I'm with the 'No' vote on this.

Who are these moderate rebels Cameron speaks of? could they be the same rebels that are being backed by the west to topple the Syrian sovereignty? The same barbaric terrorists that behead their enemies, enslave their women and just like ISIS marry off child brides? Whilst the West has been fed a one sided story, if you bother to look, you will soon discover that uninterested nations are being drip fed the full picture and its very different from the one we are getting.

I would put money on our perception of Syria being hugely misleading one or that this so called 'war on terror' is going to end the same way it did in Libya and Iraq. We are all aware that Blair lied to us over Iraq and Cameron lied to us about Libya and yet here we all are once again, in the same place at a different time, nodding our heads in agreement with Cameron.

You can't make the same mistake over and over and expect a different result.

Just remind yourself what Cameron told us about ISIS and Assad before the Russians got involved. Everything Cameron is feeding us about Syria is full of holes.

Isn't this what happened with Iraq though?

I agree they are not clear on strategy, but I still think its necessary to be able to take action against ISIS at its root. I personally would give agreement to the principle, but want a lot more work done on their strategy.

I remember what he said about Libya too and the so called moderate forces we helped there.
Who near all virtually turned out to be almost as extreme as Gaddaffii and some even worse.

He does need a stronger argument next week and absolutely no fudging over things either.

@Bitontheslide

I think Russia were doing a pretty good job of that but we can't risk Russia dominating the middle east can we?!?!

@Joey

Yes, Libya was brought to its knees in the cruellest of ways too .

This is a really good radio debating channel that's worth listening to https://www.rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/3...strikes-media/

I fully understand you view DR
as USA and Intense Russia
Mega Bombing
is murdering innocents every day.



On Libya
on do not see the PM guilty as you say
as they set up 3 times
power - but as with all other nations
the Groups wanted nothing to do with it.
No way can hold a gun to people
and say you follow us.



Back to The Vote on Monday
more of Corbyn's Cabinet
want to vote for bombing

[QUOTE=arista;8316594]I fully understand you view DR
as USA and Intense Russia
Mega Bombing
is murdering innocents every day.



On Libya
on do not see the PM guilty as you say
as they set up 3 times
power - but as with all other nations
the Groups wanted nothing to do with it.
No way can hold a gun to people
and say you follow us.



Back to The Vote on Monday
more of Corbyn's Cabinet
want to vote for bombing[/QUOTE]

A fair number of Conservative MPs are against a new bombing campaign too.

I still say a free vote is the right thing to do here and if Jeremy Corbyn is against action and most of the Shadow Cabinet are for it, then that is for all their own consciences.
No one should be forced to vote as to any way against their conscience on this.

No matter what status they have in their respective Parties.
I'd support the action now myself were I an MP but I would equally defend totally the rights of all those opposed to any more action by us to vote as they wish too without petty criticism of them for doing so..
That would be real democracy.

I don't think we need to get involved yet, Let Russia and China lead the charge and get involved if the situation escalates. We should be wary of getting involved in it any further unless there's no other option.

i think it should be a free vote too. It will be a defining moment for Corbyn if he insists labour vote against, and I don't think he would last long after if he does so.

I absolutely agree with what you've said.

As lamentable as innocent lives lost as 'collateral Damage' are Arista, the bombings are still not killing anywhere near the daily number which IS are.

This could turn out to be a genius move from Corbyn the last war we entered didnt do much for Tony Blairs reputation.

[QUOTE=joeysteele;8316834]



No intelligent fair-minded person would disagree with you here Joey. I certainly don't.

The difference between Iraq and now is that Blair trumped up the idea that Saddam was a danger to us here without substance. No-one is in any doubt that ISIS are a real and present threat to us here and now.

Great point BOTS.

Since 9/11 there has been a threat to us from various groups the taliban, al qaeda, hezbollah, jihadists, ISIS, ISIL.

How would bombing reduce that threat?

Reduce the living members of IS - reduce the threat. Eventually not enough IS members left to be a threat - No more threat. Simple maths.

Seriously, you have forgotten Afghanistan already? They were a threat, and action was taken. ISIS is another example

Hang on you just said that Afghanistan was an unsubstantiated threat.

Isn't the biggest threat to counter terrorism forces home grown terrorism?

What's the alternative? We sit back and let other people do our defending for us.

Cut of ALL the Hydra's heads and the whole beast dies.

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan