Viewing Thread:
"Just a simple question"

With no sarcasm or attempts at satire.

Does anyone else wonder why the lead news story now is the University Top-Up fees, the day after Tony Blair admitted that Iraq has no links with Al Queda "as far as I'm aware".
Instead of the war-rhetoric of the past week or so, it drops off the radar to be replaced with student loans and mounting debt.

Is it just me? And once again, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or facetious, I'm honestly wondering about it.

To give my answer to your question, Goaty, I'd reckon that it's a headline that sells papers, far more than anything about Iraq, which is old news. It a shocking state of affairs to be in, but I'd suspect that the majority of the country cares more about what goes on within the borders of the country than a potential war on the other side of the world that is unlikely to directly affect the majority of the population.

We're a nation of NIMBYs. With serious attention deficiencies.

Light wrote:
> And notice how the firefighters strike is being pushed to the back of
> the queue news-wise as well; after all, the strike involves deployment
> of troops and that will get us thinking about the war...

What with it ending at 9am this morning....

Anyway, once the strike ends it is a non event media wise, with Gilchrist digging his heels in, and digging the FBU it's own little grave, and the FBU unwilling to move except on their terms, and the government not changing its position. There's no furhter news because there isn't, simple as that.

The strike may have gota few more people thinking about war, but I think the news of 1/4 of the army being deployed had already done that. If anything, as I noted earlier along with others, the timing of the strike works for the government as it destroys public support for the FBU every time they go on strike.

~~Belldandy~~

Dunno, I'm okay with it though, sick of hearing about Iraq. I'm going to Uni in a couple of years (I hope) and it's quite important news I'd say...I mean, yeah, I expect the rich ones can get their parents to pay it off, but what about everyone else?

I mean, I heard some debts were tens of thousands of pounds. It's not gonna be easy paying all that back.

Then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about, so I'll go back to my little hole now.

unknown kernel wrote:
> TB also refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq: good
> news all round since this will get rid of some of our WMDs as well as
> all of Saddam's.

But only in a certain context, you'll notice that the UK hasn't either, within certain conditions. Essentially the threat of use is enough to make sure they will not be used, if a nation does not sound as if it is prepared to use them then it may as well not have them, it is the context of the use that is important.

~~Belldandy~~

That Muslim dude on 4 News last night REALLY did know what he was talking about!

I think the rule should be: if you're prepared to use nuclear weapons then you shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Let's assume that by some miracle Saddam gets a nuclear missile and lobs it at London. Thousands, maybe millions die. What do we achieve by then nuking Baghdad? Not much, because the people who actually decided to launch the attack will be safe in their little bunkers (as will Tony, George and friends). Murder doesn't justify murder, especially on grounds of nationality.

That's shocking news. So it's okay for us to use a nuclear weapon against other countries we don't like it when other nations develop them for use? I almost envy North Korea...

TB also refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq: good news all round since this will get rid of some of our WMDs as well as all of Saddam's.

And notice how the firefighters strike is being pushed to the back of the queue news-wise as well; after all, the strike involves deployment of troops and that will get us thinking about the war...

Maybe The Mirror, but that's about it. The rest of the media seems hell-bent on a war that the majority of the public don't want, by stirring up pro-war reactions. Why has all this frenzy over ricin been in the papers lately, even though it's been common knowldge that far deadlier substances can be made with some select knowledge. I know you're pro-war anyway, Belldandy, so whatever you say is probably tinged with bias. Not that I'm not biased as well. I just don't believe that attacking a country that's had sanctions imposed on it for over 10 years where the majority of the population are needy and poor, is the best way to go about things. If Iraq's major export was turnips, I wonder how many countries would start a war against it? None. Because it's all about the oil - before attacking Afghanistan, a plan had been drawn up to introduce an oil pipeline through it. It's all about the oil and establishing a capitalist empire in the middle-east. After all, Iraq own 10% of the world's oil supplies. Yes, Saddam need to be ousted but sanctions should be lifted and Iraq should be able to continue in a reasonable manner in which Saudi Arabia has conveyed itself.