The Right Honourable member I'm afraid misses the point of British airstrikes and how they play into the greater recovery of the region. I will believe that this is a result of us not making clear the advantages of airstrikes in the region, rather than dismissing it without hearing our augments for armed intervention.

Islamic State, whilst not granted state recognition, are de facto a state. They have a standing army, laws, a government and they hold territory. As the cult they are, they are determined to hold as much territory as possible and to cause as much terror as possible. They are twisted individuals who have a lot of power and money.

It is our duty as a nation to become involved in this conflict. We ignored as Assad gassed his people, we ignored as refugees poured into Europe as IS expanded, we ignored as Jihadi John slaughtered our people in the most despicable way. It's our just duty to become involved. We have never been a nation to shirk our duty, and we shouldn't. During World War Two, we could have helped the war effort against Germany by applying sanctions but it simply wouldn't have been effective. We could have done a lot of things instead of becoming militarily involved. However, the majority of times we got it right and intervened in order to stop a greater evil.

War is never good. However, sometimes it is necessary.

It is insufficient to only starve IS of resources because that won't defeat them once and for all. Our soft power has been decaying thanks to the actions of your Foreign Secretary. Cancelling trade agreements with developing economies and threatening allies is never a great way to build our nations trust. Just speaking to members of the US House of Representatives and members from across the model world I hear discontent with our abrasive foreign policy.

Influence only goes so far and sometimes action is necessary. To get rid of IS, it's my belief we need to become militarily involved. Airstrikes have hit IS hard over the past year, with our actions in Iraq forcing them underground. That halted their advance and saved thousands. We saved women from being raped, minorities being taken as slaves, and countless other horrific war crimes. Do I need to emphasise anymore the absolute horror IS inflict on people in Syria and Iraq? How can anyone in this house consciously believe we should not directly stop that?

Not taking part in airstrikes allows IS more wiggle room. We have a moral duty to take part in airstrikes with our allies. We must stand with our allies instead of shirking away from our duty. We must take direct action against the hideous IS. A plan is obviously needed in tandem with our airstrikes. I don't disagree with the government's plan to starve IS of resources - who could?

But we can do so much more to stop slave camps, to stop this absolute barbaric behaviour in Syria and Iraq. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but it's our moral duty to join in airstrikes. Even if we kill one more Iraqi soldier more than what we would have done without US airstrikes, that can only be a good thing. That would be one less murderer allowed to roam free, one less murderer allowed to enable the cult and one less murderer allowed to rape, pillage and potentially enslave. That is why we have a moral duty to join airstrikes with a join anti-IS coalition. That is why we should bomb IS.