Letters To The Editor


August 18, 2005

Reject the idea of waging war against Iran

President Bush has stated that "all options are on the table" if Iran does not comply with international demands to halt its nuclear program ("Iran asks talks with Europe on enrichment of uranium; president names new Cabinet," Aug. 15).

He also said, "The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

My response to the president's statements is: If Mr. Bush attempts to use military force against Iran, then he should be impeached immediately.

Congress should never give him authority to use military force against Iran. Congress should not allocate any money to use force against Iran.

American citizens should use any type of non-violent action to disrupt any possible use of force against Iran.

We allowed President Bush to use "force in the recent past to secure our country," and look where we are today. Iraq is a mess, and our soldiers are dying daily.

We must not let President Bush use military force against Iran. Period.

Tom Christian


War-mongers find new target in Tehran

After reading The Sun's editorial arguing that "the time for diplomacy with Tehran may be over" ("Iranian stalemate," Aug. 10) and seeing the KAL cartoon showing Iran thumbing its nose at Uncle Sam (Aug. 10), all I could say was, "here we go again."

Will the mainstream American media once again serve as a Bush propaganda organ to get us into another tragic, pointless war? It seems so.

But let's realize that as long as we thumb our noses at the rest of the world, claiming the right to stop with force any challenge to our military superiority, be it from friend or foe, it is no wonder that many countries are reaching for the biggest guns they can find.

We reap what we sow, and what this foolish administration has planted are the seeds for a second nuclear arms race and endless war.

But the war-mongers can still be stopped by questioning their claims and offering alternatives. It's not too late.

Jay Hilgartner


A-bomb not needed to make Japan quit

Thomas Sowell's column on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perpetuates falsehoods about these events ("Trashing our history on atomic anniversary," Opinion Commentary, Aug. 11).

He states that Japan's surrender to the United States was unconditional, and that this was a result of our use of atomic weapons.

In fact, the terms of surrender that ended the war were not unconditional because Hirohito was allowed to remain as emperor

The Japanese were defeated before Hiroshima and were willing to surrender on much the same terms then that ended the war after the Nagasaki bombing.

Mr. Sowell's rationale for the use of atomic weapons on undefended cities does not hold water.

John Bailey


Pilot who dropped bomb saved lives

We were very fortunate to have had Mr. Jacob Beser as our teacher at Har Sinai Temple in the early 1950s ("Bomb dropped Pikesville man into history," Aug. 9).

Mr. Beser was a gentle, caring man whom we believe thought he was doing the right thing in World War II.

Thanks to him, many young men were saved.

Maxine H. Seidman Arlene Saks-Martin Baltimore

A lesson in English for all immigrants

I read with interest about Carlos Selvi and his newly-created position as Hispanic/Latino outreach officer ("Officer's task is to reach out to Hispanic community," Aug. 12). I know Mr. Selvi personally, and I am sure that he will do a great job in his position.

However, I was struck by one thing: Mr. Selvi's efforts to learn English before coming to the United States, and the extra effort he put into becoming more fluent in English after he arrived here.

And his remark, "But within six months, I was in the thick of things" speaks volumes.

I understand that Mr. Selvi's position is not to be an English teacher.

But if arriving immigrants were also encouraged to learn English they too would quickly "be in the thick of things" instead of having to settle for low-income jobs -- or for the jobs that other Americans won't do.

Michael Connell


Biased journalism repulses readers

Michael Socolow's excellent column on the decline of newspapers ("Can newspapers reverse their decline?" Opinion Commentary, Aug. 14) missed one basic point: The product, i.e., the newspaper itself, must be something that the reader wants.

If the newspaper in question does not give the readers the information that they want they simply will not buy that newspaper.

The liberal bias of most major daily newspapers in this country is turning off more readers each day.

They are so tired of the drone of anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-Bush and other slants to the news that many readers choose to receive their news via the Internet or the radio.

For The Sun to waste full-page, four-color ads touting a product that many people have turned thumbs down on is sad.

We don't want flashy ad campaigns. We want fair, honest and unbiased coverage of the day's news with in depth analysis which is not slanted toward a publisher's agenda.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.