Why doesn't Denmark start World War III?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

Wasn’t burning down their embassy an attack on Danish soil, technically?

I agree (for those who were planning on lecturing the OP about posting such a stupid, self-destructive question) that it’s in Denmark’s and the world’s best interest NOT to enflame things more than they already are, but is the principle of free expression not at stake here? Shouldn’t every free society (i.e., society with a free press, not subject to overt state censorship) line up here with Denmark and send a message, with standing armies if needed, to the Muslim world that if they’re so concerned about cartoons or articles they find offensive to their religion, then they should simply restrict access to foreign media within their own borders?

“We’re offended by these blasphemous cartoons.”

“Yah, fine. Don’t let them in your country.”

“No, we want you to ban them in your country, and punish those responsible for thinking them up.”

“Not the way it works, Abdul. We get to ban what we feel like, which is precious little, thankfully, and you can live in the 12th century if you like and ban every medium that might offend your sensibilities. It’s your call, not ours.”

“But if you don’t, we will commit acts of war upon you.”

“That’s cool. And we will respond to your acts of war. You’ll be better off learning to live with tolerating free expressions outside of your borders, believe us.”

Admittedly, I’m a free-expression fanatic and think this is a principle worth going to war over, and fully expect that few people on the SDMB or in the world, feel as strongly as I do about tolerating the expression of obnoxious points of view. I’m just wondering why so many Western nations are being as gentle in response to this blatent attack on the freedom of the press as they seem to be.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Because no Western nation is genuinely commited to freedom.

They are genuinely commited to the ruling class.

Also, Denmark probably couldn’t do much militarily if they wanted to. No strategic reach.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Denmark probably couldn’t do much militarily

Isn’t that the whole idea behind defense treaties? If the Soviets set off an A-bomb in downtown Copenhagen, wasn’t NATO prepared to respond militarily? How is this different (in principle, obviously)?

[tagos]

Because we need their oil more than they need anything from us and if that means sucking up to the dark age fantasies of a bunch of savage fanatics then that’s what we’ll do. Sell them weapons to keep their own publics in check, hedge and trim free speech in the name of ‘respect’. Anything.

Sweden has just announced its intention to make its society energy independent by 2020. We should all follow suit.

[David_Simmons]

@tagos

Sweden has just announced its intention to make its society energy independent by 2020. We should all follow suit.

Lotsa luck, Sweden.

[Ravenman]

If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics, there’d be an awful lot of dead bodies piling up and those principles would be no further advanced.

By the OPs rationale, China should have started World War III when NATO bombed its embassy in Belgrade – a war that was also without international sanction. OTOH, the US could have started World War IV when China forced down a US reconnaissance plane. And Ukraine could have started a war with Russia over its tampering with its elections. And the Middle East could have started war with France over the whole headscarf thing. End result of all these hypothetical wars? Many people dead, no real solutions.

If freedom of the press is so important to someone, I’d rather have those offended individuals storm the Syrian embassy, rather than send someone else to go do some killing because some people’s view of freedom of the press is ruffled by some angry mobs.

[El_Kabong]

[Sarcasm]Yes, we should immediately abandon any sense of proportion, launch a shooting war and kill many thousands of civilians in every country in the Middle East over a bunch of crappy cartoons. Right, sounds like an eminently sensible plan.
[/sarcasm]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Admittedly, I’m a free-expression fanatic and think this is a principle worth going to war over, and fully expect that few people on the SDMB or in the world, feel as strongly as I do about tolerating the expression of obnoxious points of view. I’m just wondering why so many Western nations are being as gentle in response to this blatent attack on the freedom of the press as they seem to be.

Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Freedom of the press has not so far been attacked in any significant way; news media in Denmark are precisely as free to publish whatever offensive crap they want as they were prior to last week’s rioting.

2. No one who has participated in the burning of an embassy has any particular power to stop free expression outside their home country; that is to say, they are no direct or significant threat to anyone, or to the abstract concept of free expression, in Europe or elsewhere.

3. Because despite your characterization, the burning of an embassy by an unruly mob is not generally considered an act of war.

4. Even if there turns out to be a link between a given government and the mob behavior cited, if one is inclined to respond, the breaking off of diplomatic and economic relations with the country in which the embassy-burning occurred would be perfectly sufficient.

@Tagos

Because we need their oil more than they need anything from us and if that means sucking up to the dark age fantasies of a bunch of savage fanatics then that’s what we’ll do. Sell them weapons to keep their own publics in check, hedge and trim free speech in the name of ‘respect’. Anything.

How much of the petroleum used in Denmark comes from Lebanon and Syria? Are those countries not where most of the rioting occurred? Oh, and how about from Iran, which is already a world pariah?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Ravenman

If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics.

Isn’t there a difference between mere ciritcs (whom I’m seeking to protect here) and violent state-sanctioned mobs?

[tagos]

@El_Kabong

[Sarcasm]Yes, we should immediately abandon any sense of proportion, launch a shooting war and kill many thousands of civilians in every country in the Middle East over a bunch of crappy cartoons. Right, sounds like an eminently sensible plan.
[/sarcasm]

Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Freedom of the press has not so far been attacked in any significant way; news media in Denmark are precisely as free to publish whatever offensive crap they want as they were prior to last week’s rioting.

2. No one who has participated in the burning of an embassy has any particular power to stop free expression outside their home country; that is to say, they are no direct or significant threat to anyone, or to the abstract concept of free expression, in Europe or elsewhere.

3. Because despite your characterization, the burning of an embassy by an unruly mob is not generally considered an act of war.

4. Even if there turns out to be a link between a given government and the mob behavior cited, if one is inclined to respond, the breaking off of diplomatic and economic relations with the country in which the embassy-burning occurred would be perfectly sufficient.

How much of the petroleum used in Denmark comes from Lebanon and Syria? Are those countries not where most of the rioting occurred? Oh, and how about from Iran, which is already a world pariah?

Who knows? Oil is a world market (and Iran is the 4th largest oil producer), as Bush’s lackies were saying when they qualified his recent remarks. Are you seriously contending the world economy can run without Middle East oil? Iran is not a pariah state - the world trades with it and sucks down its oil. If it turned the taps off tomorrow the price would rise significantly and the world economy would take a massive hit unless other Arab producers stepped up production.

Iran warns world

Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions

“Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran’s political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects,” he told Iranian state radio.

Mr Danesh-Jafari’s comments echoed fears voiced by energy market analysts after crude oil prices last week rose above $64 (£36.50) a barrel as hopes faded of a diplomatic solution to the dispute.

Last week, Manouchehr Takin, of the Centre for Global Energy Studies, argued that crude prices could hit $100 a barrel if Iran stopped exporting. “Supply and demand are very tightly balanced,” he said.

Sweden plans to be first oil-free economy

The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises.

“Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020,” said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. “There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline.”

Iranian Planned Bourse

Interesting if somewhat speculative analysis of the impact Iran moving away from petro-dollars to petro-euro’s will have on the world economy in general and the dollar in particular. I’m no expert on international finance but I’ve seen many less ideological analyses and programmes that back up the point that by being the single world reserve currency the dollar allows the USA to punch above its already considerable weight.

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates.

US Dollar Hegemony - Asia Times- Henry C K Liu, chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group.

A strong-dollar policy is in the US national interest because it keeps US inflation low through low-cost imports and it makes US assets expensive for foreign investors. This arrangement, which Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan proudly calls US financial hegemony in congressional testimony, has kept the US economy booming in the face of recurrent financial crises in the rest of the world. It has distorted globalization into a “race to the bottom” process of exploiting the lowest labor costs and the highest environmental abuse worldwide to produce items and produce for export to US markets in a quest for the almighty dollar, which has not been backed by gold since 1971, nor by economic fundamentals for more than a decade. The adverse effect of this type of globalization on the developing economies are obvious. It robs them of the meager fruits of their exports and keeps their domestic economies starved for capital, as all surplus dollars must be reinvested in US treasuries to prevent the collapse of their own domestic currencies.

And for what it’s worth The Prudent Investor Blogspt

A Renunciation Of The $ Is Worse Than An Iranian Nuclear Attack

Steering away from the almighty commodity, currency and commodity currency - the US dollar - can have a deeper impact on the US economy than a direct nuclear attack by Iran. The permanent demand for dollar denominated paper stems to a good part from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it.

In my conclusion the IOB this way could help the Euro to become the interim primary reserve currency before China and India will rise to the first two slots in the global economic ranking in the next few decades, an issue discussed in the post “What will be the next big reserve currency.”
A decline of the dollar’s position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the USA has only a minority market share. A global economy driven by tough efficiency demands in the light of thin profit margins almost everywhere is a good primer for accounting changes in other commodity markets. This process could begin in resources like steel and energy and spread to all other resources that are marketed globally. The world outside the USA has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from it.

[furt]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Shouldn’t every free society (i.e., society with a free press, not subject to overt state censorship) line up here with Denmark and send a message, with standing armies if needed, to the Muslim world that if they’re so concerned about cartoons or articles they find offensive to their religion, then they should simply restrict access to foreign media within their own borders?

Burning embassies aside, their various fulminations are all things they do on their side of the street. There’s no need to defend free speech with armies unless they’re trying to invade or something. Worst case scenario, you break diplomatic relations, and wish them well in the 12th century.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Because no Western nation is genuinely commited to freedom.

They are genuinely commited to the ruling class.

I’ve been to Denmark. They have a queen, a great big frickin brewery, and a whole lot of contented-looking social-welfare recipients. What I didn’t see was much of a ruling class.

Ruling glass, OTOH…You can buy Carlsberg on draft every 15 yards.

[tagos]

@furt

Burning embassies aside, their various fulminations are all things they do on their side of the street. There’s no need to defend free speech with armies unless they’re trying to invade or something. Worst case scenario, you break diplomatic relations, and wish them well in the 12th century.

I wish you would all stop this ‘12th century’ crap.

8th century, tops.

[Neurotik]

Plus, I think the Danes are still keeping all their forces focused on defending a crappy island in the Arctic from the Canuckistanis, so they don’t really have the capacity for Mid East adventures.

[tagos]

@Beware of Doug

I’ve been to Denmark. They have a queen, a great big frickin brewery, and a whole lot of contented-looking social-welfare recipients. What I didn’t see was much of a ruling class.

Ruling glass, OTOH…You can buy Carlsberg on draft every 15 yards.

Perhaps they saw you first?

Maybe they don’t wear badges?

Maybe they don’t frequent tourist spots?

Rich and powerful people move in different circles to you and me.

Well, you anyway.

[yojimbo]

The Danish don’t do insults but if they did they’d probably be the best in the world

[Liberal]

I agree with the OP. The ethical purpose of war, in my opinion, is to defend and retaliate against coercion. I completely disagree with this rationale, offered by Ravenman: “If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics, there’d be an awful lot of dead bodies piling up and those principles would be no further advanced.” It is a statement that is too broad. Certain principles (Pepsi tastes better than Coke) are not worth defending and cannot be settled by war. Others, however (Don’t tread on me) are not only worth defending, but must be defended on behalf of individual dignity and worth. I almost hate to say it because Bush has made “freedom” into such a dirty word, but freedom is what is advanced when rights are rigorously defended.

[Dice]

“The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims, as a Jew, and the son of a holocaust survivor, I would not allow racism to happen. It was a mistake. Just like the attack on the USS Liberty was a mistake” said Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings.

Flemming Rose (born 1956) is a Danish journalist, author and the current cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was responsible for the first publishing of the cartoons in the Muhammed cartoons crisis.

He has links with US neoconservatives and in October 2004 travelled to the US to visit Daniel Pipes, the well known Zionist neoconservative thinker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose

Daniel Pipes is a HardCore Zionist who would stifle all academic criticism of his beloved Israel. Some describe him as a “leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist”.

[Dice]

“The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims, as a Jew, and the son of a holocaust survivor, I would not allow racism to happen. It was a mistake. Just like the attack on the USS Liberty was a mistake” said Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings.

Flemming Rose (born 1956) is a Danish journalist, author and the current cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was responsible for the first publishing of the cartoons in the Muhammed cartoons crisis.

He has links with US neoconservatives and in October 2004 travelled to the US to visit Daniel Pipes, the well known Zionist neoconservative thinker.

Flemming Rose

Daniel Pipes is a HardCore Zionist who would stifle all academic criticism of his beloved Israel. Some describe him as a “leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist”.

[Ravenman]

Liberal, pseudotriton, do you have any belief whatsoever that invading the Islamic world will be successful in achieving broader respect for freedom of the press?

If not, such a war would fail the first test of a just war. It would fail a lot of other tests, too.

I’ll note that the attacks on the US Embassy on Beijing after the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade were also orchestrated by government machinations. I was there. I saw it all, including the city buses that were organized to shuffle angry students in and out of the embassy area.

It’s also worth noting that the first protests of this cartoon, and many subsequent protests, were NOT state sponsored.

[John_Mace]

@Liberal

I agree with the OP. The ethical purpose of war, in my opinion, is to defend and retaliate against coercion. I completely disagree with this rationale, offered by Ravenman: “If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics, there’d be an awful lot of dead bodies piling up and those principles would be no further advanced.” It is a statement that is too broad. Certain principles (Pepsi tastes better than Coke) are not worth defending and cannot be settled by war. Others, however (Don’t tread on me) are not only worth defending, but must be defended on behalf of individual dignity and worth. I almost hate to say it because Bush has made “freedom” into such a dirty word, but freedom is what is advanced when rights are rigorously defended.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that attacks on an embassy such as we are seeing is worth fighting WWIII over? Would the world be a better place after this hypothetical WWIII?