What is need is stability in the region and unfortunately removing Assad will not help that in any way.

The issue with removing dictators is there is nothing that can fill the vacuum quick enough so it results in infighting and old scores being settled which does nothing to move things along and opens the door to the likes of Daesh et al.

I don't understand all this crap thats going on at the moment. Some people think its political, other people think its religious, my God is better than your God and all that bollocks. Personally I am not a religious person. To me religion through the years has brought a lot of suffering to the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, the Villa, Jedi etc... All of them appear to be a group, a club, a trend, some more successful than others.

History says that it will never change, people will always fight. Britain itself has a bad history which is the same with most countries if you go back far enough.

So what do we do then?

Bomb them? - Wow
Invite them to sit around a table and talk? - Never happen
Ignore them hoping they go away? - Laugh
Ban a certain religion? - Ha
Ask the Yanks - Oh dear

Or just leave to the politicians to sort out, after all, they always do what the country wants.

@RK,

True, but the first one was all the americans fault - taking out the Iraqi army was dumb. And the second failed for exactly the same reasons Cameron's got in mind for this one - an emotional response that soon becomes tiresome/expensive so is quietly stepped away from.

Regarding Africa, the mining corporations have everything exactly how they want it. God know what would happen should they get their shit together and start charging proper prices for all those precious metals.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised; I don't think bombing Syria, when we were already bombing Iraq, will make any difference - either to achieving our goals or to how much of a target we are. Although, of course, we will kill lots of people, some of whom will be bad guys.
If Roadking is right about the type of military campaign we would need to pursue to defeat an organisation like Daesh (and I suspect he is spot on), then it isn't going to happen.
That being the case, our options now appear to be: bombing, which is known to have a number of drawbacks (civilian casualties, limited strategic effectiveness, great recruiting tool for Daesh, etc.), or devoting the resources and commitment required to unite in isolating Daesh politically, financially and ideologically.
If they believe that they will triumph after a war in the Middle East between the Forces of Islam and a Rest of the World XI, why on Earth are we allowing them to draw us into what they want?

I wonder what the benefit of a year's hindsight will say on yesterday's decision.

Former Daesh hostage, Nicolas Henin makes some interesting points: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...e-paris-attacks

Don't know why this is being discussed. It's obvious to me that the people are powerless to stop any war such as this, and generally any war that they want anyway. I am sure that could be seen last night during the open discussion (I did not see) - you know, the one with the inevitable outcome, as with every war.

So long as powerful people have (I'd be surprised if they don't in one way or another) an interest in weapons (costs and profit) wars will always be welcomed

Thats my warped view anyway.

It's the new world order, confusion! So no one knows what the hell is happening. I work 4 hours above Iran, with muslim people in a 99.9% Muslim dominated country. Never had a problem in 5 years. It's all press generated and we know who controls the press.

Best way to escape the fear of terrorism, is to turn off the TV. Daesh (or whatever) is the new buzz Word, same as ISIS became a few years back - suddenly!

I'll shut up now!

So today's bombing was targeted on the oil wells to try and dry interrupt the funding.

So who is buying this oil in the first place?

Has a bombing campaign ever worked? It didn't in the 2nd world war, Vietnam, Afganistan or Iraq. Arguably nuclear drops worked in Japan so is that the next step?

Bombing will create more refugees, which the EU does not want to deal with, and possibly (if you believe the red tops) another way for terrorists to "flood" into Europe.

I do not know what the answer is, maybe a bit of retaliation is good for the soul but it does not fix the problem.


What I cannot bear is that fact that some the richest Arab countries are doing nothing to help, and in the case of Qatar (and others), probably funding the whole shitfest.

Still this mess has been going for over 1400 years so I don't hold much hope in my lifetime of it getting better. Dictators in the region did keep a lid on it though!

I think all the doom-and-gloom views miss the point that the rates of violent deaths in the world continues to decline. We are fighting less wars. We are, to some extent, learning lessons from the past. Nobody now believed that bombing alone will fix this issue and, on the whole, we are more realistic about the chances of fixing these issues. We seem to be making slow progress. We've still a long way to go.

I did hear a quote that the only way to permanently resolve the ME issue is to turn the desert into glass...

In the late 70's I was fortunate enough to get out of Nicaragua before the Sandinistas cornered President Somoza in his bunker, a short distance from where we lived. Before my exit I had a teaching practice including giving lessons to the children of the head of Quaker cereals in Central America. He was in fact Colombian but his considered view was that Latin American people, including himself presumably, tended to be over-feisty when it came to politics and living together peacefully so it worked a lot better when there was a strong dictator keeping control.

This apparent self-awareness surprised me at the time but was an education into alternative political opinions - Somoza was generally not liked, to put it mildly, due to his political repression (including blatant rigging of elections), lack of investment into education and maintaining sharp division between rich and poor. Not to mention that he was firmly supported by the US in this.

I had a very similar conversation with a Kuwaiti Colonel. When I asked him if he was relieved Saddam was gone, he said Arabs need a strong leader, or there is anarchy. This was just after Saddam was executed, I was somewhat surprised with his opinion, given GW1.

Subsequent events have proved him right.

Sadly, the only way through this is atheism.
If you're attached to a religion then you're obviously unstable and need to be locked up.

As for the idiotic extreme Muslims, cut their funding. Maybe a quiet word in the ear of a few sheikhs would work. There is a proper level of hierarchy and respect in the Muslim world, perhaps we should be finding the organ grinders and ignoring the monkeys?

"Ignoring the monkeys" is probably advice to be heeded, as those who express and support idiotic or extreme views may lack the intelligence or insight to realise this.