Regarding Salena De La Cruz’s column on March 31 (“Majority support,” ODE), it is difficult to imagine that the issue of supporting the troops is as simple as she explains. Like many people, De La Cruz seems to think that the peace movement is opposed to the troops as individuals. Do people really believe that we have no compassion for our military personnel as mothers, fathers and fellow human beings?
The peace movement is focused on a value for human life, and it is the destruction of war that we oppose. Our president has led the troops into battle where the “sacrifice” of lives is inevitable and unnecessary. We support our troops by calling for their prompt return.
A government that supports and cares for the lives of its troops would have sought every peaceful solution possible before it declared war. This did not happen. As a nation, we were rushed into violent action, and now we have been labeled violent and aggressive bullies by much of the global community. Despite our own history of mass destruction, we have pointed the finger of immorality at a leader of an already war-torn and suffering people.
I am saddened by the loss of lives and the growing anti-American sentiment. This war has supplied us with more enemies than we Americans care to admit, and my concern is for violent responses to our “American aggression.”
It’s funny how they say the troops are fighting for my freedom and security, but as the war goes on, I feel less secure with how the world views us as a nation.
As the fighting continues, I hope the Emerald enlarges its scope of stories concerning the war. It would be even more informative to see stories about the state of a world that grows to distrust and disrespect our nation each day that the war continues.
If you document flag-waving patriotism, please also document the peace movement’s patriotism. We too, love our country, and its peace is worth protesting for.