General Discussion

sibelian

(7,804 posts)

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

Reply to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:32 PM

Sep 2013

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So... no troops, no war. Can someone tell me what the London Blitz was? [View all] sibelian Sep 2013 OP

No one not even this president is calling for Blitz VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #1

So you're completely ignoring my question, are you? sibelian Sep 2013 #2

I answered your question... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #4

No, you did not answer my question and I have no "premise". sibelian Sep 2013 #10

your premise is Blitz... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #94

You're completely ignoring what the President said to create a false and self-centered construct. MADem Sep 2013 #53

Civilians will die from our Cruise missiles. That's just a fact. cali Sep 2013 #3

and scores more will die from the use of chemical weapons all over the world if we don't VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #6

Of course it isn't "approval of their use". sibelian Sep 2013 #12

No its not.....do you think it will never happen again if we do nothing? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #16

So do you approve, tacitly or otherwise, of Saudi Arabia's horrific treatment of Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #30

extra points for somehow managing to work in "kerry is a homophobe" dionysus Sep 2013 #83

WTF? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #84

Of COURSE it will happen again. sibelian Sep 2013 #32

another way is to take those weapons away... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #111

Incidentally, I notice that you still haven't answered my original question. sibelian Sep 2013 #77

the London Blitz perhaps? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #98

Do you think it will never happen again if we do something? JustABozoOnThisBus Sep 2013 #110

turning away from using bombs may well be the least lethal option for the people cali Sep 2013 #13

least lethal? by removing the chance that they will be exterminated again? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #19

How can YOU suppose that bombing them will stop anything after the idiocy of Iraq? sibelian Sep 2013 #33

Putin will just re-arm Assad if we strike LittleBlue Sep 2013 #90

The entire world will forever base their decisions on the future use of CW on a US strike or not? Thor_MN Sep 2013 #108

Perhaps you'll share the targeting lists with us, since you know this for a "fact?" nt MADem Sep 2013 #56

are you actually claiming that there will be no collateral deaths cali Sep 2013 #71

Well, you are "actually claiming" that there will be, so I'd like to see the targeting list. MADem Sep 2013 #87

it's called history. duh. cali Sep 2013 #88

No, it isn't "called history. duh." You are making a claim, and you just aren't backing it up. MADem Sep 2013 #91

WARGASM! RetroLounge Sep 2013 #5

How bout "rid the world of chemical weapons gasm"? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #8

But we still have ours! RetroLounge Sep 2013 #9

and ours are being destroyed as we speak....all of them to be gone by 2017... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #14

BOMBS! SURGICAL STRIKE! NO BOOTS (YET)! RetroLounge Sep 2013 #15

Yep....thats true... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #22

WARGASM!!!! RetroLounge Sep 2013 #26

"watch and be astonished" sibelian Sep 2013 #42

At our disposal site in Fallujah! NuclearDem Sep 2013 #69

Nope Nuke... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #72

Well, of course we're getting rid of those! NuclearDem Sep 2013 #76

Let me join you cali Sep 2013 #17

... RetroLounge Sep 2013 #20

puke washes of.....chemical weapons....not so much... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #24

bomb, bomb bombs away. Blow those children to smithereens and save them cali Sep 2013 #27

Sorry but much to your dismay...no on is planing on bombing children VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #37

Do you know what you can do with your sexy technology? sibelian Sep 2013 #49

"sexy technology" your soaking in it........ VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #50

I suspect, out of you and I, one of us is a little more saturated in it's dirty glow. sibelian Sep 2013 #68

You mean Anarchy Underground? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #97

and the stupid fucking lie that the U.S. can take out cali Sep 2013 #73

We didn't plan on "bombing children" in Afghanistan or Iraq either, but it happens. Bombs go where Erose999 Sep 2013 #95

Children tend to be at wedding parties. Even chessmasters know that. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #109

Its not a proper game of chess until somebody dies at a wedding... Erose999 Sep 2013 #115

Incendiaries are so much cleaner. sibelian Sep 2013 #34

incendiaries will be used to incinerate the chemical weapons yeah... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #38

No, they won't. sibelian Sep 2013 #43

Yes they will VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #51

Get yourself and that link a nice private room, would you? sibelian Sep 2013 #67

"Passive Attack Weapon"? So we have a smart bomb that will write a note on the whiteboard on Assad's Erose999 Sep 2013 #100

And they smell like...... *snifffffff*..... VICTORY!!! Erose999 Sep 2013 #96

The Pentagon was reported yesterday or the day before to be drawing up an expanded list HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #7

so we wait until the next chemical attack when thousands of children are exterminated VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #11

WARGASM! RetroLounge Sep 2013 #18

Snoregasm VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #48

WARGASM! RetroLounge Sep 2013 #102

Go back to your Snoregasm.... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #103

So you think Syrian kids are cockroaches? RetroLounge Sep 2013 #104

I know! Let's blow those kids to bits and save them cali Sep 2013 #23

did you even watch that video VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #40

yes and I posted links to why we can't destroy chemical weapons cali Sep 2013 #55

Deflection: the question the OP posed is whether one can call it 'war' when no troops HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #25

No they aren't VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #41

Sigh. Here 'ya go (link to NY Times article about expanded target list): HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #59

that was not what I was say.... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #62

Yeah somehow these "contingency plans" don't seem to work in practice. sibelian Sep 2013 #89

Clearly we should exterminate them ourselves. sibelian Sep 2013 #44

clearly we can exterminate the chemical weapons to prevent them from being used again.... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #52

If you think warfare stops after your side has dropped the right bomb... sibelian Sep 2013 #75

did I say I think that? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #113

"We can exterminate the chemical weapons to prevent them from being used again.... bvar22 Sep 2013 #112

we have already eliminated over 78% of the worlds chemical weapons VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #114

.... sibelian Sep 2013 #116

No I am not... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #117

I'm sure there won't be any "collateral damage"...... rdharma Sep 2013 #21

Sadly there will be collateral damage...its hard to avoid at all....but the attempt will be made to VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #45

So..... "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." rdharma Sep 2013 #61

You mean like this: TalkingDog Sep 2013 #93

It is looking to be a three day intense pouding, ala shock and awe. morningfog Sep 2013 #99

My late mother described it regularly malaise Sep 2013 #28

Although I agree that bombing ... surrealAmerican Sep 2013 #29

No Axis troops in Britain, thus there was no war in Britain..... Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #31

History buff here: everyone needs to remember that the USSR lost some 20 million troops HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #63

+1000. nt. polly7 Sep 2013 #107

What's the difference? sibelian Sep 2013 #47

Der Londoner Blitzkrieg, rather than just krieg. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #35

Pearl Harbor was a surgical strike, no boots on the ground! Coyotl Sep 2013 #39

+1000000 liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #118

A message, apparently cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #46

Seriously... sarisataka Sep 2013 #54

So not "war" then? sibelian Sep 2013 #64

By this logic... sarisataka Sep 2013 #74

I'm not all convinced that the debate on attacking or not will have any effect on what occurs. sibelian Sep 2013 #79

Sadly the debate reminds me sarisataka Sep 2013 #85

Does it occur to you that elements in that conflict are acting on the anticipation of American sibelian Sep 2013 #92

That is indeed a major concern... sarisataka Sep 2013 #106

It was war and the ground troops were on the mainland. hrmjustin Sep 2013 #57

One word: Dunkirk n2doc Sep 2013 #105

The blitz was intended to kill and demoralize civilians... brooklynite Sep 2013 #58

And in the case of at least one of these goals, had the opposite effect. sibelian Sep 2013 #65

But of course, it would have never happened if the British had just stayed home... brooklynite Sep 2013 #66

We were NEXT, brooklynite. sibelian Sep 2013 #82

And tell me, how many other countries has Assad conquered? markpkessinger Sep 2013 #120

Anyone really believe that this will end with some cruise missiles being lobbed? Try No Fly Zone leveymg Sep 2013 #60

World War 2 Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2013 #70

V1... sarisataka Sep 2013 #78

What a bunch of sillies. They could have fired a V8 NuclearDem Sep 2013 #80

. sarisataka Sep 2013 #81

At least they would have been healthy Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2013 #86

Kerry made "the Blitz" connection possible by bringing up Munich nt msongs Sep 2013 #101

Oh I know I Know pich me pick me................ 4bucksagallon Sep 2013 #119