In tears

[G1veMeStrength]

Fucking parliament. You utter bastards. You're going to kill people and it won't stop anything.

The Saudis have not been mentioned on this thread. Until they are dealt with this will continue.

It is they who are spending BILLIONS promoting their twisted version of Islam across the Globe.

How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism

I honestly have to clue where I stand here.

I opposed the Iraq war, I lost a close family member in Iraq.

I don't think dropping bombs is the answer. But I think it's that or boots on the ground.

But I haven't heard anything from the other side that makes sense or is a good idea.

OP I understand you are upset and I am not berating you. But do you not think that they have already had intelligence experts working on this for years?

And to be honest 'let's get some women in the room, that will sort it' isn't a solution.

Until Corbyn comes up with an actual plan, I can't see many people listening to him.

It's not on to sit back.

"But do you not think that they have already had intelligence experts working on this for years?"

Indeed they have. Therein lies the problem. My aunt and uncle trained Afghanis in the 80s.

It's a crap situation and, as somebody as has said, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

mimi

Exactly. So the OPs idea that getting them in a room is a solution to the problem, isn't realistic.

I don't like this. I am am saddened by it. I remember the start of both Iraq wars. I saw the look of shock when dd got up this morning and saw the news. Likely it will be used as a debate point in her form room this morning.

I have just not heard a viable alternative.

I am so confused on the issue. I don't know where I stand.

Slaggy, there are probably quite a few gruesome scenes to be seen in places where ISIS holds sway. We probably won't find out exactly how gruesome until they are defeated.

This is a really bloody conflict and the only hope to reduce the bloodyness is to get it over with fast.

I would be very interested to hear what the brave people of Raqqa is being slaughtered silently and similar think.

I don't know where I stand either.

I would have voted no (and did on the Mumsnet poll!).

But I do think this is an extremely frightening, facist, dangerous and brutal enemy (as Hilary Benn so eloquently put) that must be destroyed - no matter how we got to this point.

It's also important to show solidarity with our UN partners and to show our might to Daesh.

But do I have faith in no civilian casualties? No

Do I have faith in the strategies after the strikes? No

Do I have faith in Cameron's motives for war? No

Do I have faith in Cameron at all? NO

I think this is a very, very sad morning OP and I share your despair

Auti -- SO true.

"and I would like to add that the US has no business going around the middle east and near east and north Africa encouraging revolution unless they have a very clear idea how the revolutions they sponsor are going to pan out"

I think this is an angle that does not get examined much.

If the Arab Spring had not been encouraged from one country to the next, what would things be like in Syria now? Assad was never a random capricious tyrant, though used considerable force to keep down those he saw as dangerous (and was extreme in the means he used, and not too bothered about taking out fighters' families as well).

But can that region ever be ruled without force? Because it's looking to me like a no, given the artificial borders.

I don't think there was really any choice. Whilst I don't want It to happen, I don't see an alternative.

Our force? We're spent. Lost everything in ww2 and no heart (or money) to rebuild. Definitely not for those who tried to nick everything.

Exactly SoupDragon. I feel the same.

What else should we do?

We should spend the money on humanitarian projects. The UK has spent £20 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. The U.S. Has spent £1 trillion on Iraq.

If that money had built hospitals, schools, infrastructure it would have won hearts and minds to an extent that would starve ISIL of the oxygen of hate they need to recruit. Western presence would be apprectiated or at least tolerated rather than the catalyst for suicide bombings.

you think they want to do good? Are you deluded? It never was, and has been, about winning hearts and minds. that's just the pap they try to hoodwink us with. It's just as much about dominating us as it is them.

I don't pretend to know what the right thing to do is, but I keep remembering this quote - 'evil thrives when good men do nothing'.

The MPs are damned whatever they do - if there is a terror attack in London then some will say it is because we took action, but it may have happened if we didn't.....

No one really wants war to happen, no one wants people/children to die. I am upset about it but sometimes there's no choice . I feel sorry for the families of soldiers that will be sent out to fight ( even though they joined up knowing that they will be trained to fight ), I feel sorry for the people's lives that will be put at risk and I feel scared that the uk will be at risk of attacks.

mimishmi who are you talking about? The government? No I'm under no illusion that any government will look for a real alternative to bombs. They lack the imagination and the courage to go against the norm. But kryptonite asked for an alternative and that's it.

If that money had built hospitals, schools, infrastructure it would have won hearts and minds to an extent that would starve ISIL of the oxygen of hate they need to recruit. Western presence would be apprectiated or at least tolerated rather than the catalyst for suicide bombings.

And you think Daesh would allow those hospitals to stand and function as palpable evidence of international humanitarianism, without attacking or interfering in any way? Look what they have done to aid workers.

if there is a terror attack in London then some will say it is because we took action, but it may have happened if we didn't.....

And if a terror attack happened and we hadn't taken action, it would have been because we'd done nothing.

Doughnuts: I have a feeling that the forces sent will not be voluntary somehow.

Yanbu op. Since when has indiscriminately bombing the shit out of the ME helped anything?

If we know where ISIS is to the point that we can target missiles enough to minimise civilian casualties, why aren't they going in on foot? Answer being, they can't be that precise. So they will bomb the shit out of the place and hope. I just hope that we are ready to be a tad more welcoming to the new influx of refugees fleeing our bombs, as we haven't proven too welcoming thus far.

Yanbu op. Since when has indiscriminately bombing the shit out of the ME helped anything?

Ah, come on. Bombing is always dreadful. But 'indiscriminately'? Why do people keep saying it will be indiscriminate?

There is huge awareness of the suffering of Syrians and better tech for surveillance than ever before.

They bombed oil depots this morning so it appears that they're going to try and starve Isis of funds by reducing their ability to sell oil.

I don't think this is the right military decision - a few more air strikes is likely to be symbolic rather than decisive but it is important politically for relations with nato, France and the us.

Some of the responses to the OP are cruel.

I never, ever want to get to the stage that I'm so desensitised to this shit that I will tell someone to get a grip and grow up for crying over all the innocent lives lost and the ones that are going to be lost in this whole mess. Someone said the OP was overreacting- it scares me that anyone could think crying over this in an overreaction.

This is a crying matter, whether or not you agree with the decision, you would have to have a heart of stone to not feel sadness.

I voted no in the MN poll, I am struggling to see how this will help matters at all.