It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Armed Intervention. What’s the Right Thing to Do?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:23 PM
Generally speaking, the public are first made aware of military conflicts from around the world via news reports beamed into their living rooms detailing atrocities and the politics behind them, often long after the particular conflict began. The current set-up of the world’s mainstream media outlets does not allow for country- and region-specific foreign correspondents to spend the time developing deep understandings of nations and acquiring the necessary sources to access and tell the stories. It is common for media bureaus around the world to have their staff – often one individual – cover multiple countries and/or regions. This does not lend itself to effective reporting. The situation is made worse by media agencies flying in ‘big-name’ journalists in a first-past-the-post competition to show the biggest explosions or most dead bodies, often giving the stories little in way of context. Collusion and competition with NGOs can further compound the reporting situation once journalists are on the ground.

As a result and with the premise that the public generally first becomes aware of conflict from news reports, it is unsurprising that there is very little knowledge of the 11 current military conflicts around the world causing in excess of 1,000 fatalities a year and the 30 other smaller-scale conflicts.* Many of these aggressive military acts have rumbled on for years and even decades in some cases. The horrors that have befallen the innocents caught in the crossfire are unimaginable and when they have come into the media lens, the talk of military intervention by other nation states would garner little case against it. However, in most cases where military intervention would be entirely justifiable, the West has done nothing. If it is believed that government policy is influenced by public opinion who, in turn, is informed by the media, should activist pressure be applied to global media operations in an effort to get the stories of the unreported world out to the masses?

If the same level of media coverage (like Syria) was given to the Congo or the Sudan, where a coalition of nation state constabulary forces could affect a real difference to the plight of millions of innocent lives, would armed intervention be the right thing to do?


edit on 10-6-2012 by LarryLove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:28 PM
Armed intervention by whom? Bring the US Army home. Keep the US Army at home. It is time to stop playing "world police".

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by LarryLove

If they quit starting the wars then they would have to quit intervening. This is all about building an empire one country at a time. While paying for it through the our lives and tax payers money.

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:48 PM
Saving those foreign innocents is not worth the life of one of our own.
Let them hack it out on their own.

How would it be if one of those countries reading about our police atrocities decided to "intervene" with thier military? They could come in disguised as Mexican immigrants or drug runners going up that trail in AZ.

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:16 PM
The reality is, that there has not been a single case in history, of American military intervention into a foreign country, where it has been justified. The sole possible exception may have involved the liberation of Auschwitz and the other concentration camps during WW2, but even that is questionable.

Every single foreign conflict that America has entered, has been a result of either a false flag attack, (the Gulf of Tonkin, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour) or other form of domestic political manipulation. There is abundant evidence that every major conflict with American participation, has been funded by parties who were in collusion, on both sides of the Atlantic.

I'm also entirely willing to debate any members of the American military who wish to contest me on this point. The rhetoric of said military is a complete lie. It does not defend freedom, either foreign or domestic; and there is no country on this planet, that has been a recipient of American aid, who would have needed said aid, if said country's ability to remain self-sufficient, had not been directly destroyed by America's own actions.
edit on 10-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by petrus4

Hmmmm Ok.
Saudi Arabia 1990 ,as Saddam began probing the border, asked for it,after he was set up by our foreign types telling him we had no interest if he invaded Kuwait.Next question?

top topics

log in