Iran’s N-moves are harmless

As the drumbeat against Iran intensifies, the editor again assumes his role as enabler of Bush’s addiction to war for political gain (Viewpoint, April 16). It’s Bush’s encore, co-starring the studiously clueless press. We are again being manipulated by fear, aided by dismissal of fact, logic and recent history.

The editor discounts the need for any congressional input on Bush’s plan to attack Iran, not even an authorization, as was obtained for Iraq. Bush never sought the second U.N. resolution he promised as a critical condition for that authorization. Bush lied us into one useless war so we should believe him this time and attack Iran because they might lie to us.

The editor insists any authorization would make more difficult the destruction of Iran’s harmless enrichment facilities. The difficulty will be the predictable results of an attack, summarized at: http:/www.counterpunch.com/

cloughley04152006.html.

The editor asks “suppose Iran diplomacy fails?” Answer: What diplomacy? The administration has not spoken one direct sentence to Iran, yet is ready to use nuclear weapons, over reports of barely enough enriched uranium to make a Mickey Mouse watch glow. Bush did place Iran on the so-called axis of evil. Shortly thereafter, Iran “unexpectedly” elected an anti-Western president whose popularity is now worse than Bush’s. The only crisis is the one both presidents are manufacturing to appear significant.

The problem is the public’s growing realization of the Republicans’ miserable record over five years of total power. The 2006 GOP congressional campaign seems to be based on the assumption voters can be won back by a fresh war. Unfortunately, polls hardly dismiss this criminal strategy. If we refuse to act as though we live in a democracy, only military mutiny will spare us the next world war.

John Puma

Lebanon

Forestry helps Oregon

Oregon Senator Ringo questions the College of Forestry’s relation to “industry.” His hearing indicated another major interest: salvage and reforestation of burned-over land in the Biscuit Fire.

The Biscuit flap began when “Science” magazine improperly abandoned scientific rigor for politics, using a sketchy paper against a congressional bill that seeks faster, man-aided reforestation than environmental activists (“Greens”) want. These activists want nature to do it, even if it takes 300 years. They oppose the bill.

Green activists also proclaim how trees tie up carbon and remove polluting CO2 from the air. The Biscuit Fire burned millions of trees, releasing masses of global-warming CO2. Greens seem to support wildfire. The millions of snags that still tie up CO2 are rapidly decaying more CO2 into the air — more pollution. Greens want these snags left uncut. They also don’t want managed reforestation, even though it would hasten carbon storing. The story does not compute.

In contrast, industry has greened up Oregon significantly, while providing wood products sustainably. How? By using insights from OSU’s reforestation scientists.

Such ties bless society, through professional schools, in many industries, honorably providing better, safer ways of doing things we want and need. Who wants to believe this is bad?

June Newton

Philomath

Boomers after 4 p.m.?

The Chintimini Senior Center in Corvallis is having a name change campaign. The name is an issue because a number of people don’t come to the center due to negative stereotypes. They won’t want to hang out with old people. They want to be ready for the baby boom market.

The powers that be say the name change won’t radically change anything that goes on from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, because the center will be restricted to those over 55 years of age.

I’m a 10-year volunteer as hostess and trip leader at the senior center, and proud of it. I hear from many new people moving to our city that one of the first things they look for is a nice senior center.

My suggestion is to keep the name of the senior center the same Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. Then after 4 p.m., and on weekends, change the sign to read “BABY BOOMERS BOOMTOWN.”

This should keep everyone happy. If not, perhaps those who do not want to hang out with old people should go elsewhere.

Jo Lynn Allen

Corvallis

DeFazio’s correct on declaration

I applaud Congressman DeFazio for demanding a declaration of war request from President Bush before any military action is taken against another country. Two weeks ago, I requested that Senators Smith and Wyden tell us whether or not they support such an action. Neither senator has replied! They must be too busy with other congressional affairs, although I fail to see what could be more important than the threat of one more unprovoked attack.

I wholeheartedly support DeFazio’s demand that Bush act according to the Constitution by submitting a request to Congress for a declaration of war. I served in the Korean War but I never thought I would see this great country making an unprovoked attack on another nation just to satisfy the administration.

For those who disagree with this letter, please explain what your problem is with our Constitution and why you think an undeclared war with Iran would be a good idea. I believe the consequences of such an action — in Iran and the adjacent countries of the Muslim world — would be too horrible to contemplate.

Duane Dennis

Albany

Maybe Iran needs a nuclear bomb

The cartoon in the Sunday paper depicts a bomb, obviously nuclear, in the hands of someone obviously not American. The caption is good, (“Yes, it’s a bomb, but it’s a peaceful bomb”), but the cartoon person speaking, whoever that is supposed to be, is inappropriate.

More appropriate would have been the faces of all the U.S. presidents from Harry Truman to the present, based on the real history of which country has produced and used more bombs of all kinds than all the rest of the world combined, including nuclear.

On the same page your editorial headline reads, “Suppose Iran diplomacy fails.” What you really mean is, what if Iran fails to respond to our (U.S.) threats? Meaning that they are lying about only developing nuclear power, and if they are lying, well then they will join the other Mideast nuclear states that already have the bomb, including India, Pakistan and, let’s not forget, Israel. Hmm, maybe they have reason to want a bomb.

Ed Hemmingson

Albany

Democrats await Bush era’s end

Larry Smith (Mailbag, April 16) says that Democrats will be mad when they find out George W. isn’t on the ballot. What an erroneous statement! Some of the reasons Democrats will be glad to see the last of Bush are as follows.

George W. invaded Iraq and a month later made a big display, announcing mission accomplished. Three years later, it is still anything but accomplished. Obviously, he had no idea what he was getting into.

Senior citizens now have some drug coverage if they understand which of the many plans they should choose. The real winners are the drug companies, which had a provision in the act that said the government could not negotiate lower prices. Health care insurance premiums in the five years of George W. have gone up 75 percent — quite a bit above the rate of inflation.

Before the last presidential election, George W. said we should have a guest worker program. This was an obvious attempt to get more of the Latino vote. It worked; he got more of the Latino vote than he did in 2000. The Border Patrol said they could see the increase of illegals within 72 hours of his words.

We have a national debt that is growing by leaps and bounds. Also, the trade debt is unbelievable. The federal debt is owed to roughly 50 percent foreigners and the trade debt is 100 percent to foreigners. These are much like the Iraq War — no end in sight.

George W.’s number one adviser, Vice President Cheney, says the national debt doesn’t matter. I thought I’d never live long enough to hear a conservative say this.

Yes, George W. won’t be on the ballot, but a lot of Republicans who were marching in lock-step with him will be.

Joe Blankenship

Albany

Universal health care ‘outrageous’?

In last Sunday’s article about the Earth Charter, Republican candidate Robin Brown says that it is “fairly outrageous” that the charter calls for universal access to health care, and providing clean air, food and water for the people of the world. It’s helpful to be reminded every once in a while why I don’t vote Republican any more.

Don Peterson

Philomath

Raid on Iran would be bad mistake

In Mr. Hering’s column (April 16), he seemed worried that our military response in Iran — if needed — might be slowed down by having to go through Congress. I’ll let someone else discuss with him the wisdom of the constitutional process (and why we need safeguards against such hasty responses); I’m more concerned that such a response is even being considered at all.

We have almost no intelligence about targets in Iran, except that many are hidden or buried. We are barely keeping the lid on a civil war in Iraq, and we are weaker now in almost every way than we were before the war (and Iran is more powerful than Iraq was in almost every way). No one, even those living in neocon bubbles, think we would be greeted as liberators, expect the Iranian army to dissipate after the fighting starts or hold any hope that we could put together a meaningful coalition. We would be doing this alone, and the fighting could come back to our shores in ways that we can’t imagine.

We would surely have to reinstate the draft, raise taxes and deal with extremely high oil prices or shortages. So why is the use of force even on the table (aside from the $500 billion per year industry it supports)? Because this administration has been telling us that other options won’t work!

Pity we have such short memories. Not long ago we were the world’s leader in negotiating peaceful settlements. I think I would rather have that be our legacy. New leaders anyone?

David Reinert

Corvallis

Wanting peace is not enough

“We believe that most people in America want a world of peace.” It’s a true and noble statement by Donald and Elizabeth Rea in a recent letter. Unfortunately, there is no global referendum to that effect, and no way to sustain it if there was. In fact the vast majority of humans would gladly sign on to such a concept, just as most Americans wanted a world of peace on Dec. 7, 1941. Regrettably, three despotic regimes, Germany, Japan and Italy, had other plans for our world. We wanted a world of peace on Sept. 11, 2001. Again, regrettably, there were others that had other plans for us.

During the last half century of nuclear proliferation there is a concept we have relied on to keep missiles from flying: “mutual assured destruction.” This created a virtual standoff situation with hands literally hovering over doomsday buttons in the U.S., USSR and China. This concept has thus far been successful because those with control over those buttons had a will to live greater than any ideology could displace.

Enter a new century, with the ideology of radical Islam and its almost daily suicide bombings, and a hatred for Israel and the U.S. that knows no fear of its own death or destruction. Indeed, in a warped view of eternal reward, they embrace it as the ultimate sacrifice.

Mutual assured destruction loses its power to control nukes under such irrational thought. That is why Iran must not get nuclear weaponry. We can’t risk the potential devastation.

Can you stop and imagine for a moment Iran’s Ahmadinejad with his hand hovering over a doomsday button. He is cut from the same cloth as those 9-11 hijackers. By his own admission, he has sworn to destroy Israel. If he gets the chance, Armageddon will be at our door.

Timothy Roos

Lebanon