(no subject)

[semperfiona]

I've been hearing sentences like this a lot lately: "We're [doing
thus-and-so] to dampen the resistance."

Would someone kindly explain to our politicians, commentators and
journalists that getting Iraqi insurgents wet is not likely to have any
effect on violence in the region? That what they actually wish to do is
to *damp* the resistance?

To damp: to restrict airflow to a fire; metaphorically, to reduce the
vigor of something that might be itself metaphorically described as a
fire.
To dampen: to get something wet.

You can't get a fire wet.

Comments

[scottak.livejournal.com]

Actually, you CAN get a fire wet. But when you get a fire wet, you make steam. If you make too much steam it takes up all the room and squeezes out the fire, and then you don't make steam no more. And everybody knows that when you run out of steam the choo-choo stops choo-chooing.

SO, what they mean to say is that "We're [doing
thus-and-so] to dampen the resistance until they run out of steam. And then we'll kick them in the caboose."

Seriously though, if these insurgents need dampening, it's quite possible that they could be on fire. And if that's the case, what kind of insensitive bastards do we have running our military operations over there?!? I know they're insurgents and all, but really, what kind of sick and sadistic things are we doing to them? Offering those poor burning insurgents a wet sponge??? If those guys are really on fire we should do something to help. I don't care if they're enemy combatants or not, I'm pretty sure that there is someting in the Geneva conventions about allowing your enemy to burn to a crisp. It's just not something decent folk do. Least not where I come from. We could at least teach these guys how to stop, drop and roll. Why not find out why they are burning in the first place? If we ever want to extinguish this insurgency we'll have to try a little harder than sponges.