Attack on Libya

Press, 21 April 1986, Page 12

Attack on Libya

Sir,—About six years ago my brother-in-law, on his annual pilgrimage home from the Libyan oilfields, made the droll comparison that while Gadaffi’s - kingdom, awash with oil, spanked desert-based drilling crews with coffee-less weeks or sugar-less months, Muldoon’s kingdom (awash with food) spanked motorists With car-less days. According to Dutch sources one oil company has recently shut down global exploration to the extent of laying off 2000 geologists! Maybe Reagan can shut down" the Libyan oil lake and, maybe, nudge the: Iranians to shut down the Iraqi oilfields, or vice vprsa, and, maybe, Mrs Thatcher is looking after North Sea crude. Who knows? It could all work out for the worst, like making the synthetic Kiwi fuel of Motunui viable again. — Yours, etc.,

ROGER I. MCPHERSON. April 17' 1986.

Sir, —The recent actions of the United-States military forces in Tripoli, and Benghazi have undoubtedly left a question mark on the world political map. President Reagan’s aggressive stance on Libya will not resolve international terrorism, but will provoke reaction by the Middle East nations. Muammar Gadaffi is the “mad dog” of Middle East philosophies, and more acts of terrorism on innocent people are seemingly inevitable. Backing of the Libyan leader by Arab nations has created a precarious situation, and mounting dissension towards the United States has left Reagan shorthanded. Our political stance for a free and democratic society is slowly eroding and increasingly we must become aware of vulnerabilities to Eastern influence on the “free world.” Gadaffi is alive and well. — Yours, etc., S. I. GRAY. April 18, 1986.

Sir,— Observing the reaction of the Western world in general, it appears that it is now relatively safe for terrorists to blow up whatever they please. Now Gadaffi is a martyr; the planes that his “hit-men” blew up, the airports, the street killings, well that’s O.K. Have we become that soft and naive? We dream of peace, but peace is not free in a world with so many different interests. All the crying hearts are, in my view, more dangerous to the Western world than the nuclear pile-up. The Arabs and their Eastern supporters see us divided and fighting among ourselves; what better target. I prefer to put my trust in the American President rather than in any Arab or Communist leader. I choose to live as a relatively free man, not as a son of Khomeiny, Stalin or Gadaffi. — Yours, etc., RAY ALLEN. Quebec, Canada, April 18, 1986.

Sir,—Thank God that somebody has finally stood up against a mad dog like Gadaffi. It will certainly make him think twice about any further action. Anyone who says that what America and Britain have done is wrong must be in favour of Gadaffi’s terrorism. I love my freedom.—Yours, etc.,

R. S. HENDERSON. Annat, April 17, 1986.

Sir,—ls it not obscene, the spectacle of a super-Power launching terrorism against a small nation, Libya? But, what else, sadly, could the world expect from the totally morally bankrupt regime occupying the White House. And this is the

Government the National Party wants to favour with visits from nuclear-weapons capable vessels. — Yours, etc., (Rev.) VICTOR JONES. Waiau, April 16, 1986.

Sir,—Britain and the United States owe the world an explanation. At the moment they appear to constitute .a far greater threat to world stability than Libya could ever hope to do. Aggression is not a definition of defence. — Yours, etc.,

VANESSA BRYSON MCLEAN. April 16, 1986.