Choose diplomacy, not war, with Iran
The agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program by Iran, the United States and five other nations is a triumph of diplomacy and international cooperation. The deal prevents Iran’s potential pathways to a nuclear weapon and subjects Iran to the most robust inspection regime ever negotiated.
If Congress rejects the agreement, the consequences would be catastrophic. That we could reject this hard-won deal and go back to the table to negotiate a better deal is unrealistic. Rejection undermines our credibility and the international cooperation that has been achieved. It isolates the U.S. from its partners, and moves us closer to the brink of a war with Iran that would make the Iraq War look like a picnic.
After years of animosity between the United States and Iran, this agreement is a step in the process of developing a more peaceful relationship with one of the great civilizations of world history. Relations with enemies can change, like China after President Nixon, and Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union after President Reagan.
Digital Access For Only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry chose the patient and persistent path of diplomacy, perhaps a first step toward eventually restoring full diplomatic relations with Iran.
DUANE K. FRIESEN
A bad deal
I have two words for the deal with Iran concerning nuclear power: Kill it. If Iran is allowed to build a nuclear bomb, it will use it to destroy Israel, and the United States will be a party to it.
The majority of the American people are opposed to the deal with Iran, and I am hoping that the majority in Congress will oppose it.
President Obama has become a dictator in that he doesn’t recognize Congress, the Constitution or the will of the American people. Whom does the president represent other than himself?
Obama writes an executive order on anything he wants and vetoes anything he doesn’t like. I don’t know why we even have a Congress while he is president. I was hopeful that his power would be diminished when the Republicans won control of Congress.
I am opposed to policies Obama favors, such as immigration, government spending, abortion, gay marriage, the release of five Taliban members for one American deserter, Environmental Protection Agency regulations, Obamacare, and dealings with Cuba and Iran.
I am hoping that the next president will be able to undo any deal with Iran.
LARRY L. McKOWN
The writer of “How would nation perform today?” (Aug. 19 Letters to the Editor) was correct when he cited sorry statistics on the readiness of our youths to serve in the military. There’s no need for our enemies to start a shooting war; they just have to wait for us to get so fat we can’t fight, and they’ll walk right in.
But the letter writer’s point was a wider one than that. He mentioned a young friend who “would rather defect to Canada” than join our military. The reason for that is not a lack of patriotism, I suspect. I have no doubt this man and many in his generation, fat or not, would take up arms in a minute to respond to a direct threat against our homeland. The recruitment numbers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks proved that.
But this young man can be forgiven for being a bit reluctant to give his life away to a region of the world where the people you have trained – with a few brave exceptions – either tuck and run at the sight of the enemy or, worse, turn their weapons on you. Such was not the case in the conflict that the letter writer and my father fought in – World War II.
How would our nation perform today if faced with a major war? Just fine, if we’re attacked directly or are asked to help people who are willing to stand and fight at our side.
Use same rules
During World War II, the Allies had laws, rules and regulations and implemented plans for effectively dealing with “non-uniformed enemy combatants.” Can anyone provide a commonsense reason for not employing those measures against Islamic State forces today?
ROSS D. RASH
I recently visited with Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, about the growing recognition of the challenges of Alzheimer’s disease and my concern that the funding to find a cure lags dramatically behind what’s necessary.
In 2011 Congress unanimously passed the legislation that set a goal of finding a treatment for Alzheimer’s by 2025, but National Institutes of Health research on dementia has not increased to the $2 billion-a-year level that scientists say is needed. In fact, for every $100 spent on Alzheimer’s research, Medicare and Medicaid programs spend $26,000 to care for people with the disease. Currently there are 53,000 Kansans living with Alzheimer’s disease, including my wife.
We must invest more to find a treatment and a cure now. The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved a bill giving $350 million more to the NIH for Alzheimer’s research, while the House Appropriations Committee voted $300 million. If even the lower figure is signed into law, that would be a 50 percent increase in research funding for this disease.
I urge 4th Congressional District constituents to ask Pompeo, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to vote for this vital Alzheimer’s research boost and push to make sure it is in the final appropriations legislation. Be the voice for more than 5 million Americans who suffer silently with this disease.
Letters to the Editor
Include your full name, home address and phone number for verification purposes. All letters are edited for clarity and length; 200 words or fewer are best. Letters may be published in any format and become the property of The Eagle.
Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Wichita Eagle, 825 E. Douglas, Wichita, KS 67202