US must end gun violence
Regarding the Dec. 16 online Monitor’s View, “Taliban massacre of children: how Pakistan must now change” (CSMonitor.com): While I don’t disagree that Pakistan needs to take action, it seems disingenuous of anyone in the United States to tell people in another country how to respond to the massacre of children. After all, what has been our response to the death of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.?
Yes, there were lots of opinion pieces about “not letting this happen again,” but what actions have been taken, what laws have been passed, what statesmanship has occurred here at home since that event? Zero. To those who would say the Taliban is a group of fanatics and Adam Lanza was one mentally ill person, I would ask, what is the difference?
How is it that one organization, the National Rifle Association, can lead America around by its nose, all while preventing the very actions that might begin to get weapon violence here at home under some kind of control? Why is that one organization allowed to suggest that the only way any of us can be safe is to resort to weapons?
It grieves me to say this, but our own lack of response to Newtown speaks of our ambivalence toward – possibly even our unintentional endorsement of – violence, a message heard round the world.
Santa Fe, N.M.
US/NATO actions provoke Russia
A recent Monitor’s View (“A march toward self-reliance could leave Russia in the cold,” Dec. 22) takes the “standard” tone of current American media, ignoring the actions of NATO in provoking the Russians and President Vladimir Putin. Take a look at what the Council on Foreign Relations says in its September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, in the article titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.” You will find evidence of US/NATO/European Union actions to provoke the Russians; this is the real news, and the truth. Frankly, I was rather surprised that the CFR was so bold as to separate the truth from the propaganda.