It is time that we who voted for President Obama and still harbor some hopes for his administration (which is so much better than the previous one on so many scores) express our unhappiness with his decision to continue and expand the senseless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

We must end the incessant and needless loss of lives and waste of untold billions of dollars on military operations in Afghanistan. The military will never be the agent of winning over hearts and minds of an occupied people who don't want us there. We should have learned that from Vietnam.

It is time now to cut our huge Iraq and Afghanistan war expenditures in this time of fiscal crisis and withdraw our forces. Our mission should be limited to the apprehension of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida leaders, an action that could be carried out by a small number of operatives.

We should also sanction those leaders of our government who negligently allowed 9/11 to happen as well as those U.S. policymakers who decades ago funded and supported bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians.

We cannot succeed at stabilizing the government and neutralizing the Taliban especially while our military actions have claimed the lives of more than 2,000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan. We are only creating more enemies by continuing the war.

John Witeck | Honolulu

UH FACULTY

'NO' VOTE AN ANSWER TO BULLYING TACTICS

Why did UH faculty vote against a 5 percent cut?

When the faculty union offered to negotiate a 5 percent salary cut several months ago, the state turned them down. Why does their "last, best, final offer" now include a 5 percent salary cut?

The answer is that the temporary cut is bundled with a permanent one to medical benefits that already amounts to more than a 5 percent reduction in take-home pay for the university's lowest-paid employees, and puts the entire burden of any future increases in insurance premiums on the employees.

But don't professors make $115,000 to $147,000 a year, as KGMB-9 reported last week? No. The great majority make $50,000 to $100,000 a year —not low salaries compared to the general population, but barely competitive for hiring and retention.

Yet the resounding "no" the faculty delivered to the "last, best, final offer" had less to do with salaries and benefits than with the employers' approach to bargaining. What they call their last, best, final offer is their first and only offer, and it is final because they promise to impose it on us whether we approve it or not. Voting "no" told them what we think of these bullying tactics.

John Rieder | Professor of English, University of Hawaii-Manoa

GOVERNMENT PAY

RAISE FOR LEGISLATORS, CUTS FOR WORKERS?

Back in the spring of 2009, our Legislature, along with our governor's approval, gave themselves a 36 percent raise. Now they, our governor and our Legislature, have asked our state workers to take an 8 percent or more drop in wages. Where's the outrage?

Mary Jo Morrow | Kailua

PEACE PRIZE

WE SHOULD ALL BE CELEBRATING AWARD

I have been a Republican for almost 40 years. I am proud to be a John McCain supporter. I believe President Reagan was one of our great presidents (as well as Franklin Delano Roosevelt).

I was taught that we as Americans, no matter who he was or what party he belonged to, always respected the office of president. But now there is no respect, just partisan politics run amok.

I believe we should be congratulating President Obama on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. As he said, the award is to America and the principals and ideals we stand for. Instead of even one moment of praise, we hear words of cynicism, pettiness, rampant partisanship. And this is by both Democrats and Republicans. Enough!

Theodore Taba | Honolulu

HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM JUST THE CURE

First of all, insurers are in business to make a profit. This being the case, an insurer maximizes profit by denying claims by any means possible. The other path to higher profits is to simply arbitrarily raise the premiums. Since insurers are not regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws, they have a free hand to establish monopolies and engage in price fixing/gouging.

The (for-profit) private doctors, clinics and hospitals, on the other hand, get paid by the number of tests, operations, length of treatment stay, etc. So it only stands to reason that this would naturally lead to over-treatment. Standards of care become irrelevant. Cost becomes profit, so costs will climb dramatically over time. Preventative care becomes a disincentive.

So, one can see there is a very serious conflict of interest inherent in our health care system. Insurers profit by denying claims and private care profits from over-treatment.

A government-run health care insurance program would be an adequate, effective check on our dysfunctional system. There would be no profit motive, no reason to deny legitimate claims, no huge bonuses paid to corporate CEOs and officers who deny claims, no armies of lawyers and lobbyists, no needless, annoying advertising. There would be, however, an incentive to keep us healthy with preventative care, an adherence to "best standards of care," not over-treatment, accurate record keeping, and, most importantly, "fair pricing."

Gary W. Grimes | Honolulu