Turkey Syria invade law

51 posts

Flag Post

turkey finally got a law which will make it able for them to invade syria and replace the evil shia government with a peaceful and stabile government. but it can only work if the europeans and americans help turkey too. shall we help them to liberate the syrian population?

 
Flag Post

Here is a source for the few remaining SD members who actually read the background of a story before taking a stance on it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19830928

The UN has met with Syrian representatives and have been assured such an event [the shelling of Akcakale] will not happen again.

Further more NATO have met in an emergency meeting and warned Syria about aggression against an Ally

US, UK, France and the EU have condemned Syria’s actions. Syrian ally Russia has requested an official acknowledgement that such an accident will not occur again.

For anyone who doesn’t know what has been happening in Syria, there is a summary here of the events since March 2011

Russia and China have both vetoed UN resolutions involving direct action

 
Flag Post

dude, read my sentences before telling me that i dont know the background of a story. they agreed with a motion which will make it possible for them to attack syria if they think its necessary.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rolby:

dude, read my sentences before telling me that i dont know the background of a story. they agreed with a motion which will make it possible for them to attack syria if they think its necessary.

Yes and I never said that such a bill had not been passed.

The information was not there only for you, but for anyone who views the thread who may not of been keeping upto date with the events in Syria. It is common practice when starting a rational debate to include some background information, preferably as unbiased as possible.

 
Flag Post

This has got nothing to do with Turkey replacing the Syrian government and liberating the people. It’s about Turkey assuming the right to launch pre-emptive stikes against Syria. That doesn’t mean they are about to do it; for the moment it’s just a bit of sabre rattling, and the Turks have expressed their preference for dealing with this shelling incident diplomatically. The bill that they have passed is just an extension of an existing bill allowing them to attack Kurdish guerillas in northern Iraq.

The Syrians have backed down and apologised for the incident, probably on instructions from the Russians. They already have enough problems of their own already without starting a war with a member of NATO. If anyone is hoping for a NATO invasion of Syria, you’re in for a very long wait.

 
Flag Post

Direct military action against Syria? No. Syria as our ally wouldn’t really impact us as much as Russia as an enemy. I think that we could possibly send a fleet to the Mediterranean to blockade the country, while still bringing in supplies to the rebels, and also send in some military personnel to western Iraq to prevent any spill-over hostilities.

The Syrians have backed down and apologised for the incident, probably on instructions from the Russians. They already have enough problems of their own already without starting a war with a member of NATO. If anyone is hoping for a NATO invasion of Syria, you’re in for a very long wait.

Honestly were it not for Russia’s decision to back the standing Syrian government, I think we would’ve handled this similar to how we handled Libya.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rolby:

turkey finally got a law which will make it able for them to invade syria and replace the evil shia government with a peaceful and stabile government. but it can only work if the europeans and americans help turkey too. shall we help them to liberate the syrian population?

Yeah, we should help liberate Syria just like we did in Afghanistan!
Lets give their people freedom!

 
Flag Post

Is Turkey going to be on the citizens’ side or on the Syrian government’s side?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Is Turkey going to be on the citizens’ side or on the Syrian government’s side?

They will be on rebel side

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Direct military action against Syria? No. Syria as our ally wouldn’t really impact us as much as Russia as an enemy. I think that we could possibly send a fleet to the Mediterranean to blockade the country, while still bringing in supplies to the rebels, and also send in some military personnel to western Iraq to prevent any spill-over hostilities.

The Syrians have backed down and apologised for the incident, probably on instructions from the Russians. They already have enough problems of their own already without starting a war with a member of NATO. If anyone is hoping for a NATO invasion of Syria, you’re in for a very long wait.

Honestly were it not for Russia’s decision to back the standing Syrian government, I think we would’ve handled this similar to how we handled Libya.

Putin doesn’t take any crap.
He’ll consider that the same thing as invading the country- the end result is the same, after all.
Which will leave him with just Iran in the Middle East, and that’s not going to be good for anyone.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 1132:

Putin doesn’t take any crap.
He’ll consider that the same thing as invading the country- the end result is the same, after all.
Which will leave him with just Iran in the Middle East, and that’s not going to be good for anyone.

I don’t think he’d risk getting into a war with the US over us supporting the Syrian rebels. It’d be a massive shit in our diplomatics, but war effects both sides, ya know?

 
Flag Post

the only reason russia is on syrias side is that russia wants more influence in the middle east, and cuz they want to sell weapons to assad. if america would help the rebels, russia would stop. they dont want to get in another war. turkey supports the rebels cuz they want a pro-turk government in syria, but they cant do it alone. so they kill their own soldiers and say syria did it. cuz they need the help of usa and europe.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rolby:

the only reason russia is on syrias side is that russia wants more influence in the middle east, and cuz they want to sell weapons to assad. if america would help the rebels, russia would stop. they dont want to get in another war. turkey supports the rebels cuz they want a pro-turk government in syria, but they cant do it alone. so they kill their own soldiers and say syria did it. cuz they need the help of usa and europe.

Do you have evidence for any of those claims? Specially the one about Turkey killing their own people.

 
Flag Post

According to this analysis Turkish armed forces rank no. 6 in the world, Syria ranks at no. 35. So on the face of it, Turkey wouldn’t need too much help to sort the Syrians out, especially as the Syrians would be fighting their own population at the same time.

Turkey doesn’t need to invent some pretext to start a war with Syria. All it needs to do is turn the taps off. They did it in 1989, and a Syrian threat of war was almost immediate.

 
Flag Post

@dd790, i didnt say they were doing that. i said that its possible that they did that.

@beauval, turkey cant just attack syria. if they do, the kurds will attack all at once, cuz the turkish armies are in syria. and then iraq and iran (which are angry at turkey for a few reason) will help the kurds by providing them weapons and more soldiers. so it wont be a good idea for the turks to attack syria.

 
Flag Post

@1132

russia isnt strong enough to beat the whole middle east. if turkey, egypt and maybe iran will work together, which they will probably do if russia attacks a muslim country, they will defeat russia with ease.

 
Flag Post

I’m obviously not making this clear. The biggest weapon in that part of the world is water. The Tigris and the Euphrates rise in Turkey, and it controls both of them. By closing off the dams, Turkey is quite capable of bringing Syria to its knees in a matter of days without firing a shot. And Iraq for that matter. The fact that it is actually supplying more water than agreed does rather suggest that the Turks are not interested in a war.

And they are most definitely not interested in a war with Russia. Both sides have been working hard in recent years to improve relations. They have extensive trade and energy deals to protect, including a nuclear power plant. And the Kurds are a nuisance to Turkey, they don’t have enough fighters to constitute a threat to Turkish national security.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:


And they they don’t have enough fighters to constitute a threat to Turkish national security.

the south-east of turkey is full of kurds, and the pkk (kurdish terrorist party) sort of rules the south-east of turkey. they have a lot of weed and stuff there and the turkish armies cant stop them. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-293298-pkk-runs-major-illegal-drug-trade-in-turkeys-southeast.html terrorist kurds in north of syria now sort of ‘rule’ the north of syria since assads armies have left that area. so if most turkish soldiers will be in syria, it will be easy for the terrorists to expand their territory. in other words: they are with enough men.

 
Flag Post

I was with some Turkish friends earlier tonight, and the situation regarding Syria was discussed at length. I obviously have no citations for the following, they are just opinions, but they come from within Turkey:-

Almost nobody in Turkey has any desire for military action against Syria, but the Turkish government is under pressure from America to intervene on behalf of the rebels. Opposition to war is particularly strong in the border regions, where many families live on both sides. A war would lead to family members fighting and killing each other. Bearing in mind the history of their own civil war, this is something that Americans should be able to relate to very readily.

While Turkey has the ultimate weapon in its dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, it is bending over backwards to avoid a conflict about water distribution. The last time they closed the dams, it united bitter enemies Syria and Iraq against Turkey in a matter of a few days. Turkey does not want that to happen again.

The Kurds are not a threat to Turkish sovreignty. While they can make trouble for years to come, they are no match for the Turkish armed forces, either in manpower or weaponry. So the Kurdish question is very much a sideshow in the ongoing power struggle.

Assad wants out. They were adamant that if the decision was his, he would hold a free election and walk away if he lost (which is a foregone conclusion). But he is under pressure from the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese to stay put. China in particular has a potentially troublesome Islamic population of its own, and is worried that the influence of the Arab spring will spread. While his father had a military background in the airforce, Assad junior is a doctor. He has no feel for the military ethos, and is out of his depth. He is also a shia in charge of a predominately sunni country, which is unfortunately a reason for Iran to want him to remain in power. He is Iran’s main ally in the region, and also acts as a channel for Iranian weapons destined for Hezbollah groups in Lebanon. Religious alliances are much more important in the middle east than they are in the west.

What America thinks about all this is of little consequence. It is already at loggerheads with Russia over American troops stationed in Georgia, and would do well not to aggravate that situation. And it is almost universally unpopular in the region. So the problem for Assad is to find a successor who is acceptable not only to Russia and Iran, but to his own military as well. That’s a tough one. Meanwhile he remains beleagured in Damascus, very likely on the wrong side in a civil war.

 
Flag Post

An impressive analysis of the situation. It’s rather irrelevant, but give thanks to your friends for providing such an illuminating view, especially of Assad’s state of mind.

 
Flag Post

there’s an easy solution regarding Kurds: grant them their secession. any refusal of secession is a form of oppression, and i advocate the right to secession be adopted in the universal Human Rights.

as for Syria, at this point, no country would benifit from intervening in Syria so no one does. but don’t you see the implication? the people of Iraq were only sortof assumed to want the US and the allies they hoped would be and pretended were with them to intervene. but they were largely quite skeptical and devided.

the people of Syria clearly want us to, and yet we do nothing.

next time any invasive army wants to justify themselves by saying “the people here want us to, so we’re just being the good guys in giving them…” blabla, everyone will know they’re lying.

@beauval:
you’re saying that Russia somehow stops Syria from having democratic elections, and that the evil Syrian government is just a puppet to the Russian government?

these are very serious allegations.

anyway, i hope the pending WW3 is going to come. isn’t it a great solution to our overpopulation? i say let it rip.

 
Flag Post
According to this analysis Turkish armed forces rank no. 6 in the world, Syria ranks at no. 35.

hmmm. this list if you inspect is really strange. The Netherlands (country of almost 17 miillion) is not on there, but Qatar (almost 2 million) is. (i just checked around, the Netherlands has 6 times the personel, and over 10 times the military spending as Qatar)

but then, all they rate is quantities, not qualities. this also means that Turkey’s 6th place doesn’t have to mean anything.

 
Flag Post

@omegadoom

maybe u dont know, but netherlands ( the country i live in) gives almost no money to the army anymore, cuz were in a crisis. thats probably the reason y were not in it.

+ turkey has given the kurds a lot of things already. turkey has a tv-channel which provides 24 hours long kurdish programs. kurdish is even going to be taught at schools.
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=283287 if some people from scotland would want secession, would england give it to them? no. the same counts to the kurds. the kurds want way too much soil. the turks will never give them secession.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think Russia is stopping elections in Syria, quite the opposite in fact. They understand that an election of some kind is probably the only way to begin bringing the situation under control. But they are concerned about who is going to succeed Assad’s regime. Syria is Russia’s only ally in the region, and they are understandably anxious to hang on to that alliance. Assad has no real interest in talking to the west, but he does listen to the Russians, who have been Syria’s ally since the fifties. For the moment at least, Russia wants Assad to stay put, because for them there is no alternative candidate on the horizon. The same goes for Iran- a sunni government would disrupt their plans for influence in the region.

In a perfect world, any potential successor needs to satisfy the Russians. But he would also need to calm fears in Turkey, he would need to satisfy the Iranians, who have been long time supporters of the current regime, and he would need to be sufficiently different from Assad to convince the disparate rebel groups in Syria that change was actually going to happen. In other words, a very special comprmise candidate needs to be found. My feeling is that compromise is the only way forward, and that the Russians, Turks, Iranians and all the different interested parties in Syria need to get around a very large conference table and start talking to each other. It is going to be a long process, so the sooner they start the sooner the world can see some positive results. I don’t see a place for the west in all this, especially the Americans, who never seem to be happy unless some clone of their own version of democracy is being imposed on other countries. That would be the worst of all possible solutions. The west could try being a bit more friendly towards Syria, but it must be allowed to work out its own future.

As for the Kurds, they are spread all over the region, in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Caucasus, Lebanon and Afghanistan, to name a few. There are substantial populations all over Europe, notably in Germany. It reminds me somewhat of the jewish diaspora, and giving them their own country didn’t work out too well. If a new Kurdistan is to be established, it will mean other countries giving up territory to allow it to happen. Do you really see that as an easy solution?

but then, all they rate is quantities, not qualities. this also means that Turkey’s 6th place doesn’t have to mean anything.

I didn’t check the figures for accuracy, but did assume that they would represent something approximating the truth. Nevertheless, Turkey’s armed forces are very substantial.

 
Flag Post

if some people from scotland would want secession, would england give it to them? no.

The answer is actually almost certainly yes. It’s a bit of a legal and constitutional quagmire, but Scotland is due to hold a referendum on the issue in 2 years time. If the separatists can get a majority, then Scotland is very likely to get its independence, although the Scots do want a lot of ties to remain.

Personally, I would be a lot happier about it if Scotland offered to give us our money back, together with three hundred years worth interest. FYI, England never conquered Scotland, we bought it after a disastrous Scottish attempt at empire building.