[JCC]

Brigitte,

 >Talking about the war, is it just me or are 50% of the coallition 
casualties killed by friendly fire and
 >helicopter crashes? A bit ironic don't you think?

Ironic?  No.  Friendly fire casualties in that range have been a normal 
figure for war - although at least on the American side (don't know about 
the Brits) I think it somewhere more around 20%.  Friendly fire casualties 
in WWII are estimated at 35-40% or more.  This is a normal consequence of 
waging war.

Oh, and so I don't clutter the list up, to respond to Lew:

 > You must have star spangled eyes If you dont think that American Govt and
 > its business partners are not after the control of oil to preserve its way
 > of life and most importantly get Dubya re-elected as it's economy benefits
 > from this and the post war recovery contracts.
 > Since when has it ever been interested in democracy in other countries
 > unless it matches US business interests.

Not to go into gory detail of everything you wrote, but your perception of 
things over here loses some definition by distance.  I have watched my 
government, and in particular Pres. Bush, over the last year or so, and you 
can see in his eyes and hear in his voice exactly what the motives for this 
conflict are:

5%  Economics.
95% Making sure that nothing even resembling 9-11 *EVER* occurs on his 
watch again.

Economics is part of everything, so there is no way it has NO 
bearing.  However, this conflict is still very much about 9-11.

Given that Saddam is consuming people at a rate of ~60,000 per year 
(reference my last email), the number of civilian casualties due to this 
conflict will hit break even within a month of Saddam being gone.  Any way 
you look at it, even if you think the American government's motives are 
despicable, this war is a good thing.

Take care.

Jacques

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."