Turkish parliament authorizes military operations in Iraq

Great Debates
21

Whoa there. How did we get from “plenty of tension” to “cause for invasion”?

Hell, there are a lot of international relationships everywhere that are burdened with plenty of tension over some disputed point(s). Most of them carry on okay without sending troops over the border.

In what aspires to be a civilized world, attacking and invading another sovereign nation is supposed to be a last resort, requiring much more serious provocation than the mere existence of continued “tension”.

“Tension” is why we have diplomats. War is (supposed to be) for serious emergencies only.

22

So let me see if I have the Bush position right. If a neighbouring state is demonstrably hosting a terrorist organisation you can’t invade to do anything about it, but if a country half-way across the world is demonstrably not hosting a terrorist organisation, but would if you were to invade it, then it’s OK to invade. Got it.

23

[QUOTE=Tristan]
Their territory, mandated by the UN as a no fly zone for fixed wing aircraft, and patrolled by US and UK forces to enforce that UN mandate, which was imposed on Saddam by the UN.

The rules were, very plainly, don’t fly in these areas, and don’t act aggressively towards those that are enforcing the policies of the UN.

Targetting an aircraft with a SAM battery is pretty universally considered aggressive.

Does the fact that it was a UN Mandate change your bile at all?
[/QUOTE]

Would that this ignorant, cultural meme would finally go away. Can’t remember just how many times it has been debunked already. Og knows it was NEVER a sanctioned UN policy but rather a unilateral decision by the US, UK and France – with the latter withdrawing out of same a few years prior to the Bushit invasion:

Iraqi no-fly zones

Did the United Nations Authorize “No-Fly” Zones Over Iraq?

Doubts over Iraq air strikes

Action against Iraq ‘illegal’

Behind Enemy Lines No-Truth Zones Self-Imposed on U.S. Media

The Secret War on Iraq

The problem is that no UN resolution mandates or even approves of the NFZs. They were imposed solely by the participants and maintained by them only.

Tons more where these came from. So can we pleased stop with this particular brand of bullshit? Not like there aren’t a ton of other (false) reasons for having done what Bush did – but this one has even less justification than the WMds crap. And, by now, everyone knows that one had NONE. Or at least, they should, if any semblance of reality is to remain in their pro-invasion “arguments.”

Just stop. Really. We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance here, not promoting it. Bored shitless with this whole bloody sham and the fact
there are still some lame-ass supporters of same.
At the very least, get your Bushit straight…not that it can be done. But some coherence, as opposed to blind and mindless support might help.

Just don’t ask me where you can find either.

24

Turkey invades Iraq, we can pretty much kiss any idea of stability in the middle east for the next hundred years goodbye. I think Turkey knows it can’t possibly have any success in a military campaign against the Kurds, and the resolution is just a bunch of sabre rattling. They’re not idiots.

25

“Well, I’m sure the Austro-Hungarians are rather bent out of shape over this whole business, but war? Surely not. After all, they’re not stupid…”

“The Japanese are certainly belligerant little buggers, but attack the United States? That would be insane, and they’re not crazy…”

“Whaddaya mean, invade Grenada? A whole invasion for a pip-squeek little sea resort? C’mon, Reagan’s stupid, but he’s not insane…”

“The British will never go to war over the Falklands, its the Scotch who are queer for sheep, after all. The British are quite sensible…”

“Not to worry, have been talking to Ms Glaspie, US Ambassador, and she says no way they go to war over fucking Kuwait…”

26

Duplicate info.

27

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You seem to have forgotten all about the first gulf war. It was in all the papers. Maybe you’ve forgotten about shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone as well? I’m guessing the answer is…yes, you continently forgot that stuff.

Whether or not you think that things like the first gulf war or our patrolling in the no fly zone after the cease fire are right or not is irrelevant…there was plenty of tension between Iraq and the US prior to our second invasion. Much more cause than a Kurd chucking a rock at a Turkish border guard.

Not that the Turks don’t ALSO have plenty of reasons to go after the PKK…but again your hyperbolic bullshit doesn’t help your case much.
[/QUOTE]
Makes you wonder why they made up all that shit about WMDs and Saddam’s connections with Al Qaeda when they could’ve justified the invasion on the basis of the tension. And wasn’t it a relief when the tension was finally broken with war?

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
There’s no such thing as a “right” to invade a country. You either can do it, or you can’t. “Right” doesn’t factor in to it.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Speaking of making stuff up…

28

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Whoa there. How did we get from “plenty of tension” to “cause for invasion”?
[/QUOTE]

Let me put it another way. If I call you a bad name and another guy slaps you in the face, you probably have a bit more tension between you and him than you and me. Neither one of us has the right to shoot you with a gun however.

I was just responding to Der’s assertion that if some random Iraqi tossed a rock at a Turk that this would be more cause than the long history the US had with the old Iraqi regime. I wasn’t saying the US invasion was justified in any way, shape, or form…just trying to point to the hyperbole.

[QUOTE=buns3000]
Makes you wonder why they made up all that shit about WMDs and Saddam’s connections with Al Qaeda when they could’ve justified the invasion on the basis of the tension. And wasn’t it a relief when the tension was finally broken with war?
[/QUOTE]

Tension doesn not equal cause for war. We had no real cause for war except the UN resolutions…and even that was pretty shakey.

As for a relief when war broke out…I’m hoping you are being sarcastic here. In case you aren’t, I’d say it was a nightmare when war broke out…one for which we still haven’t woken up from.

-XT

29

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
There’s no such thing as a “right” to invade a country. You either can do it, or you can’t. “Right” doesn’t factor in to it.
[/QUOTE]

So it wasn’t more justified to attack Japan after Pearl Harbor than Iraq?

I hope that was hyperbole, because that might be the most degenerate statement I’ve heard on this board.

30

[QUOTE=elucidator]
That “shooting at our aircraft” thingy. What was it Rumsfeld said, something about over 700 times? And yet, they never hit anything. Does that strike you as rather, well, odd? Hell, XT, I could go out to the duck blind, get drunk as a skunk, blindfolded, take a .22 caliber pistol and if I fired over 700 times, bet you I could hit at least one duck. Or perhaps I am just overly suspicious, and lack your generous nature.
[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t really strike me as all that odd, no. I don’t think they hit many US aircraft in either the first gulf war or during the invasion either. What are you getting at here? That the government exaggerated about the ‘700 times’? I’ll buy that. That the government made the whole thing up? I’m not going to buy that, no. Not without some solid proof.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You know, these people have fibbed to us, every now and again. It was in all the papers.
[/QUOTE]

Well, when you say ‘these people’ you realize that a lot of those incidents in the no fly zone happened during Clinton’s administration, right? Essentially however I agree…‘these people’ (a.k.a. politicians) like to us all the time. As I said, I could very well believe that that ‘700 times’ figure is an exaggeration. But I don’t believe it was entirely made up. Not through 2 administrations.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
The Turks don’t appear to share your heartily jocular attitude. Pity.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps because unlike Der’s hyperbole, the PKK is actually doing a bit more than tossing rocks at the border guards? Just a thought.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
How happy you must be to be so free of such failings.
[/QUOTE]

You as well. Isn’t it nice to be living a clean, quasi-hyperbole free life? Clean mountain air? Granola? Low in saturated hyperbole. High in fiber.

-XT

31

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Turkey invades Iraq, we can pretty much kiss any idea of stability in the middle east for the next hundred years goodbye.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe that’s exactly what the PKK wants. Maybe they see instability as their only shot at independence.

32

I believe aiming a fire control RADAR at an aircraft is considered to be shooting at by the military. That may be what occurred rather than missile launches, machine gun fire or rock tosses. Someone with Air Force experience will certainly know better than I.

33

I don’t think we are talking about simply painting our air craft with targetting radar. I think they fired actual missiles. Doing a quick google search (I’m at work), I found a bunch of sites…but here is an article from CNN in 2001 talking about an actual missile being fired.

Gods know what they thought the would hit with an unguided missile (I’m guessing it was a radar guided missile and they turned off the radar guidance so the command site didn’t get slammed back before the missile reached the target). But there are tons of similar incidents if you do a google search that seem to indicate (to me) that, if it wasn’t 700 incidents it was more than zero.

-XT

34

FWIW, it is considered an act of war to invade a sovereign nation’s airspace – moreover drop bombs on them. And, since once again, for those who don’t seem to get it, it was a Tri-lateral decision lead by the US that was never endorsed by the UN. Victor’s spoils if you will. And yes, good ol’ Bill certainly did it too. Guess it became kind of a presidential hobby to bomb Iraq.

That Iraq threw their Fred Flinstone air-defenses at the attacking aircrft hardly seems surprising – as does the fact that they never hit anything.

OTOH, witness the start of “Shock and Awe,” where there were likely more planes than birds over the skies of Baghdad and yet there wasn’t a single hit with ALL of Iraq’s anti-aircraft defenses furiously at work.

Point being they never had the equipment nor the range – along with the velocity - to endanger US aircraft.

35

12 Years of Diplomacy

If that’s US “diplomacy,” I think we can well understand their meaning o “bringing democracy to the ME”…

36

Edit won’t work. That should be “understand their meaning OF bringing diplomacy to the ME…”

37

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
There’s no such thing as a “right” to invade a country. You either can do it, or you can’t. “Right” doesn’t factor in to it.
[/QUOTE]

There is moral high ground though. Invading Japan in 1945 /= invading Cuba in 1898

38

While it is true that the UN did not explicitly authorize the US to enforce the “No Fly Zone”, such authorization was covered by a signing statement appended by The Leader, pursuant to his authority.

39

[QUOTE=elucidator]
such authorization was covered by a signing statement appended by The Leader, pursuant to his authority.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think there was any signing statement involved in either Bush I or Clinton’s actions. I believe it was covered in the ceasefire agreement with UN arbitration. I could be wrong though. Do you have a cite for this signing statement authority by Bush I or Clinton?

-XT

40

When you whooosh upon a star…