By Elizabeth Schafer
July 12, 2006
There seems to be an interesting argument going on about who supports our troops and who doesn't. Really, does anybody out there actually NOT support our men and women in Irag and elsewhere? And are people so hard-headed that they can point fingers at an anti-war protester and say they're anti-military or anti-soldiers?(Probably not gramatically correct. Like I said, I'm new at this.) I doubt it
In my opinion, people who protest the war are not protesting the soldiers themselves, they are protesting the decision to put our troops in harm's way for a reason which does not seem valid to them. Those who protest the war believe they are SUPPORTING our troops because they want them home, with their families, ALIVE. However, I also believe that people in support of the war are also in support of our soldiers because they see that the war in Iraq is important, and would like to see progress in Iraq, which is not possible without military support on the ground.
In summation, debating about whether people are supporting or not supporting our men and women over seas is not the real argument. So instead of labeling this disagreement as a troop-support issue, realize that you're probably just arguing about the choice to go to war in the first place. I think everyone can agree that the military is necessary, and that it should be used only in extreme situations. So was this a necessary war, or not? That to me, should be the real issue (and of course freedom of speech:)
Thanks for letting me write
my opinion.....although very rough.....I'll get better at this......
About: First time public opinion writer.
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.