The Question the Pentagon Doesn't Want Answered





Mr. Toth has a doctorate from the University of Oxford and has written book chapters, articles and columns about Middle Eastern affairs for more than 20 years. He lives in Arlington, VA.

HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE
If you like the service HNN provides, please consider making a donation.

In lightning attacks from the south, Iraq is invaded by superior forces, resulting in many civilian casualties. It is not the spring of 2003, but the winter of 1927, when bedouin herders in the steppes of Iraq were slaughtered by fierce fighters from the Ikhwan movement, quasi-military forces based in the lands of the Al Saud, driven by a virulent ideology and a quest for plunder. In several raids on December 9, for example, Ikhwan forces killed at least 87 Iraqi tribesmen, and looted some 10,700 sheep,1,637 donkeys, 100 camels, six horses, 83 rifles and 180 tents. In the wake of this spree of killing and plunder, scores of families were shattered and fell into destitution. True, these were not "important people," not kings or merchants or even soldiers, but we are fortunate that the British authorities occupying Iraq at the time expended the effort to record their losses.

Why? Because the more we know about a society's past - its gains as well as its losses - the better we will understand it. More importantly, it gives us a sense of perspective. This should be self-evident, especially after Sept. 11, but to many Americans, it isn't. While they may insist that anyone wishing to have an insight into the character and history of our country must know about such episodes as the American Revolution, slavery, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, most Americans are blithely unaware of the rudiments of other peoples' histories, much less their great national traumas. At best, this phenomenon is the luxurious ignorance of a citizenry that had for most of its history been shielded from "the world," its bloody wars and travails. At worst, it is a swaggering arrogance that expresses an inner belief that "we" are the strongest, most enlightened, most free people in history, and the rest of the world matters not a whit.

This latter worldview has dire consequences, and is playing itself out quite vividly, in Iraq and across the globe. The Bush administration has asserted carte blanche based on the horrendous, catastrophic Sept. 11 victimhood of our country, despite the fact that our human losses on that day pale in comparison to scores of other massive human traumas around the globe. Historians will look back on many of the administration's policies as the most craven manipulations of a national tragedy in our history. While I am not saying that all our troubles would be solved if Donald Rumsfeld knew more about the tragedies of the Iraqi tribes in the 1920s, I do believe that it is in our basic American interests to deal with the rest of the world with a deep grounding in history and with an understanding of our shared humanity. From the dawn of time to the present, the world has been full of Sept. 11s and worse. By not acknowledging this simple but compelling fact, the Bush administration is walking blind into a dangerous and complicated world, and dragging our country into avoidable calamities.

A recent newspaper headline about post-war Iraq aroused a sense of deja vue: "U.S. Has No Plan to Count Civilian Casualties." It reminded me about the detailed records recorded by the British in Iraq some 70 years ago, and illustrates how the Pentagon's refusal to deal with this simple human reality threatens an already perilous period of occupation and reconstruction. It is somewhat strange that Rumsfeld and his generals show no fear sending forces into bloody combat (as long as the foe is relatively weak), but they seem to tremble at the possibility that an accounting of civilian casualties would show that their forces and gold-plated weapons systems are imperfect. So what? The great struggle now in Iraq is political, social and economic, not military. A large part of the challenges faced by the occupation forces is the perception of their endeavor in the Arab and Muslim world. One strand of these perceptions is that U.S. policies in the Middle East are insensitive to attacks on Arabs, notably the Palestinians, but now Iraqis as well. It is common to hear Arabs say of U.S. officials that "They think Arab blood is cheap." Many would respond, rightly, that Arab regimes themselves, Saddam Hussein's most notably, have shown a monstrous disregard for the lives of their citizens. But I for one do not want my country to be judged by the Butcher of Baghdad's deplorable standards.

At nearly every press briefing during the war, Pentagon officials stated that U.S. forces were performing "magnificently." Fine. Let these forces stand on their record, but let there be some sort of accounting of Iraq's civilian losses as well. It would show the world that we truly did not think Arab blood was cheap. And it would give the new Iraq a clearer vision of what its people sacrificed for a future that contains at least the seeds of hope.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Anton Chaitkin - 5/1/2003

I was co-author, with Webster Tarpley, of {George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography}. I wrote, among other sections of the book, those dealing with the family history, including Chapter 2: The Hitler Project.
Part of my knowledge on the subject derives from the work of my father, Jacob Chaitkin, a New York attorney who successfully sued coporations jointly owned by the Harriman-Bush bank and the Hitler government.
With this background, the American Jewish Congress hired my father as the strategist and legal counselor for the boycott against Nazi Germany during the 1930s. At that time there was a split in the Jewish community -- as there is now. The bankers, such as Kuhn Loeb (the Warburgs) and the owners of the NY Times (the Sulzbergers) were part of the Montagu Norman (Bank of England)/ Rockefellers/ Morgan/ Harriman set which sponsored Hitler's rise to power. So the B'nai Brith and American Jewish Committee, controlled by this gang, held press conferences DENOUNCING the American Jewish Congress anti-Hitler boycott.
I was a founder of the political movement of Lyndon LaRouche, in the late 1960s. I was astonished and outraged to see the B'nai Brith's ADL attacking me and LaRouche as anti-Jewish! This is the same set now, as neo-conservatives, and followers of the fascist Leo Strauss, which runs the war faction within the present Bush administration.
Note that LaRouche -- the FDR Democrat -- has the highest number of contributors of any of the 10 Democrats running for President, and the frantic attempt by the pro-war faction to exclude him from the debates is causing a breakthrough into the news, and on campuses across the country.




Homer Simpson - 4/28/2003

If you haven't figured it out by now, the very famous Stephen Kriz is actually consulting a crack addict in the South Bronx for his information.

Look for his next opus magnum: "Dogs Howling at the Moon: Fact or Republican Conspiracy."

Due any day now.


Stephen Kriz - 4/26/2003

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things, Bill. Here are a few more websites to corroborate what Mr. Tarpley wrote:

http://www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html

or from John Loftus, President of the Florida Holocaust Museum:

http://www.baltech.org/lederman/bush-nazi-fortune-2-09-02.html

or

http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm

or

http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

Whether Prescott Bush owned 1 share or 1,000 is irrelevant, as he was an active director and managed many of the day-to-day activities of the firm. If you knew anything about directorships, many directors who own lots of shares are passive and rarely set foot inside the business, while others who are minority shareholders have much more to do with the daily affairs of the business. Such was the case with Prescott Bush.

I also offer the following passage from Christopher Simpson’s excellent book, “Blowback”, ‘The government concluded that "huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort."’ Pretty damning, Mr. Heusler. Spin all you want, the Bush family empire got its start from helping the Nazis.

As far as Larry Flynt, he actually owns Hustler, not Penthouse magazine. But, in any case, the fact that Bush impregnated a 15-year-old girl when he was 22 years old is quite well documented. They have an affidavit from the doctor who performed the abortion, several nurses who were present and an affidavit from a close friend of the victim, Robin Lowman, now Gardner. The abortion was performed after hours at Twelve Oaks hospital in Houston. Ms. Gardner is now married to an FBI agent who has threatened violence against anyone who confronts her. The Gardners now live in San Antonio, Texas.

Here is a link:

http://www.bartcop.com/bushabortion.htm

Flynt’s investigators did the initial legwork to find the victim, but under threat of a massive lawsuit from the Bush family and the RNC in 2000, and the fact that the victim’s friend got cold feet at the last moment, Mr. Flynt never went public with the allegations. Some have said that James Bath, a CIA operative, threatened the life of the friend. Of course, this cannot be proved, as there is no documentation. Face it, Bill. Democrats simply have more scruples than Republicans and they also don’t have as much money to spend on attorneys. Hence, they are likely to be the minority party until the Republic crumbles, which looks to be quite soon. Hope this provides food for thought, but I sense your mind died from starvation some time ago.

Peace is the only answer.

Steve Kriz


Bill Heuisler - 4/26/2003

Mr. Kriz,
Facts get in the way, but this is a history site and some of us enjoy accuracy, particularly when facts are readily accessible. It's too bad we have to waste time refuting tabloid garbage.

Your hero, Tarpley was an employee of LaRouche for twenty or thirty years. We are usually known by our vocations and he is known for his association with LaRouche and his ineptitude.
For instance, he tries to smear Prescott Bush with connections to a Bank that did business with Germany, but he actually smears an icon of the Democrat establishment, Averill Harriman.

1) Union Banking Corporation was owned by the Harriman family. William Averill Harriman was director (with nearly 4000 shares) at the time Tarpley questions. Averill was a close friend of President Roosevelt - appointed as War Aid Rep. to Britain in 1941 and Ambassador to the USSR in 1943. He was later a special assistant to President Truman. But Prescott Bush (with 1 share of UBC at the time) is the villain, right Mr. Kriz?

At least read your own damn sources before embarrassing yourself.

2) W's stat rape is promoted by the distinguished Larry Flynt of Penthouse Magazine who quotes unnamed sources who are afraid to talk or are married to FBI agents. Convenient? No, embarrassing.

Mr. Kriz, that you actually believe such flimsy stories from such readily impeachable people - and then list them for an argument on a history site - is truly pathetic.
Bill Heuisler



Stephen Kriz - 4/26/2003


Mr. Heuisler employs a time-honored debating tool of conservatives - don't discuss the facts, attack the messenger. It highlights their intellectual shallowness and lack of supportable arguments. Whether Webster Tarpley is, was or will be a follower of Lyndon Larouche, I have not the slightest idea. Whether Prescott Bush and his Union Banking Corp. was a financial supporter of the Third Reich is indisputable. The vesting orders seizing his assets for what I would characterize as his treasonous behavior, are on file in the National Archives and also available on-line, if you know how to use a search engine. I will write this off again, to Bill' advanced age. Too bad.


j horse - 4/26/2003

George, thanks for the link. I didn't realize that the remains of the missile with the serial numbers intact had been found at the site. In my previous post I supported Mr. Smart's call for a full and truthful accounting of all casualties, regardless of whether the evidence supports Mr. Smart's claims or, for that matter, yours. Your post has made me more aware of the importance of an independent and critical press in this process. Hopefully, if the Pentagon does start accounting for Iraqi casualties, as Anthony Toth advocates, we will also have some good investigative reporters (and maybe historians) checking things out.


Bill Heuisler - 4/26/2003

Mr. Kriz says he reads Webster Tarpley. That explains his odd world-view. Tarpley is a crackpot who learned at the knee of another crackpot; he's been a disciple and employee of Lyndon LaRouche for at least twenty five years.

Wonder why Kriz didn't supply us with Lyndon's web site too?
Remember Larouche?

A Trotskyite, he founded the National Caucus of Labor Committees in 1968 as part of the radical student movement. He used Nazi terminology and rabid anti-semitic myths, combining populism with attacks on Jews, feminists, gays and lesbians. The NCLC advocated a dictatorship in which an elite would rule on behalf of industrialist true-believers. LaRouche's world-view was an idiosyncratic variation of the Illuminati Freemason and Jewish banker conspiracies. Tarpley hosted and lectured at LaRouche fund raising seminars. He often said he was an historian.

But, alas for people like Tarpley, LaRouche was sentenced in 1989 to fifteen years in prison for mail fraud, based on illegal fund-raising practices, as well as tax evasion. Tarpley was said to have testified for the prosecution.

Mr. Kriz, if you take Tarpley seriously you are beyond hope. But at least now we know where you're coming from.
Bill Heuisler


Stephen Kriz - 4/25/2003



Suetonius:

I don't think I got into any "trouble" by equating George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler. I don't recall any criminal charges being filed or anything (in the days of John Ashcroft, that is a distinct possibility, however). I essentially said that evil really is not a matter of degree or magnitude, and if you kill six thousand or six million innocent people, it is all the same in the eyes of God. I certainly did not suggest that the Holocaust did not happen or attempt to downplay it's horror. Any honest reading of my posts will corroborate that. You either have very poor reading and comprehension skills or an agenda, to attribute that to me.

For a discussion of Prescott Bush financing Adolf Hitler's war machine (and I never said anything about 1941, if you would bother re-reading my post), I refer you to Chapter 2 of the best book ever written about the Bush family, Webster Tarpley's, "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography". You won't find it on Amazon.com, though. The Bush family has apparently gone to great lengths to suppress and censor this book. It is rumored that the last five hundred books from the last production run were bought up by a burly man who appeared in sunglasses, loaded them into a truck and drove away, never to be seen again. The book has been out of print for years and no one dares re-print it, due to threats of legal action from the Bush family.

Fortunately for us, the book is still available over the Internet and here is one link:

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

If you dare, read it sometime. It is quite illuminating, to say the least. The Bush family makes the Gambinos look like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir!

For the dirt on the Bush abortion, try these sites:

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-abortion.html

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec23.htm

And for a humorous take, try this one:

http://www.bettybowers.com/newsbush.html

For the best rendering of the Bush cocaine arrest and subsequent expungement, find a copy of "Fortunate Son", by J. Hetfield, who was found dead under mysterious circumstances about a year ago. Not to be a conspiratorialist or anything, but the Bush family is really a nasty, nasty bunch of buggers. Mr. Hetfield likely found that out too late.

Have a nice forever.

Peace,

Steve Kriz


Suetonius - 4/25/2003

Yes, I believe Kriz got himself into trouble in another thread where he suggested that Bush was, in fact, more evil than Hitler. This raised questions about whether or not he was someone who wished to minimize the Holocaust, and there was no satisfactory answer on that front.


Derek Catsam - 4/25/2003

And IF Prescott Bush did do so (and i too want the actual evidence) what does that have to do with Bush's own "evil"? And I would LOVE to see solid evidence of the other assertions he makes, which seem to me to be smear campaigns along the lines of anything the Clinton haters said. Do we have actual evidence of the cocaine arrest and the statutory rape? And not some crackpot website, but actual evidence here? Am I to believe that Mr. Kriz has sources on this that the DNC somehow was not able to find? Believe me, were it true I'd probably have a hard time restraining my glee. I just have a near certainty that it is not. In any case, I cannot in good faith continue a strand that asserts that Bush stands parallel to Hitler. What abhorrent historical perspective.


George, UK - 4/25/2003

I too agree that a count of the total number of human beings brutally killed in this war is an absolute requirement. However, I am not certain that Wesley Smart's comments are correct or even relevant.

First, the claim that Iraqis were responsible for the market bombing mentioned appears likely to be US/UK propaganda, as was reported in The Independent, a respected UK broadsheet. The full text of this article is available here: http://www.ntimc.org/print.php?sid=514

Second, even if it were shown that it was indeed an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile that caused the civilian deaths, this would not absolve the US/UK forces of responsibility for those deaths. The deaths would be an unfortunate by-product of the Iraqis' unsurprising, but also legitimate and legal, defence of their state against the illegal aggression of US/UK forces. The US and UK would therefore, in my view, remain ultimately responsible for them.


Suetonius - 4/25/2003

I should like firm evidence to examine on Mr. Kriz's suggestion that Prescott Bush was financing Hitler until 1941.


Stephen Kriz - 4/25/2003

Derek:

I oppose war-mongering on both sides of the American political fence. I thought Bill Clinton was too quick to rely on violence, on a selective basis, to solve problems. The bombing of Kosovo or the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan are but two examples. However, George W. Bush is of a pedigree not seen in American politics before. A self-righteous, money-grubbing neophyte who looks to violence to solve all problems - diplomacy is foreign to the man.
This should not come as a surprise if you look at the Bush family history - His grandfather, Prescott Bush, was Hitler's financier, until the U.S. government seized many of his brokerage house's assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act. His father was head of the RNC during Watergate (I'll bet he didn't know anything about the DNC break-in, huh?) and head of the CIA. Little George grew up with a spook as a father and was even given his own "guardian angel" from the CIA, James Bath, to cover up little Georgie's sins, including impregnating a 15 year old girl when he was 22 (can you say, statutory rape?) and getting arrested for cocaine in Houston in 1972, which was conveniently expunged from his record without a trace. Bill Clinton seems like Mother Teresa in comparison to this guy.
No, Bush belongs in a league with Genghis Khan and Hitler, as he has the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands. His conduct since becoming president without the benefit of receiving a plurality of the vote is nothing short of egregious: starting two preemptive wars in three years, systematically dismantling the Bill of Right with the ill-concieved and unConstitutional Patriot Acts, raping the environment for the benefit of his rich benefactors. The man is shameless and the greatest threat this democracy has ever faced. We must remove this man from office, if America is to survive.


Theodoric - 4/25/2003



Confused you did we, Mr Jefferson?
Sorry.
Read the threads in chronological order next time.
I will type slower next time, instead of just addressing the subject at hand.


Derek Catsam - 4/24/2003

Steve --
I do not think you are being fair to Bill. I admire your stance, I really do, though I am afraid I do not agree with you.
You set up a dichotomy akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Either you're for Jesus, Gandhi, Einstein, and MLK or else you are for warmongers like Hitler, Ghengis Khan and then, piling unfairness on unfairness, you lump Bush in with those two. First off, how about being on the side of FDR and Truman, who, I vaguely recall from my history books, engaged in WWII against the aforementioned Hitler? How about Nelson Mandela, who authorized the use of Mkonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, when nonviolence proved both fruitless and suicidal in South Africa? How about Hank Thomas, the Freedom Rider who then was drafted and served tours of duty in Vietnam? Would it be fair if I lumped you in with Chirac, Chamberlain, and Petain while associating myself with Mandela, FDR, Truman, and Thomas? And second, I am no fan of Bush to say the least. Can't stand him, truth be told. But it is patently unfair, and truthfully more than a little repugnant to see you link him with Khan and Hitler. You may oppose the war, but I also assume you oppose rape as public policy, and that has come to an end in Iraq. Lump Bush in with kissinger and Reagan and Nixon and George HW Bush if you would like, and then have at him. I'll join your side and fight the good fight against that group. But don't lump them in with two of the worst figures in human history, mass murderers and tyrants on a scale that defies understanding.
dc


Derek Catsam - 4/24/2003

Steve --
I do not think you are being fair to Bill. I admire your stance, I really do, though I am afraid I do not agree with you.
You set up a dichotomy akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Either you're for Jesus, Gandhi, Einstein, and MLK or else you are for warmongers like Hitler, Ghengis Khan and then, piling unfairness on unfairness, you lump Bush in with those two. First off, how about being on the side of FDR and Truman, who, I vaguely recall from my history books, engaged in WWII against the aforementioned Hitler? How about Nelson Mandela, who authorized the use of Mkonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, when nonviolence proved both fruitless and suicidal in South Africa? How about Hank Thomas, the Freedom Rider who then was drafted and served tours of duty in Vietnam? Would it be fair if I lumped you in with Chirac, Chamberlain, and Petain while associating myself with Mandela, FDR, Truman, and Thomas? And second, I am no fan of Bush to say the least. Can't stand him, truth be told. But it is patently unfair, and truthfully more than a little repugnant to see you link him with Khan and Hitler. You may oppose the war, but I also assume you oppose rape as public policy, and that has come to an end in Iraq. Lump Bush in with kissinger and Reagan and Nixon and George HW Bush if you would like, and then have at him. I'll join your side and fight the good fight against that group. But don't lump them in with two of the worst figures in human history, mass murderers and tyrants on a scale that defies understanding.
dc


Derek Catsam - 4/24/2003

One could argue that Peck and Rustin WERE defending a society, but they were doing it at home. They certainly were working for democracy and pretty fundamental rights. As I've said, WWII is the monkeywrench in the works, because it was, to pull out a cliche, a good war. The good war. Which is why I am ambivalent (at best) about Peck's co status in that conflict. But I am not certain that objecting to fighting in Korea or Vietnam would have been turning their backs on their or their countrymen's freedom. I also agree that co's who nonetheless served in some capacity were doing a good and noble thing when they drove or served in hospitals or as support staff.
As for putting their virtue above society, I do not see people like Peck or Rustin venerating themselves. Instead I see them in a sense venerating society, saying that human life is too important and that war is morally wrong. I am not a religious sort, I'm afraid, but some even engage in religious co status, such as Rustin, who was a Quaker. They are thus putting God up front, which i am not all that comfortable with (I bet lots of kids would have as soon avoided Khe Sanh and wished to hell their God could give them an out; and indeed, in true separation of church and state, I am not certain that Quakers should get a pass, but this will alienate me from enough hnn readers so I'll not go on) but sat least it makes for a more complex discussion.
Peck certainly shed more than enough blood in Alabama in 1961 for principles we fought wars for -- justice, democracy, freedom, resistance to tyranny and oppression -- he just refused to shed the blood of others.


Stephen Kriz - 4/24/2003


Bill:

I could quote a non-Christian such as Gandhi who said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". I prefer to be in the company of history's great pacifists, like Jesus, Gandhi, Einstein and Martin Luther King, than the warmongers like Genghis Khan, Hitler and George W. Bush.

All the big words you can muster does not make your positions any less morally bankrupt. War is wrong and it is an abomination. Nothing you can say or write changes that fact.

Steve Kriz


Bill Heuisler - 4/24/2003

Derek,
As to Rustin and Peck: putting their lives on the line for the Movement attests to their courage, but what about the duty of a citizen to defend a society that supports his right to dissent?

Defining pacifism requires mind-reading. Let's examine results. Peck may be a true believer, but you'll have to admit jail is safer than Anzio. Do conscientious objector military truck drivers or hospital orderlies deserve admiration for doing their duty in spite of their religion? They deserve no more praise than anyone doing his duty, but they're much more admirable than a man who passively forces others to defend his righteousness. A pacifist - true or not - who places his virtue above society is not worthy of my respect, no matter what cause he espouses. And what anonymous young soldier took the pacifist's place in order to placate a meticulous conscience? Is it really admirable to raise your abstract concepts above another's flesh and blood?

By the way, we almost agree. Truly historic.
Bill Heuisler


Derek Catsam - 4/24/2003

Bill --
I actually have a profound admiration for true pacifists. I don't think they are right -- you'll never convince me that WWII was not both just and necessary, or that nonviolence would have worked in South Africa -- but if it is a stance based on longrange principle I can respect it. Martin Luther King Jr. is the obvious example, or Gandhi. In my forthcoming book on the Freedom Rides I deal with a number of true pacifists whom I very much admire, including Bayard Rustin and James Peck. Do I agree with their wholehearted stance? Not entirely -- Peck spent time in jail rather than fight in WWII -- but I certainly appreciate the lifelong commitment both men showed to issues of peace. Plus both did put their life on the line in the Movement, which to me is service of as high an order as that which can be done in the military.
I am not writing to defend Mr. Kriz, nor to refute you per se, but simply to point out that there is an historical strand of pacifism that deserves respect and admiration, though perhaps not worshipful and uncritical hagiography.
dc


Anthony Toth - 4/24/2003

If the U.S. occupying forces are to represent American interests and values, and if they wish to have any amount of credibility among the people of Iraq (much less the rest of the world) they must behave in a forthright, open and responsible manner, and demonstrate that they have the interests of the people of Iraq in mind. Any accounting of casualties must, to have credibility, follow the evidence wherever it leads. While some casualties were caused by U.S. forces, Mr. Smart is correct to note that that Saddam's forces during the war caused civilian casualties as well. Now that the fighting is nearly over, the political struggle is gaining momentum. Saddam's regime tortured and killed wontonly on a mass scale, denied its crimes and covered up the evidence in unmarked graves. The people of Iraq know this better than anyone. Will the U.S. not gain respect and credibility by not only admitting it made mistakes and regretting the loss of innocent life, as it already has, but also refusing to ignore or cover up details of the casualties it has caused? That would be a true sign of integrity, strength and sympathy with the people it hopes to set on a more peaceful and prosperous path.


j horse - 4/24/2003

Mr. Smart, your main point is right on target. Lets find out how many "Iraqis in question were killed by U.S. forces, by accidents during the timeperiod of the war, or whether they were killed by Ba'athists or Iraqi army forces loyal to Hussein." I also agree with you that the marketplace "bombing" should also be investigated. If evidence is produced that the casualties were caused by Iraqi air defense then it might help change our negative image in the Middle East.



Bill Heuisler - 4/23/2003

Mr. Kriz,
Generalities can be forgiven as they fall apart, piece by piece, under reality, but you seem consistant in anger and in pacifism.
You stated, "War is always evil - even when it involves an evil opponent."
This statement is terribly wrong and presumptuous. Your altruism needs a defense; your rectitude effects everyone else in the US. Don't agree? Consider the consequences of your "virtue".

First: There will always be evil men and aggressive States.

Second: Your pacifism is protected by my reluctant willingness to defend our freedom to choose; your anti-war stance places the defense against other men's Lesser Angels in my hands. Would you call abandonment of your duty a virtue? Would you demand my blood in your defense? Or is your broad stance against war merely laziness or cowardice? If the latter is true, Mr. Kriz, then consider the alternate: My refusal to defend your pacifism could result in far more toil and greater horror for us both than if we resisted Evil and Evil Men together.

Defend your position without citing the New Testament or knock off the pacifist talk. Many don't believe in the Bible and no one wants to bleed for your right to preach selfish platitudes.
Bill Heuisler


James Jefferson - 4/23/2003


He should get his own website or confine his remarks to the subject at hand (once he learns how to read). Toth is not talking about "evil" "violence" or "police".


Theodoric - 4/23/2003


Violence is not Evil. Indeed, you owe your life to moral violence. If your ancestors did not employ violence in their own defense, they would be extinct, and you never born.
Why do we arm the police? Are you saying they are Evil because they employ violence on a daily basis? Do you think society could function without police?
Violence is a tool, it is how it is employed as to whether it is good or Evil, and that my friend, lies in the hearts of Man.


Herodotus - 4/22/2003

Would Mr. Kriz, whose comments elsewhere have aroused significant controversy, care to explain what other options President Bush had that would have brought an end to the regime of Hussein?


Stephen Kriz - 4/22/2003

"Loony lefties" didn't kill anyone, my confused friend. War is always evil - even when it involves an evil opponent. Good never comes from evil. Jesus did not say "Blessed are the warmakers."
He said, "Blessed are the peacemakers". Bush went to war when there were other options. He is a warmaker and engaged in evil acts.

I will never be ashamed of taking a stand against evil. God bless you and I pray for your immortal soul.

Peace be with you.


Theodoric - 4/22/2003


On the Military boards I saw that we estimate 600 Iraqi civilians got hit. Taking the number of iraqi's that saddam killed, divide it by weeks, and you get the Saddam "Murder rate" at 1,000 per week. That means in the 3 weeks that we killed 600, we actually "saved" 2400 plus 1,000 for every week there after.
Looney Lefties.
You who fight against the War,
helped saddam Kill thousands more.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
X


Wesley Smart - 4/22/2003

Mr. Toth is right to suggest that we should have a casualty count of Iraqi civilians. I wonder if he is prepared to expend the energy necessary to determine whether the Iraqis in question were killed by U.S. forces, by accidents during the timeperiod of the war, or whether they were killed by Ba'athists or Iraqi army forces loyal to Hussein.

Among the latter, we might remember, are those who lost their lives in the markets from Iraqi air defense artillery returning to ground.

Subscribe to our mailing list