They already are. People in the region have demanded military assistance to drive out ISIS and Assad for a long time now. — Thorongil

To my understanding the syrian rebels expected to be armed...I was not aware that they expect boots on the ground and for the west to occupy syria and establish a new government. I also don't see how that would be possible considering that russia and iran supports the current regime.

So are you saying the west should risk triggering war with those nations in order that that people like yourself can comfort themselves that you are killing the bad guys? I thought you were supposed to be an authority on this issue...or at least far more informed than I.

It seems to me you are just shooting from the hip talking about how you feel and not suggesting any realistic course of action.

It seems to me you are just shooting from the hip talking about how you feel and not suggesting any realistic course of action. — m-theory

And it seems you're an ignoramus who's trying way too hard to sound clever and ironic. I don't like conversing with you, as I said before, because it's utterly unproductive. So don't expect to see any more replies from me.

And it seems you're an ignoramus who's trying way too hard to sound clever and ironic. I don't like conversing with you, as I said before, because it's utterly unproductive. So don't expect to see any more replies from me. — Thorongil

Lol...so you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Gentlemen: I don't see what the hostility is about here. Both of you post quality comments, neither of you are morons, so... what's the problem? You disagree about Syria? Not hard to do, really.

Many people would like to see a definitive solution to the civil war, but it is not a simple civil war. Assad, Iran, and Russia are on one side, and on the other side are a whole bunch of groups who have varying objectives and other allies. The Syrian people are caught in the middle without a good exit, and even if they all did have a good route out, where would they all go?

Assad is bad news, but the opposition does not have all the angels on their side. There is Daesh and Al Qaida. If they were all nicely parceled out on their own territory, that would make life easier--they could be separately bombed-- but they are all mixed in together.

Like as not, a western military would have intervened if the situation had not been so dark and murky.

Maybe we actually learned something from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (not sure we did, though). It's one thing to smash the state; it's something else to create a civil society out of the chaos.

You are right bitter.

Thorongil I apologize.

There is no reason we cannot hold different opinions and be civil.

Thorongil?

"Would you consider the Gulf and Iraq wars to fall under the definition as you understand it, for example?" — Baden

Absolutely. — Thorongil

As Bitter points out:

Maybe we actually learned something from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (not sure we did, though). It's one thing to smash the state; it's something else to create a civil society out of the chaos — Bitter Crank

Sadly, sometimes the most humanitarian thing to do is to not intervene.

I do understand where your coming from, but one question is still in my mind...

... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process? — Mayor of Simpleton

Guys...

... thanks for lending support of my suspicion.

Now... please kiss and make up. This arguing is getting us nowhere.

Meow!

GREG

I saw the Bosnia example mentioned and it fits for me. It's one of those terms though that could be subject to, shall we say, strategic deployment. — Baden

True, but why is that worrisome to you? I'm asking earnestly. Is it because you encounter frustration in your quest to understand current events? Or just that propaganda irritates you? Or what?

@Thorongil in his interaction with @Sapientia seemed to think his use of the term was unproblematic. I was arguing it's not. The fact that he would consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq as "absolutely" a humanitarian military intervention makes my point. And, yes, it is extremely frustrating to try to untangle what the best thing to do in Syria would be, and what would constitute a humanitarian intervention as opposed to a strategic one where Russia, Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia and co. are just playing geopolitics with the locals' lives.

The fact that he would consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq as "absolutely" a humanitarian military intervention makes my point. — Baden

I was trying to understand what that point was.

And, yes, it is extremely frustrating to try to untangle what the best thing to do in Syria would be, and what would constitute a humanitarian intervention as opposed to a strategic one where Russia, Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia and co. are just playing geopolitics with the locals' lives. — Baden

The problem in Syria does not stem from geopolitics. I'm sure you realize that. It's a direct result of social instability that can be laid at Assad's door. He left his country vulnerable to invasion by fomenting unrest. A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter.

I was trying to understand what that point was — Mongrel

It's not a given that humanitarian military intervention will live up to its name.

The problem in Syria does not stem from geopolitics. — Mongrel

I didn't say it did originally, but geopolitics are involved now.

A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter. — Mongrel

Remove Assad, how? Without making things worse? And I'm not condemning humanitarian military intervention in a blanket way. It worked in Bosnia as far as I'm concerned. What I'm condemning is the use of the term to cover strategic maneuvering that results in a worse humanitarian crisis than there was to begin with. As was the case with Iraq. Outline for me a credible plan that would involve a real humanitarian military intervention and I will be 100% behind it. So, I'm not for turning away as long as a) The action has purely humanitarian goals and b) has a realistic chance of working.

Remove Assad, how? . — Baden

The British Empire would have executed Assad and put in place a British governor. It wouldn't have been for humanitarian reasons, though. The BE's agenda was pure exploitation (or pretty close to that.)

What I'm condemning is the use of the term to cover strategic maneuvering that results in a worse humanitarian crisis than there was to begin with. As was the case with Iraq. — Baden

I see. It's deception that bothers you.

I'll tell you what bothers me, Mongrel. The face of that child linked to in Benkei's post is a face I have been seeing for the past 15 years. It's a face I saw before the invasion of Iraq, a face that drove me on to the streets to protest that war and to be driven to almost despair to wonder why others couldn't see it too, or could but didn't care. I didn't need CNN or the Guardian to show it to me now like it's something new, as if this and worse hasn't been happening every day in the Middle East since the Iraq war started. I needed them to show it from day one. I needed them to show it during "Shock and Awe" when the great Western public was celebrating the mass entertainment that was the media coverage of that war. I needed them to show it in Gaza where hundreds of kids weren't lucky enough to be pulled from the rubble. Not now, not simply because major geopolitical foes of the US are responsible, not simply to give the false impression that America and its allies have grown a conscience. This is a face that should have been burned into the mind of everyone with the remotest scintilla of imagination and empathy from the beginning. And the fact that it wasn't, that that is who we are, is the problem..

It's not deception, then. It's that which diverts attention from the victim. That, and hypocrisy.

You know, the invasion of Iraq wasn't advertised as a humanitarian intervention. It's really just a side note that everybody knew Saddam and his sons were psycho.

Not now, not simply because major geopolitical foes of the US are responsible, not simply to give the false impression that America and its allies have grown a conscience. This is a face that should have been burned into the mind of everyone with the remotest scintilla of imagination and empathy from the beginning. — Baden

And here is where I need for you to stop and reflect. You're making this about the crimes of the West and your frustration.

You are diverting attention from the victim.

You are diverting attention from the victim. — Mongrel

I was highlighting the fact that from a government / media perspective, the victim will remain invisible until he or she serves a purpose. That's where individual consciousness / conscience comes in.

But sure, let's get to talking about solutions. You say humanitarian military intervention and the deposing of Assad. Tell me how that could work in a context where Iran, Russia and Hezbollah are supporting Assad? How wouldn't it escalate the conflict and cause an even worse humanitarian crisis? Tell me how the Shia population would accept a government by the Sunni? Tell me how democracy would spring from the cesspool of ideology there? Outline your plan. As for me, as far as I can see the only possible solution is to push again for ceasefires when it comes to Assad vs the rebels and then talks i.e. a diplomatic de-escalation on that front while maintaining military action against ISIS who are probably immune to diplomacy.

You say humanitarian military intervention and the deposing of Assad. — Baden

I hate writing "That's not what I said." I hate it so much I usually opt to drop out of conversation as soon as I'm misquoted. Every once in a blue moon I make an exception.

I said that humanitarian military intervention would take out Assad. I don't expect that to happen. Clinton will likely be the next president of the US, and she has already stated that no ground troops will be sent to Syria.

Tell me how the Shia population would accept a government by the Sunni? Tell me how democracy would spring from the cesspool of ideology there? Outline your plan — Baden

I have no plan there, but I spent about six months last year reading several books about contemporary Islamic issues and how they're rooted in the histories of the various Islamic communities in the world. The view of some Islamic scholars is that Islam has a natural affinity for democracy and would flourish in secular societies. The bonus is that a secular government would resolve a quagmire surrounding Sharia.

Bottom line is that the Islamic communities the world over face serious challenges that no one can solve for them. They have to grow organically out of their mutilated history.

Again I say: you're diverting attention from the victim. That kid probably needs stitches. Where are his parents? Who is making a list of survivors so people can find their relatives? Do they need money?

I hate writing "That's not what I said." — Mongrel

You wrote this:

"A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter. "

I don't think it's unreasonable or uncharitable to interpret this as a proposal that humanitarian military intervention to remove Assad is the course we should take and at least part of the solution to the problem. But fine, I stand corrected. Let's move on.

I have no plan there, but I spent about six months last year reading several books about contemporary Islamic issues and how they're rooted in the histories of the various Islamic communities in the world. The view of some Islamic scholars is that Islam has a natural affinity for democracy and would flourish in secular societies. The bonus is that a secular government would resolve a quagmire surrounding Sharia. — Mongrel

We already have stable democratic Islamic countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. But maybe I'm missing your point. In any case, the issue in the Middle East is largely about the sectarian Sunni / Shia divide. That's a layer of difficulty on top of any affinity or aversion to democracy / secularism.

Again I say: you're diverting attention from the victim. That kid probably needs stitches. Where are his parents? Who is making a list of survivors so people can find their relatives? Do they need money? — Mongrel

I thought we were talking about the macro issue here of humanitarian military intervention not the specifics of how to help this particular child. In other words, solving the "underlying problem" that Benkei alluded to in the OP.

I thought we were talking about the macro issue here of humanitarian military intervention not the specifics of how to help this particular child. In other words, solving the "underlying problem" that Benkei alluded to in the OP. — Baden

I don't think there's going to be any humanitarian military intervention.

Benkei comes from a country that is not contributing its fair share to NATO. I have no idea why he's concerned about solving underlying problems. But then, my outlook is probably skewed from years in pediatric intensive care. The underlying problems abide. Help the kid in front of you.

Help the kid in front of you. — Mongrel

That kid went to hospital and was released after treatment to my knowledge. The emotional trauma was probably worse than the physical in his case, I can't imagine what the long term effect will be.

Benkei comes from a country that is not contributing its fair share to NATO. I have no idea why he's concerned about solving underlying problems. — Mongrel

I don't get the connection here at all.

Just.. why worry about solving problems abroad when you couldn't defend your own home if you had to?

I'm not trying to be an ass... it's something I really don't understand.

You're conflating an individual with the country he happened to be born in. But I'm sure @Benkei can speak for himself on this.

Conflation? Could be.

The face of that child linked to in Benkei's post is a face I have been seeing for the past 15 years. — Baden

I didn't need CNN or the Guardian to show it to me now like it's something new,... — Baden

Off topic (well maybe)...

Baden's comment brought this to my mind.

This is why, in spite of the pictures, ask myself... why report this and why now?

There are so many conflicts going on right now and so many conflicts that have been going on in the past, but I'm always curious as to why what is reported and when it is reported.

Anyway...

... how about all of these ongoing conflicts? How many are getting attention?

- War in Somailia (since 2006 or 2009... starting date is an additional conflict)
- South Yemen insurgency (since 2009)
- Sudanese nomadic conflicts (since 2009)
- Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (since 2007)
- Boko Haram insurgency (since2009)
- Kivu conflict (since 2004)
- War in North-West Pakistan (since 2004)
- Insurgency in the North Caucasus (since 2009)
- War in Darfur (since 2003)
- Balochistan conflict (since 2003)
- Conflict in the Niger Delta (since 2004)
- Mexican Drug War (since 2006)
- War in Donbass (since 2014)

I've probably left something out.

So... where or what are the "underlying problems" in these cases?
Can we identify them or will that cause even more problems?
Do we care to look at photos of children who have suffered in these conflicts as well?
Will we have them presented to us in the media?
Do we care to look at more than just the children who have suffered?
Does the care or emotional impact we feel hold the same level if it was an adult or a dog?
Are we being informed or are we being lead or something else?
Is this media a service or and industry or something else?

Sorry to be such a "media critic", but I feel these questions need to be considered.

Until then...

So...
... Are we being informed or are we being lead or something else?
Is this media a service or an industry or something else? — Mayor of Simpleton

All very good questions.

"The media" mostly lead us into the wilderness of images where we get lost.

People who pay attention to "the news" can get a severe case of bad-news overload: everything is falling apart everywhere. Nothing can be done. It's tragic, it's horrible, it's awful. "Up next, huge rats have infested luxury apartment towers in New York City, but first this message from our sponsors."

"The media" probably aren't engaging in a conspiracy; more likely they are just following the Nielsen ratings. Boring analysis doesn't attract and keep large audiences. (Interesting, lively, cogent analysis might, but that's a rare commodity.)

"The media" are, of course, industrial in nature. They always have been, and in the old days, before corporate consolidation, the news was just as trashy and sensationalistic as it is now, if not more so. The gray eminence of the New York Times and the old high-end CBS network never represented the majority of media. Fox Garbage has always been more typical.

It makes sense: the intellectual elite is nowhere big enough or affluent enough to support popular, high-end media. The "booboisie" (H. L. Mencken's term, not mine) aren't rich, but they are very numerous. And the "booboisie" didn't elect to be stupid, they are pretty much blocked from being anything else.

"The media" mostly lead us into the wilderness of images where we get lost. — Bitter Crank

INDEED!

I won't comment too much about this, but you might really find this video, well...

... I'll let you decide.



Meow!

GREG

Some interesting stuff there. I'm not sure I approach the news primarily for information though or that I need the media to change for my benefit. I see it more of an anesthetic. I don't drink or play video games or read Manga, so I'm bit short on vices and news media fills the gap.

Having said that, there's no doubt in my mind the world would be a better place if Alain de Botton replaced Rupert Murdoch as de facto head of global media.

I'm a bit of a fan of Alain de Botton (but not everything).

I have to admit his take on overflow media to keep people uninformed/misinformed, as well as his Taylor Swift vs. Global Warming are right on the mark.

I always approach news with a focus on 'why this story' and 'why now', as well as trying to distinguish reporting the news as a matter of fact and news commentary about what has been choosen by the media authorities that is to be reported.

Honestly I like the news reports in Germany the best. It's as if it's being read by robots or Vulcans. There is no different in emotional presentation between reporting a terror attack or fussball scores in the Bundesliga. It makes it somewhat boring, but it's all content with liitle or no commentary. My experience with American or British news is that it is a tiny bit of news with a lot of speculative and biased commentary. The best is in America how they move or insert pictures for extra dramatic effect. Seems to be a lot of "wagging dogs", as the tail is more in charge. ;)

Meow!

GREG

I didn't mean this thread to be anything else than to share situations that break your heart. Whatever else that has been read into it, was projection. Sometimes I just like to whine. X-)

Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? I'm not convinced we cannot do anything. Alleviating the symptoms is at least something. If we can't cure certain types of cancer, it doesn't mean we should stop caring for those people who have it. That would be a rather rotten thing to do.

why worry about solving problems abroad when you couldn't defend your own home if you had to? — Mongrel

Why does one preclude the other in your view? I'm safe in my own country so I have the luxury to worry about other people and I think there's an ethical duty to do something (on me, I'm not saying my ethics should apply to you).

By the way, in case people care, the Red Cross is out of money to continue to provide aid in Syria (or so it says in Dutch media, so maybe it's just the Dutch entity).