I was surprised and confused by a statement written in a letter to the editor I read today. The woman who wrote the letter had gone to Haven’s to send candy to relatives in Afghanistan and Germany. She says she “was surprised to find that Haven’s Candies charges to have items shipped to an APO, Military address.” Who did she think should pay the cost to send these items?
At the beginning of the letter she was upset about the shipping charge but then she said she was upset that the manager at Haven’s asked her about the “impact” of the shipping charge. Poor choice of words perhaps, but a legitimate question nonetheless. Why wouldn’t they charge to send items to an APO address? If she were sending items to a relative that was living in Germany or France would she have been surprised to be charged for shipping?
I am tired of the perception that people in the military should be offered some kind of special treatment. People join the military of their own choice, and as noble as this is, it is still a freely made choice. While I do not support the war, I do support the troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the jobs they have chosen to do. Part of the difficulty of having relatives living over seas is the cost to send items to them. A difficulty that is borne by relatives and friends of these people, not retailers.
Suzanne Bearor
Westbrook
Send questions/comments to the editors.
