Should Turkey be allowed to enter Iraq after PKK Separatists ?

Mr.Micro

In the news to-day ,Turkey seeking a green light for incursions into northern Iraq in pursuit of PKK (Kurdish separatists).As the US appears to allow a pre emptive strike policy in the region for Israel is Turkey right to do the same (if it chooses to act in the future) ,despite US opposition to this proposed action. I think it should not be allowed to enter Iraq as this will make matters worse and possibly escalate a very bad situation in Iraq and the possibly the wider middle east.

purple'n'gold

I think if Turkey wants to have a few incursions into northern Iraq they should go right ahead. There is little chance of the USA doing anything about it. What are they going to do? Fight the Turkish army? Invade Turkey? I don’t think so.

Manic Moran

Wonder what Iraq's stance is on this? Could do wonders for national unity if a unit of the IA defended the country against an incursion.

NTM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

mm, if the majority of the 'turkish' kurds want autonomy, turkey oughta respect that. but what they oughta do and they will do aren't likely to intersect.

wouldn't be good for iraq's one success story though.

Mr.Micro

Mordeth wrote: »

mm, if the majority of the 'turkish' kurds want autonomy, turkey oughta respect that. but what they oughta do and they will do aren't likely to intersect.

wouldn't be good for iraq's one success story though.

No . The real reason is possibly that the region around the area that want autonomy is rich in oil and the Turks do not want to lose this valuable resource on its doorstep to an independent Kurdish nation.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i'm sure they don't, but if the people of the region wan't it, for whatever reason. ... *shrug*

i'm not discussing politics or anything here, the question was 'should turkey be allowed' so I'm just saying 'no, not in my opinion'.

gurramok

Surely an uninvited(Iraq dont want it) incursion is an act of aggression under international law and violating Iraq's sovereignty?

Anyone to clarify this?

It would be similar in analogy to UK troops attacking Dundalk(pick random town here!) to chase and terminate the Real IRA terrorists for atrocities committed on UK soil?

Of course the UK wouldn't do that as it would violate our sovereignty and wouldn't be acceptable under international law!

Manic Moran

There's an argument that can be made that if a country is incapable of policing its own territory, that other countries can be permitted to conduct operations in it. This is the reason the Irish Naval Service did a rush purchase of PT boats in the Emergency: Without them, belligerent countries would have been quite entitled to sail into Irish waters.

NTM

moe_sizlak

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's an argument that can be made that if a country is incapable of policing its own territory, that other countries can be permitted to conduct operations in it. This is the reason the Irish Naval Service did a rush purchase of PT boats in the Emergency: Without them, belligerent countries would have been quite entitled to sail into Irish waters.

NTM

a more recent example of what youve said here is israels incursions into lebannon last yr to tackle hezbollah due to the fact that beiruit couldnt deal with hezbollah firing rockets into israel

wes

No, they should talk to the Kurds. If the Kurds want to separate from Turkey, they should put it to a vote or negotiate some form of autonomy or some other solution. Continued violence will only make things worse and the current catastrophe in Iraq doesn't need to get any worse.

jonny72

International law? sovereignty?

So what? you can do whatever the hell you want now to deal with 'terrorists'..

If the Turks do choose military action they'd better be smart about it or they'll just get dragged further and further into Northern Iraq..

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wonder what Iraq's stance is on this? Could do wonders for national unity if a unit of the IA defended the country against an incursion.

NTM

You mean the US' stance don't you?

sovtek

moe_sizlak wrote: »

a more recent example of what youve said here is israels incursions into lebannon last yr to tackle hezbollah due to the fact that beiruit couldnt deal with hezbollah firing rockets into israel

That's kinda the egg before the chicken scenario there.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's an argument that can be made that if a country is incapable of policing its own territory, that other countries can be permitted to conduct operations in it. This is the reason the Irish Naval Service did a rush purchase of PT boats in the Emergency: Without them, belligerent countries would have been quite entitled to sail into Irish waters.

NTM

What country? Iraq? It was well able to police it's own territory pre 2003. Actually an argument could be made that since Iraq is occupied by an invading military all bets are off and anyone can attack anyone for what ever lazy logic they care to use. Following that anyone can attack the US or UK and even Ireland.

jonny72

sovtek wrote: »

What country? Iraq? It was well able to police it's own territory pre 2003. Actually an argument could be made that since Iraq is occupied by an invading military all bets are off and anyone can attack anyone for what ever lazy logic they care to use. Following that anyone can attack the US or UK and even Ireland.

I think its more accurate to say that the world has to play by the West's rules now.. actually thats more or less the same thing anyway..

Its is also utterly true to say that the Iraqi government is a total American puppet and almost completely impotent, just look at the blackwater case..

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

It would be similar in analogy to UK troops attacking Dundalk(pick random town here!) to chase and terminate the Real IRA terrorists for atrocities committed on UK soil?

The difference being that Ireland was actively helping the UK in tracking down thoses terrorists. If Iraq does not have the ability, or the inclination, to do this then Turkey have to defend themselves somehow.

I'm surprised the Americans aren't putting pressure on the Kurds to stop this.

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Surely an uninvited(Iraq dont want it) incursion is an act of aggression under international law and violating Iraq's sovereignty?

There is no such animal as a sovereign Iraq these days.

Mr.Micro

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's an argument that can be made that if a country is incapable of policing its own territory, that other countries can be permitted to conduct operations in it. This is the reason the Irish Naval Service did a rush purchase of PT boats in the Emergency: Without them, belligerent countries would have been quite entitled to sail into Irish waters.

NTM

With respect, such reasoning I feel is extremely subjective ,in that its like having a bad neighbour and you decide its time for action and take the law into your own hands.Such a decision acting unilaterally is often bias and subjective as all sorts of reasons can be used to justify an incursion. Who is to say that the Kurds do not have a cause ?Turkey is certainly not going to listen or look at the matter in a fair and sympathetic manner no more than Russia will allow the Chechnyans their free state.

Manic Moran

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With respect, such reasoning I feel is extremely subjective ,in that its like having a bad neighbour and you decide its time for action and take the law into your own hands.Such a decision acting unilaterally is often bias and subjective as all sorts of reasons can be used to justify an incursion. Who is to say that the Kurds do not have a cause ?Turkey is certainly not going to listen or look at the matter in a fair and sympathetic manner no more than Russia will allow the Chechnyans their free state.

That attacks are being launched on one country from another is not a subjective issue. If the Kurds in Iraq have a cause of action agaisnt Turkey, one would prefr that they take it up by other methods. If they choose to take up the force of arms method (which isn't, in itself, automatically wrong), then it is reasonable to expect a force of arms response, not protected simply by the convention that they're on the other side of an unenforced border.

NTM

Mr.Micro

Manic Moran wrote: »

That attacks are being launched on one country from another is not a subjective issue. If the Kurds in Iraq have a cause of action agaisnt Turkey, one would prefr that they take it up by other methods. If they choose to take up the force of arms method (which isn't, in itself, automatically wrong), then it is reasonable to expect a force of arms response, not protected simply by the convention that they're on the other side of an unenforced border.

NTM

Again its a border we are talking about to another sovernign state ,thats the major point.Borders exist as you will agree for a reason.The whole convention of respect of international borders then comes into question and any excuse may be used for incursions in the name of pre-emptive action.Just say Iran decided that a neighbour was a threat to its border and acted what then ?I would rather not see states going it alone .

Manic Moran

Well, in any case it seems the Iraqi government has said "go ahead", so it's a bit of a moot point.

NTM

Mr.Micro

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, in any case it seems the Iraqi government has said "go ahead", so it's a bit of a moot point.

NTM

Call me cynical but the Iraqi government does as its told by uncle Sam and Turkey was /is an ally with regard to Iraq invasion .

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, in any case it seems the Iraqi government has said "go ahead", so it's a bit of a moot point.

NTM

Last I heard the US were supporting the PKK (PJAK, anti-Iranian operations), the whole thing stinks of hypocrisy as usual.

Things are never black and white, many conflicting interests going on.

lostexpectation

what if kurdish religious men in turkey and iraq started holding demostrations blocking streets in ankara and kikurk for their deomcratic country would we all be cheering them on and asking china to do something about it?

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Iraq does not have the ability, or the inclination, to do this then Turkey have to defend themselves somehow.

I'm surprised the Americans aren't putting pressure on the Kurds to stop this.

Defend themselves from people they have oppressed and brutalised for years? Perhaps if Turkey was not a militaristic, jingoistic state trying to suppress the Kurds in their own country then they wouldn't have any "defending" to do in the first place.

Victor

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Again its a border we are talking about to another sovernign state ,thats the major point.Borders exist as you will agree for a reason.The whole convention of respect of international borders then comes into question and any excuse may be used for incursions in the name of pre-emptive action.

International law states that you have to enforce your neutrality in a dispute.

mike65

From what I can tell it looks like the PKK are deliberatly 'tempting' the Turks to cross the border to create a conflagration.

Mike.

Mr.Micro

mike65 wrote: »

From what I can tell it looks like the PKK are deliberatly 'tempting' the Turks to cross the border to create a conflagration.

Mike.

Yes I would say you are right .It would get the PKK position on the map and they might see it as a way to get their objectives by open confrontation with Turkey .

the_syco

Turkey wanted to do this a few months back. Doing it now will be like Germany invading Russia in WW2: their gear will get stuck in the mud. If they wait till spring, they'd have more of a chance.

The US can't do much. As much as they want to keep Turkey out, they need Turkey to land their planes in, etc.

Also, the b|tch (who hopes to be elected in the next election) back in the US has been blaming Turkey for the Armenian Genocide, which is one reason why Turkey isn't giving a sh|t what the US says, and plans to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq.

Heck, even some of the US marines are saying they want to get the f**k out, and concentrate on Afghanistan.

gurramok

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes I would say you are right .It would get the PKK position on the map and they might see it as a way to get their objectives by open confrontation with Turkey .

Yes, exactly.

Kurds(the 10million or so) are not even a recognised ethnic group in Turkey which is disgraceful itself

Perfect time for them to up the ante while its all over the news bulletins. It'll inform people as to who these PKK people are and where they came from and what their cause is even if they are labelled a terror group.

lostexpectation

apparently the pkk have offered a conditional ceasefire

sovtek

the_syco wrote: »

Heck, even some of the US marines are saying they want to get the f**k out, and concentrate on Afghanistan.

Actually the majority of them want out of Iraq yesterday full stop.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Dave!

It seems they've gone and launched a small offensive:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1354608620071024?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish warplanes and ground troops attacked Kurdish rebel positions just inside northern Iraq between Sunday and Tuesday evening, military sources told Reuters on Wednesday.

The warplanes flew as deep as 20 km (13 miles) into Iraqi territory and some 300 ground troops advanced about 10 km, killing 34 rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the sources said.

They made clear these were small sorties of a kind that Turkish forces have been known to conduct in the past across the mountainous border, not a large-scale offensive that U.S. and Iraqi authorities are trying to avert.

"Further 'hot pursuit' raids into northern Iraq can be expected, though none have taken place so far today (Wednesday)," a military official said, adding that all Turkish troops involved in the operations were now back in Turkey.