Britain to intervene in Syria?

[cromwell]

A little while ago the UK was all set to go sailing into Syria all guns blazing, to get rid of Assad. Which would have led to ISIS taking over Syria, imo. Thanks to Ed Miliband, we didn't do it.

But you can't keep a good man down and now George Osborne has said that we should be going into Syria to fight both Assad AND Isis!

I hope that we have a clear strategy about what we want to do, how we are going to do it and what happens afterwards, because the last thing this country needs is another national disgrace like Libya and Iraq.

[Workingman]

The situation in Syria was started by the Syrians themselves; an appendix of the Arab Spring we were all so supportive of. Assad then used his military to put down the riots. Shots were fired. The rest is history and civil war broke out.

Outside countries do not have a right to take sides in another country's internal affairs so the UK keeping out was the right thing to do - at the time.

IS (ISIS, ISIL, whatever) then shouldered its way in to take advantage of that situation, with horrific consequences. Things have now changed for all Syrians.

If a coalition is now prepared to go in, UK included, the main aim has to be to wipe out IS forces; and I do mean wipe them out.

Once that is done there will then be a chance to bring both sides in the civil war to the table to talk peace.

[TheOstrich]

They are saying that Russia has established a military base with 1,000 troops in Syria in support of Assad. They are also saying that Cameron won't risk a Commons vote on extending military action into Syria if Corbyn gets the Labour leadership as he would not be confident of winning, given Corbyn's views.

It's a mess. Yes, we need to root out and destroy ISIS, but no, prevailing politics won't let us do it.

[KateLMead]

I find the information of Russia's involvement in Syria very worrying.

[Suff]

Russia has far more to lose if IS wins than we do. They have far more to gain if Assad stays in place.

Personally I'd let Russia get on with it, let them support Assad, crush both IS and the rebellion that allowed IS in then get some stability in the area.

I don't want Assad to come to the table against the "Free Syrians". First of all they are a rag tag group of radical Moslems and secondly no matter what they agree to at the peace table they will never keep their word and will try, ever after, to force Assad out. There is absolutely no end of evidence that this will happen elsewhere in the Middle East.

The only final and viable end result is to crush all war in Syria, reinstate Assad and let the country heal.

That's my take and I know it's probably not a popular one. I do, however, believe it's a pragmatic one.

[Workingman]

Russia has a naval base at Tartus. It also has use of the Air Base at Latakia, where the new housing for 1,000 troops is, some 30 km away. These have been in place since the 1970s and there is little evidence that Russia has supported Assad other than with military supplies, so far.

I bet the US and coalition have many more times those numbers at Incirik and Erhac Air Bases. It is a bit cynical of John Kerry to get a bit uppity.

If the US (NATO) and the Russians got together IS coul be defeated in weeks. Then meaningful talks could begin. Assad has already offered elections. This might be cynical on his part, but the offer is there.

Make them happen, monitor them, make them transparent: do it.