• 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!

Turkey carries out air attacks in Iraq

kaya'08 said:
The resolution demands Iraq cooperate with members to end the security and humanitarian threat of its various factions, yet the Iraqi administration openly refused to cooperate with Turkey on the matter of the PKK and so Turkey uses this resolution to demand and hold the right to enter Iraqi sovereign to diffuse the threat the PKK poses, by which the UN deemed the actions of Turkey to enter Kirkuk legal.

As for FOS, thats a new one. :)
Click to expand...

Kaya, the following is the entire content of the United Nations Resolution 688:
The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Click to expand...

Could you please point out to where exactly is the UN resolution stating that Turkey(Or any other nation for that matter) is given an approval to enter sovereign Iraqi territory?
Notice the part I've marked, which says the opposite.
 
Apocalypse said:
Kaya, the following is the entire content of the United Nations Resolution 688:


Could you please point out to where exactly is the UN resolution stating that Turkey(Or any other nation for that matter) is given an approval to enter sovereign Iraqi territory?
Notice the part I've marked, which says the opposite.
Click to expand...

It DOESNT. It add's to Turkey's justification to enter Kirkuk because they refused to cooperate with Turkey hence violating the 2nd point stated on the charter. The UN, along with Turkey's right to defend itself, found this acceptable, and so has deemed Turkey's actions legal.
 
kaya'08 said:
It DOESNT. It add's to Turkey's justification to enter Kirkuk because they refused to cooperate with Turkey hence violating the 2nd point stated on the charter. The UN, along with Turkey's right to defend itself, found this acceptable, and so has deemed Turkey's actions legal.
Click to expand...

So you're referring to this statement:
2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;
Click to expand...

I can't see what in this statement refers to a permission given to Turkey to enter sovereign Iraqi territory.
I can't see how this relevant to the Turkish state at all.

Did I misunderstand you by thinking that you've referred to that statement?
 
Apocalypse said:
can't see what in this statement refers to a permission given to Turkey to enter sovereign Iraqi territory.
I can't see how this relevant to the Turkish state at all.

Did I misunderstand you by thinking that you've referred to that statement?
Click to expand...

I said, because Iraq is in violation to this statement, that is adds to Turkey's causus belli to take action to:

A) Secure regional stability where Iraq cannot/has refused to
B) Secure its right to protect itself

Because the UN has seen this as lawful, there is no illegal issues here. The situation in Gaza regarding Israel's incursion is also not illegal but the blockade most certainly is. Its hostile, its crippling, it does nothing but punish civilians, it does nothing to protect Israel or remove Hamas. There is no blockade in Kirkuk...there is no humantarian crises in Kirkuk...there is nothing of the sort in Kirkuk. Kirkuk has chocolates, it has building materials, it has computers, it has infrastrucute, it has its own economy that doesn't rely off Turkish rations, and it has its own semi-centralist government. It is why i see no issues of hypocrisy regarding KIRKUK=GAZA.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
I said, because Iraq is in violation to this statement, that is adds to Turkey's causus belli to take action to:
Click to expand...
If the statement they're apparently (according to you) in violation of is not related to Turkey (and I can't see its relation to Turkey), then I can't see how it adds to a "causus belli" (Since when are we speaking about an actual war here?) of Turkey, and it doesn't add to Turkey's right to commit raids in Iraqi sovereign territory.
A) Secure regional stability where Iraq cannot/has refused to
Click to expand...
That's why I believe Turkey has the right to commit those rights.
Because Iraq fails to secure Turkish security concerns. Nothing less and nothing more.
the blockade most certainly is. Its hostile, its crippling, it does nothing but punish civilians, it does nothing to protect Israel or remove Hamas.
Click to expand...
It does a lot to protect Israel from Hamas, it cripples its ability to put its hands on weapons.
Besides that the blockade has now became a militaristic blockade, so there's no reason to continue ranting about it.
There is no blockade in Kirkuk...there is no humantarian crises in Kirkuk...there is nothing of the sort in Kirkuk. Kirkuk has chocolates, it has building materials, it has computers, it has infrastrucute, it has its own economy that doesn't rely off Turkish rations, and it has its own semi-centralist government. It is why i see no issues of hypocrisy regarding KIRKUK=GAZA.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, Kurds from Iraq do not launch thousands of rockets at Ankara and Istanbul, trying to kill as many Turkish civilians as possible.
 
Apocalypse said:
If the statement they're apparently (according to you) in violation of is not related to Turkey (and I can't see its relation to Turkey), then I can't see how it adds to a "causus belli" (Since when are we speaking about an actual war here?) of Turkey, and it doesn't add to Turkey's right to commit raids in Iraqi sovereign territory.
Click to expand...

Actually, as a neighbouring nation where Iraq's ignoring of a security issue and Iraq's own stability has a direct impact on ours, id ask you please revise that statement.


That's why I believe Turkey has the right to commit those rights.
Because Iraq fails to secure Turkish security concerns. Nothing less and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Good, then we agree on this.

It does a lot to protect Israel from Hamas, it cripples its ability to put its hands on weapons.
Besides that the blockade has now became a militaristic blockade, so there's no reason to continue ranting about it.
Click to expand...

Wait, how would boarder controls not do this? How would searching ships on sea not do this?

On the other hand, Kurds from Iraq do not launch thousands of rockets at Ankara and Istanbul, trying to kill as many Turkish civilians as possible.
Click to expand...

No, instead they commit suicide attacks and try and kill our village guards in remote area's (and place mines).
Believe me, if Istanbul or Ankara was in the slightest remote reach of the PKK, i would have no doubt in my mind so help me god that they would blast everything they have at it.
 
kaya'08 said:
It DOESNT. It add's to Turkey's justification to enter Kirkuk because they refused to cooperate with Turkey hence violating the 2nd point stated on the charter. The UN, along with Turkey's right to defend itself, found this acceptable, and so has deemed Turkey's actions legal.
Click to expand...

First, I'm not seeing how this is different from the argument that the US made before invading Iraq. In both cases, the country taking action is claiming that a past resolution is being violated and that because of that, they are entitled to use force.

When the US claimed that Iraq's violation of 1441 (which incorporated the earlier resolutions) authorized its use of force, Turkey disagreed, arguing that the UN would have to pass a separate authorizing resolution. I have a hard time reconciling that argument with what you're saying now.

Second, I am not aware of the UN finding this to be acceptable or deeming Turkey's actions legal. Unless the SC has specifically authorized it, that's not an acceptance.

kaya'08 said:
I said, because Iraq is in violation to this statement, that is adds to Turkey's causus belli to take action to:

A) Secure regional stability where Iraq cannot/has refused to
B) Secure its right to protect itself

Because the UN has seen this as lawful, there is no illegal issues here.
Click to expand...

Once again, I don't think the UN has said this is lawful.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it's probably legitimate, though that's because I take a very broad view of individual state authority. However, I think that it's certainly hypocritical if Turkey is actually claiming that this 1991 resolution authorizes its actions when it rejected that argument in 2003.
 
RightinNYC said:
First, I'm not seeing how this is different from the argument that the US made before invading Iraq. In both cases, the country taking action is claiming that a past resolution is being violated and that because of that, they are entitled to use force.
Click to expand...

You can read my reply to Apoc which clearly states that this violation is not a reason to go to war but it certainly adds to the reasons of taking actions against Iraq. They ignored international law, much like they ignored the atomic energy agency. It added to there reasons to go to war, only Iraq's own condition directly impacted our sovereign, hence giving us full justification under international law to act where our own security is put at risk hence exercising our right to defend ourselves.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
You can read my reply to Apoc which clearly states that this violation is not a reason to go to war but it certainly adds to the reasons of taking actions against Iraq. They ignored international law, much like they ignored the atomic energy agency. It added to there reasons to go to war, only Iraq's own condition directly impacted our sovereign, hence giving us full justification under international law to act where our own security is put at risk hence exercising our right to defend ourselves.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I think Turkey is almost certainly entitled to do so as a result of those factors.

My point is that those are the exact same factors cited by the US when it was planning to take action against Iraq. In that case, Turkey claimed that it was illegal for the US to use force without new and explicit authorization from the Security Council. They've simply reversed their position now that they're the ones who want to use force.
 
RightinNYC said:
I agree, and I think Turkey is almost certainly entitled to do so as a result of those factors.

My point is that those are the exact same factors cited by the US when it was planning to take action against Iraq. In that case, Turkey claimed that it was illegal for the US to use force without new and explicit authorization from the Security Council. They've simply reversed their position now that they're the ones who want to use force.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that's the reason? And not because the Turkish parliament failed to pass a resolution to permit the use of our Eastern boarder? Anyway, dont you agree the situation is slightly different? The US ordered a full out invasion. We dont even have foot soldiers deployed in Kirkuk; only ones that patrol the boarder. We use our air superiority to reach the PKK. Its nothing but incursions - merely keyhole surgery.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Are you sure that's the reason? And not because the Turkish parliament failed to pass a resolution to permit the use of our Eastern boarder?
Click to expand...

But Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis also reiterated Turkey's insistence on a second U.N. resolution, authorising the use of force against Iraq, if Baghdad did not comply with the weapons inspections.

"Turkey wants a new UN resolution on the use of force. UN resolution 1441 does not allow the automatic resort to armed intervention," Yakis told a news conference after talks with his British counterpart Jack Straw said.
Click to expand...

Turkey says would open airbases for U.S. Iraq strike - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Mr Sezer said US troops could only be deployed in Turkey "in circumstances considered legitimate by international law.

"In order to have a situation deemed legitimate... we believe there should be a Security Council resolution other than Resolution 1441," he was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency.
Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | Europe | Turkey ups stakes on US troops

Anyway, dont you agree the situation is slightly different? The US ordered a full out invasion. We dont even have foot soldiers deployed in Kirkuk; only ones that patrol the boarder. We use our air superiority to reach the PKK. Its nothing but incursions - merely keyhole surgery.
Click to expand...

The UN charter prohibits any unauthorized use of force, regardless of the scope.
 
RightinNYC said:
No. The US didn't even bother to bring it up, as France and Russia would have vetoed it.
Click to expand...

But is it still possible to compare, when Iraq did not at any point pose a direct sovereign threat to the US? Perhaps this is why Turkey went to seek consensus from the UN.
 
kaya'08 said:
But is it still possible to compare, when Iraq did not at any point pose a direct sovereign threat to the US? Perhaps this is why Turkey went to seek consensus from the UN.
Click to expand...

That's not really relevant to the question of whether a use of force is authorized by the SC, but the US made a pretty strong argument (which was accepted by most countries) that Iraq was indeed a threat or potential threat to the US and the world. The primary disagreement was over the question of whether other options remained or whether immediate action was necessary.
 
kaya'08 said:
Firsltly, id appreciate you speak to me with a bit more respect and civility.
Secondly, UN resolution 688. Thats right. Fact's just bit your ass.
Click to expand...

Not sure what resolution you are referring to, but UN resolution 688 here:

Security Council resolution 688 (1991) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

"RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991
The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter."
========================================

Does not allow for Turkey to conduct military operations inside iraq. Maybe you should try reading it some time...about those facts biting someone in the...and in NONE of the links does Barzani or anyone else authorize Turkish military incursions into Iraq. Try again...
 
joergan said:
Not sure what resolution you are referring to, but UN resolution 688 here:

Security Council resolution 688 (1991) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

"RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991
The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter."
========================================

Does not allow for Turkey to conduct military operations inside iraq. Maybe you should try reading it some time...about those facts biting someone in the...and in NONE of the links does Barzani or anyone else authorize Turkish military incursions into Iraq. Try again...
Click to expand...

This has been covered already, if you would be bothered to read my posts with Rivvat, who i will reply to when i get back from school.
 
kaya'08 said:
This has been covered already, if you would be bothered to read my posts with Rivvat, who i will reply to when i get back from school.
Click to expand...

I responded to your post before reading further into the thread, where RightNYC and others stated the obvious; a reading of this resolution provides no opportunities for military interventions.

As the other poster made clear, if anything, the resolution specifically PROHIBITS military actions.

Regardless, internation humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, prohibit the indiscriminate shelling and bombing campaigns Turkey is currently conducting inside iraq against civilian villages.
 
joergan said:
Turkey is currently conducting inside iraq against civilian villages.
Click to expand...

Ild be interested to see where you,re getting this from (not that it would surprise me if it were true), the article said "PKK bases". I,ve not read anything about civilian villages being involved.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
Ild be interested to see where you,re getting this from (not that it would surprise me if it were true), the article said "PKK bases". I,ve not read anything about civilian villages being involved.
Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | Europe | Turkish planes bomb northern Iraq

"Local officials in northern Iraq spoke of families fleeing their homes. Pro-Kurdish media initially reported the death of one woman and the wounding of five other civilians in a village near the Kandil mountains."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37255488/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

"Ahmed Danis, a spokesman for the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, said Turkish jets bombed at least three villages in the Qandil mountains, near the area where Iraq, Iran and Turkey intersect."
 
Last edited:
Turkey wouldn't have the cojohnes to do such a thing if Obama wasn't so weak on isreal imo....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom