Countries unite to oppose Turkey's Syria operation

  
Via:  it-is-me  •  2 weeks ago  •  46 comments

Countries unite to oppose Turkey's Syria operation
"Civilians and civilian infrastructure should be protected."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Governments across the world joined in condemning Turkey's military incursion into northeastern Syria as the conflict ran into its second day . 

The European Union's foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini

U.N. spokesperson Farhan Haq for U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab

Italy's Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio 

Egypt's foreign ministry

The assistant secretary general of the Arab League, Hossam Zaki

Saudi Arabia

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Iran's Foreign Ministry

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

Japan's foreign minister, Toshimitsu Motegi

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
It Is ME
1  seeder  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

So what are they ALL going to do about it ?

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  It Is ME @1    2 weeks ago

Yup, no US to do the heavy lifting so the world is tapping out.

I can understand the Russians. They are courting Turkey hard and trying to peel them off of NATO. I am not even sure they didn't tell Turkey to take the northern part of Syria. Russia has no interest there; and w/o Russian backing no way in hell can Syria stop Turkey.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    2 weeks ago
Yup, no US to do the heavy lifting so the world is tapping out.

The "Left" in this world seem to love "Talking".....the "Left" always praises "Talking"....but when Trump says it's time to go and start "Talking"....the "Left" goes ballistic.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
ballistic.

Bad word choice.  Ballistic would indicate aggressiveness and having a set of balls.  I'd suggest psychotic instead.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.3  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Ballistic would indicate aggressiveness and having a set of balls.  I'd suggest psychotic instead.

Ooops….sorry. Forgot about their "Feelings" requirement ! jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @1    2 weeks ago
So what are they ALL going to do about it ?

They are going to leap into action-- and do not one but two things:

1. Issue statements "urging all parties to show restraint"!

2. Call meetings to discuss the seriousness of the situation.

And-- this is a pretty radical move that should only be undertaken after serious consideration-- if the situation gets much worse they may ask the UN to call a session to discuss the situation!

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.2    2 weeks ago

They are going to leap into action-- and do not one but two things:

1. Issue statements "urging all parties to show restraint"!

2. Call meetings to discuss the seriousness of the situation.

But the Trump administration is actually going to do something substantial! 

In order to keep his campaign promise to "stop the endless wars in the Middle East", he is going to start moving troops from other countries as well! 

Defense Secretary   Mark Esper    ordered the deployment of 3,000 service members , two fighter squadrons, one air expeditionary wing, two Patriot Missile batteries and one THAAD missile defense system, Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman said.  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-admin-sending-thousands-more-troops-to-saudi-arabia/ar-AAIDNjl

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

So? Are they going to be attacked in Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia involved in some massive proxy civil war? Is Saudi Arabia a stable country where we have a permanent military base?

If you can't tell the difference between sending troops to Saudi Arabia, and having them entrenched in Syria- I don't know what to tell you.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.3  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
So? Are they going to be attacked in Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia involved in some massive proxy civil war? Is Saudi Arabia a stable country where we have a permanent military base?

It's quite possible that our troops will be attacked in SA. Perhaps you missed the reasoning behind our further involvement in SA. The reason that we are sending additional troops, fighter squadrons and missle defense systems are that SA has been attacked and are themselves are involved in a proxy war with Iran which is known as the Houthi's in Yemen. 

I don't know how stable they are when in the last attack half they're oil production was knocked out. 

But, it is imperative that the US help defend one of the great democracies of the world. Their human rights record is second to none. /s

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.4  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Krishna @1.2    2 weeks ago

You should start harping on the No-Go countries....and stop thinking this country should do EVERYTHING on this planet to make the No-Go countries safe. Time they kept things safe in their part of the world.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
Is Saudi Arabia involved in some massive proxy civil war?

Yes. 

Sheesh-- don't you ever read the news? 

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.6  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @1.2.3    one week ago

No,it is imperative the US defend the world's oil supply, and an ally that actually has real estate and assets to protect. 

The world still runs on oil; no matter how badly the left pretend and want it to be otherwise.

Kurdistan doesn't exist, period.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @1.2.5    one week ago

I know all about Yemen. You can thank the previous moron in chief Obama for that one as well. He didn't take a look at the problems his actions would cause when conducting the war on terror. 

He did a great job of crippling ISIS/ISIL; but completely ignored the Iranian back Houthi. He also didn't support a pro Western government in Yemen. When the Houthi came took over Obama dropped the ball.

Simple question, do you support the Iranian backed Houthi that seized power from a pro Western government; or do you support Saudi Arabia who is trying to bring that government back to power? Saudi Arabia is our ally; and our proxy in the fight. Unless you want US troops in Yemen?

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.8  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.6    one week ago
The world still runs on oil; no matter how badly the left pretend and want it to be otherwise.

Point out where I said that the world didn't run on oil....Can't do it, can you?

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.9  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @1.2.8    one week ago

I also answered your questions in your first comment. Regarding danger to US troops, proxy war etc. 

Now you tellin me there is no Kurdistan. I didn't say there was. My point now and in the past comments is that we should not abandon the Kurds. It's simple as that.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.10  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.7    one week ago
I know all about Yemen

Another "Endless Middle eastern War"!

So-- what do you think we should do about that?

Trump is sending our kids to die over there!

US To Send 3,000 Troops To Saudi Arabia

The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @1    2 weeks ago

Nothing

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago
Nothing

Normal for the rest !

Maybe we could "Push" them in the right direction again, like Trump is doing now ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  seeder  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

Maybe they can ALL talk more, and maybe get together in a meeting to talk even more than before, and that will solve the problem ?

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  It Is ME @2    2 weeks ago

If it doesn't I am sure they will organize another meeting to find out why the previous meetings didn't work.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 weeks ago
If it doesn't I am sure they will organize another meeting to find out why the previous meetings didn't work.

If the U.S. re-steps in "Hard", they'll have a meeting to "Condemn" the U.S. for stepping in "Hard" to stop what they themselves "Condemn" now ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 weeks ago
If it doesn't I am sure they will organize another meeting to find out why the previous meetings didn't work.

Good guess.   One might surmise they took a page from our play book.

Have a meeting to review the minutes of the last meeting which was to set the agenda for the next meeting, discuss the previous meeting and adjourn until the next meeting.

Or in layman terms, wash, rinse, repeat.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

LOL.  AGAIN you made me laugh.  You're a good guy to have around.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Interesting that only Israel expressed direct support for the Kurds.  The others seem more concerned about protecting the status quo in the region.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 weeks ago

It shouldn't be surprising.

Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey is being courted hard by Russia. Turkey is making nice with Russia. NATO is getting very nervous.

Turkey has 3.6 million Syrian refugees wanting to head into Europe. Europe doesn't want them. Turkey has threatened to release them all. EU is watching it's tone as not to offend Turkey too much.

Russia, China, and Iran are all supporting Syria. Nobody cares about Syria; but Russia and China are world powers. Russia has shown they are ready to support Assad militarily, economically, and politically. Syria is not worth the rest of the world's effort. Might as well make Russia and China a little happier than they are now. Iran is doing everything in it's power to get the EU to restart sanctions; but EU is more happy with new trading power. If letting Iran get nuclear weapons; and expand it's control on the ME isn't deterring the EU; then Syria is definitely not worth the trouble.

There is no Kurdistan. NATO and EU have no interest in fighting a war to create a Kurdistan. Nor spending the money to sustain it economically, militarily, and politically. There will never be a Kurdistan. 

They are letting the Kurds know this politely.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    2 weeks ago
Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey is being courted hard by Russia. Turkey is making nice with Russia. NATO is getting very nervous.

Turkey controls Russian naval access to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus.  Turkey holds the aces until Russia attempts to annex Turkey.  Erdogan's incursion into northern Syria may have opened a door that allows Russia to do that.  If Assad declares war on Turkey because of 'invasion' then Russia has free reign to subdue Turkey militarily.

Turkey is dragging NATO into Syria whether Europe likes it or not.  Any escalation in Syria will result in a direct military conflict between NATO and Russia.  And Trump has given a clear signal that the United States won't be there.

There is no Kurdistan. NATO and EU have no interest in fighting a war to create a Kurdistan. Nor spending the money to sustain it economically, militarily, and politically. There will never be a Kurdistan.

Erdogan's plans to relocate Syrian refugees to northern Syria ensures there will never be a Kurdistan.  The Kurds claim the southeastern quarter of Turkey as their territory; the head waters of the Euphrates lies in what the Kurds claim as Kurdistan.  The Kurds want to control water in the region across southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, and western Iran.  Water is power in the Middle East, not oil.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
Turkey controls Russian naval access to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus. 

Incidentally there's really only one reason Russia is in Syria.

Sure, its great to have another friendly (to Russia) country. But while Turkey controls the Bosphorus (and therefore Russian access to the Meditteranean), Turkey used to use Egypt as a naval base, Egypt used to be "in the Soviet sphere of influence" but since it no longer is, the Egyptians needed another Meditteranean port.

So they Ruusians went into Syria (and propped up the Assad gov't so they'd have a friendly gov't there). Why? So that they could have a naval base at Tartus!

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
Turkey is dragging NATO into Syria whether Europe likes it or not

Which NATO countries, specifically, has Turkey dragged into Syria?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Yes, Russia also gained an air field and military base in Syria. They have Obama to thank for everything. Obama made it clear he supported the Kurds and "moderate' Sunni rebels. He put troops in their areas to prevent Syria from bombing them; and then allowed the rebels to take previously ISIS/ISIL controlled areas over.

Assad had no choice but to cave to Russian demands. 

Of course all of Obama's actions were illegal according to international law; but the media just ignored that detail completely.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.5  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
Assad had no choice but to cave to Russian demands. 

No choice?

Good grief!

Don't you think that the fact that the Russian military's constantly attacking Assad's enemies might have something to do with it? (terror groups that are trying to overthrow Assad). 

And then there are all the weapons he's getting...

No choice???

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.1.5    one week ago

You obviously can't read.

Obama was backing the Kurds and "moderate" Sunni rebels. They weren't just fighting ISIS/ISIL- they were also fighting Assad, hence the long bloody civil war. Assad wasn't winning. Assad had no choice but to beg for Russian, Chinese, and Iranian assistance. 

So what was Assad supposed to do? Either give into Russian demands for a port, military, and air bases; or allow the Kurds and Rebels backed by the US take over Syria.

Russia is now fighting for the Syrian government because they want to protect their newly acquired assets in Syria. Think they would have come to Assad's aid w/o them?  Think Assad was ever going to give Russia any of what they wanted w/o the US threatening his government?  Assad is now at the mercy of Putin. If Putin wants him gone as leader; guess what will happen.

No choice???

Good grief.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @3.1.3    one week ago
Which NATO countries, specifically, has Turkey dragged into Syria?

The United States is a NATO country.  Unfortunately, the United States has become the military arm of NATO.  Everyone wanting the United States to intervene means that Turkey is dragging the United States into a new conflict.  Where's the rest of NATO?  

Turkey is also a NATO country.  Turkey has provided the European contribution for the fight against ISIS in Syria.  And Turkey has been more militarily involved in Syria than has the United States.  Turkey has also provided the solution for Syrian refugees migrating to Europe; Turkey is a section of wall on Europe's southern border.  Turkey is also attractive to NATO because Turkey prevents the Mediterranean becoming a Russian ocean.  (BTW, Russia's interest in Syria is to bring Turkey into Russia's sphere of influence.)

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 weeks ago
Interesting that only Israel expressed direct support for the Kurds

Not surprising actually-- while it wouldn't work for Israel to go into Syria now for several reasons, they've helped the Kurds before before-- and done more than just talk:

The Kurdish-Israel Relationship: Former Covert Israeli Forces  were 'Training Kurds In Iraq' in tactics to use against Saddam (During Iraq War) .

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.2    2 weeks ago

Yawn. That is nice. The Kurds get a lot of training- mostly from the US, but Israel is special. 

Israel is talking; just like everyone else- but some seem to think their words mean more.

Israel will not enter Syria now as it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, Iran, and very possibly China. Israel isn't interested in a war with any world power. Same reason the US and French have only token forces there; and work hard as hell to keep their troops away from government and foreign forces. 

Google how tense the situation is between US and Russian navies and air forces. That could spark a world war just as easily.

Of course the US would be in the wrong in any war; we are in the country illegally.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.2.2  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
Israel will not enter Syria now as it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, Iran, and very possibly China.

Israel has had airstrikes in Syria over 200 times in the last couple of years and will continue to do so since. 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
Israel will not enter Syria now as it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, Iran, and very possibly China. Israel isn't interested in a war with any world power.

True.

And they have no desire to intervene to support either side in Syria's civil war. (They only want to take limited actions against entities there who seek to destroy Israel.

So they are occasionally making precision targeted air attacks on weapons being sent there to the Islamist terror group Hezb'Allah, an Iranian proxy which wants to exterminate them.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.4  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
Israel will not enter Syria now as it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, Iran, and very possibly China.
Israel has had airstrikes in Syria over 200 times in the last couple of years and will continue to do so since. 

Just came across your comment (I saw it after I made my comment (3.2.3).

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
Of course the US would be in the wrong in any war; we are in the country illegally.

Yes that does seem to be Trump's modus operandi, doesn't it? He consistently flouts the law...he has absolutely zero respect for the rule of law..or the U.S. Constitution!

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.6  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
Israel will not enter Syria now as it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, Iran, and very possibly China.
Israel has had airstrikes in Syria over 200 times in the last couple of years and will continue to do so since. 

Remember, Kavika-- we're dealing with a lot of people here who are really quite uninformed about the actual situation in the region. They often make comments which have no basis in fact and are based on groundless assumptions!

(And many of the people reading those comments don't know much about the situation in the area either-- so they believe everything they read on the Internet!)

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.7  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
True.

And they have no desire to intervene to support either side in Syria's civil war. (They only want to take limited actions against entities there who seek to destroy Israel.

So they are occasionally making precision targeted air attacks on weapons being sent there to the Islamist terror group Hezb'Allah, an Iranian proxy which wants to exterminate them.

Also agree.

However, should things sway in the minds of the Israelis, keep October 6, 1973 in mind.

At the end of that Israel was within 20km of Damascus before negotiations. 

 Israel has and will smack the biggest shark in pond in the nose if it needs to.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @3.2.2    one week ago
"Israel will not enter Syria now as it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, Iran, and very possibly China."
"Israel has had airstrikes in Syria over 200 times in the last couple of years and will continue to do so since."

Their airstrikes are aimed at caravans carrying Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon to use against the Israelis, and the Iranian bases that are there for Iran to be within easy striking distance of Israel. .After all, doesn't Iran constantly threaten to wipe Israel off the map?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.9  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.2.5    one week ago

Obama is the one that sent troops into Syria first! Also, Obama is the one that started the bombing strikes!

Where the hell have you been? 

We have been in Syria illegally the entire time under international law.

So where is your condemnation for Obama for getting the US in this mess to begin with?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.2.6    one week ago

After trying the blame the US being in Syria on Trump, you have no room to talk. Trump is trying to get the US out of Syria, remember! This is the reason we are in the situation now! Wow, what a fountain of TDDS!

As for Israel, they regularly flout international law. As does Russia, China, and most of the rest of the world. We are supposed to be better than that.

200 whole air strikes in the last couple of years. That is a very slow month for the US and their "coalition" members. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/693263/monthly-airstrikes-in-iraq-and-syria/

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/01/15/airstrikes-against-isis-in-syria-up-in-recent-weeks/

According to a summary released Tuesday by Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, the Air Force and other coalition aircraft carried out 1,147 engagements and conducted 575 strikes in Syria between Dec. 30 and Jan. 12. The coalition also was involved in 19 engagements, and 13 strikes, in Iraq during that two-week period.

That’s up from the previous two-week period, Dec. 16 to Dec. 29, when 1,001 engagements and 469 strikes were carried out in Syria, and 14 engagements with nine strikes were carried out in Iraq. It’s also higher than the 863 engagements and 458 strikes conducted in Syria between Dec. 2 and Dec. 15.

During the most recent two-week period, allied aircraft engaged 485 ISIS tactical units in Syria, according to the coalition. They destroyed 308 staging areas, 220 fighting positions, 105 mortar, rocket and artillery systems, 57 supply routes, and 50 facilities used to manufacture improvised explosive devices and car bombs, among other ISIS assets in Syria.

Now if you want to talk about US air strikes against the Syrian government- we have those as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_attacks_on_Syria_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Why am I even trying to argue this? Everything the US has done in Syria has been illegal. All conducted on congressional shortsightedness of signing off on the "War on Terror".  There is no security council resolution authorizing the US and it's "coalition" to conduct military operations in Syria. Nor did the Syrian government ever in invite the US in.

I was against Obama entering the Syrian civil war; and I damn well was against Trump expanding our presence on the ground. Now that Trump is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise and get us out of this illegal venture the neo-cons and chicken hawks are coming out of the wood work.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.11  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.9    one week ago
Obama is the one that sent troops into Syria first! Also, Obama is the one that started the bombing strikes! Where the hell have you been? 

Where the hell have you been:

Israeli attack: first day (9 June)

220px-Israeli_tanks_advancing_on_the_Gol
Israeli tanks advancing on the Golan Heights

On the morning of 9 June, Israeli jets began carrying out dozens of sorties against Syrian positions from Mount Hermon to Tawfiq, using rockets salvaged from captured Egyptian stocks. The airstrikes knocked out artillery batteries and storehouses and forced transport columns off the roads.

The Syrians suffered heavy casualties and a drop in morale, with a number of senior officers and troops deserting. The attacks also provided time as Israeli forces cleared paths through Syrian minefields. However, the airstrikes did not seriously damage the Syrians' bunkers and trench systems, and the bulk of Syrian forces on the Golan remained in their positions. [125]

About two hours after the airstrikes began, the   8th Armored Brigade , led by Colonel   Albert Mandler , advanced into the Golan Heights from   Givat HaEm . Its advance was spearheaded by   Engineering Corps   sappers and eight bulldozers, which cleared away barbed wire and mines.

You said:

Obama is the one that sent troops into Syria first!

Obama hadn't even been born then-- how could he have sent troops into Syria? 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.10    one week ago
Everything the US has done in Syria has been illegal.

According to whom? 

You?

Fact: While you may think you're pretty important, your words carry no weight under International Law!

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.13  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.9    one week ago
We have been in Syria illegally the entire time under international law.

But its not illegal if Trump does it?

In mid-January 2018, the  Trump administration  indicated its intention to maintain an open-ended military presence in Syria to counter  Iran's influence  and oust Syrian president  Bashar al-Assad . [141]  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

al Jizzerror
Krishna
dave-2693993
Heartland American
loki12


101 visitors