Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

How on earth do we persuade S.A for a start not to supply IS with oil?!! Appeal to them in the hopes that they'll see the error of their ways?! Lecture them like missionaries? My DH just laughed when I told him of this particular suggestion! What people in the West cannot seem to understand is that people of other cultures think entirely differently to us. We simply cannot tell them what they can and cannot do for our version of morality, they just don't see it that way. Their attitude to human life is very different to ours, which, let's face it, is pretty obvious!! We can't go into other people's countries demanding that they change their ways because we tell them to!!! If we can make it worth their while, something they want, then maybe, but not by wagging a disapproving finger at them, we'll get told to p.... off in no uncertain terms. I doubt the gulf states care whether Isil is there or not so long as they don't threaten them! We need to neutralise Isil to protect Europe, nothing to do with imposing democracy in countries that frankly don't want it.

What is frustrating is that 75 per cent of labour party members do not want to bomb Syria.

According to the Guardian today, Corby had little choice but to allow a free vote as senior members of his cabinet threatened to resign if he didn't.

What a bunch!

I agree Luckygirl, no way is Corbyn a hypocrite , suppose this country isn't use to honest politicians . A man who has gone against his party's whip several times on matters of wars is called a hypocrite for not imposing the whip on wars now. A man of honour

The cases for bombing or not bombing have both been overstated. Neither decision will make us safer. We are already targets and must look to our intelligence services for protection.
This situation is nothing like Iraq which was a functioning state run by a brutal dictator. I was very much against starting a war in Iraq.
Syria is a failed state and the area proposed to extend the bombing is in the hands of Isis. The civilians there are in a terrible situation. The UK weapons are much more targeted so that hopefully will cause less "collateral damage". The free Syrian army is disorganised and many are brutalised by the war so I think it is foolish to rely on them to fight against Isis as they will be concentrating on fighting Assad.
After much thought I will support the bombing for two reasons
1) More accurate weapons to reduce collateral damage and be more effective at stopping the oil sales funding Isis.
2) We will have much more say with France, US and Russia in the aftermath when troops on the ground will be essential to form an interim government. The British army has excellent skills for setting up safe areas and no fly zones
The civilians in Syria are suffering a tragedy of epic proportions. We cannot turn our backs on the situation.

If he had not allowed a free vote, that would have been hypocritical of him, because he wanted free votes for himself and others in the past.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 .

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

Germany is to send in 1,200 troops