Iran deal a healthy compromise
Re “A historic accord on Iran’s nuclear program” (Editorials, July 15): One of the basic principles of democracy is compromise, and the nature of compromise is that neither side gets everything it wants.
After years of diplomacy, the Obama administration and other nations have accomplished something truly great: a compromise deal with a longtime adversary. Sanctions that hurt Iranian society can be relieved, and Iranian manufacturing of nuclear weapons can be made more difficult. It’s not a perfect solution for either side, but it’s necessary and it’s a step forward.
Mark Bauer, Sacramento
Iran deal a bad mistake
It seems we have come full circle from Jimmy Carter standing in the Oval Office wringing his hands because the Iranians were holding Americans hostage. Now, the current occupant of the White House has made a deal with Iran to limit its desire to become a nuclear power. And we can trust Iran? How naive and delusional.
Hopefully, the American people will not stand by silently but will contact their senators and representatives to inform them of their displeasure with this foolish and empty deal.
Sharon Gill, Sacramento
Choose a deal, not a war
Re “Obama places a high-stakes bet in the Middle East” (Opinion, Michael Gerson, July 15): There are people who stand to gain from this deal, including the citizens of the United States, Israel and Iran. And there are people who stand to lose from the deal, like U.S. defense contractors, hard-liners in Iran and the prime minister of Israel.
Contrary to what Gerson insinuates, the majority in Iran do not like war and aspire for the same iPhones as we do. The people of Iran had democratically elected Mossadegh as their leader in 1951, but that did not suit the Western powers, so they installed a brutal dictator Shah. We know what happened in the aftermath. Let us atone for that misstep and give peace a chance.
Ravi Verma, Rocklin
Response to Trump letter
Re “Trump is silly, but his message is seriously dangerous” (Erika D. Smith, July 14): I read Sandra Crenshaw’s response to Erika Smith’s piece. I would like to know what we will do about citizenship rights for those people who have followed our laws and waited years to follow the legal path to citizenship. I believe we should consider them, instead of people who would enter our country illegally.
Jacquelyn Johnson, Sacramento
Trump’s rhetoric fueling hate
Re “Safety about more than borders” (Marcos Breton, July 15): Presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters wasted no time in tying the senseless and tragic shooting of Kathryn Steinle to their argument against illegal immigration.
However, the overwhelming majority of undocumented Mexican immigrants are hardworking and law-abiding. They come to our country to escape poor economic conditions, violence and gangs. They seek a better life for themselves and their families. Trump’s anti-undocumented Mexican rhetoric will likely increase, fueling his supporters with hate. The over-the-top anti-illegal immigration rhetoric needs to stop.
Jose Gonzalez, Roseville
Getting all the facts
Marcos Breton’s column omits essential facts about Proposition 47 and constitutes a disservice to readers and to public safety.
Judges decide if a defendant is safe to re-sentence under the law. Before voters approved Proposition 47, inmates were released from custody without the safeguards of judicial review.
As a retired Superior Court judge and former prosecutor, I know that Proposition 47 was necessary to reduce our overuse of incarceration for all “criminal” conduct and to generate resources that will be invested in new strategies for stopping crime and its underlying causes.
George Eskin, Santa Barbara
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.