• 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!

Iraq: Turkey troops near Mosul violating international law

will NATO go to war to defend Turkish troops in Iraq?

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iraq: Turkey troops near Mosul violating international law | TBO.com and The Tampa Tribune

"Iraq: Turkey troops near Mosul violating international law

Published: December 5, 2015 BAGHDAD (AP)
"— The Iraqi president says the presence of Turkish troops near the Islamic State-held city of Mosul is a "violation" of international law. President Fuad Masum says Saturday that the move is contributing to increased tensions in the region. He calls the troops a "violation of international norms, laws and Iraq's national sovereignty." Mosul fell to the Islamic State group in August 2014 amid a stunning collapse of the Iraqi security forces. Turkey has said a military battalion equipped with armored vehicles is in the Bashiqa region close to Mosul as part of a training mission to help forces fighting the extremist group. The Kurdish Peshmerga forces of northern Iraq are involved in the training. The central government in Baghdad is demanding that the Turkish troops withdraw."

Are these troops in Iraq illegally?
Do these troops protect the ISIS/Turkey oil supply lines in Iraq?
Who's side is Turkey on?
Has Russia has shut down the Syria/Turkey border supply lines?
Did the USA request these Turkish troops in Iraq?
Can Turkey be trusted?
If Turkey is in Iraq illegally and is a NATO member, will NATO go to war to defend Turkish troops in Iraq? (poll question)
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
http://www.tbo.com/ap/world/iraq-turkey-troops-near-mosul-violating-international-law-ap_world8d9c8fd5ab1a4a72a52a2702a4a28a4d"Iraq: Turkey troops near Mosul violating international law Published: December 5, 2015 BAGHDAD (AP) — The Iraqi president says the presence of Turkish troops near the Islamic State-held city of Mosul is a "violation" of international law. President Fuad Masum says Saturday that the move is contributing to increased tensions in the region. He calls the troops a "violation of international norms, laws and Iraq's national sovereignty." Mosul fell to the Islamic State group in August 2014 amid a stunning collapse of the Iraqi security forces. Turkey has said a military battalion equipped with armored vehicles is in the Bashiqa region close to Mosul as part of a training mission to help forces fighting the extremist group. The Kurdish Peshmerga forces of northern Iraq are involved in the training. The central government in Baghdad is demanding that the Turkish troops withdraw."Are these troops in Iraq illegally?Do these troops protect the ISIS/Turkey oil supply lines in Iraq?Who's side is Turkey on?Has Russia has shut down the Syria/Turkey border supply lines?Did the USA request these Turkish troops in Iraq?Can Turkey be trusted?If Turkey is in Iraq illegally and is a NATO member, will NATO go to war to defend Turkish troops in Iraq? (poll question)
Click to expand...

guess which country it reminds me of! HAHA
 
Last edited:
The legality of the USA in Iraq is certainly questionable, but Tukey presents a WWIII potential. Since Russia has pretty much closed down the OIL trading routes between Turkey and Syria that supported ISIS and it only leaves the trading routes between Turkey and Iraq, is this the real purpose of the Turkish troops? It is apparent that Turkey supports ISIS/ISIL and this move is an overt projection of that support. This is an invasion of Iraq by Turkey, just as surely as it was invading Syria in the Turkmen region. I can't picture Turkey assisting the Kurdish Peshmerga.
 
Odds are the answer is no, but I selected other.

It will come down to perception of Turkey dealing with forces that used to hold Mosul, and we have troubles in that region specifically on who is really fighting who. More than just being close to Turkey, Mosul is also close to Syria right there at the North Western tip if Iraq. At one time, roughly late in 2014, this fairly large city was firmly under ISIS control which became a concern for Turkey for obvious reasons but also became a point for the Kurds as well. What makes this so much worse is depending upon where in this area we are talking about also determines which of the Kurds becomes a target. The ironic part is Iraq talking about "Iraqi sovereignty"... as if they have any control over that these days anyway.

Any NATO involvement as it relates to Turkey would just be adding to the pool of insanity over these region.
 
DaveFagan said:
The legality of the USA in Iraq is certainly questionable, but Tukey presents a WWIII potential. Since Russia has pretty much closed down the OIL trading routes between Turkey and Syria that supported ISIS and it only leaves the trading routes between Turkey and Iraq, is this the real purpose of the Turkish troops? It is apparent that Turkey supports ISIS/ISIL and this move is an overt projection of that support. This is an invasion of Iraq by Turkey, just as surely as it was invading Syria in the Turkmen region. I can't picture Turkey assisting the Kurdish Peshmerga.
Click to expand...

USA supported ISIS and helped them gain power because the chaos is needed here in order to form new states with new structures.I cant picture USA assisting an organization that wants to divide USA either............
 
OrphanSlug said:
Odds are the answer is no, but I selected other.

It will come down to perception of Turkey dealing with forces that used to hold Mosul, and we have troubles in that region specifically on who is really fighting who. More than just being close to Turkey, Mosul is also close to Syria right there at the North Western tip if Iraq. At one time, roughly late in 2014, this fairly large city was firmly under ISIS control which became a concern for Turkey for obvious reasons but also became a point for the Kurds as well. What makes this so much worse is depending upon where in this area we are talking about also determines which of the Kurds becomes a target. The ironic part is Iraq talking about "Iraqi sovereignty"... as if they have any control over that these days anyway.

Any NATO involvement as it relates to Turkey would just be adding to the pool of insanity over these region.
Click to expand...

I agree with your odds on answer, but Turkey is a NATO ally and just recently forced NATO to support its' attack on the Russian SU 24. No NATO satellite info was provided to support the Turkish allegations that the Aircraft was in Turkish territorial airspace, and that raises suspicions astronomically. In every area of this matter, Turkey's behaviour has been duplicitious and I expect that to consistently be the case. The USA gonna wind up with more fleas, fo' sure, eh?
 
DaveFagan said:
I agree with your odds on answer, but Turkey is a NATO ally and just recently forced NATO to support its' attack on the Russian SU 24. No NATO satellite info was provided to support the Turkish allegations that the Aircraft was in Turkish territorial airspace, and that raises suspicions astronomically. In every area of this matter, Turkey's behaviour has been duplicitious and I expect that to consistently be the case. The USA gonna wind up with more fleas, fo' sure, eh?
Click to expand...

Not so sure about the "forced" part, it was more predictable that NATO would side with Turkey on anything involving where this *Russian* SU-24 was actually located. We already have questions on Russian engagement of oil routes, and we have question on who is really benefiting from and is a customer of ISIS controlled (as least sourced) oil.

I would agree with you completely that Turkey seems to be walking a fine line between internal benefits and international considerations for NATO (just call it "the west.")

Our issue is are we seeing yet another example of our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy in action with Turkey, *or* are we seeing Turkey outright trying to deceive the west as a means to financial benefit even if it means at least tangential relations with the enemy?
 
Medusa said:
USA supported ISIS and helped them gain power because the chaos is needed here in order to form new states with new structures.I cant picture USA assisting an organization that wants to divide USA either............
Click to expand...

I agree with your post. It is obvious that the USA and more than a few of its' allies have supported ISIS to make war on Syria and think that they are using a clever strategy. It represents a complete failure by our Intelligence Agencies and a total success by the Mass Media control narrative. A failure of the Intelligence Spectrum of Full Spectrum Dominance and a conquest by the Media Manipulation Specrum of Full Spectrum Dominance. I think the new USA objective in Iraq is to divide it into three parts, but the Russian/Iran/Syria alliance is going to be the bitter pill that prevents it. Mosul and Raqqa present difficulties because it is about house to house close combat to regain control and that produces lots of casualties. It is not considered ethical to bomb the crap out of a bunch of civilians trapped by warring parties. It's OK to starve them though, If the NATO alliance allows Turkey to remain in Iraq, it guarantees ISIS OIL money is protected and prolongs their defeat. The supply lines to Mosul and Raqqa need to be severed and that includes food, water and electricity.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not so sure about the "forced" part, it was more predictable that NATO would side with Turkey on anything involving where this *Russian* SU-24 was actually located. We already have questions on Russian engagement of oil routes, and we have question on who is really benefiting from and is a customer of ISIS controlled (as least sourced) oil.

I would agree with you completely that Turkey seems to be walking a fine line between internal benefits and international considerations for NATO (just call it "the west.")

Our issue is are we seeing yet another example of our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy in action with Turkey, *or* are we seeing Turkey outright trying to deceive the west as a means to financial benefit even if it means at least tangential relations with the enemy?[/QUOTE]



The miles long strings of tanker trucks going to Turkey seem a little more than tangential. The fact that, our ally, Turkey has not attacked any ISIL seems a little more than tangential. OTOH, the USA has illegally invaded Syria and I guess our example empowers Turkey to invade Iraq. Turkey was doing hundreds of airstrikes in Syria also. Not any more. Invasion is not invasion when one has discovered good guys, or not so bad guys, among head chopping bad guys, as far as I can tell. I have difficulty differentating ISIL from Turkey. However, I await sophistry from the USA Intelligence Agencies controlling the Mass Media to explain more good guys among the bad guys and clear the matter in a mind merge for the rabble.
Click to expand...
 
The Turks are the ONLY people who know exactly how to deal with this entire region. Give them carte-blanche to do whatever they want to there. They know how to do it.

The longest period of peace in that region was when the Ottoman Turks owned it. Let them own it again.

They already know the only what to deal with ISIL is to drag them out of their holes and bayonet them.

No one but the Turks seem willing and have the balls to do it.

Let them do it. Also let them keep all the land they conquer.
 
I've been wondering if armor might play a role in retaking Mosul. The twenty or so Turkish tanks now near that city are probably there partly to defend the Iraqi (and possibly Kurdish peshmerga) troops the Turkish armored battalion will be training. I haven't seen what type of armored vehicles Turkey has brought, but it has quite a few Leopard 2 A4's, which are an very capable tank that would stand up pretty well in any fighting in Mosul. But I suspect any local infantry in an effort to retake that city would be even better supported by the latest U.S. M1A2's, whose armor and weapons give them excellent protection in urban combat.

There is a very large modern airstrip near Irbil which could be used to fly in U.S. tanks and self-propelled artillery already in Kuwait, so that a force of these heavy weapons could soon be built up near Irbil to help take Mosul. This base is also close enough to Mosul to operate A-10's from, as well as search-and-rescue helicopters. B-1's and B-52's could be flown from bases farther away and used, in effect, for very heavy close air support. ISIS does not have any way to mount an effective defense against weapons as powerful as these. I doubt any of this will take place as long as President Pinprick is in office, though.
 
Last edited:
RetiredNSmilin said:
The Turks are the ONLY people who know exactly how to deal with this entire region. Give them carte-blanche to do whatever they want to there. They know how to do it.

The longest period of peace in that region was when the Ottoman Turks owned it. Let them own it again.

They already know the only what to deal with ISIL is to drag them out of their holes and bayonet them.

No one but the Turks seem willing and have the balls to do it.

Let them do it. Also let them keep all the land they conquer.
Click to expand...

Clue:: The Turks are on the side of ISIL. That's one of the problems.
 
matchlight said:
I've been wondering if armor might play a role in retaking Mosul. The twenty or so Turkish tanks now near that city are probably there partly to defend the Iraqi (and possibly Kurdish peshmerga) troops the Turkish armored battalion will be training. I haven't seen what type of armored vehicles Turkey has brought, but it has quite a few Leopard 2 A4's, which are an very capable tank that would stand up pretty well in any fighting in Mosul. But I suspect any local infantry in an effort to retake that city would be even better supported by the latest U.S. M1A2's, whose armor and weapons give them excellent protection in urban combat.

There is a very large modern airstrip near Irbil which could be used to fly in U.S. tanks and self-propelled artillery already in Kuwait, so that a force of these heavy weapons could soon be built up near Irbil to help take Mosul. This base is also close enough to Mosul to operate A-10's from, as well as search-and-rescue helicopters. B-1's and B-52's could be flown from bases farther away and used, in effect, for very heavy close air support. ISIS does not have any way to mount an effective defense against weapons as powerful as these. I doubt any of this will take place as long as President Pinprick is in office, though.
Click to expand...

The Iraqi PM has stated he doesn't want any US ground troops in Iraq. He doesn't seem to be too sure who's side they are on. We seem to have been supporting ISIS/ISIL because they had Assad as a common enemy. They have lots of US weapons and funding and training by our allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc. and if our allies are on ISIS/ISIL's side, then who's side are we on?
 
Medusa said:
USA supported ISIS and helped them gain power because the chaos is needed here in order to form new states with new structures.I cant picture USA assisting an organization that wants to divide USA either............
Click to expand...
Sorry maybe you are confused. The conspiracy section is located elsewhere.
 
DaveFagan said:
The Iraqi PM has stated he doesn't want any US ground troops in Iraq. He doesn't seem to be too sure who's side they are on. We seem to have been supporting ISIS/ISIL because they had Assad as a common enemy. They have lots of US weapons and funding and training by our allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc. and if our allies are on ISIS/ISIL's side, then who's side are we on?
Click to expand...

I am not too sure whose side the Iraqi Prime Minister is on. He should be damned glad there ARE U.S. troops in Iraq, because Iran is trying to subvert his government through its proxy, a branch of Hizballah. That group has been making it harder for the U.S. to work closely with Iraqi military units, and that may have affected plans to drive ISIS out of Fallujah, Ramadi, Hit, and the rest of Anbar.

Tom Rogan, a British analyst who often writes about the conflict in Iraq and Syria, said recently he suspects part of the purpose of the extra several dozen special forces the U.S. announced it was sending is to stabilize the Iraqi government against this group of Hizballah. If you read Sec. Carter's announcement about the new forces, he seems to be suggesting just that. Right after the announcement, the leader of this group, Khataib Hizballah, boasted that it will attack the U.S. forces. I doubt they will wait to be attacked, but will instead start picking off any Khataib Hizballah operatives they can find.
 
braindrain said:
Sorry maybe you are confused. The conspiracy section is located elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root.Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
Nowadays America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom