OPINION & EDITORIAL
Parks’ facts wrong in column
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- War referendum inappropriate (March 30, 2006)
- Vote "No" on war referendum (March 29, 2006)
- Cut them no SLAC (October 13, 2005)
- Vote "No" on war referendum (April 4, 2006)
- Readers type, click post (October 27, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
I am writing today in response to the editorial "War referendum inappropriate" published in the March 30, 2006 Herald. Joelle Parks drastically misrepresented the Troops Home Now referendum, and as someone who has worked with the initiative's crafters, there are some details I can help clarify. Chief among these are Ms. Parks' portrayal of a "small" anti-war referendum "sneaking" onto the April ballot. This remark demonstrates her misunderstanding of the movement and its greater democratic underpinnings. The referendum has "snuck" onto ballots by popular petition in 32 Wisconsin towns, villages and cities due to the democratic freedoms that she praises throughout her editorial.
After extolling the accomplishments of our occupation, Ms. Parks addresses the details of the referendum while confusing it with the remarks of Rep. John Murtha and an obscure Republican-sponsored House resolution. It is here where her confusion becomes apparent. The Wisconsin referendum is worded not as a concrete policy (like the House resolution was) but rather as a means for Wisconsin's communities to unite around the message that the Iraq occupation must come to an end. In order for the referendum to pass, its crafters designed its wording to be simple and focused, making it much easier for the voting public to grasp.
The rest of Ms. Parks' piece is thick with semantics directed against the referendum and its supporters. She makes the wildly inappropriate claim that "support of the troops depends on the support of the war" that has killed or injured thousands of them. She claims that it is the "duty" of the troops to protect the United States and, by natural extension, the rights we hold sacred. The supporters of the April referendum believe that our current leadership has provided its soldiers neither with a proper war of principle and defense nor with the tools to fight it effectively. To us, tearing soldiers from their families to fight and die over a meaningless conflict does not qualify as "support," and we are going to exercise our sacred right to say so.
Perfectly reasonable citizens on both sides of the debate will cast their votes come Tuesday for a referendum that may or may not succeed. But to claim that supporters of a democratic referendum take freedom for granted while offering only baseless, emotionally charged arguments in opposition does nothing to further the debate over our future Iraq policy.
Micah Lanier
UW freshman
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 9:12am):
Hippies Suck!!
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 3:19pm):
Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 8:14pm):
"To us, tearing soldiers from their families to fight and die over a meaningless conflict does not qualify as "support,""
Check with the Kurds and Shites about that "meaningless" thing. The Sunnis are no able to emulate their Nazi mentors - that's not meaningless.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 8:18pm):
Yer absotootly cerrekt. We shoulda let Saddam keep Kuwait, then take Saudi. No 9-11 and he'd be pumping them dry to buy weapons to beat on Iran. Our gas would be cheaper than hell and the Iranians would be begging us to hold Saddam back (no more Great Satan I'd bet).
Hard cheese on the middle eastern people but the good old USA would be better off.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 3:27pm):
"To us, tearing soldiers from their families to fight and die over a meaningless conflict does not qualify as "support,""
If you don't want to be torn from your family to go to war, don't enlist!! Last time I checked, we had a voluntary army.
