Are you supporting Air strikes against "IS" in Syria ?

[d000hg]

Hurrah, at last, your tiny brain cell has made a feeble mental connection....

So how does spending money right now "closing our borders" make any sense then?

We already have a planned debate on in/out but the intelligent people think we shouldn't sit there drooling until that happens.

It seems your answer to "what should we do about the urgent issue of Islamic terrorist groups" is "Leave the EU in a couple of years". Great thinking there.

[shaunbhoy]

Would shaunbhoy do? Potato peelers are important too...

Plus, if he gets captured he could reflect on that hostage situation thing, whether it's worth to leg it and take your chances or face certain death ...

Still smarting over being outfoxed in the Colombian Hostage debate I see Alexei. Time to get over it, you were wrong and I was right. Just accept that and move on.

[BrilloPad]

All this talk of precision weapons is nothing but hogwash. Its just another attempt to persuade the general population that bombing another country in the name of terrorism is okay.

Indeed. My brother was working for NATO in 99 and bumped into the guy in charge of Serbian campaign how things were.

"A lot better if we had not just bombed the Chinese embassy" he replied.

[BrilloPad]

Sir John Chilcot urged to get a head start on Syria inquiry

[BlueSharp]

It makes sense to go in to Syria if it helps our troops already in North Iraq as Jihadists are hiding behind the border and raiding in to North Iraq. As for bombing Raqqa and other strong holds I would wait and see what the situation on the group looks like before we expand the campaign West.

[d000hg]

I've got the debate on in the background as I work. It's fairly interesting to hear MPs talking rathe than shouting each other down but does anyone actually change their minds or is 10 hours(!) of debate just for form's sake?

[SueEllen]

I've got the debate on in the background as I work. It's fairly interesting to hear MPs talking rathe than shouting each other down but does anyone actually change their minds or is 10 hours(!) of debate just for form's sake?

10 hours of debate to show those who do what the majority of their vocal constituents want and those who don't.

[EternalOptimist]

I've got the debate on in the background as I work. It's fairly interesting to hear MPs talking rathe than shouting each other down but does anyone actually change their minds or is 10 hours(!) of debate just for form's sake?

No, it's always good to hear both sides of a debate. How many times have you held a strong opinion then suddenly a knock point is made, often by a normally quiet dude.
The last thing we need is dogma, we have a budget surplus in dogma

[SueEllen]

I'd rather we spend the time and money closing our borders and checking the identity of everyone in the UK who wasn't born here, remove the hidden terrorists, stop any arriving.

You can't chuck people who were born here with British passports out regardless of whether their parents are/were Muslim or they themselves are a convert to a bastardised form of Islam.

[d000hg]

No, it's always good to hear both sides of a debate. How many times have you held a strong opinion then suddenly a knock point is made, often by a normally quiet dude.
The last thing we need is dogma, we have a budget surplus in dogma

In theory yes but it's an honest question if that's the case in the Commons. I'd like to hope so but the cynical side of me says it's about as likely as BB and pj debating climate change.