Readers Write: Romantic 'hookups' aren't liberating; Strike on Iran is worst option

Letters to the Editor for the weekly print issue of March 12, 2012: Regarding Gen Y courtship patterns, one reader asks, 'What ever happened to true love?' Another reader explains why a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would bring more harm than good.

What about 'true love'?

Regarding the Feb. 13 cover story, "Modern Romance," which presents the average Gen-Y attitude toward marriage: It horrifies me that my peers are satisfied with companionship based on mere physical gratification. I can't imagine anything less romantic than a "hookup" without any expectation for permanency.

What has happened to the ideal of "true love"? The accepted mode of "trying out" marriage by living together first is not an act of wisdom, but of ignorance of the essential qualities for entering a marriage: trust, faith, unselfishness, devotion.

Confusing the rebellion against traditional restraints with "liberation" risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. Marriage is still the only moral provision for sexual relationships and human generation and will always be a central pillar of human civilization. The models for successful marriage that today's young people are allegedly seeking are the same as ever, but young people aren't looking in the right places.

Recommended: Opinion 3 reasons not to attack Iran

Fidelity, purity, commitment, and a belief in the sacredness of the marriage vow are as sure of success as they have always been.

AliCarmen Carico

Weed, Calif.

US strike on Iran: bad option

In the Feb. 13 commentary "Least bad option on Iran: US should strike first," Matthew Kroenig's five points do not look too convincing.

First, if a nuclear-armed Iran poses a great threat to international peace, so does the risk of a full-scale war that may spread to the whole region.

Second, for sure, deterrence is costly, but so is war. Wars are incredibly expensive and often take much more time, resources, and lives than initially planned. Only an international agreement around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can make deterrence unnecessary and avoid a nuclear-arms race in the region.

Third, using a military strike to set back the Iranian nuclear program and gain time for diplomacy is likely to cause the opposite effect: Iranians may rally around the regime, resulting in a situation not favorable to diplomacy.

Mr. Kroenig's fourth point states that the consequences of a strike are manageable. This is a wild speculation. War's consequences are unpredictable, and given the control that Iran has on energy supplies, an attack can result in skyrocketing oil prices.

Finally, his fifth point advocates for a strike as the least bad option. This would be valid only if every other possible approach has already been attempted.

Considering Washington's rejection of the Brazil-Turkey proposal to reach an agreement on Iran's nuclear ambition, it is clear that not all possible roads have been taken in dealing with the Iranian regime. An attack is not "the least bad option" yet.

Giovanni Puttin

Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict

The Hague

Share this story:
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...