To the editor:

In the Saturday Column, the editor worries that terrorists will “get people to believe it is more important to avoid military action than to stand up and fight.” He concludes: “then this country and the rest of the world are in a terribly dangerous position.” And he is so right!! Since the editor, himself, broached the subject of “avoiding military action,” now would be a good time for his Saturday Column to conduct a comparison of the two candidates for president.

The records of both have now been released. The terms of comparison are clear on “avoiding military action.” Let’s look at the medals awarded to both candidates — Purple Hearts, Silver Stars for valor. Let’s look at where they fought the war of their generation. Did they volunteer to risk their lives on the battlefield or did they “avoid military action” (thus putting this world a terribly dangerous position)? Let’s count the exact number of days (not including time AWOL or otherwise unaccounted for) that each of the candidates served his country.

Our comparison might lead us to conclude that “this country and the rest of the world are (already) in a terribly dangerous position” indeed! When one of the candidates avoided military combat, how could he have asked others to do otherwise? How could a militarily unwilling person have understood the dangers of invading a foreign country against the advice of our allies, the United Nations and, ironically, his own secretary of state? The world will be in a much more “terribly dangerous position” if the voters don’t awaken before the upcoming elections.

Jan Kozma,

Lawrence