5 ms·
So while I understand the Syrian's frustration, let's assume the US does the most extreme thing to help them and goes to all-out war to remove Assad. They would
by Noseshine 10y ago
So while I understand the Syrian's frustration, let's assume the US does the most extreme thing to help them and goes to all-out war to remove Assad. They would probably be able to do that even against the will of the Russians, since those would hardly fight American forces, if we ignore the increased verbal threats that would surely come.
So let's assume the US is victorious and Assad gone. And now? A lot of Syrian fractions, deprived of their common enemy, and a lot of them are extremists. I'm sure very few of them would be okay with an international occupying force.
What I'm missing in all the news is even a hint that the journalists are willing and/or capable of looking at motives. We are always told about this or that attack, and how many children died - never mentioning that if the table were turned it would just be the children of the other group(s) that would die (but the media could just stop reporting about them, the news articles are way too inconsistent in whom they are reporting about and whom not, that alone is a significant selection bias).
I have yet to see any article that tells us (in believable terms and not just superficially) what "Assad" (meaning more than just the one guy) actually wants. I only read that he and Putin are bombing hospitals and children. The German leading magazine and news source "Der Spiegel", where I get most of my daily news, is especially bad. They've had 2-4 such Syria articles on the front page every single day for a while now, without giving any actual (deeper) information or a (thorough) look at the alternatives. And then they wonder about the apathy among the readers? They enable the forum only under every 10th or so of those articles, and each time they do the tone is highly skeptical, not of any one party in the conflict, but about how we are informed and the lack of actually clear and good alternatives.
- tormeh 10y agoAssad wants power and control over Syria, obviously. The guy has few appealing exile options. Most of the regime's members would face execution if they lost, so they don't want that.
- meira 10y ago> Assad wants power and control over Syria, obviously This is a President's prerrogative. Why is US preventing this to happen?
- cmurf 10y agoSyria's Constitution makes the country a single party system. Assad is a dictator. There's nothing democratic about its government. It's a family dictatorship. The people wanted their ouster, Assad refused to go and lit the stables on fire in a huge fuck you to the whole country.
- meira 10y agoThe people elected recently a parlament that supports Assad, which was also elected by vote. I don't see a good reason given for US to go there, fund ISIS and screw half a dozen of countries.
- cmurf 10y agoHow do people have fair elections in the middle of a war zone with a single political party as the option? The entire opposition boycotted the election. What is your point in even bringing up such a obvious sham of an election? And which half a dozen countries are you talking about exactly, that aren't already screwed? I'm a non-interventionist myself, but it isn't an absolute position. Accepting years long conflict isn't good for anyone either.
- meira 10y agoUS elections are also totally biased, all media is bashing Trump and supporting Hillary. How do people have fair election there? Should China and Rússia intervene?
- littletimmy 10y agoIf that is the only reason, why isn't the US also acting against Saudi Arabia? It is a repressive monarchy. Coming to think of it, the US resembles an oligarchy more than anything else. Perhaps Russia should start arming rebels in the US?
- Noseshine 10y agoThat is just what I mean, the opposite of an analysis and actual information. In this thread we can see the consequence of the population being bombarded with platitudes instead of information, everybody feels they should have an opinion, after all, we've heard so much about the conflict now! On the other hand nobody has anything worthwhile to say really, including myself, since we know next to nothing. I just wish that at the very least people become more conscious of when they know nothing and merely regurgitate the sound bites they've heard often enough to have memorized and internalized them. Another issue with the shallow feel-bad event-based stories is that they are much more easily manipulated than actual deep analysis of the background behind conflicts.
- andybak 10y ago> I have yet to see any article that tells us (in believable terms and not just superficially) what "Assad" (meaning more than just the one guy) actually wants. It's this level of analysis that is completely absent from news sources. In the UK there is a perpetual debate about immigration that cuts across party lines. I'd love to see some attempts at analysis of the various factions and what their motivations stem from. It occasionally gets touched upon but it's usually relegated the extended segments in the late news. Give people context and background. Educate them to look behind the surface. Maybe we would then stop obsessing about the precise turn of phrase used by politicians as it has very little relationship to what's actually going on. Then maybe we can start thinking about having a functioning democracy.
- elcct 10y agoThis is how you cheat democracy. You can play people with ease using media and the truth is that it is always for power and money however you wrap it. At least dictatorship is honest.