Letters: Did Trump make the right, lawful decision to attack Iran?

San Francisco Chronicle​

5 days ago

I am disappointed that President Donald Trump chose not to seek congressional approval before attacking Iran.
Iran was anywhere from weeks to years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Therefore, thinking that Iran might launch one within the next week to 21 days is ludicrous. That should have been enough time for President Trump to seek approval from Congress.
Instead, the president decided that only he knew what was best for our country, even though the situation was not an emergency. Making war is easy. Making peace is often difficult.
Are we a nation seeking the easy route, or do we seek to work through the problems to create peace?
Since there was no evidence of imminent danger, Trump failed in his responsibility to uphold the Constitution and respect the opinion of the American people.
Andrew L. Norton, Dallas
World is safer now
President Donald Trump made the right call to deploy American forces to strike nuclear sites in Iran, and he should be commended for his decisive leadership.
Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Thanks to the resolve of our commander in chief and the courage and professionalism of our armed forces, America, Israel and the free world are safer.
Iran should now stand down and abandon any thought of retaliation against the U.S. or be prepared to face the consequences. President Trump proved again that the United States of America is the leader of the free world, and America stands with Israel.
Paul Bacon, Hallandale Beach, Fla.
Trump wrong on immigration
Regarding 'Trump keeps promise' (Letters to the Editor, SFChronicle.com, June 22); Letter writer Christine Larsen rightly notes that Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2024 with promises to crack down on undocumented immigrants.
There are many unsolved immigration problems in the U.S. but President Trump is not solving these problems. Instead his tactic involves terrorizing all noncitizens, Democratic members of Congress and blue states to make the U.S. an undesired destination for immigrants.
It matters how our problems are solved. But Trump does not seem to understand or care if he is creating more wounds than the ones he set out to heal. What ever happened to the noble principle that a proposed remedy should first do no harm?
Steven Rodriguez, Napa
Supportive housing drawbacks
Regarding 'S.F. activists fought for affordable housing in the Mission. Now they're pumping the brakes' (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, June 21): The assertion that 'neighborhoods generally do not see an increase in crime or other related challenges after supportive housing for the homeless opens in the area, but a lot of it hinges on the implementation' needs more clarity.
This was the argument presented to residents of Mission Bay before the opening of a 141-unit complex in the neighborhood, and promises of tight implementation were made. After it opened, we experienced drug dealing, nightly screaming, fights and other problems.
It was only after the advocacy of residents and Supervisor Matt Dorsey that the management of the building was forced to remove the most troublesome residents. However, the drug dealing in front of the building continues.
Supportive housing is a fine concept, but it is not without significant challenges. I'm in favor of the Mission District project, but nearby residents are right to be concerned.
Dave Scheff, San Francisco
All philosophers matter
Regarding 'Great Black thinkers are also philosophers ' (Open Forum, SFChronicle.com, June 19): Justin Ray cites James Baldwin in exhorting us 'to create ourselves without finding it necessary to create an enemy.' Wise words, which Ray would do well to honor.
Contrary to his assertion, study of the canon of philosophy is indeed 'intellectual history,' not 'intellectual mythology,' because it is primarily Greek, medieval and Enlightenment thinkers (not Ubuntuists or Ethiopian rationalists) who decisively shaped — for better and for worse — the lineaments of modern consciousness.
To be sure, let's read Baldwin — alongside Schelling's 'On the Essence of Human Freedom' — without prejudice against either party.
Daniel Polikoff, Mill Valley