Israel’s Isolation – and America’s

Bush can’t see the connections between the US and Israel because he doesn’t want to see the connections or just doesn’t care and it certainly doesn’t help that Sharon has the US Congress in his pocket too. How many years have we been sending military aid to the "man of peace," butcher Sharon? Sharon does not want peace and he’ll do whatever it takes to avoid peace with the Palestinians regardless of how many of them he has to kill.

What do you want from the only nation to vote against a resolution that condemns the brutal slaughter of a quadriplegic. Bush is mad and Sharon is mad too. They both need to be removed from power. Thank God November 2 is coming fast. I’d vote for Donald Duck if he were Bush’s only opponent. Too bad. I voted for Bush the first time, but what dribbled from one side of his mouth before the election was overwhelmed by the lies that have spewed forth from the other side since!

~ Mrs. C. Maurer

Buchanan is a genius. There is nothing that would please bin Laden more than to see Bush reelected. It would make for four more years of the world hating America. Bush’s policy has been the best self-defeating policy ever. The enemies of America have discovered that, but Americans are in some sort of stupor over Bush. He is laying the foundation of future horrors rather than bringing safety and security to America. What’s more, another four years of Bush will leave Americans prisoners in their nation for fear of what will happen to them if they travel anywhere. Four more years of Bush is what America’s enemies would love to see.

~ Hesham (Sam) Sabry (Egyptian-Canadian), Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

American Dead Butchered ‘Like Sheep’

We are told the four dead were civilians. Yet at least one of them apparently wore dog tags which were clearly videotaped. Doesn’t that suggest that s/he was actively enlisted in the US military? Is anyone in the media asking these questions?

~ Jeremiah T. Duboff

Eric Garris replies:

As we have been reporting for the last few weeks, a lot of special forces people are leaving the military for private jobs but staying in Iraq. Blackwater Security Consulting brags that most of their staff are ex-special forces, so it is likely that these four were ex-military, probably very recently discharged.

See "American Mercenaries killed in Fallujah" on the blog.


While I understand the purpose of putting (literally) inflammable pictures on your home page, I think it’s important to show a little more respect. The picture on the front page today may well be the grave of an American soldier. We can never carry the Country with us if we use such images without acknowledging the real sacrifices made by the uniformed services.

~ T. O’Leary

Eric Garris replies:

We are trying very much to get these Americans out of harm’s way by bringing them home. What better form of respect would you recommend?

Who Won World War II?

Regarding the two quotes at the beginning. Nice talk, but it wasn’t Hitler who adopted the unrestricted bombing of civilians as a deliberate policy of terror; it was the Allies. And more German prisoners and civilians died in Allied captivity after the cessation of hostilities than were killed in the entire duration of the war. See, for example, Other Losses by James Bacque, Little, Brown & Company, 1999.

~ James Hogan, Sligo, Ireland

Ran HaCohen replies:

Interesting how one can abuse the very values despised by Hitler in order to whitewash his crimes.

You forget the facts:

  • Hitler terrorized masses of civilians (Jews, homosexuals, political dissidents and others) from the moment he came to power, years before hostilities even began.

  • As for the count of "German prisoners and civilians" who "died in Allied captivity after the cessation of hostilities", I wonder if their number is really bigger than 6 million (the number of Jewish civilians murdered by Hitler) to start with. Or are inferior races left uncounted by your sources?

What your message does prove, is that Hitler’s values do enjoy some popularity in the "enlightened" West; which is precisely my point.

Let us also remember the second Holocaust of World War II: from 1945 to 1950, 9 and a half million Germans were deliberately starved to death by American, British, French, Canadian, and other Allied Forces. This covered POW’s, exposed Germans from other countries and primarily civilians. Being an order created by Eisenhower and a policy devised by Morgenthau, this puts these leaders in the same company of Hitler and his henchmen. In direct violation of the Geneva Convention, this is like the American people being starved for the policies of Bush. Is this the reason why so many World War II vets are so closed-lipped when it comes to their service? Did they see their own troops turn into the same Nazi storm troopers?

~ Ken Kunkel, Cleveland, Ohio

Ran HaCohen replies:

Let us also remember that Hitler’s followers are rewriting not just Ethics, but History as well. There was no "second Holocaust of World War II" and no millions of Germans starved to death. This is utter revisionist nonsense aimed at whitewashing Hitler’s crimes.

Canadian novelist James Bacque made up a conspiracy theory about 800,000 German POWs killed after the war. This is what historian Stephen Ambrose had to say of Bacque’s thesis ("Ike and the Disappearing Atrocities," NY Times Book Review, February 24, 1991):

"Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the ‘disarmed enemy forces’ designation or about the column ‘other losses.’"

One must admire the reproduction capacity of these alleged 800,000 victim, who have by now become 9.5 million. In some versions of revisionist "History", the dead multiply in a pace unprecedented even among the living.

When and where did Hitler say the quote below?:

"The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically. It is by this means that we shall obtain the vital living space that we need."

~ Ralph Johnson

Ran HaCohen replies:

Thank you for this question: while checking I found that my reference was regrettably wrong. The Britannica is indeed quoted from Hobsbawm (see footnote), but Hitler is quoted from: Samantha Power, ‘A Problem from Hell’: America and the Age of Genocide (Perennial, 2003), p. 23. Hitler said those words in a meeting with military chiefs in Obersalzburg, on August 22, 1939.

This title is very appropriate and obvious in the light of the events in Yugoslavia. Hitler’s helpers in World War II were rewarded and those resisting were severely punished, notably the Serbs. The obvious example: rewardees are Croats, Albanians and Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are getting even nationhood on basis of their religion as unique of the sort in the world as we know. This is just a short history reminder.

~ One Who Survived and Remembers

A Grim Milestone

When fatalities in Iraq are mentioned, only American fatalities seem to count. This says a lot about American respect for the soldiers of their allies. Some media do mention estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths, but nowhere I can find numbers on the Iraqi military deaths. After all, those men died defending their country against American aggressors.

~ Johan Andries

Mike Ewens replies:

See There we cite the only numbers that I have found regarding Iraqi military deaths. Also, you will find total non-American soldiers killed in Iraq (See "Other coalition troops"). is primarily concerned about the impact of American foreign policy on America and her citizens. Please do not conclude from this that we think less of non-Americans killed in Iraq or elsewhere.

911 Incongruities

In this article Dr. Roberts asks, "Why does the U.S. pursue foreign policies which create terrorism?" Such a question was answered years before by Dr. Ivan Eland in an article dated 19 Feb. 1998, "The Best Defense Is No Offense" which, if followed, the attacks might never have occurred later. Our mainstream news media and government officials are dancing all around the reasons for the attacks upon this country we experienced on 9-11 rather than facing the obvious conclusion: It’s our foreign policies, stupid! How did we make enemies of the very people who sit upon the most valuable energy resources we need to sustain our nation’s economy and high-standard of living?

The answer was supplied by Michael Kinsley, "The elephant in the room that everyone knows is there but nobody admits seeing it, Israel." No nation, be it a banana republic or a superpower can long endure when its foreign policies are created by agents of another foreign nation or by that nation itself. It is not a far-stretch to say "US Middle East foreign policy is created not in Washington but rather in Tel Aviv." It is time for a new and second Declaration of Independence – this time freedom from Israel, its agents and lobbyists who now run US foreign policy. Until that happens we will be forever entangled in a perpetual war with Islam’s billion plus adherents. A conflict which will prove to be unwinnable and for which our progeny will curse us in our graves.

~ SBjr

Clarke, Watergate Echoes Prompt Rare Bush Reversal

As usual, Mr. Lobe’s analysis is spot-on, penetrating and exquisite. However, I think it’s crucial to note something that’s missing from his article – that the Bush Administration’s “deal” regarding Condoleeza Rice’s public appearance before the 9/11 commission and sworn testimony hinges on no other top-level Bush officials having to do the same, or testify at all in fact, even behind closed doors and not under oath. It’s also important to note that this deal was made without any consultation of the 9/11 families, and needless to say, they’re not very happy with it, because now, no matter how many cans of worms Ms. Rice opens up – and no matter who in the administration is implicated in those cans of worms – testimony begins and ends with Ms. Rice, period, as far as Bush Administration officials go. And that’s just a terrible, terrible deal. It really stinks.

~ Kevin Schwartz

Why Iraq Instead of Afghanistan?

After 911 the country was united in the belief that invading Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, and capturing Al Qaeda leaders was necessary. Instead of committing a large number of ground troops, we relied upon the Northern Alliance to conduct most of the groundwork. The reason given was that we did not want to put our soldiers in harms way whenever possible. While that idea is justifiable, the paradox is just how one can cite this justification for Afghanistan while simultaneously building the case to eventually place over 120,000 troops in Iraq. It was undisputed that the terrorists that masterminded 911 were in Afghanistan while there were only vague connections of WMD and ties to the Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda of course being the same group that we already knew operated in Afghanistan without the need for vague assertions.

Even today our troops in Afghanistan go largely ignored, in constant danger of attack, undermanned, and outgunned with the Taliban regaining influence in many regions. We are in dangerous times and we cannot afford a leader that exhibits poor judgment or worse. This is not a matter of politics. Just as a Board of Directors would replace a CEO that exhibits poor and harmful judgment I will choose to replace a President who has done more to harm the international respect and homeland security of any President that I can recall. America will be safer after George W. Bush has been replaced in office.

~ S.A. Muzumdar

Casino Warfare

What to call this new type of war, wherein a superpower "preempts" a danger that wasn’t particularly likely? I don’t like "preventive" war, since the name implies that it prevents something (well, it prevents peace!). How about "speculative warfare," or perhaps "casino warfare"? This gets across the idea that the war is based on guesswork, and that such a strategy is unlikely to pay off in the long run in the absence of clairvoyant decision-makers.

~ Samuel Barber

Who Cries for Rafah?

The town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip has a population of 120,000. Since the beginning of the second Intifada, the Israeli army has killed 199 adults and 76 children for a grand total of 275 people. To truly appreciate the magnitude of this crime, it is insightful to apply the rate of deaths in Rafah to the current US population and calculate what would be the proportional number of victims.

As of 27 March 2004, the US Census reports a total US population of 292,891,451 people. With this census figure the equivalent number of deaths in the United States would be 671,210 people. This total would consist of 485,712 adults and 185,498 children.

The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Senate, the House of Representatives, most Republicans and most Democrats cry for Israel; who cries for Rafah?

~ Rashid Miraj

Republican Speaks at Crawford Texas Antiwar Protest

I was at the peace rally in Crawford. I read what our Republican guest speaker, Mike Holmes, had to say (not much). He made a lot of negative comments about our mode of dress, the musicians we had performing, even our ages (and let’s not forget the remark about my bus he called another 60s cliché).

Well, I painted that bus myself, and I can tell you now that this was just another case of his mouthing off about something he knows little about (which includes counting people; after all, even the police chief stated that there were 850-1000 people there). And if Mr. Holmes had looked across the creek, he would have seen quite plainly that there were far fewer people at the chili cookoff /flea market. As for the bus, it is supposed to look like it came from the ’60s. I’m using it to promote a book I’m currently writing about something that occurred back then and involved several such buses.

Aside from ridiculing us on a personal level, he claimed that all our speakers but he were boring and pointless, while he alone had a great and moving speech. I thought his speech had the crowd quite blasé, regardless of what Holmes imagined.

In his report, Mike Holmes had nothing substantial to say. Arrogant people usually don’t; they just think they do, so they write about it.

~ Richard Hayner

I was so pleased to have you as a speaker for our Global Day of Action in Crawford. Your presence broadened our diversity, which is always a positive in my book. In fact, I am the woman who greeted you at the entrance gate and commented that "You look like a Republican."

I was so disappointed when I read your article about our wonderful peaceful event. After you spoke Saturday I felt that we were indeed building bridges toward a solution, to not only this horrible war and the administration that led us into it, but the divide between the "blue state people" and the "red state people."

If you would have spent as much time obtaining facts about the people who attended, and the other speakers, as you did noting the crowds reaction to you, you would have known that the absence of illegal drugs, alcohol, and weapons was not due to the police presence (which we arranged and encouraged) but to the posted Non-Violence pledges at each entrance. Each person entering the park was required to agree to the pledge. It also required everyone to be respectful of others (even those who oppose us), the speakers, and the entertainers.

Your use of labels and condescending descriptions only serves to divide people. I suppose I am a yuppie looking middle-aged Anglo mom, but I am so much more. And so are all the people who were there.

Please do a little soul-searching and self evaluation Mr. Holmes, seek first to understand others, then to be understood. If everyone in our great nation would do this, we could end conflict today and then reach out to the world.

~ Cindy Daly

Editor’s note:

Click here to read Mike Holmes’ reply to similar criticism in the March 29 Backtalk

The Main Danger to Peace

"Deterrence worked with Joe Stalin, and stood us in good stead during the whole of the Cold War."

During the height of the Korean War in 1950, the Supreme Commander of the UN forces (basically the US forces) in Korea, Douglas Macarthur, was quickly removed from his post because he wanted to use nuclear weapons against China, North Korea’s ally. The reason he was removed was that it became obvious to the Truman administration that if the US used nuclear weapons against China, the Soviet Union would use nuclear weapons against the US, to defend China. So the deterrence worked, but the other way than Justin is suggesting.

~ G.F. Edersel

Iraq One Year Later

You ask, "Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government?"

Does the US Constitution allow the federal government to do so? Clearly not. So the only remaining question is "what must we do when the federal government demonstrates that it no longer respects the rule of law and exceeds the bounds of the Constitution?" This government will not allow itself to be ruled by the ballot or to be constrained by law.

The answer is painfully obvious.

~ Mark Yannone, 2004 Libertarian candidate, US House of Representatives for Arizona’s District 3

Previous Backtalk