Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

Ground troops will be needed before we achieve peace (if ever). That will be the next debate in the UK.

Why do the media and the opposition keep referring to what is an extension of an ongoing situation in Iraq as 'going to war'!! It's makes it sound like full mobilisation, as in WW1, which is most certainly is not! What is planned is carefully targeted air strikes by at most 10 aircraft, not troops and armoury leaving by their hundreds and mobilising, ready to march on Damascus or wherever. Is this being exaggerated to alarm people, or to persuade them to back away?! As has been previously said, air strikes have worked in Iraq, pushing Isil back from almost certainly overrunning Baghdad. We need to hit oil fields, installation plants and anything that enables this appalling regime to flourish. We cannot stand on the sidelines pontificating, while others shoulder the reality of the situation. How do we broker dialogue with the Syrian people? Which people? Syria's has so many different factions all with different agendas, which one do we choose to negotiate with? Will we fall into another trap? Ideally, UN ground troops would need to be used at some stage to peace keep on the ground. This obviously would take months to organise, if it can ever be agreed at all. Meantime, Isil regroup and pop up somewhere else! What with their medieval time warp and the Wests ineptitude, it's not a very happy picture to say the least.

It's not bombing Syria - it's bombing IS in Syria. There's those on here who makes it sound as if there will be random bombing. IS in Iraq is already being targeted, but their main stronghold is now just over the border into Syria, where roses points out they have mainly retreated to.

Many of the targets will be oilfields - this is where they get their income - munitions, and troops on the move.

I was against interfering in Syria two years ago. Though that was what seemed the best decision at the time (non interference) it has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent civilians being killed in the resulting civil war, many of them in bombings and gassings by the evil regime that is Assad. Many more are homeless refugees, flooding neighbouring countries and even into Europe causing the biggest mass migration in recent history. And this has allowed the cancer that is IS to gain a toehold and all the resulting beheadings, rapes and other atrocities.

All this because one evil man wanted to hand onto power and he had the might of Russia and that megalomaniac Putin behind him.

Could it really have been any worse if the west and/or the UN had acted at the very beginning?

I cannot see how bombing Syria will help. So the answer to the question is No. Ask the Syrians what is needed. Our interference, although well meaning never solves another countries problems. We have to consentrate on keeping Europe safe, we can only do that if we know who we have in our respective countries and bring back borders and identity cards.

Air strikes have been effective in Iraq in slowing down progress when large groups of ISIS are moving in convoys between cities.They were virtually at the gates of Baghdad, and air strikes either killed them or drove them back.
We do not have to vote, the MP's do that on our behalf, and yes it is a complicated situation in Syria, but if we can try and make a difference,even a small one to help kill or rid Syria of ISIS, then we should help.

Einstein said insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

An Open Democracy article written in 2011 by David Held and Kristian Coates Ulrichsen noted that:

In Afghanistan: "civilian casualty rates were the highest since 2001 ....... the insurgency is spreading to areas previously considered relatively safe, including the provinces around the capital Kabul ....... war-related civilian deaths in the first half of 2011 were 15% higher than in 2010, and the Taliban has expanded beyond its traditional Pashtun base to establish shadow governments in central and eastern Afghanistan as well"

In Iraq: "although levels of violence have dropped substantially since the sectarian slaughter peaked between 2005 and 2007, Iraq remains today one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with levels of daily violence that would be unacceptable in almost any other context... Iraqi state structures collapsed in 2003 and the country remains a failed state eight years later.."

In Libya: "more than 300 militias currently operate and the country is awash with weaponry, much of it taken from unregulated arms dumps. ....... Parallels with the lethal and overlapping low-intensity urban conflicts in Iraq for access to and control over localised resources and the spoils of power are becoming more apparent by the week."

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.

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.

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!

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.

Your last post Anniebach is total and unmitigated rubbish.

Chances are that we will 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

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

SNP are voting against.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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.

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.

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?