Wait...are you saying that censoring parts of the Koran is good, or bad?

And once the West wakes up, what should it do?

LYT - don't feign ignorance. You know exactly what is being said. The Dutch have laws that allow for censorship, and this group are intending to use them to neuter Islamists. We could still see Islam (or Islamist speech, anyhow) prosecuted under the asinine hate-crime laws in this country (the US, in case you're wondering where I am).

The west will wake up after the fall of Paris or Madrid. After that, I hold out no hope that there will be any muslims left upon the Earth.

Right now, Islam is getting a lot of political accomodation from the West. I think Europe is betting the allure of a secular society will win over future generations of Muslims. The Islamists are betting on immigration, higher birth rates, and the ghetto to get their type of society in place. I don't know who is going to win this race.

hmmm....yes there is stuff in the Bible that is equally offensive, and aside from some real numb-skulls nobody advocates that such is to be taken seriously. If the islamic world were not so dominated by the wack-jobs who choose to interpret the Qu'ran in the manner that they do, I could easily see muslims living alongside christians with no worries. Unfortunately, thanks to a bunch of bloody mullahs in Iran and the wahhabism exported out of the Kingdon (thanks to our loyal pals, ibn Saud), the completely nutcase interpretations applicable to 1000 years ago are what all are taught. Just as there is good in the Bible, there is good in the Qu'ran. (I have never understood that despite the fact that the Qu'ran specifically provides certain rights to women, in practical matters such are thoroughly removed.)

If the bloody moderates would gain some backbone and take back the Islamic faith than the muslim world would look upon the islamo-fascists in the same way as we look at the wack-job christians.

sigh...

Luke, I'm not suggesting any suspension of The First Amendment -- I'd be the last to advocate that. But, I think, if people are inciting violence against us, within the walls of our own society, they should be jailed, same as somebody who threatens the life of the president.

And then, speaking of freedom of speech, there's this "Why Can't We Talk about Peace in Public?":

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48601/

Now I get letters from soldiers and they aren't bloodthirsty like the one printed there. Direct letters, not letters "from an e-mail circular" (ie, forward?) Yes, some people in the military are killers who enjoy it. Just like so many of the people we're fighting. Shocking.

And Taibbi, the author, comes up with this bit of brilliant psychoanalysis:

But the letter from this Marine pilot is something different. What worries me about it is this unabashed glee in killing people from high altitudes might not be a psychiatric aberration, but an inevitable consequence of the entire structure of our economy, which is based heavily on government spending in the area of high-technology defense manufacturing.

And then there's this:

I believe that Marine pilot is driven by the same forces that render the presidential candidacy of someone like Dennis Kucinich impossible in America. A country that feeds itself through the manufacture of war technology is bound to view peace, nonviolence and mercy as seditious concepts.

Listen, I was against the Iraq war even before I was against it. But, this is ridiculous. And what we need to be doing is not "talking peace," but talking reality about the serious danger to our way of life by radical Islam.

This is where I part ways a bit with my libertarian-ism: I *was* for the Iraq war. Not due to the WMD argument. Like most of the world, I figured that rat-bastard, Saddam, had the stuff stashed everywhere. (My neighbor is an immigrant from Serbia - now a proud U.S. citizen - who did a lot of oil field prospecting in the 80s in Iraq as a contractor. He had engineering friends from Serbia and Germany who told him many stories about the underground facilities in the middle of the western desert that they built.)

For me, it came down to a basic issue of opposition to egregious human rights abuses: rape as a form of institutional punishment, a legal system built and executed upon the whimsy of those in power, etc., etc., etc.

I will be the first person to state that I was perhaps a bit naive in my thought of how easy things would go. I think most of America was. Bloody Rummy and the bloody neo-cons and their thoroughly incompetent prosecution of the war after coalition forces took Baghdad set us up for the current situation we are facing: damned if we do, damned if we don't. Now we have over 3000 of our troops in the ground, countless contractors/consultants/etc and who knows how many civilians caught in the bloody cross-fire. By screwing up so poorly, we handed this mess to the extremists and have effectively put the islamic moderates/secularists in Iraq in a wholly untenable position.

(rant is complete)

Perhaps what we need is a song or hymn to bring everybody together in peace and harmony?

Hey Guy: that sound you hear is me vomiting.

For me, it came down to a basic issue of opposition to egregious human rights abuses: rape as a form of institutional punishment, a legal system built and executed upon the whimsy of those in power, etc., etc., etc.

I can't imagine being for these things, but the question comes down to whether we are the world's policeman. There are many places that qualify for our intervention on those terms, but I think we'd be better off fixing the broken U.N.

Amy: that is my conundrum...

(And I should state it is a personal one as I have friends and family serving over there - one of which has had his fair share of being shot at: he mans the machine gun on a helicopter)

André-Tascha,

Perhaps a battle hymn?

Amy,

Not sure how you are going to "fix" that broken UN. I suspect a new word for "broken" needs to be invented to properly express this too.

Why the UN is even considered any more is beyond me since we supply the bulk of the troops for "UN action" anyway. Oh, and we are in Iraq under bothe Congressional and UN "authority", not that you forgot that but a lot of people seem to miss that point, like the one of who's troops are doing what.

And do not forget, Guy, that we also supply most of the money. And UN peace-keeping troops? What a bloody joke. their rules of engagement are so bloody politicized that they are frequently left in an untenable position (e.g. the mess in the former Yugoslavia a few years back)

Gents,

You miss a basic truth. We use the UN for political cover. We don't do anything that we don't want to there, and we have enormous sway over what happens, and how it happens, but we don't stop to kick every barking dog. The buffonish UN ultimately serves our purposes. Their price for cooperation is our tolerance of their corruption.

André-Tascha,

Yes, we are noticing the same things. You too Casca.

An odd thing about advocating "UN involvement", it is almost the same thing as advocating electric cars.

The electric car just moves the pollution and makes the user "feel better" somehow, usually through their own unique combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Using "the UN" instead of "the USA" merely puts our soldiers in cute little blue hats slathering white paint, over some quite expensive paint jobs, on their vehicles. Same troops, same commanders, more risk and more hazards.

Okay, the UN is worse than electric cars, but similar.

Most UN troops are NOT American. Our troops are good, UN troops are a joke, like the rest of the institution.

Good insights on the U.N. by Casca, and Guy's comparison of it to electric cars is kind of thought -provoking, too. His point that electric cars just displace the pollution is true right now, but electric cars could also be charged by less-polluting sources (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) than currently used today in the U.S. Therefore, electric cars potentially could be much less polluting than now. But I doubt that the U.N. can be similarly fixed. As far as trans-national institutions go, organizations based upon real common interests (e.g., NATO) might be helpful. But not the U.N., which gives nearly the same voice to despots and theocracies as to functional democracies.

I can't imagine being for these things, but the question comes down to whether we are the world's policeman. There are many places that qualify for our intervention on those terms, but I think we'd be better off fixing the broken U.N.

For the moment, the US is the world's policeman - which is OK by me. The problem is when it is also the judge, jury & executioner. That's why we need the UN. Not because the UN has troops, but because it is the only way we have of conferring legitimacy in international matters. The alternative to rule of law is rule by decree, whether on a personal or a national scale. The US has the power to rule by decree. It does not go down well.

We'd all be much better off fixing the broken UN.

No way - the UN is corrupt on principle and the US should withdraw.

What do you mean, corrupt on principle?

I think there was a movie about that, called 'Team America-World Police'?

Seriously though, I think the US is overextending its reach, and ruining itself financially trying to fix all the world's problems. Unfortunately the war industry is the driving force behind this, even though there may be good intention in other areas of politics. Perhaps the US should look to history to see how things are all going to turn out, like the Roman empire? Joe could most certainly supply the factual information on this topic.

One thing is for sure. The CIA and the military have to get a broad cross section of multi-lingual and multi-culturally experienced personnel, if for no other reason than to spy on other countries and see what they're up to. That whole business with having no Arabic speaking people in the CIA prior to 9/11 was idiotic beyond belief.

A strange co-incidence in the title for this topic. The recent incident in Saudi Arabia where the religious police would not let girls out of a burning school because they weren't wearing their headscarves and pup tents. 15 girls died and many were badly burned.

With things like this happening, and the large number of women committing suicide under these repressive regimes, they won't have any more breeding stock.

Nobody wants the U.S. to be the world's policeman until somebody wants a cop, then it's 911 to the Pentagon and "what's taking you so long"

The UN isn't useless but it's uses are limited. Possibly a parallel organization like "The League of Democratic Nations" might be a good idea. An organization less ruled by a few powerful countries but only allowing in nations with a representative form of govt.

Nobody wants the U.S. to be the world's policeman - what nobody wants is a world policeman that's not under anyone's control. If the US is to be the policeman, then I want a vote on a world council that tells it what to do. Without that, the US is just a world vigilante, at best.

"what nobody wants is a world policeman that's not under anyone's control"

It is under control. The control of the U.S.A. Why should non Americans control how U.S. blood and treasure is spent? Should other countries be able to force the U.S. to intervene in Darfur? Should other nations have been able to veto the invasion of Afghanistan?

If there's a world council that votes on how the world is to be policed then let THEM provide the troops and the money to do so. Anything else is whining hypocricy.

The alternative to American "vigilantism" is isolationism.

Why should non Americans control how U.S. blood and treasure is spent? Why should the citizens control how the policeman and his pals spend their blood and treasure? If he wants to risk his life righting whatever wrongs he chooses, why should anyone else have any right to comment? Especially since they don't pay for him. Explain again how this is "policing."

If there's a world council that votes on how the world is to be policed then let THEM provide the troops and the money to do so. Anything else is whining hypocricy. Agreed.

The alternative to American "vigilantism" is isolationism. It's the US way, or it's no way. Well, at least you aren't claiming that policing is an option.

Another alternative might be to fix the UN, so we can all contribute. Right now it's broken, and the US is the only show in town. How you gonna feel tomorrow if it's still broken, but it's not the US's show any more? Don't think it could ever happen? Dream on!

"fix the U.N."
A lot easier said than done. What should be done in the meantime?

"it's not the US's show any more? Don't think it could ever happen?"
The decline of American power is an historical inevitability. No powerful nation stays powerful forever. But wishing some international org will step up to the plate isn't going to make it so.

"why should anyone else have any right to comment?"
"Commenting" on American actions is very different from "Controlling" them.

"It's the US way, or it's no way."
When the U.S. is providing the overwhelming majority of troops and funds, you're damn right.

So the US should do whatever it damn well likes, because it can. The US may permit the rest of the world to "comment" but that's as far as it goes.

In these circumstances, the US will "step up to the plate" only when there's something on the plate that the US wants to take.