![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Irrelevant war thoughts
Mar. 21st, 2003 09:03 amThe timing is interesting. The last Gulf War ended just before Purim. This Gulf War started the night after Shushan Purim. No war on Purim itself, either time.
And it doesn't hurt that the timing of the war also means the local NPR affiliate is cutting way, way back on their usual scads of fundraising time, either.
What I'm missing most from the war coverage by being mostly a news listener rather than news watcher/reader: maps.
Last night some reporter mentioned a city in Iraq being taken by American (or international, for all I really know) troops, and called the city in question "not well-defended." Which somehow struck me as odd, since my immediate mental picture is of a walled city, having precise boundaries that could be defended. I wonder how Boston, for instance, would stack up. I mean, I know that there are more police/guards/security people out there, but if an army came to invade Boston, what would be defended, what not? Holding what particular places would mean that we'd held or lost the city?
This morning, there was news of an American cavalry division moving through Iraq. Does that mean that they've shipped horses across to Iraq, or is it an old term that's now used to mean something else? Not foot soldiers, nor tanks, since they have their own divisions, I believe.
And in other news, apparently the House has approved Bush's budget for next year, which includes lots of tax breaks to "stimulate the economy." (one article here). How the hell does he expect to pay for a war, even with slashing lots of those social programs (like Medicaid)? And of course, it emphasizes the fact that it's important to get people born, but not to take care of them once they make it out.
And it doesn't hurt that the timing of the war also means the local NPR affiliate is cutting way, way back on their usual scads of fundraising time, either.
What I'm missing most from the war coverage by being mostly a news listener rather than news watcher/reader: maps.
Last night some reporter mentioned a city in Iraq being taken by American (or international, for all I really know) troops, and called the city in question "not well-defended." Which somehow struck me as odd, since my immediate mental picture is of a walled city, having precise boundaries that could be defended. I wonder how Boston, for instance, would stack up. I mean, I know that there are more police/guards/security people out there, but if an army came to invade Boston, what would be defended, what not? Holding what particular places would mean that we'd held or lost the city?
This morning, there was news of an American cavalry division moving through Iraq. Does that mean that they've shipped horses across to Iraq, or is it an old term that's now used to mean something else? Not foot soldiers, nor tanks, since they have their own divisions, I believe.
And in other news, apparently the House has approved Bush's budget for next year, which includes lots of tax breaks to "stimulate the economy." (one article here). How the hell does he expect to pay for a war, even with slashing lots of those social programs (like Medicaid)? And of course, it emphasizes the fact that it's important to get people born, but not to take care of them once they make it out.