No U.S. intervention in Iran
On July 9 some Iranians who oppose the Islamic regime in Iran demonstrated in Iran, America, and around the world. In their actions, they are paving the way for the possible imperialist occupation of Iran.
The student demonstrations, which began in June, are being controlled by Iranians living and operating out of California, who receive generous assistance from the American government. These Iranians feel that the Islamic regime is so repressive that any action is necessary to overthrow it, including military intervention.
These few Iranians have easily forgotten what American intervention did to Afghanistan and Iraq and I do not want to see my fellow Iranians affected by depleted uranium, or killed outright, or have their country’s industry, agriculture, and society ruined by American “liberation.”
Even though Ayatollah Ali Khameni and those close to him are members of a regime that has done harm to the Iranian people, much reform has occurred in Iran and there are still ways the Islamic regime can be removed from power without American intervention. It is up to the Iranian people, be they in Iran or living in another nation, to ensure that their country receives what is best and is not exploited by foreign imperialist powers.
Peter Khan ZendranVia e-mail
Rousseau had it right
Jean Jacques Rousseau noted years before Patriot Acts I and II the intentions of the George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, et al., cabal.
In 1762 “The Social Contract” was published. In it Rousseau said, “Usurpers always bring about or select troublous times to get passed, under cover of public terror, destructive laws which people would never accept in cold blood. The moment chosen is one of the surest means of distinguishing the work of the legislator from that of the tyrant.”
Fred DiDomenicoHoney Brook PA
Give Bush credit?
Jesse Bailey’s letter in the June 28 PWW criticizing President George W. Bush echoes a recent PWW cartoon by David Baldinger and numerous commentaries elsewhere, and is right on the mark. A leader who never served in combat now wishes to picture himself as a mighty warrior – what a farce!
However, I do want to point out, in response to all these commentaries, that Mr. Bush’s adept avoidance of military service in Vietnam did have two sides to it.
Whatever his stated purposes may have been at the time, he did, after all, refuse to take a direct part in that unspeakable war. And, regardless of his undoubtedly mendacious subjective intentions, praiseworthy actions speak far louder than do mere words.
So, though we may hate to admit it, we should all gratefully acknowledge the bottom line, that in his youth, George W. Bush did his bit to contribute to the victory of the Vietnamese people over U.S. armed aggression.
I just figured that credit should be given to the man where credit is due.
Owen WilliamsonEl Paso TX
Decision a victory
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program in its Law School, while rejecting 6-3 its undergraduate admissions program, is a clear defeat for the Bush administration and a victory, albeit a limited one, for the people’s movements. As someone who was a graduate student at U-M in the late 1960s when it was an overwhelmingly “white institution” and most of the “non-white” graduate students that I knew were foreign students. I remember a successful student strike to open up the university to minority enrollment. U-M today is a different place thanks to decades of affirmative action policies.
The Supreme Court upheld the Bakke decision (1978) which was a defeat for affirmative action, since it made the abstract concept of “diversity” rather than integration to achieve economic and social justice the standard for affirmative action policies and outlawed quotas. Since all forms of planning are based on numerical targets, the Bakke decision limited affirmative action policies.
We, meaning all progressive people, should see affirmative action as a way to foster integration and equality again, and to fight consistently to elect a federal government, which will see it that way, and appoint judges who will defend it in those terms.
Norman MarkowitzNew Brunswick NJ
Comments