If you wanted to get deeper into the debate and throw in conspiracy theories then there could be a long term strategy of the radical fundamentalist groups to undermine the US in the eyes of the world, to turn the Western countries against each other and throw democratic processes into chaos. That would credit Saddam and terrorists with highly developed political strategic skills, a high degree of cooperation between opposing factions through communications and national intelligence strategies. I doubt their ability to think this far ahead and to form such sophisticated alliances. They strike me as an extremely emotional and highly dogmatic group of people who respond swiftly and without thought of consequences to themselves. Their purposes tend to be narrow in focus, with highly defined boundaries both to their countries and their cultural beliefs. I think it is opportunistic that as this turmoil and disarray presented itself to the world, Saddam then developed long term plans to play the game of democratic chess. The media has provided them with the knowledge, the information and the means to do this.

Language of spokesmen of each side are highly emotive and provocative. With a majority vote against going in the approval of the civilised world must be attempted. There is a feverish pitch in the addresses by Bush, Blaire and Howard. We should be afraid, he has weapons of mass destruction, he will use them on you if we don't go in now. I hear arguments such as 'links to terrorism', 'evil', 'rule by terror', 'weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and dictatorships', 'threat to national borders'. The nature of news broadcasting plays into building the fever, the news must show what is being said as it happens, every time a leader speaks their voice is transmitted to the nation. The news broadcasters must report both sides though so the UN position is also aired and the public opinion becomes equally aired. Telephone poles are held and the results shown, market research results are reported.

The other side argue 'innocent lives lost', 'it's illegal', 'there has to be another way'. The UN say 'we need more time', 'we need solid evidence', and we must use the democratic process to resolve this'. What ensues is a confusion of views, a building on of a breakdown in communication, the French government finally bring things to a head. It was the perfect excuse for the US to disconnect from the UN, all the coverage discrediting the UN as a democratic forum, comments are heard from different people that the UN is finished and useless and when finally the French Veto the last resolution, the US have the environment to go in regardless.

The next battle to be won is the approval of the public, the voices of the UN subsides and it becomes a repetition of soldiers, commanders, presidents, prime ministers and protestors. We hear from Iraq and his members interspersed with these images

. The US have a massive damage control exercise on their hands, marketing and PR strategies come into play. I guarantee the US advisors will have done more extensive research into the feelings of the general public towards the war. They will have asked why are you against it, what would justify going in to Iraq for you. The answers would have come back, loss of innocent life, loss of allied soldiers' life, not interfering with other countries business etc. These concerns would have to be addressed and managed through the media. Iraq have been listening to all these arguments presented via satellite TV, they know that civilians must be spared, that the war must be quick and the world must approve. This sets the PR and marketing campagne to be run counter to the one attempted by the US and UK. This is evident by the choice of footage shown on Iraqi TV programming, in speeches given to the Western press. They also need to be concerned about historical events. The mass surrender of Iraqi troops in the last 'Gulf War', the massacre of troops in the desserts and the falling into disfavour with the world and how that causes less cooperation regarding conquering enemies, technological progress etc. Saddam also needs to win the approval of the world. He has seen how Asadam Bin Ladin was able to incite a religious based support from Arab communities and he will use this knowledge. Also at his disposal is army tactics of the IRA and other effective strategies of minority groups, such as suicide bombing.

Enter Reality fact or fiction

From the US standpoint, we are meant to believe that Saddam is the next Hitler, if we leave him to his own devices he will sneakily continue to amass enough hardware and fighting power to take over the world. That he is connected to many terrorist acts perpetrated against the US and he is not to be believed or trusted. There is not so much evidence for some of these claims apart from his past actions against his neighbours, the invasion of Kuwait, which is very damming. So far the UN have found nothing, but we have to take into consideration that the UN have not been allowed complete access to scientific and military staff, and many locations were denied access. This is not proof but it is very suspicious behaviour and people will question the continued partial compliance. To view things from their perspective who would want Asadam Bin Ladin freely roaming around the Whitehouse with a rucksack on his back, not to mention the sheer arrogance of monitoring a nation as if their a naughty criminal that needs to be checked up on. These factors will not enter into people’s final analysis of the situation.

I would like to add one more point here. Four days into the conflict and still no weapons of mass destruction are found and none have been used. Let's hope Saddam has the commonsense to NEVER use them, if he uses them he loses right there. The US believe he will use them. I think they would be incredibly stupid to use them, the intelligent thing to do would be to destroy the evidence in the two days given to Saddam. Of course we have to bear in mind the US are not above planting evidence and the world knows that, US films have told of such stories. So by the same token the US would make an unwise move to plant evidence, rather to say well something was there we don't know what, keep up the suspicion and doubt. It all remains to be seen.

The stage is set - enter the media centre stage

The media has been used as a propaganda machine, a political platform and a method of timely communication of differing points of view. Prominent and skilful speakers have learned how to manipulate images to help their cause or promote ideologies. This can backfire on people not so skilful, for example Micheal Jackson. The diplomatic process is extremely malleable, fluid and contentious. All views must be seen to be aired. Academics are given access to the media on more hard press shows adding to the mixing pot of a multiplicity of viewpoints and readings. Take in point UFO controversies, is there a conspiracy of the government? Were the conspiracy theories created to discredit or ridicule? There are enough debates and notions both light, fictional, factually based to keep things in a state of uncertainty. People read evidence that either supports or refutes their position, they add to this personal experience. People are left to draw their own conclusions.

I have to say that since moving to Australia I have found the reporting of news in this country to be overtly biased, blatantly emotive and provocative language and images and highly contrived shots. I actually got interviewed once, I was asked to re answer all the questions outside. I forgot one of the answers I had provided so the interviewer reminded me what I'd said. I did not get to see the editing treatment of this report which is a shame, but editing is the most powerful tool for distorting a view point, whether intentional or not. Examples of the use of language on Australian news programmes have presented themselves such as the time I was watching the coverage of the cricket matches between England and Australia. I would like to state here I hate cricket with a passion, I couldn't care less who won or lost this game ever. I understand Australia always win quite comfortably against England. Still I heard to my disgust a reporter use words such as 'pathetic' to describe the efforts of the English team. Words I expect to hear are 'defeated', 'out skilled', 'disappointing' all acceptable descriptors. I can't bear to watch sport on TV here because of the emotive language used and the biased selections i.e. I no longer get to see Snooker, table tennis and squash, Australian media prefer AFL, Aussie Rules, Basketball, Cricket. World events such as the Olympics coverage favours events the media are certain Australia will win. I like to see all nations compete in all events, I like to here the top three people interviewed, but I expect to here how Australia did as an added extra. That is not the treatment of the Olympics here, so I no longer watch sport. I also don't watch the news generally, preferring programmes such as 'Foreign Correspondent' and 'Four Corners'. Sometimes I will watch ABC and SBS news which is less emotive with its language use and does show more footage from differing viewpoints.

But it's good to see the media wearing its ulterior motives on its sleeve, because the US and UK coverage is much more pervasive in its reporting style. They have the ability to show interviews with academics speaking for both sides respectively, they show footage that is clearly edited with no telltale blips. They utilise PR and marketing strategies to play embarrassing cards which very convincingly creates credible reporting. They use language which is marginally emotive such as 'bombarded', 'flimsily built houses', 'cauldron of fire' Tony Blair uses words such as 'brutal dictatorship' 'parading people in that way', 'tortures and murders people'. Language is highbrow, eloquent and calculated sounding more academic than emotionally charged, a degree of emotional detachment is maintained, the tone of voice of the speaker is vital to maintain the impression of impartiality.

Then lets look at Iraq reporting. Well of course I do not have full access to these broadcasts, I do not speak their language, I can count to 10 in Arabic and I have been taught two phrases in Persian, so that's the closest I come. I am completely at the mercy of interpreters and interpretations provided by journalists and subtitles. I rely on the fact that most countries in the world are multicultural. There are Iraqis in this country, so I rationalise that they cannot misinterpret what is aired. They can select which parts of a speech they show. It is obvious I am not seeing the whole interview with Iraqi spokesmen (yes they are all men). The Australian, US and UK speakers are seen to arrive at their podium and leave.

So with this selection it appears that Iraq make claims which are unsubstantiated, they infer underhand and illegal tactics, accuse the troops of staging 'surrendering Iraqi soldiers' highly emotionally charged words are used by these speakers e.g. 'stupid', 'criminals', 'terrorists' I personally feel that they are attempting to utilise words aimed at them in the build up to the war, because sometimes I feel they are describing themselves, they are certainly reproducing the dominant universal perceptions of Western society towards Saddam and his regime. My personal favourite was the one Saddam was purported to have said on 24 March (he did not provide a date this time), he said 'we are the soldiers of God' and 'the victory of God is very close' he mentions Muslims and Palestinians because he knows about the US allies and diplomatic compromises.

The fine polished and apparently impartial reporting of events by BBC in particular compared to the highly emotionally delivered speeches, unsubstantiated claims make Iraq a poor debater. There are admissions made by BBC of filmic mistakes, the Geneva convention is referred to when filming Iraqis surrendering. Unfortunately Saddam missed that reference because he made the massive mistake of airing US POWS, a double edged sword with regards to PR to the world audiences. I think the value is placed on enraging supporters to the fight against US, but they do not make up the entire world, not a smart move. The POWs are merely interviewed, there are no shots of guns held on them, granted they look concerned, but then with the amount of mistrust of the treatment in the past of not only POWs in the last war but of their own people, that's not surprising.

There is also reference made to what could be construed as a staged shot of an alleged Iraqi soldier surrendering whilst a soldier in the foreground looks out to an unseen landscape, gun at the ready. Shots of Iraqi soldiers tied behind the hands, faces seen as they sit behind barbed wire mini fences. My mind goes back to the time the US pulled out of the 'Gulf War' and left the Iraqis to it. I crossed my fingers that these soldiers will be safe from reprisal from the Saddam regime. These shots are necessary to fuel the justification for the US, UK and Polish soldiers imposing which I like to think of as an international coup on a government.

It is important that each player justifies their position and the media are used to show this. Shots are stating to the audiences 'See they are being treated well', 'some are pleased', 'some do not even want to fight'. Iraq play on the arguments against the US, they show civilians in hospital beds, mostly women and children, and partially destroyed civilian homes, captured soldiers, which states the message 'see we caught some', 'we're holding them off', 'it's taking them forever'. Pre thought out military tactics become apparent, not a new thing to use women and children as shields, take IRA's use of prams to hide guns, use of women's clothing to smuggle in male soldiers or guns. To call this guerrilla warfare is not an inaccurate description.

We are provided with narrative, claims not backed up with live footage the Umm Cassr port is secured, that women are blocking crossing through towns, we see men approach soldiers, but they are not wearing a uniform, non are interviewed. Later claims are made that Iraqis are pretending to surrender then attacking, no visual evidence is provided. Many claims are made by both sides, some are most definitely the manipulation of the media sent in to report as the action unfolds, but journalists are provided with limited information from commanders and the audience receives snap shots, highly edited selected and composed sequences of shots to provide the illusion of balance, with the occasional reporter providing an entirely subjective interpretation with carefully selected terms.

Mixed in are some unblemished reports, that are genuinely impartial and are backed up with visual references. Both sides have accused each other of staging evidence visually and when you look at the technological capabilities of Hollywood it is not without its basis. Well we didn't get to hear the soldiers speak, we didn't get to hear the people in the hospital beds speak. Shots of the damage report are close ups, we don't get aerial shots or panoramic views of the damage. Use of snap shots and close ups are another way of editing a shot. The audience is led by the camera crew and is limited by what the camera points at.

It is important that the war is seen to be moving quickly, few deaths are recorded, they keep this information from us, exaggerate the speed of progress. Iraq exaggerate future outcomes, provide limited information and show highly emotionally charged shots. Ironically these shots work against them. Their behaviour around the Tigris river is disgraceful. I knew immediately of course that no-one was there, if a soldier was to parachute land in the centre of Bagdad I would expect them to surrender immediately, so they also look ridiculous to me. One has to wonder what would happen if they did capture someone, it seems to be shoot first ask questions later. Both sides show shots of Iraqis dancing and jigging with glee. There was a shot of US troops bombing a building and cheering afterwards. These shots provoke heightened emotions in their audiences.

You really see the expertise of the US, UK and Australian ability to influence public opinion when you take into account the people brought in to comment on all developments, including US and British stuff ups. Is Saddam alive or not, people for and against the war, demonstrators are given lots of air time interwoven with comments on increased support claims statistical reports, reduced numbers of demonstrators commented upon.