Guys, can I just point out that, to any rational human being, the thread title is practically a self-answering question? And it remains so with the substitution of any agency in place of ‘Denmark’.
What set of provocations might “starting World War III” (remembering what the last act of World War II was) be an appropriate response to? Other than, I suppose, the instant transformation of the entire human race into a pack of flesh-eating zombies?
Seriously, I love the way that the Straight Dope has no ‘unthinkable propositions’, I think it’s great that we can dispassionately dissect the most extreme propositions as if discussing the finer points of early Renaissance musical notation…
So one guy hates Muslims, prints a cartoon and therefore he “started the shit”?
Uhh, no. Idiots (which he may be) are always going to publish inflamatory material. The answer is not buring of embassies. Nor is it to try and stifle their right to be idiotic.
I’m specifically saying that going to war over cartoons would be a terrible thing, and that the western world should do almost anything to avoid going to war over it.
But I think Denmark, and all the allies with whom they have defense treaties, should be telling any country that has allowed an embassy to be fire-bombed, or which is not clearly and vigorously denouncing and punishing those who committed such an act of war against Denmark, that by its actions they are risking a war that they do not want. If this is perceived as a bluff, then send troops in to stand on their borders. If that is perceived as a bluff, have the troops invade fifty feet into the offending country but not fire a shot. If that is perceived as a bluff, etc. If the choice is living in a world where atrocities are committed by fanatics seeking to impose their religious standards on secular nations by force or tolerating life under those standards, I’m for asserting the price to pay, with every warning that this is intolerable behavior.
Is there any particular relevance of your entire post to this thread? Regardless of the ethnic or religious heritage of one Danish editor, the topic under discussion is the appropriate international reaction to violence when launched in response to publications. There is nothing in this thread that requires any reference to Israel or to any person identified as Jewish.
So, when Danish troops are standing in downtown Damascus, being subjected to car bombs and other terrorist actions, shall Denmark threaten to develop a nuke to turn Syria into a piece of glass? What should be done if the Syrian people call the bluff?
You don’t avoid war by forcing yourself into a corner of having to go to war for fear of having one’s bluff called.
Seriously, in a year or two this will all be a loooong way out of most people’s conciousness. The embassies will be rebuilt, despotic governments will find new ways to rile up their people, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims will still not like acts that they take to be blasphemous. Going to war will only change the situation for the worse.
And, in answer to the last line of the OP, I fail to see why governments should be ready to send their people to kill and die to protect what is really racist speech. Defending people’s right to say bad things doesn’t mean you have to kill to protect bigotry.
On a related question, do you think that nations should threaten Germany with war if it does not abolish laws prohibiting Nazi speech?
Because he’s jackass posting in what is essentially a ridiculous thread.
The “price” is that such nations would furthur isolate themselves from the rest of the modern civilized world.
I recall another such war where I believe it was Austria-Hungary that invaded some Balken nation to avenge some insult - the assassination of some minor aristocrat. I remember it ending very badly.
Maybe. But aren’t defense treaties supposed to empower the weaker countries with the military might of all its allies? And if a country defends or justifies in any way an act of war against Denmark’s sovereign soil, isn’t it complicit in that act of war? I’m just not getting what’s keeping this attack on Denmark’s embassy, and the subsequent lack of a denunciation by the “host” country, from being an act of war.
Not every act of war must end in war, of course, and I’m all for every step to prevent that end, but I’d like this at least to be identified as an act of war which the West is choosing to tolerate in the interests of world peace. I feel it’s being treated as some kind of regrettable minor incident, and I don’t think the consequences, or potential consequences, for the firebombers is being noticed.
Even if you accept that Iran and Syria have fanned the flames of this situation and that they didn’t do anything to protect the Danish embassies, can you really call this an act of war?
They aren’t standing up for Denmark because they don’t think there’s anything in it for them.
First, I’m impressed with the speed at which you put together all those cites; I’m guessing you must have had some of this stuff ready to go for just such an eventuality. Thing is, I’m not disagreeing with you on this particular point, and I would be foolish indeed to claim that the world economy is not dependent to some extent on oil from the Middle East. But that’s not really the subject under discussion here. Let’s go back to your original argument:
I don’t see where Denmark or any other country has done anything specific to ‘suck up’ to a Middle Eastern country on this issue. For example, Denmark apparently has done nothing to change its laws, sanction the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, or really made any concessions at all. If you’ve got some examples of this supposed ‘sucking up’, specific to this issue, I’m all ears (or eyes, I guess).
Well, we do the same to them. We protest their public executions, or their torture methods or their lack of democratic organizations. So we are both meddling in each other’s internal affairs.
Even relavist morality is relative. Some people adopt abosolute morality. In the eyes of the protestors Americans and Europeans live on Allah’s planet just like Arabs do. Here in the west we have absolute morality on human rights for example. We (the public, and to a lesser degree the government) feel human rights supercede politics, religion or ethnic situations.
So you can’t get them to give up their protests anymore than you can get women in America to stop fighting to end sexism in Saudi Arabia.
Moderator’s Warning:Dice, I was easily able to find a source for the first part of your Flemming Rose quote, up until “…insult Muslims”; see for example this article from the International Herald-Tribune. The rest of the quote which you attributed to Flemming Rose, from “as a Jew” to the end, does not seem to exist anywhere else on the Web except for your post to this thread. The description outside of the quotation marks (“cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings”) also matches the Herald-Tribune article word for word.
Look, there’s no list of “acts of war” which automatically necessitate a belligerent response by a nation. There isn’t, and it’s just a damn embassy. They can be rebuilt for much, much less money than what it takes to even threaten to prosecute a war.
The thing you’re not getting is that even if burning an embassy is on some magical list of ‘acts of war,’ it is completely unrealistic to view that as an actual threat to Demark’s security. What you’re suggesting is that Demark threaten to resort to arms for something that is more of an insult to the country, as opposed to being a threat to Denmark.
And on the silly Cuban Missle Crisis question, do you think Krushchev would have launched his missiles if an American mob pelted the Soviet embassy? I don’t. It would have escalated the tension, to be sure, but hey – he already stood back and let the US Navy cordon off Cuba. Why should he kill millions – and have millions of his own killed – in order to protest some broken windows and maybe some smoke damage?
If Nikita Friggin’ Krushchev can withstand the US Navy blockading an allied country, I think Denmark is rational enough to not start a world war over a cartoon.