The headline above Owen Jones’s piece (Opinion, 15 December) asserts that “bombing wouldn’t have saved Aleppo”, but the article contains absolutely no evidence or argument to support this assertion. Syrian democratic forces would argue with considerable good cause that on the contrary, the bombing of Assad’s airbases in 2013 would have had a major impact, given their uprising a chance of success, and prevented the development of the vacuum into which Putin and Islamic State subsequently moved. Like Jones, I have supported democratic socialism as a universal aim all my life; unlike him and apparently many others of his generation, I firmly believe that we must sometimes be prepared to use military force to fight for democracy, whether it be in Spain in 1936, or in Europe in 1939, and to support it when necessary in other places like the Americas in more recent decades.
Perhaps Jones could now tell us whether there are any circumstances in which he would support the use of force, or whether he is happy to always appease the crushing of democracy by the force of ruthless dictators like Assad and Putin.
Steve Smart
Malvern, Worcestershire
• While it is easier to bomb state targets than it is to bomb militias embedded within civilian populations, the UK’s past bombardments of Iraq and Libya have been massively destructive. There is no reason to imagine that the bombardment of the Syrian state that George Osborne wanted (Osborne: MPs must share blame for Syria crisis, 14 December) would have been any different from the wilful destruction of those two states and their civilian infrastructure.
Nor do we even need to look at Libya or Yemen to observe British hypocrisy: Britain has actively blocked any negotiation or initiative on Syria that did not adhere to its precondition of regime change. It has been an active participant in the war for regime change, at the same time as its politicians and media have pretended that it is a concerned bystander. Sabre-rattling by British media and politicians continues to be part of the problem rather than the solution for Syria.
Peter McKenna
Liverpool
• There is a debate to be had about whether we should have bombed Syria, but to our unequivocal shame we failed to do the one thing we could and should have done: take in their children and save them from life in the Calais camps or in the hands of people-traffickers.
Judy Turner
Malvern, Worcestershire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
