LETTERS

Re “Street smart,” Opinion, June 26, and “The mullahs must go,” Opinion, June 26

I was both surprised and encouraged by The Times’ decision to print two articles, one by Natan Sharansky and the other by John R. Bolton, that were both in favor of President Obama taking a strong stand against the oppressive government of Iran.

The sophistic usual procedure would have been to have one article advocating a strong stand and the other cautionary, based on negotiating with the Iranian regime.

There is a prevalent notion that all the world’s problems are due to bad body language and miscommunication. Hence, all conflicts between nations can be overcome by the leaders unclenching their fists.

But there are conflicts that are real, fundamental and irreducible. Whether a minority of fanatics should be able to threaten the world and to oppress its people is of this kind. Such matters are not negotiable and must be fought out.

Jack Kaczorowski

Los Angeles

::

Shame on you for providing Bolton with a forum to perpetuate his notion that wars of choice are necessary.

Bolton, you might recall, was one of the intellectual fathers of our catastrophic war of choice in Iraq. He, like other fathers of that war, managed to avoid military service in Vietnam.

War is most romantic when others are fighting the battles. The policy model of old leaders sending young folks off to war has failed, and Americans spoke loud and clear on that issue in November 2008. It’s time for Bolton to pack his bags, go to some obscure location and write his memoirs.

Frank Ferrone

El Cajon

::

Sharansky should listen to the Palestinians craving freedom in the lands that his country continues to occupy.

If you are going to be a voice for human rights and freedom, why not start in your own backyard?

Don Headland

Morro Bay

::

Bolton’s criticism of Obama’s approach to the demonstrations in Iran perfectly illustrates why the neoconservative diplomacy (with Bolton’s counsel) was such an abject failure.

Here’s why you’re wrong: For the U.S. to “help” the Iranian reformists overthrow the mullahs would be as wise and welcome as Russia “helping” infuriated Democrats overthrow the U.S. government after the unfair, unjust, stolen U.S. election of 2000.

Jim Ouellet

Playa del Rey

::

It is all well and good for Bolton to argue that the mullahs must go; most of us can agree on that. But to criticize the Obama administration for “wrong” policy and mere “rhetoric” when one fails to present an alternative is more than disingenuous.

It is not enough to say the United States should “help” Iran’s dissidents “overtly and covertly.”

Bolton should put his cards on the table with precise recommendations that the public and policymakers can weigh. Otherwise, his remonstrations are little more than the rhetoric he accuses the Obama administration of engaging in.

Bennett Ramberg

Los Angeles