Did Turkey declare war on Syria November 29 ?

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
SeekingAPolitic...
Did Turkey declare war on Syria November 29 ?

$$$$$$$$

Issues Pages: 
SeekingAPolitic...

dp

SeekingAPolitic...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-entered-syria-to-end-al-assads-r...

The Turkish military launched its operations in Syria to end the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Nov. 29.

“In my estimation, nearly 1 million people have died in Syria. These deaths are still continuing without exception for children, women and men. Where is the United Nations? What is it doing? Is it in Iraq? No. We preached patience but could not endure in the end and had to enter Syria together with the Free Syrian Army [FSA],” Erdoğan said at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul.

“Why did we enter? We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice. We entered there to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror. [We didn’t enter] for any other reason,” the president said

 

I wonder what Putin will say to this.  As far as I know the Assad government is reconignzed governement of Syria by most of the world. 

SeekingAPolitic...

Western press is not picking up this story, everyone using hurriyet daily news as a source which seems to be a solid media source.  A major turk news newspaper with a english online site.

Sean in Ottawa

There is an interesting contradiction here. Turkey appears to suggest that interference ought to come only through the UN. I actually find that to be a reasonable position. How this becomes an argument for unilateral intervention escapes me when we have enough of those.

I cannot say if Assad would have been toppled or survived without any foreign interference. Do we even know this?

What we do know is the war has gone on longer with more deaths due to the interference from multiple countries.

What we have had is a number of countries claim the right to interfere but lack the wherewithal or commitment to do it decisively so instead they feed the violence so more die and more are displaced. The excuse that minor actions are somehow helpful have surely been disproven. The idea that a major action will help is not looking particularly good especially given the many foreign interests that trump those of the people actually living there.

This is a return to cold war proxy conflict and the people are dying. I don't see Turkey offering a solution but they are in good company as I don't see anyone else either. At this point it is so broken can one even be identified?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I added this story to the Syria thread because I think it should be included there. It's an important story.

The UN is a US-dominated (sometimes even a disgraceful US puppet) institution. Nevertheless, it's all we have. And small countries, as Haile Selassie said, long ago, as Italy attacked Ethiopia back in 1936 with chemical weapons,...

Quote:
Noting that his own "small people of 12 million inhabitants, without arms, without resources" could never withstand an attack by a large power such as Italy, with its 42 million people and "unlimited quantities of the most death-dealing weapons", he contended that all small states were threatened by the aggression, and that all small states were in effect reduced to vassal states in the absence of collective action. He admonished the League [of Nations]  that "God and history will remember your judgment."[82]

It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. It is the confidence that each State is to place in international treaties… In a word, it is international morality that is at stake. Have the signatures appended to a Treaty value only in so far as the signatory Powers have a personal, direct and immediate interest involved?

 

 

Erdogan's shameful neo-Ottoman fantasies do not justify such barbaric disdain for the independence of a sovereign state. Such actions, if they continue and remain un-challenged, could easily form the basis for the next World War.

And that won't be a picnic.

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

I added this story to the Syria thread because I think it should be included there. It's an important story.

The UN is a US-dominated (sometimes even a disgraceful US puppet) institution. Nevertheless, it's all we have. And small countries, as Haile Selassie said, long ago, as Italy attacked Ethiopia back in 1936 with chemical weapons,...

Quote:
Noting that his own "small people of 12 million inhabitants, without arms, without resources" could never withstand an attack by a large power such as Italy, with its 42 million people and "unlimited quantities of the most death-dealing weapons", he contended that all small states were threatened by the aggression, and that all small states were in effect reduced to vassal states in the absence of collective action. He admonished the League [of Nations]  that "God and history will remember your judgment."[82]

It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. It is the confidence that each State is to place in international treaties… In a word, it is international morality that is at stake. Have the signatures appended to a Treaty value only in so far as the signatory Powers have a personal, direct and immediate interest involved?

 

 

Erdogan's shameful neo-Ottoman fantasies do not justify such barbaric disdain for the independence of a sovereign state. Such actions, if they continue and remain un-challenged, could easily form the basis for the next World War.

And that won't be a picnic.

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/turkey-coup-d%C3...

Moscow must be just laughing their asses off. They've been waiting decades - long before Putin - to have a better relationship with Turkey and now it gets handed to them on a platter. Or so it looks.

Are they still?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

It's not clear to me whether you are in agreement with Erdoğan, and his own view that he has the right to invade Syria and overthrow the elected President, or not. Maybe you could clear that up for me.

What Moscow does or doesn't think is of secondary importance here, don't you agree?

Martin N.

An elected President whose term expired when? In any case, an elected President who spends his time murdering his constituents is exceeding his mandate, is he not?

Martin N.

DP

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Turkey will require a constitutional amendment to continue the current State of Emergency past the six month limit. That will be in January. If passed, we can really then describe the "New Turkey" under wannabe Sultan Erdogan as a police state.

Turkey, that is to say, as a police state that invades neighbouring countries for domestic political reasons.

. What could be wrong with that?

swallow

Martin N. wrote:
An elected President whose term expired when?

Term due to expire in 2021, seven years after the last election.

Quote:
In any case, an elected President who spends his time murdering his constituents is exceeding his mandate, is he not?

That case could be made.

Time to invade Saudi Arabia, then.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I see that the Turkish Foreign Minister,  Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, has had a hurried meeting with his Russian counterpart. A quick statement about their "common" concern for fighting terrorism. Perhaps all the blovating by "Sultan" Erdogan was for domestic consumption only.

 

I don't really get why the Russians don't take a more "in your face" approach with Turkey. I guess someone has to be the adult in the room.

iyraste1313

Erdogan Says Turkey Faces ‘Economic Sabotage’ as Lira Plungesby Selcan HacaogluDecember 3, 2016 — 10:43 AM EST

  • Erdogan says financial markets in Turkey face speculation
  • Erdogan vows to keep fight against high interest rates

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday said his political enemies are trying to sabotage the economy by speculating on the stock market, foreign exchange rate and interest rates after failing to overthrow his administration in July.

The lira plunged to record lows over the past week even as Erdogan urged Turks to convert their foreign currency savings into liras and gold while vowing to keep up his fight against high interest rates........

.....they have a common enemy...global capitalism...forcing them to build a common economic infrastructure, and a new financial system....

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What we do know is the war has gone on longer with more deaths due to the interference from multiple countries.

What we have had is a number of countries claim the right to interfere but lack the wherewithal or commitment to do it decisively so instead they feed the violence so more die and more are displaced. The excuse that minor actions are somehow helpful have surely been disproven. The idea that a major action will help is not looking particularly good ...

I missed the nonsense part of this the first read through. You have, like all pro-NATO Western observers, completely ignored the fact that one country and one country only has the permission to participate in the defence of Syria against the terrorists. That is Russia. All other states have no such arrangement. They are invaders. Period. Furthermore, as such, their actions in Syria are war crimes, prima facie, since they act and presume to know better than Syria what's "good for Syria". In the case of the USA, they also "accidently" killed 62 (and wounded 100) SAA soldiers.

How convenient to ignore this simple truth. To you, all are to blame, and this claim made just when the monstrous terrorists are getting beaten to a pulp by the Syrian Arab Army and their Allies (primarily the Russian AF, but also Hezbollah and other militias, etc.) .

Truly, the barbarians here are the Western regimes. They should pay for the mess they've made. That's their "useful" contribution.

 

 

SeekingAPolitic...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/russian-ambassador-to-turkey-karlov-sho...

 

Russian ambassador shot in Turkey

The paper had a reporter at the event.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/world/europe/russia-ambassador-shot-an...

They have a picture.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/russian-ambassador-to-turkey-karlov-sho...

 

Russian ambassador shot in Turkey

The paper had a reporter at the event.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/world/europe/russia-ambassador-shot-an...

They have a picture.

 

I started a thread on this topic.

 

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What we do know is the war has gone on longer with more deaths due to the interference from multiple countries.

What we have had is a number of countries claim the right to interfere but lack the wherewithal or commitment to do it decisively so instead they feed the violence so more die and more are displaced. The excuse that minor actions are somehow helpful have surely been disproven. The idea that a major action will help is not looking particularly good ...

I missed the nonsense part of this the first read through. You have, like all pro-NATO Western observers, completely ignored the fact that one country and one country only has the permission to participate in the defence of Syria against the terrorists. That is Russia. All other states have no such arrangement. They are invaders. Period. Furthermore, as such, their actions in Syria are war crimes, prima facie, since they act and presume to know better than Syria what's "good for Syria". In the case of the USA, they also "accidently" killed 62 (and wounded 100) SAA soldiers.

How convenient to ignore this simple truth. To you, all are to blame, and this claim made just when the monstrous terrorists are getting beaten to a pulp by the Syrian Arab Army and their Allies (primarily the Russian AF, but also Hezbollah and other militias, etc.) .

Truly, the barbarians here are the Western regimes. They should pay for the mess they've made. That's their "useful" contribution.

 

 

Sorry I missed this garbage until now. You should correct your claim from simple to simplistic.

The leader of a country is not necessarily a representation of the will of the people of that country. To suggest they are, would be to defend interventions at the request of puppets throughout the entire cold war. The US has a long list of invitations to prop up leaders of various states whose governments, without US interference would have died a natural death at the hands of the people.

Your biased interpretation of legitimate authority to invite is a distinction not worth making. Any foreign power violently going into a country is interference and prolongs conflict.

Of course you know that my position is not that of a pro-NATO observer which is why you claim me to be one -- just becuase your post intends to infuriate rather than argue or explain. I have not defended NATO or Western governments here and you know it. You are yourself part of this post truth movement to avoid anything inconvenient from your own biases.

Interference is interference regardless as to whether it is at the invitation of a government that is losing control or an opposition trying to gain it. Both prolong war and lead to greater deaths and both distort any power differences on the ground. Neither reflects any kind of "will of the people" in the country. Neither has a greater claim to legitimacy or the interst of the people.

Your aggression in your post is just designed to cover up the reality that you are making a distinction that has no basis except in the eyes of the "invitor" and its allies. The pretence  of any kind of legitimacy is the lie you are selling here.

So let's get really blunt. Are you prepared to make your rule universal and sign your approval to every single intervention where the government -- no matter how illegitimate or lacking in popular approval -- has invited the intervention? Are you prepared to endorse every single US (or other imperialist) intervention whenever a side claiming to be a government has invited them?

If you are to endorse all of these, then you give up your anti-imperialist creds here. If not then you give up this bullshit line that an invitation from one party, that happens to head a government, becomes automatically a legitimate excuse for an imperial power to further its interests by getting involved in another state.

Your are completely full of it to suggest that my criticism of intervention is a defence of western governments or NATO, when their history of intervention is well known.

Now if you want to debate without the insults I am happy to but you need to get off your sanctimonious name-calling.

The Syrian war would have ended long ago -- on one side or another -- had foreign countries not intervened. I include them all becuase they have all fed the bloodshed. I have not defended one side against another -- it is you trying to do that. You are part of the problem defending an intervention. Your hypocrisy is the blood that flows through the heart of your line of argument in this thread whitewashed by the flimsy, pathetic invitation argument that nobody who is a true anti-imperialist has accepted at any point. Here you promote Russian imperialism becuase somehow you think it is a better brand of it.

Intervention is bad enough -- meddling just to keep a proxy war going killing more and more people, without a willingness to committ enough to end it is worse. But do not pretend that you have any moral ground to stand on by way of some invitation.

The only defence Russia has here may be that it is committing enough to end the war. But its intervention is still an intervention and designed for the interests of Russia not Syria. The good thing would be that the war end. That's it.

swallow

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Now if you want to debate without the insults I am happy to but you need to get off your sanctimonious name-calling.

Good luck with that request.