IN PUSHING through a vote on bombing Syria, David Cameron has pulled off a master stroke. Not only has he succeeded in targeting Daesh and civilians in Syria but he has conned Labour into tearing itself apart. To watch Hilary Benn make his ‘speech of a lifetime’ as he unwittingly danced to Cameron’s tunes has not only ensured the demise of Corbyn but also the death of Labour.

Louise McArdle
Lanarkshire

I AM staggered at the acclaim for Hilary Benn’s speech. It was a war-mongering disgrace. His father, whose 1992 Commons speech on war in the Middle East should be compulsory listening, will be turning in his grave. They ignore both their leader and their members. Labour now represent no one but the Blairite dregs running their party machine.

Clara Blacklaw
Falkirk

THE Westminster warmongers clap Hilary Benn’s disgraceful pro-bombing speech without rebuke. SNP MPs were reprimanded when they applauded Mhairi Black’s maiden speech.

Eric McArthur
Dalmuir

WHAT are we to make of the honourable members of the Westminster Parliament?

SNP MPs who politely applauded after some excellent speeches during debates on tax credits and the Scotland Bill are castigated for their ignorance of how things are done in the mother of Parliaments.

Yet after a speech from shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, advocating support for British bombing of Syria there is a spontaneous burst of applause from Conservative and Labour members.

So, it’s bad form to show support for the poor and disadvantaged but tub-thumping for war is to be welcomed.

James Mills
Johnstone

BACK in May, when the new intake of SNP MPs had the temerity to applaud in the Commons, the speaker John Bercow made it clear that this form of demonstrating approval was not allowed.

Odd then that, during the debate on Syria on Wednesday, he remained silent when David Cameron and his frontbenchers roundly applauded shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn.

Bias, Mr Bercow?

Alastair Stirling
Glasgow

We’re being drawn into a vortex of war

I DON’T think ‘decision’ is the apt word for the Commons vote to drop bombs on Syria. Considering all the manoeuvring by Messrs Cameron and co, the Corbyn disaffection within Labour, the usual media manipulation, this was a done deal, definitely not a decision. At most it was the echo of a decision already made.

As for Mr Cameron protesting about out-sourcing Britain’s security, that is precisely what the bombing of Syria is all about. Already Trident is an out-source of US military command, and the bombing of Syria is no different.

The enemy that the bombing of Syria by Britain is aimed at is Russia. This scenario is a repeat of Soviet Russian involvement in Afghanistan way back in the 1980s when some Western countries, predominantly the US, armed and supported the mujahideen in their guerrilla war against Kabul government rule. Middle East monarchies, then as now, were among the most active allies of the US anti-Soviet Russia engagement.

It is disappointingly the case that history DOES repeat itself, and there are likely to be many reminders of this during events ensuing from Britain becoming involved in the bombing of Syria. What has transpired from the bombing by principally France and Britain of Libya in 2011 should be warning enough, and coupled with the consequences of military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan where peace has most certainly not been the conspicuous outcome, it seems a forlorn wish for anything different to ensue from Britain participating in the bombing of Syria.

Enough bombs are surely being deposited on that country, which not so many years ago was itself a haven for refugees from the military mayhem of Iraq.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the French axiom goes.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead

DAVID Cameron’s justification for action in Syria is a pack of lies. What is underway in Syria and the Middle East is not a campaign for ‘peace’ but an escalating conflict that poses the threat of a Third World War.

It is not the Paris terror attacks, but Russian military intervention in Syria that spurred the parliamentary vote. The UK Government aims to join itself with the US war drive against Russia. In doing so, it is dragging Britain into the vortex of a potential Third World War involving nuclear powers.

As with Iraq, the lies over Syria are essential to the criminal nature of the enterprise underway. The US Government have deployed Special Forces in Syria, ensuring escalation.

Labour right-wingers were first up in the debate to pledge their fealty to the UK Government and war. One after another, leading Blairites, who already have blood on their hands from the Iraq war, spoke in favour of military action.

More than half the population is opposed to military action in Syria – despite the torrent of pro-war propaganda.

Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee

WE should all be reassured by the Prime Minister’s assertion that he has a political solution in mind to win the peace in Iraq and Syria once his brilliant bombing campaign is successful.

As a first step along the way to securing the peace can I suggest that the Prime Minister and his ruling party undertake to set aside one pound sterling for the peaceful reconstruction of Syria and Iraq for every one pound sterling that it takes to bomb these countries?

In other words, if each Brimstone missile (aren’t we all so proud that we can deliver even more effective and accurate killing machines than the rest of the West?) costs £25,000 or £250,000 or whatever to deploy why don’t we (by “we” I mean Mr Cameron and all of the 396 other MPs who voted Yes) pledge the same amount in rebuilding, reconstruction and refugee assistance to the war-torn nations?

Better still, why not insist that the first few thousand/million pounds of this money be taken from the pro-war MPs wages and expenses? I am sure they would be delighted to contribute all of their salaries while our servicepeople risk their lives, don’t you think? After all, they call on the ultimate sacrifice from the services – why not just a little financial sacrifice from them? Don’t hold your breath for them braying and applauding that suggestion. The truth is, until our military and political leaders are made to take financial responsibility for their warmongering – yes, Mr Benn, that is what you are – they will not stop, look, listen or account for their actions. Pound for pound, peace and war – now that would be a commitment from our ruling class. As our soldiers enter the first line of sacrifice why don’t they offer to empty their pockets as our first line of defence?

Dr Jim Walker
Asianomics Group, Hong Kong

NOW we are full participants in the multidimensional Syrian civil war all sorts questions arise.

What if some delusional radicalized young fools are, thankfully, detained when attempting to ‘join the fight’ in Syria? Whose fight are they trying to join? They tell the security services it’s not Daesh, no, they are off to join the 70,000 – one of, as the chair of the defence committee put it during the parliamentary debate, the Prime Minister’s ‘bogus battalions’.

But what bogus battalion are they joining? Is it on the Prime Minister’s approved list of bogus battalions? Does the PM have the register of bogus battalions updated regularly?

Who are the young fools’ bogus-battalion-of-choice fighting today? Who were they fighting last week? Will the battalion be fighting Daesh? Assad? Or a bit of both? Who ‘sponsors’ them? Us? Turkey? Saudi Arabia, Iran? Do they know actually know who they will be fighting? Like many foolish young men through the ages do they really care?

Bill Ramsay
Glasgow

WHAT now? Do we ask Chilcott to open another chapter?

Evan Lloyd
Edinburgh