Topic for debate: What effect will the London bombings have?

The last time somebody bombed London, it just *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** the Brits off and helped lose the war for the bomber. Some guy named Adolf, as I recall. England was dying, facing mass starvation as well as losing their warfighting ability as a result of the submarine war against their supply lines from the US. The U-boats were sinking ships faster than they could be built, and England was running out of fuel, food, metal etc. Some say there was a danger that England would sign a peace treaty with Adolf (wonder how long that would have lasted, ask Mr. Chamberlain), which might have let Adolf rest up and replenish his troops for a while before attacking Russia, this time with different reults from what we know.

Then Adolf started bombing London. Results were (a) a stiffening of British resolve, ( large casualties among Adolf's air force, which a few years later he dearly wished he hadn't squandered, and © a little more outrage instilled in the American people, so that after Pearl Harbor they didn't object to FDR's "Germany first" policy that threw most American power against Germany instead of the country that attacked us.

Now it looks like someone else has bombed London. Not as heavily as Adolf did, but the idea is the same. And, fortunately, result (a) from above, will occur again... just when it is needed.

Al Qaeda doesn't seem to learn very fast. Bombing independent democracies (even half-socialist ones like England) usually backfire on the bombers. Fortunately, they didn't learn it in time to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot... again. Thanks to their stupidity, I think they've just reversed England's slide away from supporting the war against terrorists, and re-committed them to destroying the terrorists once again.

An expensive lesson for the British, but one they unfortunately needed.

I think you are seriously misreading the political situation in Britain and seriously misreading the will of the population in Britain, and worst of all, making a horrible historical analogy.

The british have been overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq from the begining- the only reason Blair has stayed in power is his domestic issue popularity for the most part- he is almost universally condemed by his countrymen for the war in Iraq- and there are going to be alot of folks very shortly calling for his head on this one.

I don't think the British poeple are suddenly going to all change thier minds about the WOT and Iraq- instead, I am willing to bet money there is going to be alot of retribution for supporting GW in the first place.