General Discussion

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)

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

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:13 PM

Sep 2013

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.

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