Should Cameron apologise?

[Eric Arthur]

Like in 1940?

[lottiecass]

No he should not,isis need wiping out the sooner the better.Bomb as many as possible,show them the same mercy as they have shown others.To vote against bombing is sending them the wrong message.I am no lover of Cameron either

[ghost rider]

Which country and which ideals?

 

I'm uncomfortable with making bakers, accountants, doctors, students etc etc conscripts into a war not of their making. Bombed from one side by Assad, terrorised from the other side by ISIS (or whatever), never held a gun in their lives....they tried that in Iraq. Train local people to be soldiers and so ensure a stable country then when the first Isis flag appears on the horizon they all run like shi'ites.

 

I think it was Sunni rebels which started the conflict.

[melthebell]

Why should he apologise ? He was addressing his own party and we do not know the full context the words were said . He may have been referring to those Labour MP's who have told colleagues that they will be “murdering women and babies” by backing military action.

 

and none of that still means they support terrorists, it just means they dont want to kill innocents

[scania]

Thats one of the arguments though, they have no long term plan beyond bombing. They would like to know where the bombing leads. By iyself its not going to do much. Just becayse certain MPs will vote against extending the bombing campaign doesnt make them terrorist sympathisers.

 

I don't think any rational person is a sympathiser, as much as it's bandied about on here, but I do feel very strongly that there is just no chance of table top discussion with these animals. If that is the case, what other possible course if action can the world take, other than combat? It's sad to think that there will inevitably be civilian casualties, but if this scum is left unfought, then the risk of civilian casualties remains the same, and quite possibly worse. I would like to to think we can all live in a world were war is a thing of the past, but as much as the majority of the world has accepted evolution, these idiots still think a fictional god put them on earth, and you can't legislate with a fanatical moron.

[Anna B]

I have been watching and listening to the debates today and there are a lot of views from all the parties that vary wildly.I worry that some people are thinking with their hearts and not their brain,some of them seem to be relying on some sort of humanity from IS,Isis,Daesh whatever people want to call them and seem to be hoping for some sort of humanity from them so that they could possibly negotiate with them.I find this idea bizarre,i think it is quite obvious to most of us that this is fantasy.Undoutedly civilians will be killed but they are already being killed anyway in the most horrific ways.Anybody who does not match what they want is killed without mercy.We will be attacked at some point regardless of what we do because we are the enemy of their cause,only the skill of our intelligence organisations are keeping us safe.The argument that if we leave them alone and they will then leave us alone is wishful thinking.I think Camerons statement was a rash comment but I understand where he is coming from.I do not want a war but all the ones arguing against it do not have answers either,they say we need to treat the cause but they do not seem to know what the cause is either.I hear foreign policy mentioned lots of times as the reason but surely all the problems have not risen because of Israel and islams want of the destruction of the Jews.

 

I have also been watching and listening, (until about 4.0pm,) and have been impressed with the quality of the debate, and things said on both sides.

 

I still don't know who's right, (though I think I still vere towards not bombing) I'm glad I don't have to vote. However I do feel that without Corbyn, this debate wouldn't be happening or have generated such interest.

 

I know that ISIS is evil, but why are we getting involved? Surely Syria has enough of their own young men to form a formidable army against them.

[melthebell]

I don't think any rational person is a sympathiser, as much as it's bandied about on here, but I do feel very strongly that there is just no chance of table top discussion with these animals. If that is the case, what other possible course if action can the world take, other than combat? It's sad to think that there will inevitably be civilian casualties, but if this scum is left unfought, then the risk of civilian casualties remains the same, and quite possibly worse. I would like to to think we can all live in a world were war is a thing of the past, but as must as the majority if the would has accepted evolution, these idiots still think a fictional god put them on earth, and you can't legislate with a fanatical moron.

 

as has been said already start by starving them of support / members, cash and arms, you dont do any of that by bombing innocents

[Eric Arthur]

as has been said already start by starving them of support / members, cash and arms, you dont do any of that by bombing innocents

 

You think they will just pack up and call it a day tomorrow?

[GLASGOWOODS]

Most wars end when one side diffeats the other side and leaves them with no choice but to surrender and submit.

 

ISIS won't surrender so will have to be killed

 

No **** Sherlock!

[sgtkate]

I have been watching and listening to the debates today and there are a lot of views from all the parties that vary wildly.I worry that some people are thinking with their hearts and not their brain,some of them seem to be relying on some sort of humanity from IS,Isis,Daesh whatever people want to call them and seem to be hoping for some sort of humanity from them so that they could possibly negotiate with them.I find this idea bizarre,i think it is quite obvious to most of us that this is fantasy.Undoutedly civilians will be killed but they are already being killed anyway in the most horrific ways.Anybody who does not match what they want is killed without mercy.We will be attacked at some point regardless of what we do because we are the enemy of their cause,only the skill of our intelligence organisations are keeping us safe.The argument that if we leave them alone and they will then leave us alone is wishful thinking.I think Camerons statement was a rash comment but I understand where he is coming from.I do not want a war but all the ones arguing against it do not have answers either,they say we need to treat the cause but they do not seem to know what the cause is either.I hear foreign policy mentioned lots of times as the reason but surely all the problems have not risen because of Israel and islams want of the destruction of the Jews.

 

I don't expect ISIS to suddenly become human at all. I just think that bombing them will create more members of ISIS than we will kill. They are getting guns from somewhere. They are getting money from somewhere. Remove their guns and remove their funding and suddenly they aren't a massive threat anymore. There may be pockets of 'homegrown' supporters that will be unaffected but the bombs wouldn't have touched them anyway. Honestly, I think everyone on this thread and in the entire country (bar the crazy ISIS supporters) wants them gone and NOW, but some of us think removing their ability to hurt us is better than simply bombing them, and I've not read much to change my mind today even though I have tried (probably failed) to keep an open mind. As I've put on here before, I'd support full military intervention more than I will bombs.