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

[fullyautomatix]

I am absolutely 100% behind Corbyn on this one. There is no way air strikes by Britain are going to help destroy IS. There is already full scale bombing by Russia, France and US. What can UK do more or better ? This will only make the home grown IS sympathisers more motivated to attack London.

[DimPrawn]

There's probably more radicalised terrorists in Europe(including the UK) than in Syria.

We let anyone and everyone into the EU, open borders, no security checks, and then can magically remove IS/ISIS from the map with a few bombs?

I don't like Corbyn one bit, but this "bomb Syria" mantra is going to be about effective as our endevours in Iraq and Afghanistan...

[Bluespider]

I don't support it as a standalone action but we do actually have far superior ordnance that is capable of very precise target hits. For example we are the only nation with missiles that can hit moving targets.

This kind of precision strike needs to be coordinated with boots on the ground special forces, recon and strike teams identifying targets etc.

[VectraMan]

Supposedly the UK has better precision weapons that can do a better job of targeting the right people. So Hammond was saying on telly this morning.

I don't think there's any practical benefit to it; it's as much likely to make things worse as better. However after Paris there's a good moral case for stepping up action against them, and I think it's pretty dumb to bomb IS in Iraq and not Syria. Do it properly or not at all - that should be the debate.

[Zero Liability]

Even Sarkozy thinks air strikes are a bad idea.

This is one area where I agree with Corbyn.

Like the above say, it's going to take a lot more future commitment if they want to do it properly, so hardly a 'one and done' affair.

[PurpleGorilla]

Syria is like Lebanon all over again. Multi faction - Hezbollah, Iranians, Assad, Artist formerly known as IS.

We either leave them too it, and spend the money on intelligence services and counter terrorism, or we get a proper UN mandate, and send in a multination coalition to stabilise the country, and help towards a transition government.

There are no quick wins. A few more bombs from us will not do much good.

[MrMarkyMark]

Bad, bad, bad, idea.

If it does happen, then they will need to follow it by sending guys in on the ground.

Supposedly the UK has better precision weapons that can do a better job of targeting the right people. So Hammond was saying on telly this morning.

Of course they have

[pjclarke]

According to a talking head on BBC R4 the other day, the US has flown something like 8,000 missions into Syria, at the same time IS recruitment increased ...

So, no.

[fullyautomatix]

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.

[barrydidit]

Might as well. Not bombing them hasn't made them go away has it?