every country in the world....

What we do have is technology...this one has been in development for 10 yrs...
http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[sibelian]

89. Yeah somehow these "contingency plans" don't seem to work in practice.

Why is that?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. Sign up!

[sibelian]

44. Clearly we should exterminate them ourselves.

Much quicker.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. clearly we can exterminate the chemical weapons to prevent them from being used again....

have you ever even watched a roach die from Raid? Have you? Does he look tortured to you?

[sibelian]

75. If you think warfare stops after your side has dropped the right bomb...

...well, then, this is just a suggestion, but you might want to have a think about why you think that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. did I say I think that?

I don't think that I did...but history doesn't exactly stick to your strict standards in that statement...

[bvar22]

112. "We can exterminate the chemical weapons to prevent them from being used again....

We can take them ALL out...FOREVER
because we know exactly where they are!

[font size=3]"We know exactly where they are! They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."[/font]--- Donald Rumsfeld

You sound a lot like Donald Rumsfeld when HE was working to get another WAR ON.
.
.
.
.
.



Hey, wait a minute!!
Don Rumsfeld, you sociopathic pathetic old War Monger!
Is that you posting with a newbie account?
That IS you, isn't it!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. we have already eliminated over 78% of the worlds chemical weapons

even ours is all set to be completely destroyed by 2017.

[sibelian]

116. ....

You're the kind of person who'd ignore the injured at a car accident and start cleaning the blood off the windscreen.

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. No I am not...

besides...I don't have windscreens...I have a windshield....gave yourself away there didn't ya?

[rdharma]

21. I'm sure there won't be any "collateral damage"......

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nYNJSFBMVto/TZlZVqtEpII/AAAAAAAAAAU/tZZDsLp7Yuc/s400/Train+Bombing.jpg

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. Sadly there will be collateral damage...its hard to avoid at all....but the attempt will be made to

keep it to a minimum....unlike all out gassing people is..

So if we destroy chemical weapons with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands...that doesn't matter

So why not just give Syria a nuke? Since you seem to be of the "look the other way" ilk. Shouldn't we just let Assad have a nuke and be done with it? Since it seems to be all the same to you...

[rdharma]

61. So..... "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Now where have I heard that before?

[TalkingDog]

93. You mean like this:

If I recall my history lessons, this was called: A Declaration of War, by the people in charge.

[morningfog]

99. It is looking to be a three day intense pouding, ala shock and awe.

Well over 50 targets that will be repeatedly hit. There will be many civilian casualties, probably in the hundreds to thousands range.

[malaise]

28. My late mother described it regularly

It was war plain and simple

[surrealAmerican]

29. Although I agree that bombing ...

... is an act of war, this is not a good example to make your point with. The blitz was not an isolated incident, and took place as part of a larger, declared war that involved more than a few troops.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. No Axis troops in Britain, thus there was no war in Britain.....

No boots on British ground.

[HardTimes99]

63. History buff here: everyone needs to remember that the USSR lost some 20 million troops

fighting Hitler along a 2,000-mile front while we and the Brits were waltzing around down in North Africa.

If 'boots on the ground' ('boots in the ground?') is the criterion by which we say something is 'war,' the USSR has everyone beat hands down.

[polly7]

107. +1000. nt.

[sibelian]

47. What's the difference?

A "no troops" attack was war because there were troops elsewhere?

Exactly how much more mangling can this redistricting around the word "war" is possible, I wonder?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. Der Londoner Blitzkrieg, rather than just krieg.

[Coyotl]

39. Pearl Harbor was a surgical strike, no boots on the ground!

[liberal_at_heart]

118. +1000000

[cthulu2016]

46. A message, apparently

[sarisataka]

54. Seriously...

Answer: it was a strategic mistake. Dirverting the Luftwaffe to attacking London, instead of the fighter bases, allowed the RAF time and ability to rest pilots and repair damaged aircraft. They were not able to do so while bombs were falling on them. If the original plan of focusing on the RAF had been maintained it is likely the British would have moved the planes to bases in western England, reducing their effectiveness at stopping the bombers or countering the planned invasion.

[sibelian]

64. So not "war" then?

"strategic mistake" in the context of what kind of undertaking, please? I need to tell my Mum.

[sarisataka]

74. By this logic...

the US was not in a war in WW2, there were no 'boots on the ground' on the US mainland...

It was a strategic mistake in the execution of a WAR. September 3, 1939 France, England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa declared war on Germany.

People are taking a stupid statement and extending it to ludicrous and the debate on attacking or not gets lost in semantics, which is what those who favor attack want.

[sibelian]

79. I'm not all convinced that the debate on attacking or not will have any effect on what occurs.

I think he's going to do it anyway.

But thanks for making sense...

[sarisataka]

85. Sadly the debate reminds me

of managers I have worked for. They seek your opinion, listen carefully then tell you what they decided to have you do before they left their office...

I would favor attacking IF, we can seriously impact chemical weapon capabilities, avoid expanding the conflict and keep collateral damage to a human minimum. I see no way to do that without actual invasion, therefore we need to find or make a third option, a fourth would be good so we have something when the third option doesn't work.

[sibelian]

92. Does it occur to you that elements in that conflict are acting on the anticipation of American

involvement?

Don't you think it's interesting that chemical weapons appeared and were used in Syria a nice comfortable time after Obama forbade them?

Why bother with chemical weapons? It's not as if they're going to be unaware of Obama's position...

Kind of convenient, wouldn't you say?

You don't think someone might be tugging America's chain?

Who benefits?

[sarisataka]

106. That is indeed a major concern...

the circumstantial evidence against the regime is fairly damning, but the timing and possible outcome is conveniently very beneficial to the opposition. It come even be Syrian officer(s) sympathetic to the opposition acting outside of orders to try and have the US or Europe aid the opposition.

We must look extremely carefully before stepping with the default being wait and see in lieu of concrete evidence.

[hrmjustin]

57. It was war and the ground troops were on the mainland.

[n2doc]

105. One word: Dunkirk

The war had already been going at some time before the Blitz. No one in Germany pretended that the Blitz wasn't war. No one in Japan pretended that Pearl Harbor would not be war. They may have thought that those actions would result in a quick victory, though, sort of like some of the things I am hearing from Washington these days.

[brooklynite]

58. The blitz was intended to kill and demoralize civilians...

[sibelian]

65. And in the case of at least one of these goals, had the opposite effect.

Interesting, isn't it?

[brooklynite]

66. But of course, it would have never happened if the British had just stayed home...

not gotten involved in defending France and Belgium from the German invasion. Wouldn't you say it really wasn't their responsibility?

[sibelian]

82. We were NEXT, brooklynite.

There was no question about it.

[markpkessinger]

120. And tell me, how many other countries has Assad conquered?

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that the Assad regime represents a threat to the U.S. that is even remotely analogous to that posed to Britain by Hitler? Really?

[leveymg]

60. Anyone really believe that this will end with some cruise missiles being lobbed? Try No Fly Zone

imposed without anyone's explicit permission. Why do I say that? The nature of the targets and weapons.

No, if you look at the nature of the proposed weapon (cruise missiles) they don't match the proposed targets (launchers).

The rockets that were used on 8/21 were crude rockets launched by simple tubes mounted on the back of small trucks, as have been used by both sides. Tomahawks are not suitable for that sort of target. Here's one of those rockets:



What will be targeted are fixed ground targets like hangars, airstrips and air defense radar and missile batteries - in other words, creating a No-Fly Zone by other means, and without getting anyone's permission. In other words, another deception.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

70. World War 2

The Nazis V2 rockets were crude missiles

[sarisataka]

78. V1...

the V1 were the cruise missiles, the V2s were ballistic, essentially SCUDs. (In some ways the V2s were better than SCUDs)

[NuclearDem]

80. What a bunch of sillies. They could have fired a V8

[sarisataka]

81. .

[Rosa Luxemburg]

86. At least they would have been healthy

[msongs]

101. Kerry made "the Blitz" connection possible by bringing up Munich nt

[4bucksagallon]

119. Oh I know I Know pich me pick me................

War was "declared" between Britain and Germany in 1939, the blitz was from September 1940 on. So who is she and where did "she" go wrong with your history lessons. LOL!