Bombing Syria - could somebody explain the argument for?

[RedMapleLeaf]

Just that really. All I've heard from Cameron is "I am fully convinced about the argument for strikes against Syria" which isn't a very strong argument.

Ok I'm probably missing something here as I admit I don't follow the news as much as I should BUT if they've been bombing isis for a year, and in that time they've actually grown, and they could be finished off in 2 weeks with ground troops, why are they still bombing them? Why don't they want to finish off isis? Just seen to be doing something?

My head hurts.

Actually I just cross posted there with claig which does clarify things in my mind more.

MrsGradyOldLady, that is the question that lots of people would like answered but no politician will answer, apart possibly from Corbyn, the lonely, laughed at outlier. The only answer to the question seems to be "Assad must go".

Despite thinking Cameron/Osborne in general are too left wing, i am with Corbyn on this issue.

We should keep well out of it. Matthew Parris in today's Times takes the same view by the way.

We need to cut the funding of Isis, easier said than done . Lots of Arab countries are helping them.

DeoGratias, I agree. Bronwen Maddox, former Foreign Editor of the Times, who is clued up and is not a Corbyn supporter, said on Any Questions last night that she doesn't think it is a convincing plan. 70% of Labour Party members are against, but unsurprisingly most of the Blairites are for it. The media keeps saying that the people are for it, but I don't know anyone who is for our 6 planes joining in with the US who have been bombing Isis for a year without resulting in stopping Isis.

Obama said Isis was contained, the next day they attacked Paris. Let's finish Isis off, let's catch all their backers, let's send an army against the DJ rappers and radicalised disaffected Jihadis.

'Lots of Arab countries are helping them.'

Yes, then why isn't France putting out international arrest warrants on anyone helping them?

It doesn't make any sense to me. We won't get rid of ISIS - they're all over the Middle East, as far as I can see.

So if we drop bombs on Syria, we kill a whole load of innocent people plus destroy a whole load of infrastructure that will need to be put back afterwards. Suppose we somehow manage to wipe out most of ISIS in the process - what then? You then have to try and get rid of Assad (who presumably will have been strengthened by the removal of ISIS), and you also have a load of infrastructure that needs repairing and a refugee crisis that is even worse than the one we've got at the moment.

I'm really struggling to see why Cameron wants to do this, unless it's because he's succumbing to pressure from other countries.

Yes, then why isn't France putting out international arrest warrants on anyone helping them?

The usual... Oil/money/politics

You are right, ItsAllGoing.

I must say I have been very impressed with the SNP and particularly, Angus Roberston. While Corbyn asks questions about relatively minor side issues in PMQs week in week out, Angus Robertson is about the only politician in the whole place who actually asks good questions about this war.

Well, I suppose as a start if we could remove this supposed caliphate Baghdadi and the gang of honchos, leaving Isis leaderless for a while would surely weaken it.

But yes there are cells all over the ME. Then there is the frightening and horrible Boco Haram to worry about.

If we get involved it makes us more of a target. 100% counter productive.

Have the French massacres proven nothing?

lordstrange
if we could remove is a massive if.

How about we protect ourselves by not throwing bombs around willy-nilly.

I just wonder what the alternative is. I find it a very depressing discussion because the whole thing is a ginormous mess, with weird alliances throughout the Middle East. It's hard to see what might constitute a feasible solution.

George Galloway was interesting in the Sunday Politics programme this morning.

I also think the SNP have been a good opposition on this. As an aside: Nicola Sturgeon is a canny politician saying she was willing to listen to Cameron's case although that might put her at odds with Salmond.

Good interview with George Galloway on today's Sunday Politics arguing against the bombing. Gets close to the full truth.

Well now I never entirely trust Gorgeous George!

When these people are throwing bombs everywhere, there are innocents being killed, just like a bloodbath, what have the innocent people ever done to deserve this?

Enasharpleshairnet , I don't like Galloway, but he is right on this. Labour really needs someone like him to challenge as opposition. He is right that Corbyn should whip the Shadow Cabinet on the vote, but as he says Corbyn probably won't if we go by what McDonnell keeps saying about the "new politics".

Good points from Galloway (and I usually can't stand him). I am puzzling over the pieces. I can see how the 'US-Russia pipeline war in Syria' has led to current events, e.g.,

“in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey… However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to. Then in July, a $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline deal was announced, and a preliminary agreement duly signed.By late 2011, the US, UK, France and Israel were ramping up covert assistance to rebel factions in Syria to elicit the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within. The United States… supports the Qatari pipeline as a way to balance Iran and diversify Europe’s gas supplies away from Russia,” explained Orenstein in Foreign Affairs. - www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

Against this backdrop, I can understand why US's bombing has had so little effect, I can understand Erdogan et al.'s role but I can't understand Merkel's role in this. Can anyone shed some light?

I don't think it's bombing Syria as such they're talking about? Am I wrong? I might be?

I thought it was bombing IS troops in Syria? Which is very different from bombing Assad regime soldiers or even from bombing rebel troops. There's kind of three main sides in Syria.

I admit I don't really understand it. There's all these theories about who's propping who up. So is Russia propping up Assad. But Assad doesn't seem too bothered about IS. Russia says they're boming IS but rumour has it they're bombing rebel troops. And Saudi are propping up IS? And Turkey is buying oil from them? Someone's buying the oil for sure even if Turkey deny it!

Sending in ground troops would be a nightmare and have massive casualties for us. Using drones and air strikes makes more sense if we're going to do something.

And I do agree we're a target already, bombing IS in Syria won't increase that threat. We're bombing them In Iraq already and as far as they're concerened they're all one cepholate.

'but I can't understand Merkel's role in this. Can anyone shed some light?'

Merkel can't do anything about it, she is not powerful enough. In the end, eventually, she will have to bail out but she's hoping it won't have to come to that.

'I don't think it's bombing Syria as such they're talking about? Am I wrong? I might be?

I thought it was bombing IS troops in Syria? '

You're right it is not bombing Syria in that it is not bombing the Syrian government forces, but it is bombing Syrian territory and therefore unintentionally possibly Syrian people in the attempt to strike Isis. One of the argiments for bombing is that we have "precision" bombs that can target Isis and minimise civilian casualties. Apparently reports are that not one civilian has been killed in precision bombing of Iraq.