The Obama administration defended the Iran deal before the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week. Letter to the editor:
One of the most disconcerting consequences of the disagreement regarding the Iran nuclear accord is highlighted by President Obama ’s statement that he would veto any legislation blocking the deal.
As a sign of potential cooperation between the legislative and executive branches, Americans would have appreciated a statement suggesting Obama would welcome input on the terms of the deal. This would not negate the option of ultimately responding with a veto after the healthy exchange of contrasting viewpoints. Congress has not always been cooperative, but if the president were “willing to unclench” his fist, maybe it would “extend a hand.”
Brian Mai; Laurel Springs, N.J.
Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:
This agreement at best kicks the can down the road a decade, while Iran not only regains frozen assets but profits from economic interaction.
— Michael Golden
The problem here is not trying to get American voters on board so the polling looks better, but to get Congress to understand that this deal is bigger than placating Israel and Iran having nuclear technology. Future political ramifications and potential conflicts are what’s at stake.
— David Hoeltje
War is used to change the attitude of the enemy when negotiations break down. Soldiers are trained to kill and destroy. There are better ways to do things than mongering war. Mongering peace can work if given a chance. War is costly.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar