So, If America Did Not Act - Then Who Could be Suggested as the Next Best Substitute to Quell the Entire Middle East Upheaval

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Apr 5, 2011 at 17:00

Your suppositions are subjective and demonstrate the variance of opinions on a number of subjects. For a contrast, should the Kashmir be Indian or Pakistani? Who has the right to make that determination?

It is the same type of question that is to be determined when considering how so many people think it is inappropriate for Israel to defend herself and all the world clamors for the defense doctrine against Israel. Israel is not expanding into any new territory, but instead has conceded territory that if the truth were made relevant, Israel should have kept. If Pakistan is to defend her sovereignty: who has the legitimate right to disallow that?

Your use of the term 'Palestine' appears to give your opinion that Israel has no more right to the land and that the 'Palestinians' should be given the land, pretty much as the Iranian president has demanded. Do you realize that in making that assertion, it could be similarly argued that Pakistan be returned to its previous state of multicultural collectives of Indian heritage? What of the influences of the Mamluks, Khilji, Sayyids and the Sikhs and their contributions? Do we need to insist those things be addressed in the modern context? To do the same in requiring Israel to concede more than what they already have needs to have this caveat employed: be careful of that you desire, for the price is likely more than what you would be willing to pay.

Now, it is more than sufficiently recognized that the methodology used by the United States does not meet the mindset of other mentalities, especially of the oriental persuasion, and for good reason. Although the ancient lineage of the American mindset can be traced to a Indo-European root, the centuries of cultural changes and metamorphic divergences from the current oriental mindset mean that if the Middle East were to seek peace and conduct international business with agreements and equity, there would be no need for the 6^th and 7^th Naval fleets to patrol the region with ready alert and 5 minute alert aircraft sitting on deck waiting for the next call to action.

Do you want Americans to stop killing? Stop killing Americans. Should the Aussies show more humanitarian attitude towards other (as indeed all should), try to find the same attitude that Gandhi had in dealing with the British and heap spiritual coals towards peace.

Now your legitimate question: why should America be interested to topple the Libyan government, especially after decades of tolerating his despotic rule and home grown terrorism killing Americans indiscriminately? It is a good question, especially when one considers more Americans were killed in other places like Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Should we have gone into those places and topple those governments? And let us add that many still consider Iraq a lesson still to be learned about international politics. An interim opinion (and mine only), politics represents the mindset of those in power and not necessarily those of the constituency. Otherwise, how did Musharraf get away with his supposed support of the American presence in the Middle East (presuming that was not merely a ploy towards the west while he played to friends of Islam behind the Americans' back)?

Politics will supply its own justification for any action that may seem necessary to reach the desired end. It is the same political savvy that in being employed in Iran as it seeks nuclear parity with the other nuclear powers in the region of Pakistan, though ostensibly the Iranian president has his eyes on Israel. From your perspective, are we to understand then, that if the Iranian government's political intent (in contradiction to America's) to destroy Israel to bring about an Islamic change of state worldwide (beginning with Libya), that you would be OK with that? I would venture that you would, if for no other reason, that the purported inequities suffered by Indians at the hands of the Australians (and I thought Pakistanis and Indians had relationship issues) might be rectified. And I always wondered why the Sikh assassinated Gandhi…….

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".