It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

‘Incursion’: Baghdad demands Turkey withdraw ‘training’ troops from northern Iraq

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr


Well they didn't hitch a ride through Syria with Isis, did they?

Did they?


Did you know Turkey shares a border with Iraq? Mosul is just across that border. Basically, Turkey is helping Sunni Iraqis and Kurds retake Mosul from ISIS by flanking them from the Turkish side. Do you have a problem with Turkey taking down an ISIS stronghold?


Turkey training Kurds? Maybe im missing something. Turkey hates the kurds.

Turkey training isis against the kurds, that makes sense. The other way, not so much. I have yet to find anything official from Turkey showing amything but disdain for the kurds.

I mean, the words kurd, kurdish, and kurdistan were banned in Turkey. There have been multiple attempts at genocide. This doesnt add up at all.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Take a look at that wiki. Anyone else ever talking about systematic or instituional racism in the US, can look at Turkey and the Kurds and see what those things actually look like.


The Kurds are not single group. They are many groups and have long been rivals fighting each other. So you had Turkey who was enemies with its own Kurds who would operate in mountain areas between Iraq and Turkey where nobody has ever had any control but, at the same allied with the Kurds of Iraq whom they would arm to resist Saddam and who in return would help the Turks fight their Kurdish enemies. You also had Iraq who hated its Kurds supporting the Kurds in Iran. And in Syria you would find the Turks fighting some Kurds allied to the Turkish Kurds and while Turkey and Israel also supported other Kurdish groups.

This all goes on because Iraq and Syria have never really controlled the northern parts of their countries to any real degree so it has always been the wild wild west there.




posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut

International law in war? Neither Iraq nor Syria is a functioning state, so their status is no different than IS's.


Exactly where is the war? The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason. Turkey can enter Iraq only with Iraq permission. It isn't difficult to understand so I have to think you are ok with breaking the laws in an undeclared war (so in peacetime).

Regardless of your opinion even war has laws. Those states aren't functioning cause you side with terrorism since 30 years. IS cannot be fought without the sovereign country they are in gives permission, and no NATO country has it in Syria nor Turkey has in Iraq.

Apart being disgustingly biased, your opinion is also wrong in every possible framework (legal, political, social, military, economically, whatever) you put it in. It's a fascist narrative to justify it "because we don't care of the rules".


Turkey has been operating in that part of Iraq since the days of Saddam. Legal, no legal it simply is. They have long armed and trained the Iraqi Kurds in exchange for help against the PKK. Now the area is claimed by Iraq, the Kurds, local Sunnis and ISIS but, nobody really controls it. Much like China and Taiwan claim to own each other, the reality and legality are completely different. However the fact is the Shia Iraq do not like idea of Sunni forces having any control in the area so such an extent the prefer having ISIS remain in control for now.

The situation in both Iraq and Syria is complex. They are multi sided conflicts with many different groups all with different long term agendas. Trying to put this things in black or white or right and wrong is to fail to understand it. It is an conflict with international forces with large scale goals but, mostly being fought by locals with local goals.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr


Well they didn't hitch a ride through Syria with Isis, did they?

Did they?


Did you know Turkey shares a border with Iraq? Mosul is just across that border. Basically, Turkey is helping Sunni Iraqis and Kurds retake Mosul from ISIS by flanking them from the Turkish side. Do you have a problem with Turkey taking down an ISIS stronghold?


Turkey training Kurds? Maybe im missing something. Turkey hates the kurds.

Turkey training isis against the kurds, that makes sense. The other way, not so much. I have yet to find anything official from Turkey showing amything but disdain for the kurds.

I mean, the words kurd, kurdish, and kurdistan were banned in Turkey. There have been multiple attempts at genocide. This doesnt add up at all.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Take a look at that wiki. Anyone else ever talking about systematic or instituional racism in the US, can look at Turkey and the Kurds and see what those things actually look like.


The Kurds are not single group. They are many groups and have long been rivals fighting each other. So you had Turkey who was enemies with its own Kurds who would operate in mountain areas between Iraq and Turkey where nobody has ever had any control but, at the same allied with the Kurds of Iraq whom they would arm to resist Saddam and who in return would help the Turks fight their Kurdish enemies. You also had Iraq who hated its Kurds supporting the Kurds in Iran. And in Syria you would find the Turks fighting some Kurds allied to the Turkish Kurds and while Turkey and Israel also supported other Kurdish groups.

This all goes on because Iraq and Syria have never really controlled the northern parts of their countries to any real degree so it has always been the wild wild west there.



Agreed !


Kurds traditionally live in 4 countries , Iran , Iraq , Syria and Turkey.

In Iran & Syria , they are not counted as " Citizens " but nomadic mauntain dwellers .
In Iraq , they had Arab Nationalism to deal with and they got gassed in Halepce under Saddams watch .( Which is a conspiracy theory in of itself. )
In contrast to all the above , Turks already had Kurdish Presidents and Prime Ministers ; the business world in Turkey is full of Kurdish Billionares .
Kurds control the Interior ministery amongs other ministeries in government.
The governing Turkish party of AKP has some 100+ Kurdish MP's and out of 550 MP's in parliament at least 150 have Kurdish ethnicity.

Kurds do deserve their own state at some point but if one was to give it to them today ; the result would be a civil war between different kurdish groups , encompassing 4 countries .

Which may or may not be a prerequsite to a Greater Israel Project's expansion.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut


The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason.


I guess Syria is at peace then.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut


The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason.


I guess Syria is at peace then.


I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.
However in this case there seems to be a previous deal with Barzani, tho I can't find any statement from him after this incident that iraqi seemed to imply wasn't legal. If the dissent between Iraqi kurdistan and Baghdad becomes evident I'm pretty sure Russia will pressure hard with new evidence for ISIS oil deals.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut


The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason.


I guess Syria is at peace then.


I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.
However in this case there seems to be a previous deal with Barzani, tho I can't find any statement from him after this incident that iraqi seemed to imply wasn't legal. If the dissent between Iraqi kurdistan and Baghdad becomes evident I'm pretty sure Russia will pressure hard with new evidence for ISIS oil deals.



10.000 barrell a day is being alleged .

Thats 3 km long convoy of oil tankers , going to and coming from Turkey to Syria everyday .
Not easy to fake but very easy to record with drones by multiple countries .
If the evidence was there , Russia would have published it .



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 23432
originally posted by: Mastronaut
10.000 barrell a day is being alleged .

Thats 3 km long convoy of oil tankers , going to and coming from Turkey to Syria everyday .
Not easy to fake but very easy to record with drones by multiple countries .
If the evidence was there , Russia would have published it .



Not until they realize they can't bribe Barzani. Or blackmail him, whatever. ISIS oil in Kurdistan uses pipelines, not trucks, and we already know its ISIS oil because they said it was in compensation for not receiving their part of shares from Baghdad.
Turkey is just playing the Us-coalition dog, when things are over either we will be all burnt from nuclear missiles, or there will be a scapegoat that pays the whole game, like in WWII.
edit on 5 12 2015 by Mastronaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: 23432
originally posted by: Mastronaut
10.000 barrell a day is being alleged .

Thats 3 km long convoy of oil tankers , going to and coming from Turkey to Syria everyday .
Not easy to fake but very easy to record with drones by multiple countries .
If the evidence was there , Russia would have published it .



Not until they realize they can't bribe Barzani. Or blackmail him, whatever. ISIS oil in Kurdistan uses pipelines, not trucks, and we already know its ISIS oil because they said it was in compensation for not receiving their part of shares from Baghdad.
Turkey is just playing the Us-coalition dog, when things are over either we will be all burnt from nuclear missiles, or there will be a scapegoat that pays the whole game, like in WWII.



Barzanis people are idolising Istanbul where the biggest Kurdish city ( 3 million Kurds at least ) lives their lives .
Since PKK / PYD is supported by Russia , Barzani will feel everything he owns will be confiscated by local " Courts of Marxist - Leninist PKK/PYD , well Barzani will choose Turks and will wink at Iranians .

ISIS oil is sold to Russian - Syrian businesmen and US treasury report shows it .

Turks are not playing with anything other then their lives ; they know full well what it means to show weakness at these international events that surrounds their land.

Today Pakistani army spokesperson assured Turks that their nuclear weapons will defend the Turks too .

You are misreading the situation ; there is a new - old - kid on the ground . Following a leg & an arm break , the Turk is back on the international scene , bigger then it's ever been .

To give you an idea , at 16th century when Turks controlled 3 continents they had a population of 60 million.
Today they are 80 million and they are not going to take sh1t no more .

Nato has already dealt with the situation and it works for Nato sometimes and it doesn't at other times .

Turks are not against Nato and can work with it to defend Europe's Southern Eastern Flank while entegrating with Arabia & Central Asia & Iran , the Turks can rely on their brethen , their Ummah in all those countries for commerce and military.

As the world goes into multi polar mode , Turks are saying we are back , where were we ?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Turkey training Kurds? Maybe im missing something. Turkey hates the kurds.


Yes, you are missing something - and this is the problem with this topic, a lot of people are pretty damn clueless to the nuances of the conflict which leads to all the nonsense we see posted.

Turkey has, for a long time, enjoyed good relations with the Iraqi Kurds. Those same Kurds have been rivals of the Turkish Kurds and the one's in Syria aren't too popular either.

Yes, Turkey bombs the Kurds, but these are the PKK Kurds who carry out terrorist acts in Turkey and fight for an independent Kurdish state in Turkey. There is no love lost between the PKK and the KRG (Iraqi Kurds)

Just to muddy the water, the YPG (the Syrian Kurds) enjoy relatively good relations with Assad and nominally have agreed to not engage each other in the Civil War. The KRG sent forces to assist the YPG in Syria, but had top agreement off the Turkish beforehand who feared that helping the YPG would also mean the PKK got supported...

See..

Clear as mud.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


According to a Reuters source, the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition was aware of the Turkey's move.

I'll bet. US probably flew them in there.

Well they didn't hitch a ride through Syria with Isis, did they?

Did they?


ISIS is controlled by Turkey if you haven't figured that out yet. Turkey is the home to the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, the ones behind the Arab spring, you know, how this mess in Syria got started like all others. With the MBs embarrassing ouster in Egypt by the people of Egypt they had to change their name. ISIS is the Muslim Brotherhood gone mad, mad because Turkey needs Syria to submit so they can start the final push for their great Islamic i mean Turkish empire!



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut


I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.


"Guess" is the correct word. You have been making wild guesses about the nature of "international law." Please quote the relevant documents that show that invading a neighboring "sovereign state" without a formal declaration of law is illegal. Please show me the treaty that says that a nation's sovereignty extends to regions they are incapable of controlling. Where is the body of law that determines a nation's borders, and who is it that decides what they are? I can wait.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut


I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.


"Guess" is the correct word. You have been making wild guesses about the nature of "international law."


There is no international law, never was ... never will be. The only "international law" that can be claimed, is an orwellian world.

Freedom and liberty, is not gained by turning the ME into an islamic hell hole. Nor is it gained, by creating a one world government.

Liberty and freedom, is only guaranteed by guaranteeing polairity in the world ... "ideology" wise, not "religious" wise.

Controversially ... the entire idea of "religious freedom" is completely upside down. A "soviet union" style government, is the only scenario that guarantees religious freedom. Religion, does NOT require a church, synagogue or mosque. Religion is an individual thing ... the creation of church, synagogue or mosque is a political concept which uses religion for political means. Just because you are religious, does not give you the right of building a church, synagogue or mosque in modern times. As "GOD" being a mental concept, and not physical reality ... only needs a "mental housing", not a physical one.

So, modern laws ... including that of "international law", is in reality illegal. As it goes against the foundation of our states ... liberty of the individual. Our laws, do not guarantee the liberty of the state over the individual, but visa versa.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Are you serious? You have it backwards. Where the hell did you get brainwashed?
Invading a neighbor is BY DEFINITION illegal, otherwise it's called help or invite.
Nation's sovereignity BY DEFINITION is inside a nation's border.

While you wait you can go reread the United Nations Charter and maybe check what happened to invading countries in the last 200 years.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 23432

Barzani is smuggling ISIS oil, he admitted it and you have a very peculiar position on what iraq kurds think about Turkey. They idolize nothing, they are just doing their business, and the funding of Peshmerga. What do you think those peshmerga will be fighting for, once this IS hoax will end?
Turkey is the only option for Kurdistani oil, saying that syrian businessmen and russian are the only buyers because Washington "says so" is laughable. We basically know who's buying this oil since a year thanks to western, eastern and middle eastern sources, so it wasn't even in debate before Putin used it as a propaganda tool.

You are a dangerous turkish nationalist, you don't see how slave of a bigger interest you are and you are one of those who would sign for the demise of your country to please a wanna-be caliph and a raping ally like the USA. However I guess you never checked what other western countries think of Turkey (which is what your government has been able to communicate outside): Turkey is an ISIS supporting imperialistic country like Saudi.

But the reality is: a rabid dog for the USA dealing with heroin traffic and western terrorism support. This oil smuggling thing is just a drop in an ocean of dirty jobs that MIT does (like every other secret service).

You don't defend Europe, you blackmail them. So pray that you keep an edge on this war because if the USA and Russia find a way to solve this conflict through kurds, you will get a big invoice and a civil war.

You aren't "back", this isn't a game, your country will be the reason for a major conflict in the middle east, a conflict that in your interests shouldn't happen, but in the interests of a crazy bunch of mafia guys who runs yours and other countries in NATO. Stop dreaming about the ottoman empire, it just makes your arguments pathetic.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut


Are you serious? You have it backwards. Where the hell did you get brainwashed?
Invading a neighbor is BY DEFINITION illegal, otherwise it's called help or invite.
Nation's sovereignity BY DEFINITION is inside a nation's border.

While you wait you can go reread the United Nations Charter and maybe check what happened to invading countries in the last 200 years.


So you couldn't find anything could you? I challenged you to support your claims because I knew you couldn't. "International Law" is made up by a combination of tradition and treaties. Turkey and Syria's borders were determined by the French and British after the First World War. They were imposed by force. Poland and Germany's borders were drawn by the Russians after the Second. Obviously, this violates the principle of "self determination."

The United Nations Charter is full of "encouraging this" and "discouraging that," but it doesn't really have any enforceable laws by design. The idea is to create a space that, at best, encourages conflict resolution through negotiation but, usually simply provides a theater for political kabuki. When was the last time the UN ever actually settled an international dispute? When was the last time a UN resolution caused a nation to change its behavior?

The whole concept of national sovereignty, with each nation responsible for its own domestic policy but respecting the domestic policies of its neighbors comes from the Treaty of Westphalia, which for some reason, neither the Russian nor Ottoman Empires attended. It is from this European treaty that the tradition of respecting borders derives. This principle is invoked whenever one nation is caught violating another's territory or meddling in another nation's affairs. This has never prevented secret services from manipulating popular opinion in other nations, or armies from annexing neighboring land. It is only after they are exposed or defeated that the offending country is punished, usually by surrendering some of their land to the victors. There are many places in Europe where multiple languages are spoken because the land has changed hands so many times through war.

Simple common sense makes it clear that a nation's territory extends only so far as it can impose its laws and government. Russia took advantage of this when it annexed Crimea. On the one hand, because Crimea was nominally part of Ukraine, it was a violation of the Treaty of Westphalia, which Ukraine did not sign either. On the other hand, any territory that a nation can control becomes that nation's territory, which Russia formalized with its dubious plebiscite. This election was illegal under Ukrainian law, but perfectly above board under Russia's de facto rule.

Borderlands have always been areas where the control of the central government is weak; they are geographically the furthest point that the government can impose its rule. Because profit is to be made by exchanging contraband, people living in the borderlands often feel stronger ties to the people across the border than they do with the people in the capital. If their neighbors want to move contraband that could prove profitable, there is an incentive to pass it on without asking questions. Does it matter whether heroin comes from Afghanistan or Iran? Does it matter whether oil comes from Syria or Iraq?

As for the declaration of war, that is a custom that was formalized at the Hague Convention of 1907, which somehow Russia & Ottoman Turkey missed out on again.

Now, to address the point that you seem to be trying to make head on: Is Turkey trying to reclaim Ottoman territory lost in 1918? That is certainly possible, and, if so, it is a grave mistake. Turkey cannot be both a functioning modern nation state and an "oriental" empire. That is why the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the first place. By seizing Crimea, Putin demonstrated that he was trying to rebuild the Russian Empire. Obviously, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire would have to come to blows. The United States will need to keep out of this. Turkey can withstand Russia's military without NATO's aid, and a failure to destroy Turkey would end Putin's career.

If history is any guide, the current situation will be resolved through secret negotiations that will redraw the map of the region. Syria will lose a bit of ground to Turkey here, Turkey will lose a bit of ground to Iraq there, Syria and Iraq will both lose a bit of ground which will become Kurdistan, Europe gets its pipelines, and Russia gets to keep its bases and get paid to rebuild all the infrastructure it destroyed.

I'm looking forward to your reaction when Moscow announces that the Sykes-Picot borders have been "corrected."
edit on 6-12-2015 by DJW001 because: Edit to polish style.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
If they cant dislodge the Russians from Syria they could go after the kurds in Iraq to turn it into an Quatar Iraq Turkey pipeline.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: 23432

Barzani is smuggling ISIS oil, he admitted it and you have a very peculiar position on what iraq kurds think about Turkey. They idolize nothing, they are just doing their business, and the funding of Peshmerga. What do you think those peshmerga will be fighting for, once this IS hoax will end?
Turkey is the only option for Kurdistani oil, saying that syrian businessmen and russian are the only buyers because Washington "says so" is laughable. We basically know who's buying this oil since a year thanks to western, eastern and middle eastern sources, so it wasn't even in debate before Putin used it as a propaganda tool.

You are a dangerous turkish nationalist, you don't see how slave of a bigger interest you are and you are one of those who would sign for the demise of your country to please a wanna-be caliph and a raping ally like the USA. However I guess you never checked what other western countries think of Turkey (which is what your government has been able to communicate outside): Turkey is an ISIS supporting imperialistic country like Saudi.

But the reality is: a rabid dog for the USA dealing with heroin traffic and western terrorism support. This oil smuggling thing is just a drop in an ocean of dirty jobs that MIT does (like every other secret service).

You don't defend Europe, you blackmail them. So pray that you keep an edge on this war because if the USA and Russia find a way to solve this conflict through kurds, you will get a big invoice and a civil war.

You aren't "back", this isn't a game, your country will be the reason for a major conflict in the middle east, a conflict that in your interests shouldn't happen, but in the interests of a crazy bunch of mafia guys who runs yours and other countries in NATO. Stop dreaming about the ottoman empire, it just makes your arguments pathetic.


Let's look at your assumptions about Kurds ;

- Barzani is oil smuggler and Pesmerhga will fight Turks once IS is dealt with .

Barzani is the head of Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and his oil dealings are no more or no less illegal then anyone else around him . Peshmergha already gets the training and support from Turkish Army .
Once ISIS is over , Kurds will hold a referendum and vote whether to split from Iraq and Join Turks or not . Northern Iraq is stable because Turks support Barzani in the area .

Kurds in Northern Iraq prefer to side with Turks ; there are many historical reasons for their stand .
As for who is buying this ISIS oil issue ; satellite & drone footage should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that indeed there is an ongoing oil smuggling operation via trucks . We are still waiting for that irrefutable evidence .
You may laugh at USA treasury report and choose to believe kremlin instead , I say that is a mistake on your part .

I am not really a Turkish Nationalist ; If anything I am a globalists i.e no borders , thank you .
You see I am looking at my balcony towards Bosphorous and I can see a Russian soldier with shoulder to air missile , targeting my house as we speak .
I try to defend my house , while you are accusing me of being a Turkish nationalist .
Btw , why should a Turkish Nationalist be any more dangerous then any other countries nationalist ?

I actually know what other countries think about Turks in Western World . I am aware of the historical bias and racism towards Turks is alive & well .
What you don't seem to understand is that Turks can also see the racism & discrimination they face ALL the time too .

You suggest that Turks should drop Nato and USA as allies because in your opinion it is bad for Turks to be allies with West . You also think that Turks support ISIS , which is a very bold claim but nevertheless a claim you are comfortable making anyway .

Maybe you don't get it but your efforts are all aimed towards painting Turks as pawns which had no business in larger scheme of things , like having an opinion and a side in this Syrian conflict .

Proceed at your own risk .

According to you Turks don't defend europe but blackmail them .

Well , that is your opinon . Turks have been defending Europe for 60 years or so .

Russia & USA already made the deal way back in Yeltsin Clinton times . The deal was if there ever was a Russian vs Western world conflict ; USA would look the other way . In exchange when Central Asia is conflict is concerned , Russians would look the other way for USA .
The big bill you worried about is not going to happen because like any western diplomat would tell you " You can't trust the Russians " .
USA & Russia agreement to make deal with Kurds at the expense of Turks ? Do use some logic ; you seem to bought into this " Kurds are our people " , " Kurds are the only ones worth supporting " narrative .

When Turks entered Anatolia , they had 20.000 Kurdish Warriors with them , fighting against Byzantine forces .

This is in Kurdish cultural DNA as much as a Turkish one .

Who do you think Salahaddin was ?

You are basing all your opinion of Kurds on the small segment of Kurdish population who by and large are pseudo Kurds i.e hidden Armenians .

Reality is that the Kurds are far more pious and fundamentalist muslims then Turks will ever be .

You think Turks aren't back on the scene on International Politics & War , fine , I'll let you think that .

You are scared of war so you want Turks to say nothing about the sh1te hand they are dealt by the dealer .

It is not my dream to have Ottoman empire . My dream would be to have a Digitism as a Socio-political governing method .
It is however the dream of many inside and outside Turkey to have unification of 1.5 billion muslims and Turks are experienced at this type of thing already .
I see nothing wrong with Caliphate for 1.5 billion muslims .
You probably are imagining a muslim world which is perpetually fragmented and fighting one another at every opportunity .
I am imagining a Muslim world who is at peace with Christians & Jews .
You accuse west of supporting terrorism while east does the same .

You are taking this issue rather personally .

I try to provide the audience with facts from the Turks side .

I don't know what is is that you are asking for ?

Should I be scared or something ?

Russian naval vessels sail less then a mile away from my house while I have a nice lunch on my balcony . I get to see thru my binoculars , a Russian soldier with shoulder to air missile , mock targeting my house .

This doesn't spoil my coffee at all , so please don't think for a second that you offer anything of substance in this discussion .

Russian are the aggressors and violaters . No amount of vitriol is going to change that little fact .

What are you worried about ww3 ?

Stop being childish.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 23432

Afiyet olsun!



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut

So you couldn't find anything could you? I challenged you to support your claims because I knew you couldn't. "International Law" is made up by a combination of tradition and treaties. Turkey and Syria's borders were determined by the French and British after the First World War. They were imposed by force. Poland and Germany's borders were drawn by the Russians after the Second. Obviously, this violates the principle of "self determination."


International laws are agreements between states, I'm not a legal expert on the latest Turkish-Iraq agreements so I can't point out yet what law is breaking, but when the central government of a state unanimously and officially condemns a certain activity I tend to think there might be some legal ground.


The United Nations Charter is full of "encouraging this" and "discouraging that," but it doesn't really have any enforceable laws by design. The idea is to create a space that, at best, encourages conflict resolution through negotiation but, usually simply provides a theater for political kabuki. When was the last time the UN ever actually settled an international dispute? When was the last time a UN resolution caused a nation to change its behavior?


If you put it in terms of "settled" I'd say many, but I guess you meant for border disputes and I agree with you. But ignoring that UN resolutions had no effects, considering sanctions, is superficial.


The whole concept of national sovereignty, with each nation responsible for its own domestic policy but respecting the domestic policies of its neighbors comes from the Treaty of Westphalia, which for some reason, neither the Russian nor Ottoman Empire attended.


This is an Iraq-Turkey issue, not russian and there is no more ottoman empire.


Simple common sense makes it clear that a nation's territory extends only so far as it can impose its laws and government. Russia took advantage of this when it annexed Crimea. On the one hand, because Crimea was nominally part of Ukraine, it was a violation of the Treaty of Westphalia, which Ukraine did not sign either. On the other hand, any territory that a nation can control becomes that nation's territory, which Russia formalized with its dubious plebiscite. This election was illegal under Ukrainian law, but perfectly above board under Russia's de facto rule.


We can't compare the 2, and just to be clear I consider the Crimea invasion illegal too. This is Iraq saying what Turkey said to Russia a month ago: "get in again and we shoot" and I have no doubts that there's Putin's paw behind this.


Does it matter whether heroin comes from Afghanistan or Iran? Does it matter whether oil comes from Syria or Iraq?


Yes it does, you are assuming that governments and secret services aren't involved and aren't playing their own game. The middlemen are just tools like mafia driven by black budgets as has been shown throught the 20th century. What we called mafias are now rebels and then will become mafias again when this is all over. But they are "deep state" entities, not just some lone wolf. What mafia is supported changes a lot the balance of the events, don't underestimate it.


As for the declaration of war, that is a custom that was formalized at the Hague Convention of 1907, which somehow Russia & Ottoman Turkey missed out on again.


I have to guess I improperly used declaration of war in its strict meaning. Under that definition I think the US weren't ever at war after Korea, so I apologize for making that analogy. What I meant is that even the 2003 Iraq war was a "declared" war. In the specific case there is no public government vote in Turkey about this action so it's not threated like an hostile action. Ignoring Iraqi words tho will be. The problem is Russia and Ottomans means nothing in this context again.


Now, to address the point that you seem to be trying to make head on: Is Turkey trying to reclaim Ottoman territory lost in 1918? That is certainly possible, and, if so, it is a grave mistake. Turkey cannot be both a functioning modern nation state and an "oriental" empire. That is why the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the first place. By seizing Crimea, Putin demonstrated that he was trying to rebuild the Russian Empire. Obviously, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire would have to come to blows. The United States will need to keep out of this. Turkey can withstand Russia's military without NATO's aid, and a failure to destroy Turkey would end Putin's career.


This was not the point but it's an intresting one. I don't have the same view in the Crimea case for many other reasons that we can discuss in a Crimea's post, but in general I agree with your sentiment, tho I don't think this move is an imperialistic one. The real reason why Iraqis are pissed off is because I think russians are sharing intelligence (good one, not the crap they show us) where Turkey is trying to support an anti-PKK kurdistan with more independence from Baghdad, and they also support the framework in which the ISIS-Kurdish oil gets out of the central Iraqis control (ie they do not make profits).


If history is any guide, the current situation will be resolved through secret negotiations that will redraw the map of the region. Syria will lose a bit of ground to Turkey here, Turkey will lose a bit of ground to Iraq there, Syria and Iraq will both lose a bit of ground which will become Kurdistan, Europe gets its pipelines, and Russia gets to keep its bases and get paid to rebuild all the infrastructure it destroyed.

I'm looking forward to your reaction when Moscow announces that the Sykes-Picot borders have been "corrected."


I do think aswell that Kurdistan will be the end result of this undeclared war. But I don't think that Turkey would call it a win, and you forgot the interests of all the important players from the West. Putin isn't doing this for a base, despite after the su24 incident has now became vital, he is doing this for survival. It's a matter of how long you can stay before the economic collapse, and Russia and Europe have been put under pressure. Guess in the interests of who?

However, this all started for a different reason, you introduced a false dychotomy where I was supporting ISIS if I wasn't supporting an illegal action, which wasn't exactly related to this specific case, so next time just tell me that you don't think there is legal ground for this, this and this other pact or agreement rather than insulting me and posting something like "it's ok to act illegally when there is a so-called greater issue".

I am guilty of having used seemingly technical terms improperly, but can we agree that acting outside of mutual agreement's frameworks is bad regardless if it's Russia or Turkey doing it? And is it implicit that when the government of a country denounces illegal presence in its territory has the right to still call it "its territory" unless officially unrecognized? If this wasn't implicit wouldn't you think it's extremely dangerous and immoral?



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: sHuRuLuNi
a reply to: 23432

Afiyet olsun!





Yogurtlu Alexander Kebabi .



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join