He wants a reason... I would've thought any reasonable person would.
The reasons he has given so far are inadequate and that has been reported regularly, it is not some off the wall reaction to expect this from a PM on the eve of war.
Of course he can't make things go perfectly, he has been leader a matter of weeks and is pushing against years of alternative views... if it was that easy there would be no wars.
He never stood a chance against the war machine.

I agree that we need to work with Russia in this objective but we have to do this with an air of suspicion and not take our eye off the ball.Russia imo are not just in this to destroy ISIS.They have bigger plans imo.I don't think regime change would be an option now that Russia are dug in deep in Syria.
I agree that with all the nations involved that Syria is a melting pot and much care needs to be taken so as not to heighten East/West tensions.
I still believe we have a big role to play and need to do our part.

I don't see Syria as completely different, our PM said he wanted Assad gone,we were not initially going into Iraq to assassinate Hussein, we went in to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

Now we are again being told this is not to bring about regime change, although it was all it was about 2 years ago for this PM.
That now it is to root out and destroy IS.

Doesn't sound a great deal different to me from Iraq and if we make the same mistakes here as we did there, this time real chaos will be the result.

I also disagree with you MTVN, I am not convinced Saudi has a wish to do anything to remove IS and I have even less faith in Turkey.
also I do not believe we would ever take any action against Saudi or seek to offend it either.
Despite all the atrocities that go on in Saudi Arabia.

What is needed is the Saudi's,other Arab Nations and even moreso Iran too to pledge to help in the fight against IS then we may stand greater success.
None of that is really forthcoming however at all.

I believe the government and US are now hoping that Assad will just quietly dissapear or die or step down.I don't believe the UK and US would attempt regime change now that Russia have dug their heels in.

There's a clear misunderstanding here ^

The Saudis bear some responsibility for stoking extremism in the Middle East imo, but I do think they are quite terrified of ISIS now and have unleashed a monster they can't control: the Saudis might preach an extreme form of Islam but they're also a stable nation state and ISIS threaten that. They need to do more I agree but at least they are engaged in the process and there is the potential there for a coordinated effort. We never saw a meeting or a statement like this before of so many countries united in their opposition to ISIS: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/11/249511.htm

'That this house notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom;

welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an ‘unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and calls on states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to ‘eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria’;

further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter;

notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria;

welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement;

welcomes the Government’s continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria;

welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters, and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance;

acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian causalities; using the UK’s particular capabilities;

notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;

welcomes the Government’s commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House;

and accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria;

and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.'

Motion on Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-politics-live

Tomorrows PMQ's is now cancelled - the buggers

Due to the Day of "Self Defense - Bombing Syria Debate and Vote "

Saudi has already taken part in the US-led coalition air campaign against IS. Many of those air strikes started from Turkish air bases. I've personally seen what's happening in Jordan, not only do they back the West's anty IS stance, they have taken 80% of the refugees that have fled from Syria.

There seems to be a lot of criticism still levelled as to Saudi Arabia's true ideal as to IS from all circles.
However you, I do accept and recognise, have a greater insight as to the area than certainly I do for one.
So I take what you say above fully on board.

The ISIS flag is black and white. What else on here is also in black and white?

Corbyn is on the news right now worried about civilian casualties BUT not in this country. All of us here (the ones who ACTUALLY voted for him) he does not give a shyte about at all. :nono:

Oh for goodness sake.
Parliament are not debating and voting on whether to bomb here, they are voting on whether to bomb in Syria.
That is what Corbyn is addressing.

Corbyn was elected here by the british public. Why is he more concerned about the death of people in other countries than his own country and of the people who actually voted him in? Explain....

What will Corbyns response be when the UK is hit by ISIS????

He is bothered about the civilians in Syria because I say again, that is the country we will be helping bomb not here in the UK.
We are all or should be bothered about people being killed in other countries whether that is from us bombing, or others or them being killed by their own governments.
It is called compassion.

It was on the cards to happen and I think us now joining the bombing in Syria will escalate even further that happening.
As to Corbyns response, that will have to be seen if and when it happens but hopefully it doesn't.

France would have a very different point of view on that, Do we wait until it happens here before saying lets do something about it or do we smile and shake their hand and try to get them sat around a table knowing that no matter what is said we are infidels and must be killed? Are you ok with risking UK lives because you would like to debate with muderers who have no intention of debating with you?

The question in here that folk should answer honestly is... Are you for or against UK citizens being blown up. Yes or no. It's that simple.

Kizzy said...He wants a reason... I would've thought any reasonable person would???
We know that these people are NOT reasonable that we are dealing with.
They do NOT want a chat and have a cup of tea. They simply want to kill all infidels. So when the bomb goes off on a UK street killing UK residents you will then say..Lets bomb them? It's ok now?

Its not a simplistic issue.

First, i think its worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong in itself with not wanting to attack another human being. Some people will not fight back under any circumstances, no matter what the threat is to themselves. Again, that's fine.

Where things begin to change is where you have the protection of your family to consider. Is it still ok to sit back and do nothing, when a child that is dependent on you, needs you for protection. At that point, it becomes a responsibility.

For a politician, the people of the country are in effect an extended family, so they need to make their decision based on looking after the family.

To be a pacifist and potentially the prime minister, I think are mutually exclusive. Not being a pacifist does not equate to a war monger, but being a pacifist in that position automatically puts the leader/prime minister at a disadvantage because those who would do us harm know that they can do as they want with impunity.

With leadership comes responsibility, and not just looking after ones own interests. I think Corbyn has shown that he will always put his own interests first, and that this vote tomorrow will be yet another element that hastens his departure.

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-992x558.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-992x558.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-992x558.jpg

Shocking accusation from the PM, embarrassing outburst.

Had I been a Labour MP and my inclination would be to support the PM in the Commons vote if I had been, just, on this issue.
After this despicable outburst,I would have likely voted against.

He may well need the leader of the opposition and the opposition parties,if this goes terribly wrong once we are fully involved, and what he has done here is lump Labour MPs who vote against,the SNP,Plaid Cymru,the SDLP and the Green into this ridiculous and unnecessary description.
Very unstatesmanlike.

No doubt he will be hailed for this as well however on here but thankfully not by me and I am sure not you either.