Cameron always said he would only hold the vote if he knew he stood a good chance of winning. Today will be interesting with 10.5 hours of debate in the Commons. The main issue is that the Labour leader,Corbyn has been forced to give a free vote to his MPs, and many in his shadow cabinet including the shadow foreign secretary will vote against him. I don't see it as the UK is declaring war, it's helping out and doing their bit because the whole world is at war with IS. With the UN Security Council backing, it is not like Iraq where the UN opposed action. The question is if the air strikes are going to happen, how long will it go on for?
The UK should join the fight against ISIS in Syria. Everyone wants to see the savages defeated. Even the Germans who weren't interested in involving themselves in any conflicts are wading in. The UK should do the same thing. Get involved and help fight the terrorists. Question though is will airstrikes all it takes to defeat ISIS? I doubt it. This is one war that will not end any time soon.
The Germans have now agreed to assist, but not via air strikes, but the 1,200 they send in will probably increase. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...litary-campaign-against-islamic-state/6992504 I am sure there is a bigger plan here, obviously no one can reveal it, but by pushing them out via air strikes, it can then give those on land more intelligence as to where the hide outs are and where do they all convene. It weakens them, and by doing so it may reveal their hand. If anything this is show France that they are allies.
For any country, not just the UK, stepping up action in Syria will increase the risk of terrorism in that particular country, and while I do agree that ISIS needs to be wiped out, are people willing to take the risk of facing even more terrorist attacks because of it?
UK is already a major target due to their past foreign policy. That being said, any western country is a target because we don't follow their view of the world. So yeah, bomb the shit out of them.
What many people don't realize is that UK already has soldiers that are Muslims themselves, perhaps radical Muslims, born in migrant families that obtained citizenship. It may be very messy, honestly, but on the other hand, I really hope that those cowards will soon meet their 72 virgins.
What is the alternative? Leave them to their own devices? I genuinely cannot see any way forward other than striking them. The UK is already a large target for terrorism and ISIS have repeatedly stated they want and will attack here so it's a what have we got to lose sort of situation. The voting results are due to come in after 22:30 GMT.
Just to add on to this: The vote for air strikes in Syria passed Yes - 397 No - 223 I'm not that good at math but that is a HUGE majority.
Well, it's already in the news that Prime Minister David Cameron's motion to send forces to Syria had been approved by the parliament. Where does this place NATO? Is there no concerted effort by NATO members to launch a full-blown attack on ISIS in Syria? If that is so then this UK contingent in Syria will just look like a junket. Isn't it that the US and Russia have their military forces in Syria a long time ago? It is just not felt because those uniformed military personnel are only having an excursion and not really joining the war.
