While I agree that the situation in Iraq is very fluid, keep in mind that the media always focuses on whatever side they wish to portray at the time. I have many friends over there right both as military and as civilians. I have friends that have gone out on missions where their only job was to provide 'security' to humanitarian aid groups. Local Iraqis (to be fair only members of specific factions) use sawed off shutguns to attack the convoys. Those weapons are very unreliable and will spray in all directions and backfire quite a bit. There are lots of collateral damage done by the Iraqis that use those weapons. The military collects those weapons on a daily basis and provides medical care for the insurgents that are hurt by their own weapons backfiring and hitting innocent bystanders. Yet the media always chooses to tell the story of one citizen that will support the theory that the collateral damage was done by the Americans, not the local insurgents. The media will go from one Iraqi to another until they find someone willing to state what they want the public to hear. They intentionally have neglected to show stories of the number of weapons the americans collect, the state of the weapons, or even to view actual footage of the firefights. It is despicable. There are always casualties and some will occur by accident and some will be deplorably intentional and they will happen on both sides. Well, I am telling you that many many of my friends including my ex-husband were there or are there now and the real picture is quite a bit diffent than the picture portrayed by the media. Also, the average Iraqi citizen wants America there until order is restored and considers the insurgents to be common criminals. You can argue it all you want and you can pull out whatever story you want but I have heard it numerous times from eye witnesses and I still do. I have many friends there now.


>>>The French, Germans and Russians were all in on the "oil for money" scandle. No wonder they were so against the war against Iraq.
>>
>>How easy people jump to conclusions about the motive other countries/persons have
>
>Hugo,
>
>Thanks for jumping in. It looks like the US press is currently highly partial in the way they cover Irak. I currently read a lot of int'l press including both US and non-US (thanks to US-based google) to get an "honest view" on things over there in Irak. That's "Misssion impossible".
>
>I hope that some the US members of the UT will understand that there clearly are "organised press campaigns" in the countries involved in the conflict with definitely dubious information, to say the least.
>
>I won't buy that Bush is part of a clique motivated by the "oil money". He tries to protect his country and should be respected for that. But who is stupid enough to believe that the motivation of the French government is any different?
>
>The French administration (and all political parties as well) refused to joined the alliance for this second war because our countries felt the risk associated with war in Irak was too high. Because its colonial history in his region, our country has a different perception towards int'l intervention. That's the reason. Not "oil money" or whatever smuggling. Let us be serious for a while.
>
>Franck