Responses to January 10 Letter to the Editor, Laurel Leader

If you're arguing Iraq War, best to stick to facts, truth

Mr. Papanikolas is correct in reminding us that anyone in our country can criticize whatever they like regardless of their service in the military ("Military service not needed to assess military matters," letter, Jan. 10). We are blessed to live in a nation that allows free speech, whether everyone likes it or not.

What he fails to comprehend, however, is that in our democracy, in order to criticize successfully, it generally helps to have the facts, or more specifically, the truth, on your side.

The "truth," as far as the war in Iraq goes, is still to be determined. History will ultimo thatately show who the "traitors" and "cowards" really are in this matter.

In the meantime, I would like to urge those who prefer to resort to name-calling and in general denigrating their opponents to focus more specifically on the facts at hand if they want to persuade successfully for their cause.

Facts, such as: Approaching five years of military occupation in Iraq; almost 4,000 dead American service men and women; approximately 28,000 wounded or disabled American service men and women; approximately 80,000 Iraqi civilians killed; close to $1 trillion in American treasure for a war that seems without end; irreparable (?) harm to our relations not only with our long-standing allies but the entire world as well.

In closing, I would very much appreciate someone defining what "winning" will be in Iraq. Do we keep American troops and bases there for five, 10, 20 years, forever? And at what cost to our nation -- another 50,000 deaths, as in the Viet Nam conflict? Or a possible third World War?

If the response is, "We should pay any price," my initial thought on that is, "Easy for you to say."

Erskine Traynham Jr.
Laurel

First cowards, now treason: What's next for war critics?

My Jan. 3 letter to the editor objecting to the Democratic leadership being called cowards by people who have not served in the military was written out of frustration and I truly apologize.

I am frustrated by their being called cowards because of their efforts to get us out of an unjust war being fought over oil instead of weapons of mass destruction, as we were led to believe. Does what is left of the Constitution allow me to say this?

My frustration should be directed at Cheney and his neo-con accomplices.

Now the Democratic leaders are being associated with treason ( "Military service not needed to assess military matters," letter, Jan. 10). I had better not write any more letters because there might be a word for believing in evolution and that also would be directed at them.

The Democrats are being criticized for investigating most everything that has gone on in the past seven years, but I am glad someone is interested in doing this.

By the way, all who have served their country, no matter how long or why, should be commended.

Tom Boyle
Laurel