OT, (like it matters) How long will the war last.

Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?

Do you care?

 

Dave W wrote:
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
> Do you care?
>
>

Hopefully just a few days. I have students in my class from Iraq and they are very excited about
Saddam being removed from power.

-T

 

"Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
> Do you care?
>
I don't imagine that the US will f*** around and make the same mistakes they did last time. In fact,
they'll probably risk over-kill rather than stuff it up again. They'll go in and hit hard. I think
that most hard targets and all the relevant infrastructure will be destroyed within hours and that
it'll be the mopping-up operation that takes the time.

 

Dave W wrote:
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?

This will be different to Gulf War I, in that the US, UK and the military might of Spain are going
all out for Saddam. There are two ways of playing this, and it will dictate how long it lasts.

The easiest method is just to flatten Baghdad under a torrent of bombs. Unfortunately, this is
likely to end in significant 'collateral damage' (or in non-fluffy speak, the mass murder of
innocents), which is bad PR. In this case, the war is likely to last a few weeks, on the condition
that the Iraqi army get so disaffected that they surrender.

The second mode of attack is to send in the ground troops. From a domestic political point of view,
this may be even worse, as the "Allies" are likely to suffer many more casualties. I can see this
being a drawn out affair with forces fighting for every street, in much the same way as the fall of
Berlin. In which case, I think it could take well over a month.

Then after that, the next war begins. Firstly, as in GWI, Israel will become a target. If Israel
retaliates, all hell could break lose in the region.

In addition, such is the anger and huge amount of opposition to this war, especially within the
Middle East, it means that there are likely to be many more terrorist attempts on both the US and
the UK. Before, when you had one minority extremist group who was willing to launch attacks, there
will now be many more. You may even see individuals unconnected to any groups carrying out attacks.
Surveillance services won't be able to track all of these, and for sure, some will get through.

Whether Bush subsequently decides to declare war on another totally incongruous country is a
moot point...

> Do you care?

Of course. My girlfriend, my family and most of my friends live in London and the South East of
England. The actions of Bush and Blair are putting them in danger.

bomba 'nostradamus'

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

"Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
> Do you care?

A few hours waiting for Microsoft War XP to boot. Then some fannying around while they download the
British plugin. Which they then realise they don't need anyway for full functionality.

Then a few easy weeks of pretty fireworks being fired from aeroplanes - some great TV for the
folks at home.

Then comes months of sordid bloody stalemate as they lay siege to Baghdad. Many civilians and
military personnel will lose their lives. The very end of it will be like the film Spartacus. I'm
Saddam. No, I'm Saddam. No, I'm Saddam........

War Andy HURRR! Chequer - good God, what is it good for?

Say it again y'all

 

Tristan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Dave W wrote:
> >
> > Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
> >
> > Do you care?
> >
> >
>
> Hopefully just a few days. I have students in my class from Iraq and they are very excited about
> Saddam being removed from power.
>
> -T
>
What did Nostradamus predict "That great leader would succumb and so begin world 3" All well and
good but I don't know of any great leaders.

 

Dave W <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
> Do you care?

I do care, but I don't know. I think this war is wrong, so if it only lasts a second, that will be a
second too long.

With idiots like Bush and Blair behind this, the variables start to get too out of hand to lay odds
on how this war will proceed. Add to that the massive weight of opposition to this war from around
the globe, and it gets even crazier. Bush and Blair have to try and get this over with as quickly as
possible, while keeping the damage to themselves as little as possible. This is going to be near
impossible, and they may well play it totally by ear, after it doesn't go according to their
original plans.

Shaun aRe - God damn all war.

 

"Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>
> Do you care?
>

Unashamedly Taken from alt.humor:

Observer Worldview

To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one
has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern
Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own
War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry
Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could have told
them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA
terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA
terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been
free to send in the bombers.

It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital
city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable
that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce
fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of
the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have
justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to
speak. I hope you follow the argument.

Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded
to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and
funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the
USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big
place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do
the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty
countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets.

Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on
places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have
bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that
we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have
bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.

In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with
Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where we
could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the elements with a
clear conscience.

The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have
actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the
Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two Down
Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it goes
without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden Town,
Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the whole of
Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area.

And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on
Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that it
baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.

So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place.

 

spademan o---[) * <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
> >
> > Do you care?
> >
>
> Unashamedly Taken from alt.humor:
>
> Observer Worldview
>
> To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no
> one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in
> Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
>
> The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own
> War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry
> Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could have
> told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but
> all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell
> who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we
> would have been free to send in the bombers.
>
> It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital
> city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable
> that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce
> fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained
> of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would
> have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the
> bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.
>
> Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have
> afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had
> supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was,
> of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in
> America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could
> afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot
> of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of
> targets.
>
> Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated
> on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have
> bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge
> that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could
> have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.
>
> In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens
> with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where
> we could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the elements
> with a clear conscience.
>
> The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have
> actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the
> Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two
> Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it
> goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden
> Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the
> whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area.
>
> And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on
> Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that
> it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.
>
> So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place.

I love the way sarcasm can be used to such a great effect in the delivering of good, factual common
sense ',;~}

Shaun aRe

 

"Andy Chequer" <[email protected](youdontwantthisbitinit)thisisasparagus.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| >
| >
| > Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
| >
| > Do you care?
|
| A few hours waiting for Microsoft War XP to boot. Then some fannying
around
| while they download the British plugin. Which they then realise they don't need anyway for full
| functionality.
|
| Then a few easy weeks of pretty fireworks being fired from aeroplanes -
some
| great TV for the folks at home.
|
| Then comes months of sordid bloody stalemate as they lay siege to Baghdad. Many civilians and
| military personnel will lose their lives. The very end
of
| it will be like the film Spartacus. I'm Saddam. No, I'm Saddam. No, I'm Saddam........
|
| War Andy HURRR! Chequer - good God, what is it good for?
|
| Say it again y'all

Andy Chequer for world leader..............who will second this?

Simon

 

"David Bailey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| Tristan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| > Dave W wrote:
| > >
| > > Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
| > >
| > > Do you care?
| > >
| > >
| >
| > Hopefully just a few days. I have students in my class from Iraq and they are very excited about
| > Saddam being removed from power.
| >
| > -T
| >
| What did Nostradamus predict "That great leader would succumb and so begin world 3" All well and
| good but I don't know of any great leaders.

Actually the book of Nostradamus was in french and some pieces were very obscure at best. It is the
translators that have twisted the wording to suit a modern day life. He was a prophet yes but his
words are rarely heard amidst the later day translational texts.

Simon

 

"Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
|
|
| Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
|
| Do you care?
|

Hopefully it will not last too long, in reality.............It will probably last an age with
the overall goal never being fully reached and thus allowing for a sequel just like any standard
film plot.

Sorry for cyniscm but so far US and UK for all their infinite wisdom and strength have failed to do
anything right with regard to war and peace. Blair and Bush both share the lowest IQ's of any
political leaders ever in power and are treating this like some little game of toy soldiers.

If we are so damn great and have such things as "elite" forces, why dont we send these in
to assasinate(murder) the said leaders. No one need own up to this and all objectives would
be achieved.

Reasons (IMO) for not doing this are that it would not allow Bush and Blair to launch their
expensive weapons, would not alllow them to play at being generals, would not allow them to
revel in the mass murder of innocents and would not allow them to look big in front of their so
called friends.

Simon..........I am still going on holiday to cyprus on may 14th.....fingers crossed.

 

RE/
>Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?

Per morning news, the market's betting on a "short" time. What is "short"? Dunno, but somebody
opined that if it stretches out into months, the market's going to take a major dive.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

 

Simon <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Chequer" <[email protected](youdontwantthisbitinit)thisisasparagus.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> |
> | "Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | >
> | > Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
> | >
> | > Do you care?
> |
> | A few hours waiting for Microsoft War XP to boot. Then some fannying
> around
> | while they download the British plugin. Which they then realise they
don't
> | need anyway for full functionality.
> |
> | Then a few easy weeks of pretty fireworks being fired from aeroplanes -
> some
> | great TV for the folks at home.
> |
> | Then comes months of sordid bloody stalemate as they lay siege to
Baghdad.
> | Many civilians and military personnel will lose their lives. The very
end
> of
> | it will be like the film Spartacus. I'm Saddam. No, I'm Saddam. No, I'm Saddam........
> |
> | War Andy HURRR! Chequer - good God, what is it good for?
> |
> | Say it again y'all
>
> Andy Chequer for world leader..............who will second this?

Aye, seconded!!! With Eddie Izzard as vice-co-second in command leader! ',;~}

Shaun aRe - You know it's the right thing to do.

 

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:18:58 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>spademan o---[) * <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> > Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?
>> >
>> > Do you care?
>> >
>>
>> Unashamedly Taken from alt.humor:
>>
>> Observer Worldview
>>
>> To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no
>> one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in
>> Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
>>
>> The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its
>> own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over
>> Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could
>> have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only
>> Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard
>> to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity
>> badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers.
>>
>> It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital
>> city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable
>> that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James
>> Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what
>> remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself,
>> would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in
>> the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.
>>
>> Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have
>> afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had
>> supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was,
>> of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in
>> America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could
>> afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a
>> lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of
>> targets.
>>
>> Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated
>> on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have
>> bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge
>> that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we
>> could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.
>>
>> In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens
>> with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall,
>> where we could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the
>> elements with a clear conscience.
>>
>> The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have
>> actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the
>> Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two
>> Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it
>> goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden
>> Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the
>> whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area.
>>
>> And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on
>> Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that
>> it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.
>>
>> So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place.
>
>I love the way sarcasm can be used to such a great effect in the delivering of good, factual common
>sense ',;~}
>
>
>
>Shaun aRe

Fer real. My thanks to those in the UK, and elsewhere. For such carefully worded, well thought out
responses. Oh, and you too Rimmer.

Any of you have kids? How do those with kids help alleviate their children's fears? My kids,
especially my 6 y.o boy is more than a little anxious about this situation. He's a tough little guy,
but his phone call to me as I was preparing to depart from work last night was downright gut
wrenching. All this talk of fighting from our leaders has him rattled, and I can only hope that my
soothing words are a comfort to him. But it's difficult to be convincing when you are not entirely
convinced yourself.

Dave (somehow bicycles are very far from my mind now. Sorry.)

 

Dave W wrote:

>>I love the way sarcasm can be used to such a great effect in the delivering of good, factual
>>common sense ',;~}
>>
>
> Fer real.

Been watching Ali G?

My thanks to those in the UK, and elsewhere. For such
> carefully worded, well thought out responses. Oh, and you too Rimmer.
>
> Any of you have kids?

Not that I know of...

How do those with kids help alleviate their
> children's fears? My kids, especially my 6 y.o boy is more than a little anxious about this
> situation. He's a tough little guy, but his phone call to me as I was preparing to depart from
> work last night was downright gut wrenching. All this talk of fighting from our leaders has him
> rattled, and I can only hope that my soothing words are a comfort to him. But it's difficult to be
> convincing when you are not entirely convinced yourself.

Where are you? Georgia? I don't think you're exactly on the frontline

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

Dave W <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:18:58 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >I love the way sarcasm can be used to such a great effect in the
delivering
> >of good, factual common sense ',;~}
> >
> >
> >
> >Shaun aRe
>
> Fer real. My thanks to those in the UK, and elsewhere. For such carefully worded, well thought out
> responses. Oh, and you too Rimmer.

Heheheh, thanks for singling me out Dave - hell, just 'cos I rag on you, doen't mean I'm all bad
(quite the opposite, heheheh)...... ',:~}

> Any of you have kids? How do those with kids help alleviate their children's fears? My kids,
> especially my 6 y.o boy is more than a little anxious about this situation. He's a tough little
> guy, but his phone call to me as I was preparing to depart from work last night was downright gut
> wrenching. All this talk of fighting from our leaders has him rattled, and I can only hope that my
> soothing words are a comfort to him. But it's difficult to be convincing when you are not entirely
> convinced yourself.

It is indeed, and sometimes, all you _can_ say is 'hey, I'm scared too kid' and give them a hug.
Knowing they aren't alone in their fears can be as great a comfort as you can bestow, sometimes.

> Dave (somehow bicycles are very far from my mind now. Sorry.)

Yeah, death and aggression suck, and in the concentrations they are found during a war, suck right
off the whole scale of suckiness.

Later,

Shaun aRe

 

Dave W <[email protected]> wrote:

>Any ideas? A few day's? A few month's?

The initial barrage will be so severe that the rank and file Iraqi soldiers will surrender at the
first opportunity (remember them surrendering to the camera crews last time?). These guys aren't
willing to die for Saddam. Good choice.

There will be some hard line Republican Guard types that put up a fight in Baghdad no doubt - and
that will cause the most allied casualties (probably not a huge number, though any is too many).

The Iraqi civilian deaths will be relatively few - certainly fewer Iraqis will die during the war
than would die over the next decade under Saddam. This is one of the reasons the billions spent
developing smarter weapons pays off. Sadly, there will be unnecessary civilian deaths because of
Saddam's penchant for locating military targets in the middle of Iraqi civilian centers (for
example, locating anti-aircraft guns on hospitals and schools, or filling military bunkers with
civilians).

After the smoke clears we get to see if it was all worth it or not. If we dig through the rubble
(and pay off the scientists) and don't find any chemical or biological weapons, or any evidence of
an ongoing nuclear program, there will be a well-deserved backlash toward the Bush and Blair
administrations.

If OTOH we turn up the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and programs in great quantities, Bush and
Blair look like geniuses and the UN Security Council takes on the relevance of MV at a NORBA
conference.

>Do you care?

Of course. War sucks. Any war. But sometimes war is better than the alternative. IMHO this war
really isn't all about Iraq, but how the world is going to deal with the WMD that could soon going
to give huge destructive power to any two bit thug who wants it. You can bet Kim Jong Il is
watching what happens in Iraq closely, as are many other regimes in the near and middle east (Iran,
Pakistan, India).

We can (as a world society) try to prevent the proliferation of WMD into the hands of those who
would use them to gain political power, or we can sit back and wait for the inevitable.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:24:13 +0100, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave W wrote:
>
>>>I love the way sarcasm can be used to such a great effect in the delivering of good, factual
>>>common sense ',;~}
>>>
>>
>> Fer real.
>
>Been watching Ali G?

Yo yo yo, I'm in da durty sofh, git witch the program homey...;-)
>
>My thanks to those in the UK, and elsewhere. For such
>> carefully worded, well thought out responses. Oh, and you too Rimmer.
>>
>> Any of you have kids?
>
>Not that I know of...

well then this wouldn't be a question for you then would it?

>
>How do those with kids help alleviate their
>> children's fears? My kids, especially my 6 y.o boy is more than a little anxious about this
>> situation. He's a tough little guy, but his phone call to me as I was preparing to depart from
>> work last night was downright gut wrenching. All this talk of fighting from our leaders has him
>> rattled, and I can only hope that my soothing words are a comfort to him. But it's difficult to
>> be convincing when you are not entirely convinced yourself.
>
>Where are you? Georgia? I don't think you're exactly on the frontline

I know, but try telling a 6 y.o that has vivid memories of 9/11 that. I too have vivid memories, and
unlike in your country (U.K), that kinda shit does not happen no where near as frequently as it does
there. You are de-sensitized to terrorism, and it's inevitable backlash.

Dave

 

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:50 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Dave W <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:18:58 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> >I love the way sarcasm can be used to such a great effect in the
>delivering
>> >of good, factual common sense ',;~}
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Shaun aRe
>>
>> Fer real. My thanks to those in the UK, and elsewhere. For such carefully worded, well thought
>> out responses. Oh, and you too Rimmer.
>
>Heheheh, thanks for singling me out Dave - hell, just 'cos I rag on you, doen't mean I'm all bad
>(quite the opposite, heheheh)...... ',:~}

I understand. (hard to believe I'm sure) It's cool.
>
>> Any of you have kids? How do those with kids help alleviate their children's fears? My kids,
>> especially my 6 y.o boy is more than a little anxious about this situation. He's a tough little
>> guy, but his phone call to me as I was preparing to depart from work last night was downright gut
>> wrenching. All this talk of fighting from our leaders has him rattled, and I can only hope that
>> my soothing words are a comfort to him. But it's difficult to be convincing when you are not
>> entirely convinced yourself.
>
>It is indeed, and sometimes, all you _can_ say is 'hey, I'm scared too kid' and give them a hug.
>Knowing they aren't alone in their fears can be as great a comfort as you can bestow, sometimes.

So far that has done the trick. But in a few day's, when the cameras start rolling on the "War
Channel" (CNN to those that don't know that distinction) And it's broadcasted into every home with a
T.V, I'm afraid it won't do the trick any longer.
>
>> Dave (somehow bicycles are very far from my mind now. Sorry.)
>
>Yeah, death and aggression suck, and in the concentrations they are found during a war, suck right
>off the whole scale of suckiness.
>
>Later,
>
>Shaun aRe

Agreed. Sometimes you DO sum things up pretty well.....

Dave (aww, this is a Kodak moment!)