Exploring the motivations to bomb Iran, both good and bad
Is it possible that our president has started a war in the Middle East so that he can “negotiate peace” and get a Nobel Prize? He’s always been so jealous of Barack Obama’s win.
Pete Names, Green Valley, Ariz.
Our bombing of sites in Iran reveals a flaw in national thinking. The world’s leaders, and most of us ordinary people, imagine that definitive actions will frighten our opponents to stop warfare.
History teaches us a different lesson.
The “They started it, we will end it” strategy is more likely to extend conflict rather than shorten it.
Peter Hulac, Denver
Re: “Four thoughts on the president’s hawkish turn on Iran,” June 19 commentary
After reading the article by Ross Douthat, I had to read it again. I immediately thought I must have missed a portion of his thoughts. He failed to mention that Iran was within months, if not weeks, of acquiring nuclear capabilities. Iran has announced numerous times in the past 50 years that it intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Iran has attacked American assets and troops numerous times. In 1979, Iran took 66 Americans, including diplomats and other civilian personnel, hostage at the Embassy of the United States in Tehran without justification. Iran has been at war with America for the past 50 years. Frequently, Iran has announced to the world, “death to America.”
If Iran acquires a nuclear bomb with their current intercontinental ballistic missile capability, then Douthat had better include thoughts on New York also. Iran’s proxies have been attacking merchant vessels for years with no justification. They will surely keep their word on the destruction of both Israel and America if they have the opportunity. It appears to me that Douthat desires to give them that opportunity.
Ernie Cline, Great Falls, Montana
Transgender care: Supreme Court on the wrong side of history
Re: “Supreme court: Tenn. ban on gender-affirming care upheld,” June 18 news story
Denying medical care for transgender minors will have real impacts on real people. The SCOTUS decision on the case involving the Tennessee ban makes me wonder what the basis for the decision was.
Clearly, it was not based on the Constitution or on science. I believe that religious beliefs are driving many SCOTUS decisions, and that’s a direct violation of the First Amendment separation clause. I’m sure that right-wing Christians wish that clause wasn’t there, but the fact is that it is there. And the Founding Fathers put it there for a very good reason: They were well aware of the religious tyranny that had been experienced in other countries (e.g., England, Spain). Religious freedom means just that: The freedom to believe what you want to believe and the prohibition of a nationally established religion.
This is very personal for me. My extended family has several members of the LGBTQ community, including transgender members. Trust me when I tell you that these people aren’t making “lifestyle” choices. They are being who they are. The science is clear, and it contradicts right-wing religious beliefs. The Human Genome research clearly shows that gender is on a spectrum. Just as humans differ with respect to eye color, skin color, etc., they differ with respect to gender. Gender dysphoria is a real thing.
Making the transition from birth-defined gender to one’s real gender is terribly difficult for the person and their family.
Denying care to minor children will inevitably result in suicides. The Trump administration has singled these people out for persecution because of pressure from right-wing religious people. The justices should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the Constitution and science.
James W. Craft, Broomfield
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.