Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

Looks like the vote will go ahead.

Durhamjen

Your post today 16.40

''Syrian refugees do not want us to bomb them. They want 'US' to stop Assad bombing them. Most Syrian refugees are fleeing from Assad not IS''

I am utterly confused by this statement. You and some others at every turn have taken pleasure in condemning Cameron for saying he wanted to fight for the Syrian people in opposing Assad who was fighting, bombing his own people , Cameron lost the vote in 2013 and the same conversations are taking place two years later.

The opportunity to help the Syrian people fight Assad was one that was voted against in Parliament and as Cameron said something like'. The people and parliament of the UK have voted against going into Syria 'I get that' (something along those lines).

So I'm sorry but how can it suddenly become a case the Syrian people want 'US' to stop Assad bombing them and yet their plea was ignored/refused by some 2 years ago, yet the same people have the gall to use their words now to do exactly the same thing again but this time they have not only Assad slaughtering them they IS too.

I am quite surprised/annoyed.

Labour have called for a 2 day debate backed by the SNP re Syria , fine OK rational thinking.

I have been watching for quite a while now Parliament live. It's still taking place on free view 131. The debate is THE UK'S ROLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The predominant nature of the debate has been discussing Syria and the proposed vote plus the wider picture. If there has been more than 4 Labour MP's on the back benches I must have missed them. The SNP did fair better .

It does beg a question sometimes .

Hmm...I'm sure some Labour supporters will rush to their defence, but I'm not sure what excuse reason they're going to put forward.

Probably having their din-dins...

Perhaps you ought to read the link, POGS. Then you might understand more.
They are refugees because they were fleeing Assad. It tells you why in the link. If there were safe zones, they could go back.
The man quoted is a doctor. He reckons he has performed more operations than most doctors do in a lifetime.
It is right not to bomb Assad. We can try to stop Assad by not providing weapons to the middle east - and don't anybody say if we didn't, somebody else would. That's a facile argument. The UN says we should not supply money or arms.
By the way, when I say we or us, I mean the UN or Nato, whichever of the groups has the power to stop Assad. What's wrong with telling Assad that we will not help him over IS unless he stops harming his own people?

I know I shouldn't, but I like this cartoon.

thinkleftdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/12274672_10153727626639817_1460948593994356420_n.jpg?w=560

By the way, POGS, there has been three hours discussion since that post. Do you just follow my name to disagree with me every time?

It's a backbench business debate. There is never a vote on those. They get talked out. Did you not notice that all the Tory front bench disappeared straight after Hunt had finished his climbdown, or u turn if you like. Only a dozen of them left. They are probably at their clubs now.
On Wednesday afternoon there is an opposition debate, which will probably be the start of the debate on Syria.
Cameron probably wants as long a debate as possible as he is the one who needs to persuade more to vote for him.

No I don't Durhamjen but we have opposite opinions and will naturally clash. I have no problem when and if you respond to my posts! If you want to just make a statement and not be open to debate or other opinions then I'm sorry it doesn't work like that.

It is a debate on the UK's role in the Middle East and has been concentrated on the Syrian issue that is to my mind a matter that would be uppermost in MP's /Parliaments thoughts at the moment especially. I would have also thought it absolutely would be of interest for those who repeatedly say they need to digest more information/understand the matter more as I have heard from so many MP's recently. The debate would have given them more of an insight pity there has been so little interest in it.

There can be no debate until Cameron is there to answer the questions , there can be discussions as today but the debate which has been requested needs Cameron and the Foreign Secretary. No back bencher today could have the answers to the questions which need to be asked

Saturday morning on the Today programme a woman - sorry can't recall her name - said she had spoke to many refugees and they gave their reason for leaving was Asaad. This can be heard on BBC radio 4,i think in the last thirty minutes of the broadcast,

MPs will vote on airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria after a one-day debate on Wednesday, David Cameron has said.

"This question is that this house has considered the UK's role in the Middle East."
They agreed that they had considered it!

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/why-all-possible-pressure-must-be-put-on-mps-particularly-labour-mps-to-stop-the-rush-to-war

You can still contact your MPs to ask them to vote against bombing.
The last few paragraphs of this article are interesting. The idea that some on the front bench are going to vote with Cameron has made the back benchers more determined to vote with Corbyn.
Good.

There was going to be a meeting tomorrow. Instead there is going to be a march from Parliament to both Labour and Tory HQ.

I think there's enough bombing already going on in Syria without the UK adding a few more. No point.

The media is concentrating on how Labour will vote, but does anyone know which way the SNP are inclined?

SNP are voting against.

Thanks DJ. So with a free vote chances are we won't bomb. Fingers crossed!

Cameron was asked for a two day debate with answers he has previously avoided given, he has refused and will have a one day debate with a vote.

The lives of God knows how many innocent people will be taken and he doesn't consider these lives worth just one more days debate before the killing starts. He is determined to bomb , despicable man

Those on the right and the Tory press can mock Corbyn but he has tried to save lives , seems he may fail but he has done all he can against a warmonger PM who is more concerned with being considered on the world stage than with many lives which will be lost

I am devastated, shame on all who longed for this bombing .

Sadly those against this bombing will share the reaping of the whirl wind along with those who want the innocents blown to bits

Chances are that we will bomb.Fingers crossed.

Your last post Anniebach is total and unmitigated rubbish.

we do not have a 'warmongering ' PM , we have a responsible PM, Corbyn would not contemplate selective strikes against anyone, even terrible death cults like ISIS, he has said that he is not a pacifist but if course he is, and we must thank God he is not in charge of our country.
You say the most outrageous things in your post, that frankly are not really worth replying to.

We are extending what the RAF are doing in Iraq into Syria, joining other countries to get rid of a great evil, not starting a world war on our own, as some seem to think!

Believe it or not, Anniebach, I agree with you.
Why is Cameron not a warmongering PM? He is doing just the same as Blair did.
He is going to organise airstrikes against a country that is in ruins already.
This government tells lies. It says that no civilians have been killed by UK airstrikes in Iraq.
We still do not know the real death toll of the drone where Emwazi was supposedly killed. It is still just " reasonably certain" that he was killed.

A vote on another forum has resulted in me voting against air strikes; I thought long and hard about it but couldn't think of an example in recent years where air strikes have actually stopped an escalation of conflict. For what it's worth it's currently 50/50 after pages and pages of debate, which goes to show just how complicated the whole thing is.