to think the UK should not get involved militarily with wars in the middle east?

[DecisionsDecisionss]

Controversial subject, but I don't understand why the UK is getting involved again militarily in the middle east. I'm not expert, but Afghanistan seems to be a corrupt mess even after the war there and Iraq is looking awful. I understand that Christians and other religions are being persecuted and killed by Islamic State, but isn't bombing them just making it worse? Islamic State are despicable, but I don't see more war as a long term solution, is it not better to focus on diplomacy and sanctions and dropping aid to those in need? Also decent deterrents to UK jihaddists like life in prison?

I don't think any more UK servicemen and women should be sent to war, perhaps if we were less involved then we'd be less at risk of jihaddists in the UK too. Aibu and maybe I'm not understanding it fully, please enlighten me.

I am following this for some of the fantastic intelligence I see on all subjects here on MN because i havent got a drigging clue either

Diplomacy with ISIS?
Yeah good luck with that one.

i don't understand either. i'd leave them to it. we seem to just make it worse

I'd usually agree and say the uk shouldn't drop bombs. But these people will kill us if we don't try and stop them now.

Every bomb we drop acts as a recruitment drive for the fanatics- I agree with you, OP. We should be funding domestic opposition to IS and keeping our beaks out.

I am concerned about the decision to take military action. I don't know if it's the right thing. I don't think diplomacy can work with groups like ISIS, but I'm not sure that air strikes will solve the problem either.

I worry that we're not going to eradicate the problem of extremism through military action. Even if we wipe out the whole of ISIS now, it won't stop a new group of extremists starting up. Where will it end?

If we had spent all of the money on developing renewable alternatives to oil, instead of Gulf war 1, Gulf war 2 and the Afghan war the Government wouldn't even consider military action.

Its all about oil and maintaining our supply of it.

The thing is, we are already involved. This is already our war too, whether we like it or not.

We can't just let them grow and grow and grow. If we had been more involved at the beginning, it might not be this bad now.

We, like many others, have to do our bit.

Some muffin on the radio today said we need to talk to them and compromise?????????????? They don't want to compromise, they want world domination at any cost.

They thrive on shock tactics involving innocent bystanders..... One day (soon) they will attack here on our streets too.... Do you want that?

They are amongst us. It's not all 'over there'

This is a case of nipping it in the bud before it expands to such proportions that it will be uncontrollable

It's playing right into their hands though- they want to draw the West in again, because it grows their organisation.

The proper way to deal with them is to work with moderate Islamists, over there and in the UK.

It's a no win situation. As much as I don't like the idea of us heading into war again realistically what other option is there? Sit back and let this very dangerous group get more and more powerful?

I think it's already uncontrollable in some ways. I'm not sure how we can nip it in the bud. As someone else has said, this action may just inspire a new generation of terrorists.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, not necessarily. I just don't know whether it's going to make enough of a difference. I'm not sure if this is the type of war that we can fight with military force. We need a different solution for the longer term.

Poor Iraq! IS sound appalling, but weren't they financed by the US to fight Assad?

The west are already in it....

I think The hostage they have right now has already been executed and we will hear of it soon. Just my opinion

And this is not going to go away. What is it they actually want from us? Money? What do you think would make them stop? What do we need to 'give' them?

What longer term solution? All convert to Islam? All of us? The entire world...

There are lots of things we could do, Sirzy. Fund the domestic opposition, stop travel to Syria and Iraq, issue Foreign Office warnings, mount a joint propaganda campaign with moderate Muslims here, drop aid, tighten sanctions, pull at-risk workers out of those countries...I'm sure there are more I've not thought of.

What you don't do is play their game and build their power base by bombing them.

'Its all about oil and maintaining our supply of it'.

Bollocks it's about the oil. A vapid argument redolent of a 6th form politics debate. Britain imports 4% of oil from the middle east. The US is essentially self sufficient. This is about many things but oil ain't top of the list.

I can't see the oil connection either

I think Britain and the states are scared..... Really scared

Anyone who thinks this 'war' is only about a few Middle Eastern countries isn't really seeing the bigger picture, including the fact that the western world having to take military action is down to them going into Iraq and Afgahnistan in the first place.

I don't remember covering future energy security in sixth form and then if you think the Middle East conflicts are about what is happening now you are being very short sighted.

The west has a vested interest in ensuring it has access to Middle East oil reserves in the future, due to ever increasing demand for oil and oil products from countries like China ( now the largest oil importer). The Middle East collectively has far bigger reserves than the West and Russian isn't playing ball. Being able to control Middle Eastern oil supplies also brings massive financial power.

The fact is ISIS (or whatever today's name for them is) has control of large oil fields has given them huge financial reserves, which they have used to arm themselves and pursue their fanaticism. If they had no oil, they would have no money, so they wouldn't be as strong as they are.

If you think it's not about oil, then why haven't the West been helping the oppressed people of North Korea, Burma, Tibet and all the other places in the world that are ruled by murdering tyrants?

In this particular instance, the Iraqi government has directly asked Britain to join the bombing campaign that the US, France and others (including some Middle Eastern countries, which makes a change) have been engaged in for the last few weeks. That's why Parliament was recalled for a debate and vote on a very clear and specific motion, and is also why there was such a clear majority for taking this action. Parliament has voted to agree to the bombing of IS in Iraq only, not Syria, and there is no agreement to put British combat troops on the ground. The ground war is being waged by the Iraqis and the Kurds, but they need help, and we have missiles that others including the Americans, do not have.

Clearly there is a wish to be able to move into Syria as well among some, including within Government, but as David Cameron was saying in his speech to the House yesterday the situation there with Assad is far more complex. After all, we would hardly be wanting to help keep someone like Assad in power after what he has done to his own people. Mission creep is obviously the fear, but this motion was clear and specific. Unless in the case of an immediate humanitarian emergency (the Yazidis on the mountain would have been one such instance, althought I don't think we were involved in that in the end) the government would have to go back to Parliament for approval to extend action beyond the clearly defined motion passed yesterday.

Stopping travel to Syria would achieve nothing, most of the people that have travelled to join IS have travelled to Turkey then crossed the border on foot/ by car.

Strategic air strikes will, hopefully, weaken IS enough that Iraqi/Kurdish/Syrian troops can deal with them on the ground. But one thing is for certain, we cannot simply stand back and say "not my problem".

The diplomatic avenue in't by trying to open relations with IS. It's about encouraging the nations in region to intervene. (Which is I suppose happening given that this is more genuinely a multinational initiative, and also Iranis back at the table).

There is however a high chance that it will not turn out as expected. I haven't seen a single decent account of what the application of air power is intended to achieve. At the moment, it is essentially close air support for the Iraqi forces, but it's really not clear that they hope to achieve nor is that will actually stop IS as they exist in other countries too.

Wasn't it about this time last year that the Government wanted to bomb Syria to assist the opposition? IS was part of the opposition and so if Parialment had not voted against it, we would have dropped bombs to assist them.

I am not convinced that, despite Cameron saying he was assured there was a plan, that any adequate one exists.

And I don't think it can whilst Syria remains only partially under government control.