Accord with N. Korea to end nuke programAccord with N. Korea to end nuke program
In his press conference last Wednesday, President Bush said, “Later this week, the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq – before it has a chance to work. People are prejudging the outcome of this.”
But we prejudge outcomes all the time in everyday life. Suppose my friend proposes that I quit my job tomorrow and come work for her. I consider it, but decide not to. Would it make sense for her to object by saying, “You are prejudging the outcome of this; you are not giving it a chance to work”? Of course not. We don’t automatically give any proposal that comes to mind “a chance to work.” Maybe it would be better for me to change jobs, or for us to go ahead with Bush’s new plan in Iraq, but to argue that we shouldn’t prejudge the outcome is absurd.
John Bright, Boulder
I recently listened to some of the congressmen and women debating the non-binding resolution criticizing President Bush’s Iraq war policy. Practically all of them, even those most adamantly opposed to the war, paid homage to the bravery and self-sacrifice of the troops serving in Iraq.
It would have been refreshing to hear one of the war veterans among the congressmen who have served on the front lines, as I have, admit that soldiers are sometimes brutal, sometimes cowardly, almost always reluctant and rarely valorous. Until we are willing to cut through all of the mythology about the nobility of soldiers serving the country – often for dubious causes as they have been in our six wars since World War II – we will be afflicted with the curse and cost of militarism.
Philip S. Miller, Telluride
A Republican senator said on the floor last week that “pulling our troops out of Iraq would send a message to our enemies, our soldiers and the world.” He’s most certainly right about that. The message to our enemies, however they may variously be defined, is that they and our friends, however they may variously be defined, need to figure things out for their country, however that may variously be defined.
The message to our troops is that we honor their service to the point of recognizing a militarily and socially untenable situation. The message to the world is that things didn’t go as we thought they might, we’re mired in a situation we don’t quite understand, and we have the maturity and confidence to assist this nascent “country” in ways other than full-on combat for our troops.
Rocky Hill, Denver
Re: “Korea nuclear accord reached,” Feb. 13 news story.
The agreement with North Korea, though tentative and fragile, demonstrates what concerted diplomacy can accomplish, even with a member of the so-called “Axis of Evil.” Note the higher success, shorter time frame and far lower cost – in both lives and dollars – of this diplomatic effort compared to any recent military one. Now it’s time to turn our diplomatic energy toward to Iran and Syria, rather than launching another fruitless war.
Suzanne Ghais, Arvada
The high cost of junk mail in Colorado
Re: “State junk-mail ban,” Feb. 15 Open Forum.
I offer the following thoughts to further the anti-junk-mail discussion started by Ted Paske’s letter in The Post:
1. How much gasoline/oil would be saved by significantly reducing the tonnage of mail hauled by postal vehicles? I would estimate that at least 50 percent of the weight of my mail is “junk.”
2. How much pollution won’t be pumped into our air due to the reduced postal tonnages?
3. Our roads and highways would experience less wear and tear due to the reduced tonnages.
4. How much room would be saved in our landfills? See No. 1 above.
5. How much pollution won’t be pumped into our air due to the reduced “waste management”?
6. Our roads and highways would experience less wear and tear due to the reduced waste management.
7. And then there’s the entire printing process: tree cutting and hauling, paper production and hauling, printing process pollution, etc.
Chris Ervin, Castle Rock
