Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

And who can train and arm the civilians in Syria ?

Most of our young men were not soldiers before WW 1 & 2 until they volunteered or were conscripted. They had to be trained and armed.

I

The Syrian men fleeing their country are not soldiers and are victims of both IS and Asaad who has been using chemical weapons on them

Exactly! And excellent weaponry it is too.

We have the weaponry?

Quite simply I find myself swinging between 'yes we should' and 'no we shouldn't.

What I don't understand is why our forces should have to put themselves in danger when so many Syrian men are feeing their own country for safety here or elsewhere.

In reply to your second post. I also believe that doing nothing, letting others do it for us or just hoping that it will only affect those poor poor people in the ME, and somehow be nothing to do with us, is not an option. My only concern is what is put in its place?! Maybe someone somewhere has some sort of plan for this?

merlotgran - regarding your comment about Leon Bernicoff of Googlebox wanting air strikes on Syria, despite being left wing. I have read, and, as his name suggests he is Jewish. Leon did touch upon prejudicial attitudes he had experienced in his growing up years. Whilst Leon and his wife don't disguise their politics and would no doubt support us taking in more refugees, I wonder if at the same time those feelings are not tinged with a certain apprehension, given recent hostilities that some of the Jewish community in France seem to be experiencing.

I agree entirely with your post POGS. You've absolutely hit the nail on the head. We are, as you say, already bombing in Iraq making us a certain target for terrorism. Bombing in Syria, from that point of view won't make any difference. Our intelligence agencies, and almost certainly our special forces, are on the ground; that will also make us a target. Our PM has behaved totally correctly over this very serious matter and clearly will continue to do so. The fact that we have so far escaped a Paris like attack is purely down to the efficiency of our security forces - nothing else. As the IRA said, they, on the attack, only have to succeed once, we, on the defence, have to succeed every time.

I don't think I have read one post on any thread that has said this 'is straight forward' nor realised that this is an enormously complex matter. There can be no other view taken.

This is not a UK problem. This is a 'Worldwide' problem. We have to take realistic measures to combat the rise of Islamic State and those factions who have aligned themselves with it throughout the world.

To read some posts there just seems to be a total disregard , maybe wishful thinking that we can somehow be left alone by the Extremist Muslim terrorist if only we don't fight either them or their desire for a Caliphate/world domination of Sharia Law, their barbaric, medevial interpretation of Sharia Law .

Others take a different view that we have only one option and that is to fight against their barbarism and the spread of the territory they have gained a major foot hold in and accept that this is not a fight that is overseas in the Middle East, it is also on our own doorstep and we cannot win the fight unless we join the fight by using every means available .

I am reminded how fortunate we are to be able to discuss/debate what our views are, share our opinions and live in a democratic society. This is what I hold dear and the people in Raqqa , Aleppo are being slaughtered by IS and Assad and Russia . Beheading, rape of women and children , barrel bombs and phosphorous chemical weapons , need I go on!

Yes I agree it is complicated but personally I believe doing nothing is not an option if all we are doing is watching, listening, hand wringing and expressing our sympathy then what have we as a nation become.?

With at least eleven countries bombing Syria over the last two years,what is left to bomb and how is IS still active ?

I think that the crux of the dilemma is that there are complex factions in Syria which we cannot hope to understand - who is good and who is bad? - as a previous link demonstrated. Might one "bad" faction also benefit from our intervention; and do we want that? Who are we getting into bed with over this? - and are they good bedfellows?

There is nothing at all remotely straightforward about this situation. This is another good reason for concentrating on minutely targeted actions on the basis of intelligence gathering. That way we target only those who are known to be terrorists who might target the west. Goodness knows who else we might finish up inadvertently slaughtering and thus making more enemies.

I am surprised politically astute (usually) posters are giving an innuendo of wrong doing/underhanded dealings by Cameron with regard to the Chilcot Report.

The Chilcot Inquiry is an 'Independent Inquiry' set up by Labour with no time scale.Cameron has made 'many' references in a negative way about the delay , even in Parliament on many occasions .His patience has been tested too but he is not in any position to hasten / involve the government in any way to interfere with an Independent Inquiry , quite rightly.

Innuendo and political bias is one thing but keep to the facts.

As for Cameron being another American Poodle or worried about saving face I don't agree. He has for two years accepted that there was opposition to the UK taking action in Syria by the Opposition benches and a few Conservative MP's. He did not lie to the public and even more so did not stand in Parliament lying through his teeth knowing there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and our potential threat from Saddam Hussein. like Blair did to gain votes for action. As for joining the coalition airstrikes into Syria and not stopping at the border he is asking again for Parliamentary agreement, he does not have to he could take that decision alone as Prime Minister, unless I am mistaken?

He is not Blair and he is in a different position to the Iraq War. Iraq was an
'Invasion'. Iraq did not have UN backing, The UN Security Council has 'finally' UNANYMOUSLY voted for a resolution for ALL countries to fight IS.

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL:-

"ISIS CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL AND UNPRECIDENTED THREAT TO INTERNTIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY .AND EXPRESSES THE COUNCILS DETERMINATION TO COMBAT ' BY ALL MEANS ' THIS UNPRECIDENTED THREAT".

It proceeds.

'THE. RESOLUTION. CALLS 'ON ALL' UNITED NATION STATES TO. INTENSIFY. THEIR. EFFORTS. TO. STEM. THE FLOW OF FOREIGN. TERRORIST. FIGHTING. IN IRAQ. AND. SYRIA AND TO PREVENT. AND. SUPPRESS. THE FINANCING OF. TERRORISM'

We know the UK has thwarted at least 7 terror attacks on our soil. The only reason we have not as 'YET' had a terror attack similar to Paris is because of the work our security services have undertaken, sheer b----y good luck too.

It's all fine and dandy to say what spending should be used for as opposed to defence such as housing, schools, NHS, infrastructure , in an ideal world and our dreams who would not agree. However we need to accept that we have , now, this minute IS terrorists and their followers plotting to destroy every little thing that we consider to be our culture , our way of life, simply our existence.

The main worry people have is joining with the coalition into Syria will escalate our chances of terrorism on our soil. We are already doing so in Iraq so that brings us back to the fact we know we have been a target for years and have to thank the security services for our daily protection.

It won't be Syria that has caused it , it will be the desire by the 'extreme ' Muslim terrorists to finally achieve a terrorist attack, Syria will be used as a propaganda tool and the 'next' attack that happens in the UK will be blaimed on Cameron as
sure as s--t flies off a shovel but but for goodness sake accept we could have been Paris over several years, we have been lucky.

I think he probably did. Hind sight is a wonderful thing!

Blair probably thought they were at the time.

Good point.

I find it interesting JC is trying his best at the moment to stop his MP's having a free vote when he has defied the whip himself so many times.

Blair's actions in Iraq were not in the interests of his country.

Is there perhaps a conflict of interests between being the PM of the UK and the leader of a political party ... just now and again maybe?

No soon, I was referring to the fact that in the past we've been America's poodle, and we don't want to become Europe's. I agree with you about Obama!!!!
I think we have to believe that our PM is acting in our best interests as he sees it. As you say though, situations change daily, and even with the best will in the world, there are so many conflicting forces at work here, that even the almighty himself would have a bit of a struggle!!

On the other hand, I can't see any PM of any political persuasion deliberately doing what he/she considers to be against the interests of the UK.

Compromises may have to be made, but ultimately we have to accept the decisions of the elected government leader.

Bombing alone won't fix Syria as it will certainly need ground troops to move into that area to secure it. It can't be European troops, as they would soon become an army of occupation, so it will have to be Syrian troops. Problem with that of course is what/which troops?! The wisdom of Solomon would have a problem with this conundrum. When (euphemistically may be!) IS have been defeated,what then?!

Watching 'Gogglebox' last night, it was interesting to see Leon Bernicoff, the left wing retired teacher who hates David Cameron, supporting the bombing of Syria whilst Andrew Michael, a former UKIP candidate, was against it.

I was expecting their views to be the other way round.

So many arguments for and against. So much conflicting evidence. I find it impossible to make up my mind and I'm glad I don't have to.

"I think any PM has to do what he considers to be in the best interests of the UK" - I so wish that I could believe that nellie. There are so many complex political undercurrents, both domestically and internationally, that sadly I cannot give credence to that statement for a PM of any political persuasion. They do what they have to do, or what they cannot avoid. They are swept about by forces that are greater and stronger than they are.

I am not sure that the UK is an American poodle at present, as it seem to me that Pres Obama is going to do as little as he can get away with as regards IS.