Failing to take military action against IS irresponsible and betrayal

As for “we would support them if they were threatened”, well, has he been asleep and has he not noticed that we are all threatened by IS?

Of course we should help our French friends by sending our bombers in too. It is shameful not to, given the ties that have existed between Scotland and France which date back to the Middle Ages.

Yes, boots on the ground too – but troops have to have air support. Surely this is obvious.

Most worrying of all, the message of non-intervention preached by Jeremy Corbyn, Alex Salmond and many of your letter writers can only serve as an encouragement to further acts of terror. The only thing these IS people understand is brute force so to fail to take military action is extremely irresponsible and a betrayal of our allies.

Brian Carson

Belmont Gardens, Edinburgh

David Cameron’s obsession with showing how macho he is by killing people in the Levant is sheer stupidity.

Some of the countries already involved in the conflict there may indeed share a common aim of destroying IS but other than that they all have different aims and priorities.

And because they were invited in by the government and already have a substantial military base in the country, Russia’s aims are bound to prevail, and the Assad regime will stay in power.

The West’s allies in Syria, Kurds, Turkoman, Free Syrian Army etc are seen as terrorist opponents of Assad and Russia, and Britain has enough blood on its conscience over the centuries without seeking to get involved in Syria for a few months before running away and abandoning those allies to annihilation.

The Levant is the Eastern Mediterranean; it is also a word describing treachery and double dealing over many centuries and no sensible leader would send their forces into that present-day morass because quite simply there is no honourable way out.

Irvine Inglis

Reston, Berwickshire

Despite the political mire in which the Labour Party currently finds itself, there was something honest and transparent about their MPs tabling questions at yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons on possible military action in Syria. They offered penetrating debate on both sides of the argument. This would represent the differing views of their constituents.

Contrast this with the carefully orchestrated questions by SNP ministers. These were universally negative and took no account of the Prime Minister’s responses to 103 questions from the floor of the chamber. They say they will vote against military action in Syria.

This is not representative of the views of the people of Scotland but this is of little consequence to the SNP. Their political mantra is to confront, disagree, whinge, complain and divide Scotland from the Conservative government irrespective of the subject of the debate.

Ally this to the policy of scrapping Trident, at a time when the world has rarely been such a dangerous place and IS are looking for nuclear weapons.

The first priority of any country is to defend its citizens and not look for outside help when we raise the white flag. What a sad wee country.

Jimmy Armstrong

Abergeldie Road, Ballater

John “Smeato” Smeaton is a forgotten asset in the debate over joining the Syrian civil war, and I would like to suggest that, to keep Scotland safe, a domestic baggage-handler security brigade is created.

“Ponemus de te” could be its motto, a couthy battle cry. Leaving it to the armed forces to bomb specks in the desert from altitude is all very well, but civilians must play their part, too.

IS are recruiting radicalised Britons, and what better way to interfere with their plans than sending all their luggage to, say, Fuerteventura?

Some might say it would be hard to accurately identify prospective fighters, but that will be the same problem faced by RAF warplane pilots.

Smeato could also help turn “boots on the ground” into “boots in the fork”, with reinforced steel toecaps being regulation in the industry.

Having helped foil the only terrorist attack on Scottish soil, he is surely better informed – and has more combat experience –than David Cameron. It appears Cameron has no conception of what a winning outcome might be in Syria, so which is the more ridiculous plan?

Tom Ardley

Shrubhill, Edinburgh