Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

Einstein said insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

An Open Democracy article written in 2011 by David Held and Kristian Coates Ulrichsen noted that:

In Afghanistan: "civilian casualty rates were the highest since 2001 ....... the insurgency is spreading to areas previously considered relatively safe, including the provinces around the capital Kabul ....... war-related civilian deaths in the first half of 2011 were 15% higher than in 2010, and the Taliban has expanded beyond its traditional Pashtun base to establish shadow governments in central and eastern Afghanistan as well"

In Iraq: "although levels of violence have dropped substantially since the sectarian slaughter peaked between 2005 and 2007, Iraq remains today one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with levels of daily violence that would be unacceptable in almost any other context... Iraqi state structures collapsed in 2003 and the country remains a failed state eight years later.."

In Libya: "more than 300 militias currently operate and the country is awash with weaponry, much of it taken from unregulated arms dumps. ....... Parallels with the lethal and overlapping low-intensity urban conflicts in Iraq for access to and control over localised resources and the spoils of power are becoming more apparent by the week."

Air strikes have been effective in Iraq in slowing down progress when large groups of ISIS are moving in convoys between cities.They were virtually at the gates of Baghdad, and air strikes either killed them or drove them back.
We do not have to vote, the MP's do that on our behalf, and yes it is a complicated situation in Syria, but if we can try and make a difference,even a small one to help kill or rid Syria of ISIS, then we should help.

I cannot see how bombing Syria will help. So the answer to the question is No. Ask the Syrians what is needed. Our interference, although well meaning never solves another countries problems. We have to consentrate on keeping Europe safe, we can only do that if we know who we have in our respective countries and bring back borders and identity cards.

It's not bombing Syria - it's bombing IS in Syria. There's those on here who makes it sound as if there will be random bombing. IS in Iraq is already being targeted, but their main stronghold is now just over the border into Syria, where roses points out they have mainly retreated to.

Many of the targets will be oilfields - this is where they get their income - munitions, and troops on the move.

I was against interfering in Syria two years ago. Though that was what seemed the best decision at the time (non interference) it has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent civilians being killed in the resulting civil war, many of them in bombings and gassings by the evil regime that is Assad. Many more are homeless refugees, flooding neighbouring countries and even into Europe causing the biggest mass migration in recent history. And this has allowed the cancer that is IS to gain a toehold and all the resulting beheadings, rapes and other atrocities.

All this because one evil man wanted to hand onto power and he had the might of Russia and that megalomaniac Putin behind him.

Could it really have been any worse if the west and/or the UN had acted at the very beginning?

Why do the media and the opposition keep referring to what is an extension of an ongoing situation in Iraq as 'going to war'!! It's makes it sound like full mobilisation, as in WW1, which is most certainly is not! What is planned is carefully targeted air strikes by at most 10 aircraft, not troops and armoury leaving by their hundreds and mobilising, ready to march on Damascus or wherever. Is this being exaggerated to alarm people, or to persuade them to back away?! As has been previously said, air strikes have worked in Iraq, pushing Isil back from almost certainly overrunning Baghdad. We need to hit oil fields, installation plants and anything that enables this appalling regime to flourish. We cannot stand on the sidelines pontificating, while others shoulder the reality of the situation. How do we broker dialogue with the Syrian people? Which people? Syria's has so many different factions all with different agendas, which one do we choose to negotiate with? Will we fall into another trap? Ideally, UN ground troops would need to be used at some stage to peace keep on the ground. This obviously would take months to organise, if it can ever be agreed at all. Meantime, Isil regroup and pop up somewhere else! What with their medieval time warp and the Wests ineptitude, it's not a very happy picture to say the least.

Ground troops will be needed before we achieve peace (if ever). That will be the next debate in the UK.

Germany is to send in 1,200 troops

So inevitably what will happen is the area will become even less stable. We can look forward to more radicalisation and more terrorism as the young brought up in an area of destruction blame the west for their problems and seek to strike back at us. Incidentally Anya why do we need to bomb the oilfields? If we stopped whoever is buying oil from IS from doing so surely their income would dry up.

I agree with Trisher. The temptation to 'do something' is understandable, but it needs to be something that will help to destroy ISIS, not encourage more radicalisation. ISIS are very astute at embedding themselves within a civilian population, and bombing strikes will not take out the leaders. I also agree about the money trail - we should take a close look at the duplicity of our 'ally' Saudi Arabia to whom we long have been selling weapons.

trisher the supply of funds to IS needs to be cut off ASAP. Trying to find out who is actually buying the oil, which will pass through several hands before going on the open market will take months, by which time hundreds or thousands more innocent people will have been murdered, raped or made homeless.

Do people think this is some 'gung-ho let's get in there and bomb the blighters into oblivion' action? Or that, if the decision is taken to bomb IS, it is only done after a lot of thoughtful heart-searching by our elected leaders from all parties?

I honestly believe that this is something we may have to do if IS and other bloody-minded groups are not to think we will just sit back and accept that we are powerless in the face of their terrorism.

We sell arms to Saudi Arabia.

I read they are about to behead and crucify someone for being an atheist.

Surely we should be consistent in our wish to act against atrocity!

Looking at the newspapers' front pages, nearly all of them are blaming Corbyn for the likelihood that airstrikes will go ahead. He really isn't doing a very good job of leading Labour, is he?

I agree, Anya, we can't just 'stop whoever is buying oil from IS from doing so'. How on earth would we do that, even if we knew who it was?

But if you bomb them you create martyrs and heroes who died for the cause. There is always a trail and in the days of computers it isn't that hard to trace. Of course it isn't as glamorous or as gung-ho as bombing and it may well involve upsetting some of those we now regard as "friends", but whose record on human rights is equally as abhorrent as IS, just less publicised. However it is much more likely to deal with the problem permanently and without creating a situation where IS are seen as dying for their beliefs. You don't stop a movement by bombing- it's hearts and minds you need to deal with.

Corbyn is to blame for the air strikes ? Good old far right , true to form , desperate for bloodshed and making millions, they blame a man who opposes air strikes for - air strikes

Will we see Cameron wearing a hard hat, sitting in a flag flying tank heading for parliament and his admirers waving their little flags and singing Land of Hope and Glory .

I am disappointed that Corbyn caved in and has removed the whip. If he had not done this there would simply not have been a debate or a vote and he could effectively have ended the threat of our military involvement at a stroke.

Anniebach, it wasn't only the right-wing newspapers.

The defence secretary has just said we are to contribute £1bn to rebuild Syria, why? we are not going to bomb Syria we are bombing IS in
Syria

They would have defied the whip anyway, I would have thought.

And then he could have ended up in a situation where bombing happened, and he had rebels on his hands, not to mention being labelled a hypocrite.

I don't see why he would have been labelled a hyocrite if he'd stood by his beliefs, soontobe

He would have appeared stronger if he had had a whip. He is supposed to be the leader, and this is close to his heart. And to his supporters across the country's hearts. I for one would have thought more of him.

Not a hypocrite - he has done two very unhypocritical things:

- given his MPs a free vote, as he has advocated in the past when he was not leader.
- made it clear that he will vote against and continue to to advocate this at every opportunity.

So...not a hypocrite.

But it is a shame that he has felt he needed to do these honourable things, because it does bring our involvement in the bombing closer.

And is that 1bn going to be contributed with or without Assad still in power?

Of course we need to bomb their oil fields! I hope that will be included. (Hit them where it hurts)

No idea Jingle, suppose that will be fought out between Russia and America , with the UK hanging onto America's knees as usual