• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria unrest: 'Deadly military attack' on Latakia port

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
BBC News - Syria unrest: 'Deadly military attack' on Latakia port

BBC said:
Footage said to show security forces taking hold of Latakia on Saturday

Syrian warships have joined a military assault targeting protesters in the northern port city of Latakia, activists say.

At least 19 people have been killed in the operation, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The military attack began on Saturday, targeting the protesters' stronghold of Ramleh in the city, it said.

More than 1,700 people have reportedly died in the six-month uprising against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad.


'Residents flee'


Some 20 tanks and personnel carriers were also said to be taking part in the Latakia assault, with heavy gunfire reported in the Ramleh neighbourhood.

One witness told Reuters news agency by telephone: "I can see the silhouettes of two grey [naval] vessels. They are firing their guns and the impact is landing on al-Ramleh, al-Filistini and al-Shaab neighbourhoods."

Latakia was one of the cities to be caught up in the revolt soon after it erupted in mid-March. Despite repeated attempts by the regime to stifle defiance, it keeps breaking out.

It is a sensitive city. Its population is 600,000 or so, and it has a Sunni Muslim majority, as does the country, but there are also areas dominated by President Assad's minority Alawite community.

The current punishment is being meted out to mainly Sunni areas, a fact that could further aggravate sectarian tensions already sensitised by the situation.

A report on state television denied there had been any naval shelling.

The story is about the ME, but my questions are about what the rest of the world is expected to do about it, which is why this isn't in the ME forum.


Given the uprising in Syria and comparing it with the uprising in Libya, why hasn't the U.S. and the U.N. as well as the Arab league decided to intervene? Logically, it seems to be a very similar situation and I'm asking the question not in support of such an intervention but I'm trying to find some consistency between the U.S., U.N. and Arab League but find none. Given that humanitarian groups have confirmed ships off the coast are shelling inland, hasn't this now escalated to a humanitarian effort?
 
BBC News - Syria unrest: 'Deadly military attack' on Latakia port



The story is about the ME, but my questions are about what the rest of the world is expected to do about it, which is why this isn't in the ME forum.


Given the uprising in Syria and comparing it with the uprising in Libya, why hasn't the U.S. and the U.N. as well as the Arab league decided to intervene? Logically, it seems to be a very similar situation and I'm asking the question not in support of such an intervention but I'm trying to find some consistency between the U.S., U.N. and Arab League but find none. Given that humanitarian groups have confirmed ships off the coast are shelling inland, hasn't this now escalated to a humanitarian effort?

Two key differences. First the Syrian leader was not hated like the leader of Libya is. Remember, the U.S. in just the last year ADDED an ambassador to Syria, because they felt they could deal with Assad. Second, Syria is supported by Iran, the rest of the Arab league is rightfully afraid of running afoul of Iran.
 
Two key differences. First the Syrian leader was not hated like the leader of Libya is. Remember, the U.S. in just the last year ADDED an ambassador to Syria, because they felt they could deal with Assad. Second, Syria is supported by Iran, the rest of the Arab league is rightfully afraid of running afoul of Iran.

Two good points ... but I have another question: If the U.S. thought they could deal with Assad and Syria is supported by Iran, is it then implied that the U.S. is using Syria as an intermediary to Iran?
 
Syria and Iran signed a defense agreement in 2006. A military intervention in Syria would most probably provoke the Iranians to become involved; setting off a **** storm in the ME. No Western leader has the balls to get that show on the road.
 
Two good points ... but I have another question: If the U.S. thought they could deal with Assad and Syria is supported by Iran, is it then implied that the U.S. is using Syria as an intermediary to Iran?

No I do not think it is us trying to use Syria as an intermediary with Iran. Rather it is nations like Iran and others that are looking at what they perceive as a weakened U.S. The head of the joint chiefs of staff has said our debt problems are our greatest national security threat. Plus the nation is rightfully war weary after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not unlike the 70s after the Vietnam war, but now a nation crippled with a huge debtload which will almost certainly lead to material cuts to our military.
 
No I do not think it is us trying to use Syria as an intermediary with Iran. Rather it is nations like Iran and others that are looking at what they perceive as a weakened U.S. The head of the joint chiefs of staff has said our debt problems are our greatest national security threat. Plus the nation is rightfully war weary after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not unlike the 70s after the Vietnam war, but now a nation crippled with a huge debtload which will almost certainly lead to material cuts to our military.

I agree, but the things you mentioned were there with Libya as well and should have still applied to Libya which only started this year, 2011. We were war weary earlier this year, we had close to the same debts earlier this year. I'm trying to cut to the political and logical disparity here - we go into Libya but we have an equal or larger catastrophe occurring in Syria and we sit on our hands and mumble about sanctions. This begs the question: Why did we go into Libya again?
 
No I do not think it is us trying to use Syria as an intermediary with Iran. Rather it is nations like Iran and others that are looking at what they perceive as a weakened U.S. The head of the joint chiefs of staff has said our debt problems are our greatest national security threat. Plus the nation is rightfully war weary after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not unlike the 70s after the Vietnam war, but now a nation crippled with a huge debtload which will almost certainly lead to material cuts to our military.

Basically this says, if the country is weak and isolated - we'll do something. If they're not weak and isolated, we'll mumble about sanctions and stay the hell away.
 
I agree, but the things you mentioned were there with Libya as well and should have still applied to Libya which only started this year, 2011. We were war weary earlier this year, we had close to the same debts earlier this year. I'm trying to cut to the political and logical disparity here - we go into Libya but we have an equal or larger catastrophe occurring in Syria and we sit on our hands and mumble about sanctions. This begs the question: Why did we go into Libya again?

Let's remember what we did in Libya. We fired off a bunch of cruise missles, flew a few A10 missions and left. Syria is not a vast dessert with a couple of cities, much harder.
 
Basically this says, if the country is weak and isolated - we'll do something. If they're not weak and isolated, we'll mumble about sanctions and stay the hell away.


Yup that's about it. I think that is why we picked Iraq instead of Iran. The actual war went as planned, but we never expected the insurrection. Might never have happened if we did not disband their army.
 
BBC News - Syria unrest: 'Deadly military attack' on Latakia port



The story is about the ME, but my questions are about what the rest of the world is expected to do about it, which is why this isn't in the ME forum.


Given the uprising in Syria and comparing it with the uprising in Libya, why hasn't the U.S. and the U.N. as well as the Arab league decided to intervene? Logically, it seems to be a very similar situation and I'm asking the question not in support of such an intervention but I'm trying to find some consistency between the U.S., U.N. and Arab League but find none. Given that humanitarian groups have confirmed ships off the coast are shelling inland, hasn't this now escalated to a humanitarian effort?

Middle East despots and other various dictators around the world pretty much control the UN. It is a sham.

The world's greatest powers have attacked Libya and can't do a damned thing. We are weak and it's on display for everyone to see..

It is radical Islam which is taking hold in the ME and nothing more. There is no "Arab Spring", and no Western leadership to speak of.
 
Let's remember what we did in Libya. We fired off a bunch of cruise missles, flew a few A10 missions and left. Syria is not a vast dessert with a couple of cities, much harder.

You are incorrect. We are STILL in Libya first of all. The U.S. is spending 2 million a day in sorties and 60 million a month in refueling. Second, NATO is run by the U.S. - we are the prime power, we put the backing behind it and we push the agenda and lead it. NATO= the U.S. To say that the U.S. has ended it's involvement is just false:

Financial Times said:
But an adviser to Mr Fox insisted that the UK was happy with US commitment in Libya, stressing that Washington was offering Predator drones, intelligence support and even strike aircraft when needed. The person said: “They are not launching Tomahawk missiles day and night, but they are doing a lot behind the scenes.”

From 7/17/2011 article here: Britain urges US to step up Libya support - FT.com


Wondering though, much harder to do what? It was my understanding that NATO(e.g., the U.S.) is there to kill Gaddafi.
 
Libya is located in Africa. Syria is located in the Middle East.

Punitive expeditions in Africa are far less complicated.

Not the only reason for the disparity, but certainly a factor.
 
Libya is located in Africa. Syria is located in the Middle East.

Punitive expeditions in Africa are far less complicated.

Not the only reason for the disparity, but certainly a factor.

Certainly less complicated, yet the inconsistency of U.S. foreign policy here is glaring. Are humanitarian efforts only important when things are less complicated?
 
Certainly less complicated, yet the inconsistency of U.S. foreign policy here is glaring. Are humanitarian efforts only important when things are less complicated?
I'm not about to attempt to excuse it. But the fact is that Syria could be extremely messy.

No one is much interested in getting bogged down in extremely messy these days.
 
It never had anything to do with logic, historically or now. In a democracy (well, in pretty much any society), you have to sell it to the public. You can't sell a Syrian expedition now.
 
It never had anything to do with logic, historically or now. In a democracy (well, in pretty much any society), you have to sell it to the public. You can't sell a Syrian expedition now.

I don't think they could have sold the Libyan expedition but then again, they didn't ask the public. They just did it. Now that I think about it, they didn't ask Congress either after the 30 day period of the War Powers Act requirement.
 
Back
Top Bottom