Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

I see the post containing the accusations has been deleted.
Wise move legal eagles GNHQ.

I find it disconcerting that the Corbynistas on here think 'enjoying every minute of it' is an appropriate response to being put on the spot during an interview discussing the question of bombing Syria.

He's allowed to enjoy his job - and I am not a Corbynista as far as I know. The media are trying to make his job as hard as possible. There is more talk on the 10 O'clock news, that I am listening to right now, about potential splits in the Labour party than about the important issues that are under discussion.

I think JC was impressive in the Andrew Mar interview.

So the government were going to bother sueing Gransnet were they?

Yeah, likely. Nothing else to think about at the moment have they?

I find it sad that anyone could think the man was referring to bombing Syria, he is under constant attack by the Tory press and he showed they were not troubling him . A calm man, I like that, i understand why the right, the Cameron devotees are troubled by him . There is strength is calmness and so party membership is still increasing

As I've said about three times now, he said he was 'enjoying every minute of it' in reply to a question about the possibility of him having to resign as party leader.

The interview was about Syria and what action should be taken.

I'm so glad he's enjoying his current position, but thought he could have phrased his response better.

Do you mean be less honest Ana?

No, I mean be a bit more diplomatic.

I don't think saying one is enjoying one's job is undiplomatic, perhaps if an undertaking or a hangman but not a party leader

Anniebach

'Who is the leader of IS? There isn't one.'

He is Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi. Second in command is Abu Ala al-Afri

Hope is a long way off for peace in Iraq as you say but on Oct 6th in Baghdad 2 very powerful Shiite leaders Moktada al-Sadr and Abdul Aziz Hakim jointly announced a peace agreement between their two warring militia groups.

It may not last long but there is hope.

If military strategists are saying – and they are – that bombing is not going to defeat IS (or whatever they are called) and only action on the ground may be able to do it, why is anyone contemplating more bombing? Because it looks as if something is happening, being achieved, but without the loss of life ground troops would suffer.

There is no overall strategy, no plan for the future beyond bombing – just egos wanting to show off. Remember Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair in Iraq.

Antler waving absent, I agree, particularly in the case of President Hollande. You can understand his response to the atrocities in Paris - wanting to appear as a strong, in-control leader who is taking decisive action. But not necessarily the wisest course. It was a very rapid reaction. Just like Bush declaring a war on terror. And look what it achieved - nearly 13,000 US deaths.
watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2013/USandCoalition.pdf

Thank you POGS. I didn't know there were named leaders of IS. One wonders why in two years and with the intelligence of the UK, America, France and many other countries they haven't found these men , not even Asaad knows where there are surely . Perhaps they are not in Syria.

A suggestion this morning that if Corbyn decides to whip the Labour MPs then the vote may not go ahead as D.C. will assume he can't get a majority.

GO! Corbyn

Go Corbyn indeed. Fingers crossed then.

Mind you I do think it touch and go!

Been out yesterday till late- there is plenty of evidence of there, if you look for it. Plenty of videos showing US soldiers rolling around in trucks full of gold bars too. Here is one video from 'dispatches'- but this information has been stifled by gvts involved, for very good reasons- same as the sale of Irak's amazing archeological and antiques treasures- Irak, like Syria, had a fabulous cultural heritage:

youtu.be/JXlCmRf9Aig

This current proposed bombing is not intended to sort out Syria in any way. It is just to stop IS further terrorising the West. No strategy is needed beyond that goal. The Syria thing is totally different.

(that ws in response to absent's post)

With IS embedded in France, UK etc how is bombing in Syria going to help?

I really don't think you can accuse Hollande of "antler wving". His immediae reaction was very understable. And went far beyond the waving of any antlers.

apologies for leaving out a lot of letters this morning. can't even blame ipad as I am on desktop.

We can't sit around here all arguing amongst ourselves "Should we, Shouldn't we bomb". Britain must do something positive to protect ourselves. The very people who are against bombing will scream the loudest when tragedy comes to these shores. In WW1 they believed that a prolonged artillery barrage would do the trick, but no it didn't. I lived through the blitz in the 1940's also the bombing of Germany day and night by the RAF and the USAAF. Neither achieved their objective. No one sued for peace.
To be successful you have to have an army on the ground with an air force umbrella up above. However just at the present it would be wise to allow the RAF to penetrate into Syria if the situation demands it, but not as a regular practice.
Our big problem is our present elected representatives in the main have not worn the Queens uniform. In 1939 many MP's had been in the trenches WW1, as had many of the voters and knew what war was like first hand so were able to take a more balanced view.

Yes, Go Corbyn ( as in please just go.)

I was waiting for that! You were first to bite rose