To think air strikes on Syria will be the biggest political mistake of Cameron's life.

[TheoriginalLEM]

If you could tell me that no civilians would be hurt/killed and we would stop Daesh then I'd get in a plane myself (well i wouldn't but you know what i mean). Id be behind it 100%

Neither of those things are going to happen.

More innocent people are going to die.

Not just in Syria - lets face it, we are painting a fucking great target on the UK by doing this is. A bigger one than there already is.

There has to be a more intelligent way of doing this, we have intelligence don't we? we have drones? we have troops? Loathe as i am to send our troops in on the ground, it is fairer surely? Civilian casualties can be managed? Bombing is indescriminate and well, i doubt that any leading ISIS figures are in Raqqa just now.

It is futility in its greatest form and going to help no-one.

I can't see that any good will come of it. I suppose it's also possible that if we don't bomb ISIS, things will get worse, though I don't really understand how the UK has anything to add to the bombing being undertaken by France and the US, apart from metaphorically painting a great big target over London.

Blair took a gamble that things would work out in Iraq and everyone would hail him as a great leader. I can't really see why Cameron is taking the same gamble because Syria is even messier than Iraq and even less likely to turn out well.

No there isnt compos. There is never any way of knowing is there.

No, but the outcome is unlikely to be peace,stability and democracy is it? If I were a gambler, I would say more protracted and bloody struggle and with Assad's hand being strengthened to such a degree that he will be impossible to shift.

How do you propose to get rid of Assad.

How do you suggest we do it then? Given that your favoured course of action will make him more secure? Or will the mythical 70,000 moderate fighters ride to the rescue?

sorry I am not sure I have mentioned 70 + fighters I am not sure I have laid out any plan - assad is already hard to shift, how do you propose to shift him quicker?

I don't say I have a plan to get rid of Assad, I am saying that what you propose will make it a thousand times harder to shift Assad.

So, yes or no, bombing Syria will strengthen the hand of Assad?

I don't really understand how the UK has anything to add to the bombing being undertaken by France and the US, apart from metaphorically painting a great big target over London.

Apparently we have the Brimstone missile, which is much more exact, and easier to target specific targets thus reducing the risk of killing innocent Syrians. It is not intended to be like the awful carpet bombing in Afghanistan 10 years ago.

Also, this is not only about Syria, it is about our obligations to our Allies under the terms of NATO, and how our international standing might be affected.

Finally, people are arguing that our involvement in Iraq started all this and that further intervention will make us more of a target, but remember that France has suffered two terrorist atrocities this year, and they didn't even join in the invasion of Iraq, and were called cheese-eating surrender monkey's by the Americans for their trouble.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very doubtful about this plan but am beginning to think that there is no alternative. I think we (and Cameron) are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Thanks ingrid, interesting point about Brimstone

Compos, I don't think us bombing will really help dislodge Isis. Us around a table, as part of the campaign, talking about to remove Assad will help though. Being part of any process like that, will be helpful.

Will one more bomb being dropped on a target help? Maybe a teeny bit.

I think its more about the PR, another country joining, it sends a message not only to ISIS but also to PUTIN and ASSAD. Another country has now got more armoury in the region....

Pres' Hollande is splattered in blood now and gained in the popularity stakes. Cameron wants in on the act I guess?

It's a terrible idea and I hope he knows it deep down. It all depends on what America wants though doesn't it?

The UN is also supporting this action, it's not just the USA.

I thought Margaret Beckett's speech today was interesting.

Thing is, even if you think that taking military action is the right answer, that doesn't automatically make this particular action, ie air strikes, the right answer.

Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war.In WW2 there were hardly 2 bricks left together in some German cities.So should we have done nothing?

I don't like Cameron anyway but why is it pms always seem to want to wage war?

Good for popularity, apparently.

Ronald Reagan was reportedly madly-jealous of Margaret Thatcher because the Argentinian war happened - he considered that a 'good old war' landed in her lap - the success and patriotism during the Argentine war is, supposedly, what kept her in power.

I'm very against the bombing of Syria, so YANBU OP.

What fun watching MPs half pissed when they should be in chamber.

Even in WWII there were massive arguments about which actions were most appropriate.

The bombings of Dresden and Hamburg remain highly controversial - not because people didn't understand the concept of civilian casualties (hardly, after 6 years of war!) but because of arguments about their effectiveness.

Effectiveness vs other actions from which they diverted resources.
Effectiveness vs number of civilian lives lost.

Cameron is playing a game today. He has very explicitly posed Air Strikes and Do Nothing as the only two alternatives.

It's obviously untrue. But he's in this for show, and has no appetite for the truly difficult options that might have an impact, like boots on the ground, or pissing off Saudi Arabia. Hell, he doesn't even want to help refugees from the "woman-raping, Muslim-murdering, medieval monsters".

Nothing about this is easy. And making empty gestures with high explosive on human beings is not a smart way forward.

It's a stupid, knee jerk reaction to the Paris attacks. It is just what Isis want. A 'holy war' is a great recruitment tool for them. What could Britain achieve by this that all the other countries already bombing Syria can't achieve. It is bullshit.

This is about being in the Club. France asked for our help. We must do it. Or will no longer be in The Club. That's not quite the way it's being presented but it's as simple as that.

Forget Cameron, the worst mistake for our country.

Compared to cutting working tax credits and sticking his dick in a dead pig? No, it won't be the biggest mistake.

I want to see the polls. If there ever was a moment of glory for Lord Ashcroft, this is it..

ISIS want to launch attacks on us now.

Bombing Syria does not reduce that risk at all.

Without getting into a political argument and wishing to sit on the fence about ideological beliefs etc etc, has anyone else noticed an alarmingly increasing resemblance DC has to someone else?

We are already a target.

We have been bombing Isis since sept 2014
We are arguing about sending an extra 8 RAF planes

Isis now gas a territory bigger than Great Britain. We need to take back territory.

It's inevitable that we will bring in our ground troops in the end.

Saudia Arabia have the brimstone missiles too. I guess a good demo will now do a wonder for sales.

David Cameron's calling people who didn't want to bomb Syria 'terrorist sympathisers' reminded me of Herman Goring saying that when you want to bring people to war, you denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism.

www.elise.com/quotes/hermann_goering_-_the_people_can_always_be_brought_to_the_bidding_of_the_leaders

The best thing the west could do is find an alternative yo oil and then stay the fuck out of meddling in the middle East.

I wish I believed the air strikes on Syria would be the biggest mistake of Cameron's life but I'm just not convinced.

I completely disagree with the air strikes and I'm appalled at the woolly logic and name calling exhibited by Cameron to get us here.

But, we are stuck with him for quite some time and he'll see this as a vote of confidence in his leadership. God knows what other disastrous decisions he'll make before Osborne tries to take over and unleashes a whole other set of mistakes on us