Should parliament vote before there is an air strike?

Do you mean in law or ethically?

Should there be a vote in Parliament? I’m sorry I don’t know how else to put it.

There’s not a law about it as far as I know so it’s a decision the Government will make

It would be better if Parliament had a say I think, but ultimately the government ofthe day can decide these things.

It depends what is meant by 'air strike' I suppose.

I think joining Trump in a bombing campaign would require a vote in Parliament (and would be defeated imo) but a specifically targeted drone strike would not as far as I know.

the whole of parliament should have a vote...we need our MP's to make the decision on our behalf.They wont bomb in MY name ..dragged into another conflict thats not our business just to keep the armsmakers in business.Remember the last WMD ? Turned out there weren't any!

A parliamentary vote is not required. There seems to be quite a few commentators thinking that a vote would be won however

Absolutely. I think they will vote if it comes to that. May would want the support of parliament if there is going to be a military involvement in Syria. It's a huge responsibility for one person to take and politically dumb to make it a personal, cabinet or party decision (I know that seems crass, but it's just the reality of it)

Well now we know the Cabinet are meeting tomorrow. Mixed views around about whether she’ll recall Parliament.

Of course there should be a vote, even if it's not legally required. We should not be following Trump blindly into another Middle East war. As we have seen before, missiles attacks solve nothing and just kill even more civilians, and the repercussions of previous involvements are still with us. Let's put a bit more effort into peace talks, as if we really mean it. I despair.

Definitely should be a vote.

Like Corbyn says (paraphrased) every war is ended because the sides talk. Let's miss out the war and go straight to the talking. You may or may not like him but surely talking is better than people dying. Even Churchill said, 'Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.'

Surely even May isn’t daft enough to repeat Blair’s mistake of taking us into a conflict situation without the full support of our elected representatives.

Good point VQ

There should be a debate and vote in Parliament before any moves by the government to become further embroiled in the dreadful war in Syria.

i know there were some MPs ( about a quarter of Labour and the LDs) ) who voted against Iraq but there was a Parliamentary majority in favour.

Was there? I must have forgotten that.

OM I don’t think you are the only one.

We definitely shouldn't follow Trump he is the most unstable president America has had for a long time he puts a whole new spin onto the word egotist. Syria doesn't care about its own people, we should care but I don't think our government should vote to bomb it's poor people, it's the ordinary civilians who lose the most not their politicians

Trump is only doing it anyway because he hates Putin

Iraq was an invasion leading to war. The Queen had the prerogative to declare war but passed it to the Prime Minister who took a vote to Parliament, although he had no legal compulsion to do so. An airstrike is a much more "minor" decision which just go across a desk.

But don’t you think absent that it’s not really about a one off air strike and all will be sorted? It’s about our backing Trump with all his unpredictability and frankly stupidity and Putin and Iran in the toxic mix.

Trump doesn't hate Putin; they're besties. I think he's just willy waving.

I agree with VQ. Let's cut out the middle bit and start talking.

Sorting problems by talking depends on both sides agreeing to talk. Talks may be the end result of most conflicts but one side frequently refuses to talk until they realise they are losing and it is the only alternative to complete defeat.

The Syrian conflict started when Syrian citizens rose in revolt against an oppressive government. There have been attempts to get peace talks going since the conflict started that have usually been abortive because of the obstructive behaviour of Russia and Syria.

Syria has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. When this started there were negotiations, yes, that means talks, to remove chemical weapons from the conflict. Agreement was reached and weapons were removed and destroyed by the Americans and others.

What happened? The Syrians immediately started making and using chemical weapons again, but have consistently denied they are doing so. What do the Americans and their allies do? They have talked, seemingly reached ageement, only to see one side renege on the agreement and deny everything despite incontrovertable proof.

In this situation how do you get talks going? How long will it take and how do you stop the further use of chemical weapons until they reach an agreement and how do we stop the duplicitous behaviour of the Syrians and Russians again. How many Syrians will die in chemical attacks, while waiting for all this to happen.

In the short term I can see no alternative to military strikes, but these should be targeted at the places these weapons are being made and the airfields and planes involved in their delivery.

Too often talks take only place because one side, which has consistently refused to take part in talks, preferring military action has only finally agree to them because they are on the brink of total military defeat. Sadly, in the Syrian war, neither Syria nor its allies are in that position.

The war has been going for 7 years now I think. I cannot believe that there has been no effort to get people to talk. Ultimately the forces involved don't want to talk and are pursuing a variety of agendas, killing hundreds of thousands of people and using chemical weapons in the process. Russia has even vetoed ceasefires for humanitarian aid.
Everyone knows that you need to stop fighting to end the war. The problem is that the people fighting are not interested in stopping.