Americans must speak up against Trump’s Iran strike
As a former US Army sergeant who served in Iraq, I've seen first-hand what happens when the United States enters a war without strategy, purpose or public consent.
US President Donald Trump's recent strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is yet another example of reckless military action - one that puts American lives at risk, destabilises the region and abandons the values we claim to defend.
There was no clear or imminent threat to US national security. No congressional vote. No public debate. Bombing a sovereign nation should never be this easy - and it is wrong. We've condemned Russia for violating Ukraine's sovereignty. Yet now, we've done the very thing we claim to oppose.
Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge , our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.
This strike does not represent the will of the American people. Trump ran on a promise to end endless wars. Many Americans supported him for that reason. This decision contradicts that commitment - and it's the American public, military families and civilians abroad who will bear the cost.
We've heard the promises before - that military action would bring peace. But I was in Iraq. I saw what really happened. The invasion didn't bring order - it shattered it. It destabilised the region, empowered extremists, cost trillions of dollars, and left hundreds of thousands dead. We didn't bring peace - we left behind broken institutions and lasting resentment. Afghanistan dragged on for 20 years and ended in chaos . Libya descended into disorder. Time and again, we were told war was necessary. Time and again, it made things worse.
Trump's strike on Iran has already set off consequences. Iran is a nation of more than 90 million people - students, workers, families - who will bear the burden. The attack has damaged infrastructure, emboldened hardliners and increased instability. American personnel across the region now face greater danger. This wasn't a defensive measure - it was a calculated escalation against a country with real military capabilities and powerful allies.
And for what? This strike didn't prevent a crisis - it lit the fuse.
We've been down this road before. It ends in chaos, loss and regret. Silence is complicity. It's time to speak up - and say clearly, not again.
Tony Macie, Vermont, US
Guess who big, beautiful Australia needs protection against
I refer to the article , "A suboptimal pact" (June 18), which discusses Australia's need, or otherwise, for very expensive nuclear-powered submarines from the United States and United Kingdom in the years to come and Australia's defence and protection in general.
Protection against whom, though? Realistically, modern-day China and Japan do not at all have an appetite for invading Australia, although imperial Japan did contemplate it in the second world war. China is focusing on economic development and technological innovation, as opposed to imperial colonialism and military aggression. Russia is simply too far away and preoccupied with countering a perennially hostile Nato. Indonesia, the Philippines and Australia's dear neighbour New Zealand? Quite ridiculous.
There is, however, one potential adversary: a predatory, amoral and transactional United States which is becoming a rogue state, as suggested by scholars including economist Richard Wolff. The current US president has stated, in no uncertain terms, his territorial ambitions over Canada and Denmark's Greenland , both allies.
Why not the great and beautiful continent of Australia? It is rich in resources to begin with. Perceiving peace-loving China as an enemy is a fool's errand. The United States is the one that most countries, Australia included, need to guard against.
Francis Lo, North Point
Children complete families
I refer to the letter , "Mother Earth doesn't need pro-baby policies" (June 19).
I am not going to debate David Benatar's philosophy, or whether King Solomon, traditionally believed to have authored Ecclesiastes, supported antinatalism, even though the Bible says he had 1,000 wives and concubines.
I am quite sure that governments like Japan did not introduce pro-baby policies because human beings are at risk of extinction.
Family-friendly policies are matters of urgency in the present day because low fertility rates reflect worrying social phenomena: people are unhappy, the cost of living is getting too high, and professional women prefer not to have babies because it requires too many sacrifices.
In an ageing society like Japan, the burden on the working population only gets bigger, so government attention is badly needed.
While it is true that human beings as a species have done much damage to nature, it is too pessimistic to suggest that having more babies only creates more suffering.
In a world facing so many challenges, one can also argue that we need to nurture a new generation which is full of hope and wisdom, capable of fixing our problems and building something better.
Setting aside issues like pollution and military conflict, our planet is still an immensely beautiful place. Parenting can be hard, but I believe it is also incredibly rewarding. It makes marriages stronger, families more complete and it's a very personal choice that we do not regret.
Tony Cheung, Kennedy Town
More Articles from SCMP
Is China a just society? Economic woes erode public perception of fairness
New law required to cover building repairs in Hong Kong
In South Korea, teens’ deaths expose human cost of academic stress: ‘social homicide’
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), the leading news media reporting on China and Asia.
Copyright (c) 2025. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Posting Komentar untuk "Americans must speak up against Trump’s Iran strike"
Posting Komentar