I say no

Agree.

Can't we drop Corbyn on them

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Yes, and the RAF can drop bags of these letters onto schools, hospitals and homes in Syria to ensure that at least one letter reaches its target.
It is a fair compromise.

No best leave it to the big boys this time.

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Yes I think Russia and the US should be able to sort them out in no time without any help from us.

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

I'm pretty sure they don't need our help.

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

After all they have been bombing the for how long now? With what result? I'm sure a few UK bombs will make all the difference....

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Ok so if we don't know what difference it is making should we not find out first either way?

Everyone agrees something needs to be done ISIS, the question is what.

Why do governments like the idea of bombing? Much lower chance of casualties of their citizens from the armed forces which of course is a good thing, and therefore less pressure than if we had boots on the ground as such and higher casualties.

The issue of course, is what the bombs do. I'm not clear on what will be bombed, but judging from the past it will mean 'mistakes' are made, such as the murder of people working in hospitals, children in their homes, people attending weddings and the murder of the general population in these areas.

You cannot simply bomb a town and expect to only kill ISIS terrorists. And you'd have to question the intelligence information being provided from those towns.

So is it right to discuss if there are other options that are more likely to achieve the ultimate goal or removing ISIS? Of course. Unless bombing is the only possible solution.

Are are we bombing Assad, ISIS, other groups who are rebels \ freedoms fighters \ terrorists dependent on your point of view, or just the whole country.

What would be great is if some thought had been put into what should be done, it should really come from the UN, but that won't happen, so it each government should at least try to have some form of plan.

''When Labour took us to war last time they toppled the secular dictator, leaving a power vacuum to be filled.....''

Ahem, this was the secular dictator who Bliar, (with the support of the gullible Mr. J Dowd MP Lewisham West) said had participated in the 9/11 attacks and had WMD which could be launched in 45 minutes and so had to be overthrown. Surely, you cannot have forgotten the reason for the action that you now partially disapprove of?

I would be interested to know the grounds for the absolute faith you have that the strategy and the reasons are absolutely right this time round?

You mention Labour but were the Conservatives any better in judging such things? Did Cameron learn from Bliar's meglomania? No; he has carried on in the ''noble tradition'' and bombed Libya with the help of France. He too took out a perfectly functioning government and the result is ............?. Judging by the loads of Libyan and African refugees intermingled with the Syrians who have and are indeed now, making their way over to live here with their ''armchair liberators'', it was clearly and extremely effective policy which the whole of Europe is gleefully celebrating.

As Farage said on Radio 5 Live this afternoon, all that is being proposed is that three more jets will be dropping bombs on homes, markets, hospitals and schools (28 children killed by French ''precision'' bombing last week) to show that Britain too is one of ''the big boys''. The prospects of success - asking Freddie Kruger to take out your colon tumour... pretty much sums it up. Corbyn too has raised perfectly valid and unanswered points about the strategy. Despite the ridicule, at least they are alive to the possibility of spin and ''sexing up'' of information unlike the rest of the sheeples in this countr

Anyway, the result - Lewisham has a healthy population of Iraqi (and Afghani) refugees; our contribution to at least giving a few thousand people from the country we ''helped'', to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives here since we not only destroyed their country but also destroyed the means that used to exist for them to live secure and decent lives.

No doubt this stupidity's ultimate consequence will also wash up on our shores in even greater numbers but I am sure those who share the desire for loosening off some bombs over the already very crowded skies of Syria are not hypocritical and are perfectly willing to sacrifice the services we have enjoyed in health, welfare, housing, education etc so that Britain is not seen as a ''shrugger''.

So, you will not hear any complaints from them about not being able to see a GP in a timely manner, or the lack of a school place, or worsening social and local services or about the loads of newcomers in our communities. Billion of pounds a day bombs are, they feel a more worthwhile use of taxpayers' money as is sharing what limited resources are left over to pay for services with those affected by our actions and who therefore come in their huddled masses for security and to enjoy their rights to a safe and decent life that we have contributed to denying to them.

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Because it's obvious. Can you point to any conflict where air strikes alone succeeded?

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

The real question is, should we use the military to forcibly remove poorly behaved children from local cafes?