Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

Poor devil he must feel absolutely helpless.

Poor devil he must feel so helpless.

Made me go cold, reading that, whitewave. I hope some of those thinking of voting yes watched it. It might make some change their minds.

Syrian chap on news in London, asking for us not to bomb as he is so frightened for his family still in a particular city controlled by IS.

Yes jen, exactly like Iraq

You mean like it happened in Iraq, Annie?

Just turned to BBC News and seen William Hague in the Lords. I wish he could have come to the Commons as he seemed to be being a little more honest about boots and the future.

Sadly some are guided by political ambition

It's part of democracy isn't it. In something as important as this MP's must be guided by their constituents, their knowledge/experience and their conscience.

Gracesgran, not being polite, being honest . There is no rhyme or reason in all this, we will start bombing tonight, no one knows for how long, we will not be sending in troops , we are going to depend on an unknown number of fighters who are now fighting among themselves to kiss and make up, free Syria of Assad and the world of IS , elect a new government so all the refugees can go home to a safe haven

I think pigs are flying over Westminster

There is a stop the war lobby outside parliament at the moment. A Guardian commentator has said that there will be consequences for Labour MPs who vote with the government, as if it is a threat.
But this is what Lindsey German said;

"I believe that those Labour Mps are acting against the interests of their constituents and their members,” said Lindsey German, Chairman of the Stop the War Coalition.“I would say to them: ‘think again and go into the lobbies to vote no. The war and its consequences will be on your consciences. You will not be able to escape the consequences of this war.”

It's true. The aftermath will be on their consciences because they were given a free vote. The Tories who are voting against the government could have consequences because they are going against the whip.

I've just watched a brief interview John Snow did with Dianne Abbot (against bombing) and Dan Jarvis (for bombing)

My own view remains this is the wrong time to join the bombing. If it came to having Dianne or Dan Jarvis responsible for the decision though, I know who I'd trust

Annie I think you are being polite. I am not sure anyone believes in the 70,000 . That was one of the areas that might have changed my mind - if they could have said, in a way we could believe, what boots they intended to put on the ground. I would also like to know what they saw as a government - decided by the people - and plans for supporting the area when we leave but I have heard nothing that changes any of this. If anything it sounds worse.

House of Lords are debating it as well.

"The just war criteria have, to my mind, been met. But while they are necessary, they are not by themselves sufficient, in action at this time... Our bombing action plays into the expectation of Isil and other jihadist groups in the region, springing from their apocalyptic theology. The totality of our actions must subvert that false narrative because by itself it will not work. If we act only against Isil globally and only in the way proposed so far we will strengthen their resolve, increase their recruitment and encourage their sympathisers. Without a far more comprehensive approach we confirm their dreadful belief that what they are doing is the will of God."

This is what Justin Welby said.

So sorry Gracesgran, posted similar at the same time, you worded it far better than I did or could

Excellent speech from Conservative Tom Tugendhat, another ex serviceman. Intelligent and informative.

David Warburton another well informed speech Somerton and Frome.

Many have said bombing alone will have little effect, quite a few have questioned the 70,000 Cameron has claimed will form a united army - no matter they are fighting on different sides and consists of over 100 factions ,

What next ?

POGS I would be a no vote if I was one of them and boots on the ground would be part of my reason for that. This may not be their reason but I will explain mine.

If I was going to vote for extending what we are already doing I want a reasonable idea of what our costs - lives and money - would be. In a sense I do not mind what they are (obviously a bit of a caveat there) but I would want to know before I commit. Everybody agrees ground forces will be needed. Most people believe DC is being naive (let's be nice) about the troop numbers he is suggesting so we would be moving to the next stage with no long term strategy. Not good. Some of these MPs would not vote if they knew the long term strategy and some would but, if I was them I would not vote for it unless I knew what I was voting for. The chances are that eventually it will our troups - if no one can show that differently they must take that into account.

That may confuse you more sorry.

It's interesting watching it and reading the live updates on the Guardian website. It's amazing how many MPs are tweeting at the same time. You'd think they would be listening, particularly Labour with a free vote.
Point of order - does Caroline Lucas have a free vote? I know which way she is voting, but was it her own decision?

AB

Yes I have been watching all day from 11.30 I am very interested and I have had the opportunity to give it due attention . I shall follow it through on Parliament live until it's come to an end.

I wish they wouldn't interrupt so much. Stops the flow of the speech, and there are so many of them wanting to speak.

Yes Twigg will but he is one of the few who has visited the country and spoken to the refugees , he has seen the suffering

I cannot stop thinking about the children who will be killed or maimed

Just a thought POGS, you said about an MP making his speech and then looking Cameron straight in the eye, my telly only shows the person speaking and impossible to say who they are looking at, or the camera pulls back and faces cannot be seen. Are you watching on BBC parliment ?

Stephen Twig will vote against the proposal to join the bombing.

I am amazed listening to so many in the no lobby because they are saying they believe it requires boots on the ground as they feel air cover is not going to work alone.

This is agreed by those voting in favour and nobody has said any different.

Very confusing, if that is the argument from some who are saying no they are giving the impression that the motion should be for boots on the ground and air strikes . I think they are trying to be too clever and knowledgeable but there is a confused message in what they are saying and what I think they are trying to put over.