Libyan involvement cheered, condemned

I disagree with some of your readers who have questioned the political, social and economic ties of those Libyans who seek to oust their despotic ruler, Moammar Gadhafi ["CIA sent teams into Libya," News, March 31]. American colonists who wanted their freedom from Great Britain in 1776 were a rabble army composed of ordinary people including farmers, craftsmen, merchants and lawyers who first wanted their "inalienable rights" as Englishmen, and later as American revolutionaries.

The type of government formed after the fall of Gadhafi will eventually be decided by the free people of Libya and not by any foreign government, including the United States. Let's not try to second guess the Libyan people, who are daily sacrificing their lives for their freedom.

John Jay Fleitman

Hauppauge
 

Just suppose that our president said, "You know what? We're going to sit this one out. We're already involved in two wars. Besides, you Europeans can handle this guy without us. Instead of spending a couple of billion dollars blowing up Libya, I'm going to sink that money into our crumbling school system."

Just wishful thinking. This really isn't any change at all, is it?

Gene Rosa

Holbrook
 

Who dreamed up "Odyssey Dawn" as the name for the Libyan operation? In Homer's epic poem, Odysseus displeased the gods and was condemned to a 10-year exile at sea before he was permitted to return home. Is this an omen? Are our Navy and armed forces doomed to the same long fate?

Odysseus never considered the long-term consequences of his actions. Neither did President Barack Obama. We are at the point now where, if Moammar Gadhafi and his government survive, we lose.

During the Suez crisis of 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sided with Russia and China in demanding the immediate withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces from the Suez Canal. The bottom line was clear: Seizure of the canal was in the best interests of neither the United States nor our allies. Barack Obama is no Dwight Eisenhower.

Kenneth E. Heard

Smithtown
 

It is amazing to what lengths the editorial staff at Newsday will go to spin a story in favor of President Barack Obama ["Fighting a third Mideast conflict," Editorial, March 23].

With regards to our recent military intervention in Libya, without congressional approval, Newsday is, "uneasy with this dubious tradition." While even members of Mr. Obama's own party have questioned whether this is an impeachable offense, Newsday notes that, "despite some bipartisan carping, Congress has been mostly silent" -- as if it is Congress' fault that it was not consulted.

Let's put things in perspective. Our president (a Nobel Peace Prize recipient) launched an attack on Libya while visiting Brazil. He sought only United Nations, not United States, approval. This further emphasizes his one-world philosophy.

Conveniently left out was the comparative fact that President George W. Bush sought and received congressional resolutions approving military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ronald O. Roveto

Plainview
 

If our country is so financially strapped that the government is talking about cutting programs that benefit our citizens, such as Medicare and Social Security, where does it find the money for another war?

Every dollar spent on the Libyan situation should not come from the American taxpayers, but instead from the oil companies who stand to profit from it.

William Coddington

Port Washington