Prime Minister David Cameron will hold a Commons debate on Wednesday about whether to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria.

Mr Cameron said he believed air strikes were “in the public interest” and was keen to “answer the call from our allies and work with them, because Isil is a threat to our country and this is the right thing to do”.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – who is opposed to military intervention in Syria – said he would give his MPs a free vote on the matter.

Britain is already conducting daily air strikes against Islamic targets in Iraq. Wednesday’s debate will decide whether to extend those strikes to targets in Syria.

What do you think? Should Britain extend its bombing campaign in Iraq to Syria?


  1. No. This government has learnt nothing from history. We (Great Britain, USA, France and other allies) need to get men and machines deployed and advance into Syria behind the air bombardment. But air power alone has never won a war and it will not win this one.

  2. Do we need to counter the Russian IADS, their SA-21’s in the field and the SA-6-N’s on the Moskva? The sneaky Russians will be able to see us coming the second they take off from Akrotiri. Or do they propose that they overfly Iraq to strike in Syria?

  3. No, you already have the US, France and Russia in that airspace. What effect really will a handful of British Aircraft have? not much it is more symbolic than anything. We are already helping the French by letting them use our base in Cyprus.

  4. Simple answer is NO ! We have nothing to gain from it. Other countries are already dealing with it, and a small UK presence will make no difference. It would be better for us to send our recon aircraft rather than fighter bombers.

    The 70k figure of available “friendly” ground troops is a joke. Read the paper properly and you will see it massively flawed.

    There is no exit strategy in fact there is no strategy at all. War for wars sake is a nonsense. Keep our fighters at home, save the money for more important things. Cameron only wants to start bombing so he can have his spot at the dinner table when its all over ( in about another 10 years time…maybe ?) Its also illegal for us to operate in Syria currently. Only Russia has the correct permissions.

    I love the British military and I hate seeing it being abused by elitist politicians just to further their own careers.

  5. Syria’s borders should be closed and monitored. All Syrians of fighting age (including so called refugees wherever they should be, UK, Germany…) should be returned, trained, and armed to fight IS.
    The Kurds should have regional autonomy, and eventually Statehood.
    Through elections, the Syrian people should decide if they want Assad in government, not Obama, Cameron… and only when we have a coordinated Syrian army and airforce, who’s aim is to defeat IS and allow a free election, should we consider requests for British support.
    Yes, we are already at war! But not the type that can rely on airpower. The world needs to act its age, and rid societies of theocracy, only then will we move forward.

  6. My problem is with the mission creep and lack of an overall ‘end game’ strategy. There is a logical case to say that there is little difference between bombing ISIS in Iraq or Syria, just a border that exists only on paper now. The difficulty is extending this authorisation, whilst the PM stands at the dispatch box and tells porkies about ‘70,000’ rebel fighters, as if though it were a coherent unified fighting force. It seems that we are just carrying on without a plan, with our fingers crossed that somehow it’ll all work out in the end. Not good enough. For that reason alone, the vote should be rejected. No more open ended wars with no exit strategy. An endless pit of blood and treasure.

  7. It’s more a question of what can we do. We don’t have the bombers to add more to the numbers already involved in Iraq. So either we are moving assets from dealing with the issue in Iraq or we keep them busy in Iraq, its surely the same net effect.

    If we had more planes available, then why aren’t we using them in Iraq.

    So in conclusion No.

  8. how may aircraft need to be involved in one airspace,yes we need to do more but in an airspace that is full of aircraft from Russia the USA France Jordan it would only be a matter of time before mis-communication ends up causing a mid air crash,and the possability of pilots being paraded on tv getting there heads cut off or burnt alive,so no i think we should stick to the Iraq side of bombing and let the rest sort it out for once…i know dave is feeling left out of the club but still that is no excuse to cause more problems….or stick to using drones…

  9. Britain should conduct air strikes on any nation that supports terrorism, harbours terrorists or refuses to actively route out the scum. Anyone who threatens our nation is fair game.

  10. Yes. To partiton it consistently as “Syria” is not appopriate in this asymetric situation where what matters is the obliteration iof ISIL or whatever they are called today. After asll the Syrian/Iraq border was drawn up by the UK and Franceafter WW1 and is merely a line in the sand and not one ISIL recognise. There are complexities and potential military difficulties with the combbat in the Syrian domain for sure, but the UK’s involvement and capabilities are essential to this overall conflict for sure.

  11. Its a waste of time and ordnance bombing them. They all live in deep tunnels now and only pop up above ground to behead a few captives or buy some more women to fcuk. Cameron is afraid to put boots on the ground in case Daesh capture a few “who dares wins types” and beheads them on prime-time, which would realy upset the blue rinse brigade in Tory constituency clubs in the home counties. Better to hold back and keep the bombing as a response threat in case they let off a dirty bomb in the City, or declare UDI in Birmingham and introduce Sharia Law.

    Anyway, the the GR4 bombers are well past their sell date now and the RAF is running out of navigators.

  12. Jim & yanyat, we are not at war, only with ISIL. All you experts answer this–what do we all do if ISIL gets a nuclear weapon, do not say it couldn’t happen.

  13. Yes and we need to send the troops in as well starting in Iraq !! Because it’s all good doing these airstrikes but it won’t completely defeat ISIS for that you need experienced army or marines.

  14. The airstrikes and our actions in Iraq led to ISIS. I’m just curious, are we all that foolish?

    There are no shortcuts, the job in Iraq has to end before anything alse. A vision to bomb Syria means you may be responsible for any world war 3. ISIS an the four rebel groups must be destroyed before any sane individual or country talks about Syria.

  15. The issue with sending ground troops into Syria, is we also don’t agree with the government. At which point we are basically invading the country to occupy it, until we ever give up (ala Iraq / Afgan) or pretty much forever until we manage to get real stability in the country that has a chance to last.

    Bombing is just the easy option, you are seen to be doing something without committing to sort the mess out if you actually succeed.

  16. Yes we need to do something. However these 70000 troops on the ground are a figment of camerons imagination as they are all different sects and not a unified force.

    I think we are being sold short and told we need to bomb these people but with no exit plan or long term goal it’s only going to make things worse. Power vacuum is a good word I keep hearing

  17. No there’s already a desperate shortage of suitable targets.Putin has no exit strategy and must be desperate for us to join in.don’t get me wrong, I’m prepared to be quite ruthless, it’s a proper war. Civilian casualties are inevitable.we’ve just been through 2 defeats owing to a lack of strategy.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here