Of course it does. I wouldn't expect the TV media to show you anything else?

However, if you read, you might get a different perspective. Below is an op-ed from the NY Times. Do I think the Iraqis will be better off in the long run? In all likelihood. Do I think they, as a nation, are celebrating their 'liberation' just yet? No way.

No doubt, it's a complex issue.

Hold Your Applause
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

MM QASR, Iraq — It's hard to smile when there's no water. It's hard to applaud when you're frightened. It's hard to say, "Thank you for liberating me," when liberation has meant that looters have ransacked everything from the grain silos to the local school, where they even took away the blackboard.

That was what I found when spending the day in Umm Qasr and its hospital, in southern Iraq. Umm Qasr was the first town liberated by coalition forces. But 20 days into the war, it is without running water, security or adequate food supplies. I went in with a Kuwaiti relief team, who, taking pity on the Iraqis, tossed out extra food from a bus window as we left. The Umm Qasr townsfolk scrambled after that food like pigeons jostling for bread crumbs in a park.

This was a scene of humiliation, not liberation. We must do better.

I am sure we will, as more relief crews arrive. But this scene explained to me why, even here in the anti-Saddam Shia heartland of southern Iraq, no one is giving U.S. troops a standing ovation. Applause? When I asked Lt. Col. Richard Murphy, part of the U.S. relief operation, how Iraqis were greeting his men, he answered bluntly and honestly: "I have not detected any overt hostility."

Overt hostility? We've gone from expecting applause to being relieved that there is no overt hostility. And we've been here only 20 days. As I said, I'm certain things will improve with time. But for now, America has broken the old order — Saddam's regime — but it has yet to put in place a new order, and the vacuum is being filled in way too many places by looters, thugs, chaos, thirst, hunger and insecurity. A particular problem here in the south is the fact that British troops have still not totally secured Basra, the regional center. Without free access to Basra, the whole southern economy is stalled.

It would be idiotic to even ask Iraqis here how they felt about politics. They are in a pre-political, primordial state of nature. For the moment, Saddam has been replaced by Hobbes, not Bush. When I asked Dr. Safaa Khalaf at Umm Qasr Hospital why the reception for U.S. forces had been so muted, he answered: "Many people here have sons who were soldiers. They were forced to join the army. Many people lost their sons. They are angry from the war. Since the war, no water, no food, no electricity. . . . We have not had water for washing or drinking for five days. . . . There is no law, no policeman to arrest people. I don't see yet the American reign of running the country."

The scene at Umm Qasr Hospital is tragic. A woman who delivered a baby an hour earlier is limping home, and her mother has the baby tucked under her black robe. An old orange Dodge speeds up and a malnourished teenage boy moans on the back seat. A little kid is playing with an X-ray film of someone's limb. In the hospital lab, the sink is piled with bloody test tubes, waiting to be washed when the water comes back on.

What is striking, though, is that after people get through complaining to you about their situation, they each seem to have a story about a family member or cousin who was arbitrarily jailed or killed by Saddam's thugs. They are truly glad to be rid of him. America did good in doing that, so now we must build a peace we can be equally proud of.

But this is such a broken land. Its spirit was broken by Saddam long before we arrived, and now, because of this war, its major cities and iron-fisted order are being broken as well. Killing Saddam alone will not bring America the thank-yous it expects because Iraqis are not yet feeling free. Only replacing Saddam's order with a better order will do that. "There is no freedom because there is no security," said Dr. Mohammed al-Mansuri, the hospital's director.

We are so caught up with our own story of "America's liberation of Iraq," and the Arab TV networks are so caught up with their own story of "America's occupation of Iraq," that everyone seems to have lost sight of the real lives of Iraqis.

"We are lost," said Zakiya Jassim, a hospital maintenance worker. "The situation is getting worse. I don't care about Saddam. He is far away. I want my country to be normal."

America broke Iraq; now America owns Iraq, and it owns the primary responsibility for normalizing it. If the water doesn't flow, if the food doesn't arrive, if the rains don't come and if the sun doesn't shine, it's now America's fault. We'd better get used to it, we'd better make things right, we'd better do it soon, and we'd better get all the help we can get.

Going to war is like having a bowel movement: It isn't pretty, people who look forward to it too much probably have some kind of problem, you shouldn't make a big deal of it when you're done, the whole process basically stinks and there's usually a lot of paperwork when the whole thing is over. But exactly like a #2, it seems to be a necessary evil of our culture or species. History stands as evidence. So does this: "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato. True as shit.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

 

new york times op-ed page is the last place i'm going to for balance and a strong point of view.

here is my point of view. i have walked the streets of bombed out cities. i have cleared rubble and dead bodies. i have seen misery you can't wrap your mind around. i have been wounded to my soul over things that haunt me at night. i have talked to people in the same situation as iraq. i have helped build the schools. i have turned the water back on. i haven't been there, didn't see that, what t-shirt? (old specail ops joke)

i said 'i' a lot so you can understand my point of view didn't come from an office in new york. my point of view comes from treads on dirt.

saddam broke the water. saddam turned the electricity off. saddam didn't give open access to the un there by keeping the imbargos in place. saddam invaded iran and kuwait. saddam imprisoned women and children. saddam starved his people to build palaces and buy weapons. him not you, me or bush. him.

did you watch the news today? did you see our boys faces? you know why they where grining so big? they know they made a diffrence. they know they helped. they aren't killers. they aren't machines. they are some damn fine men and women. if the situation was as horrible as it seemed you would have seen it on thier faces. they feed off the emotion of those they liberated. wouldn't be much to smile about if hope wasn't alive.

hope is alive in iraq. hope is now in full follow. what is more hopless? a sortage of water and power or a fear of saying the wrong thing and not seeing you family anymore?

"Do I think the Iraqis will be better off in the long run? In all likelihood. Do I think they, as a nation, are celebrating their 'liberation' just yet? No way."

are they too stupid to see in the long run? they aren't allowed to see the hope too? is it because they are just stupid little brown people in the dessert? you honestly don't think they see light bleeding in after a lifetime of kicking in the dark?
brother i don't know you but i have to say that was a shallow damn fool thing to say. no one sees hope more than those who need it the most.

gotta get beyond an political op-ed to see the light.

double what tom said.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Fact: this is a dirty business, we decided to go we need to clean it up.

It was arguably F**ked up before we went and it is now F**ked up in a different way.

In the long run which is preferable. Well if the status quo had remained water would probably be on, people would still be tortured and starving.

As we went the water will come back on and we hope it becomes a little more humane.

Either way the problems exist, its a fact. I would think / hope that these will get resolved, it will take time and probably in the long run will be for the best but the moment we decided to go the risk of accidents, collateral damage and other problems increase exponentially. It was determined rightly or wrongly that this worth the trip so we make the most of it and sort it out.

Second guessing this is like discussing whether we should have gone to Vietnam or waited as long as we did to intervene in WWII, it dont make no difference at this point so we go anc sort it out.

don't forget my friends we are the ones who rebuilt europe and japan in an incredibly short time.

the iraqi people will help us build them back up. then they will not trust us and will be allies with one countries eye always on the other. oh geo politics. gotta love it!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Well you're right about one thing, you don't know me. The racist projection you're
pushing on me has nothing to do with me or the sentiments I expressed. Period. For all
you know, I could be one of those 'little brown people'.

You elaborated on your background, but your original post was a direct troll of Francois'
questioning what he saw on TV. If you're naive enough to believe that
families who've lost sons and daughters as a result of errant cruise missiles, stray
bullets, and scared shitless American checkpoing guards are going to line up to throw
rose petals at the feet of American soldiers, then so be it, but don't accuse me of being
a racist for keeping it in mind. I just don't think it's quite that simple.

Yes we built up Europe, that is Germany, and Japan, but we've also bailed on
Afganistan(in the early 90's, and funny that we don't hear so much about it now) and left
the Kurds to get slaughtered around then as well. Whether we will stay, clean up, and
rebuild in Iraq has yet to be seen and will ultimately determine how that country and it's
people feel about us, not simply that we toppled a government after 12 years of turning a
blind eye to its abuses and some 10 years prior of actively supporting it. Where do you think Saddam got those
chemicals he used to 'gas his own people'?

Only time will tell.

I'm done with the debate, you wanna attack me some more, go right ahead, the last
word is yours.

Several comments on all this...

1st the husband of a colleague, who is a lieutenant, a truly nice dude, went there, without knowing why, probably like many others. Yesterday his wife told me that they were acclaimed in a small town in Iraq and for the first time since he left, he saw a purpose to all this.

Does this justify going to war. I believe it does. Does it justify the way the Bush administration handled the whole process. That I don't believe. If GWB had played slightly more subtle (less was hard anyway) he would have had Europe with him. Had he left Colin Powell talk without saying in substance "we gonna kick sh's ass, you're coming?" he would have had Europe with him...that includes France, Germany and Russia. This was just a matter of playing the rules of diplomacy. Actually going back to previous posts, you will notice that this was the only point myself and Andrewmc (hope I am not transforming your thoughts mate) made during this exchange....

There was a poll on msnbc: how many soldiers are you ready to lose and still agree with going to war. answer was 5000. This is big BS...why, because most will think, well 5000, it's unlikely it will be someone I know, someone of my family...let's rephrase and ask, how many people of YOUR family are you ready to lose to free Iraq and I am sure adding all the answers will be far below from 5000.

Now, and this was my biggest concern before the war, and still is, pushing SH out of Iraq is not making war to terrorism. The manif. throughout the muslim world does not make me overly optimistic on this matter. I just hope I am wrong. Remember the comment of the japanese admiral at Pearl Harbor:"I am afraid we have awaken a sleeping giant"...I do hope that this war will not be the prequel to tragic terrorist episodes...

as far as making the terrorist angier. could they get more angry? yomoto was woried about awaking a sleeping giant because america was thoguht to be weak and he new better. we are no longer a sleeping giant. we are wide awake. terrorist do not attack the strong. they have too much to loose. respect to criminals is not earned through hugs and lolli pops it is gained in amount of ass kicked. remeber the bullies in your school yard? what happened when his favorite target bit back. he backed down and went else where.

the 5000 troops issue is a moot point. we have seen what we are going up against and loosing 5000 troops is as possible as that figure of 50000 civilian dead.

america can withstand 5000 dead. we can with stand a lot more. no offense francois, i'm glad your here and hope you stay a long time, but you still sale us americans short.

as far a this unfourtnate multi-national unilateral action bush so stupidly put together (that was sarcasm. still don't see how a multi national force is unilateral.) it worked great with out france, germany or russia. australia and britian where all we needed. (you can be very proud of half of yourself) i don't buy for a second that russia, france and germany stayed out for any moral reason. all of them are loosing lots of money now that saddam is out. kinda of funny people say it is all about money for bush but those three had a lot more to loose. they are nothing. they can niether hurt or help us to any large degree. that whole mess with them is now pointless.

we won. stop nashing your teeth over the finer points and realize we won on many levels. unilateral-multinationaly. i made that word up for you and andrew. you can use it all you want. i won't copyright it. ;-)

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"terrorist to not attack the strong"

uhuhuhu!!!??? were you here on 9/11/2001???

Actually Terrorists have no fear of the weak or the strong. They wont care / dont care either way, and they inherently believe that they can bomb and kill their way to the negotiating table as Arafat and Jerry Adams have.

HOWEVER the difference here is that I honestly dont know what these particular terrorists are after other than seeing the entire western world destroyed. Adams and Arafat had clear aims and the best of the British and Israeli armies were largely ineffectual against them and eventually they got what they wanted, Arafat with the peace proposal, Adams with the Irish Parliment.

These crackers though, they're just F**ked up and so long as people are funding them, they will attack people.

The inherent problem with Adams and Arafat is that they have a legitimate POLITICAL point that should be addressed, the problem is when they are bombing to make it you cant address it because youd be concedeing victory to the terrorists, so they are not recognised and they bomb some more. When the cease fire worked, the issues were addressed mroe reasonably.

I still dont understand the Al Queda Political manifesto?

how where we strong befoe 9/11? the beruit tower where blown. we did nothing. the first trade center bombing. we did nothing. kalbar tower. we did nothing. african embessay. here are a couple of tomahawks, basicly nothing. the cole bombing. nothing.

up until then we did nothing. so i am not one to blame 9/11 on clinton. reagan and bush and carter did nothing either.

the isaerl situtaion is diffrent. those are two groups of people living on top of each other. it is as much a land issue as it is relegouis issue.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

ok, I think, and correct me if I am wrong, Francois was trying to suggest that America is the PERCEIVED super power with the associated strength. They are the Superpower with all the strength but the attack still happened......

I think he was just trying to say America is perceived as all powerful and they hit hard. I think it would also be fair to say while it unlikely they would / will pull something like that off again it is not impossible and the US can not prevent terrorists that are determined enough.

If one of these loons wants to do something in Chicago, the NY El, Seatles Subway its very difficult to prevent determined people........

That said there is no doubt that a hurting has been put on them and I think they have far bigger concerns at present than attacking here........like running like hell.

correct.
this also the reason of the reaction of all americans after 9/11. To realize that despite being the super power it is, they are still vulnerable to the cowardly
acts of terrorists, that had hit Europe many times before but certainly not in such a spectacular way.

I believe it is very optimistic to believe that terrorism will not strike or try to strike in the future. Terrorists are fanatics, they do not care whether they die or not, and have no fear whatsoever whether you are strong or not. This is why it is such a threat.

i see the other point but i still stick to my mine. we where seen and strong as standing up to other armies but when a terrorist attack was done we where wusses. only time will tell but i think we have sent on hell of a message.

and of course your right they are to busy running.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

no doubt about sending the message.

Rumor has it, that Mrs Thatcher gave shoot to kill orders to the SAS in Gibralta and in Northern Ireland and it did not work.

Fanatics are just that and yes we might have beat them (personally I doubt it) almost certainly set them back but only time will tell........

Please note that three forces that seem to be very effective at dealing with bad people to date are the SAS, the CRS and the Israeli's........

CRS, you mean the french ones??

yes, they are some very scary mo fo's. we ended up talking to a whole bunch of them when we were kids with out parents as they were on their way to the south of france to work over some dock workers..........

Their response to allowing women in sort of sums them up....

yes...during the student manif. in 1986, "CRS SS" was a popular slogan :-)

however to their credit, the vigipirate plan to prevent as much as possible terrorist attacks as in the past (bombs in the subway, in malls etc...) has been VERY effective...now, if people could be a bit more disciplined and learn to keep their trash until they get home when all the bins are removed from the streets and the metro, that would be great...

the beauty of iraq is if the iraqi people give democracy a good shot (it doesn't have to be u.s. style. they have a lot of deffrent types to choose from) they will advance at a great pace and put pressue on the other nations in the middle east.

iran is ready to fall. the youth are tired of the way there parents live. they see how europe and the u.s. live and want a part of that. there will be an over through but america will do it diffrently than they did in iraq. rumor has it that delta and the green berets are woring inside and will be able to help the change happen from the inside. that would be perfect.

if iran goes we could be looking at a domino effect. this will cause shift in the middle east. bring the west and east a little closer and push the crazies into a corner.

i know that is a big order, but i hope it happens.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

not a trash can on the streets in london, nor lockers etc etc........

Apparently at some point in the past someone realised you could drop a bomb in a trash can, walk away and set it off....

Blow up cars parked on the side of the road by airports etc etc...

too bad they realized after it happened...

about time gary!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.