I only saw a small clip of the debate, but what I did see from Corbyn's reason not to partake in the airstrikes was a weak, and actually not a true argument.

Lavish wrote I only saw a small clip of the debate, but what I did see from Corbyn's reason not to partake in the airstrikes was a weak, and actually not a true argument.

This is very true. Very disappointing from Corbyn, no wonder 67 Labour members turned on him. Weak argument.

Lia wrote

Lavish wrote I only saw a small clip of the debate, but what I did see from Corbyn's reason not to partake in the airstrikes was a weak, and actually not a true argument.

This is very true. Very disappointing from Corbyn, no wonder 67 Labour members turned on him. Weak argument.

I'd like to clarify the part that I did manage to see.
His argument was that the british public opinion was against airstrikes in Syria and that David Cameron was rushing this vote before even more of the public changed their mind.

Only 31% oppose airstrikes in Syria.

if ISIS retaliate and attack Britannia back and innocent people die i'm runnin into parliament and giving david cameron a kick to the balls

Corbyn's argument was that there is no long term thought out strategy as to why bombing alone will work and the plan after the bombing.

Bombing alone won't solve anything. Even senior current military members say that. It needs to be combined with some sort of ground force.

The claimed 70,000 "moderate" rebels by Cameron that will supposedly be the ground force against IS are not focused on fighting IS and are nowhere near the so called IS stronghold of Raqqa. The so called moderate rebels are predominantly focused on fighting the Assad regime, and many members of the Free Syrian rebel army have admitted this.

Also there is no evidence that the 70,000 figure of moderate rebels is legitimate. In 2013, top US generals said 50% of the Free Syrian rebel army was made up off ex-criminals, criminals, jihadists and terrorists. The FSA also continues to be the largest supplier to terrorist groups like IS in terms of weapons and personnel because many rebels defect to the terrorist groups because they have no leader and strategy and many within the FSA have different ideologies to other rebel fighters.

Now supporting the Kurds would be the best option, but they are not as strong in fighting against IS in Syria, than they are in Iraq. It doesn't help when Turkey continue to bomb the Kurds, who seek to be the most effective ground force fighting IS.

There are so many options other than bombing the IS stronghold Raqqa and other close quarter towns/cities. For example:

- Bombing the Oil supply routes and oil trucks that are driving across the Turkey/Syrian and Turkey/Iraq borders every day,

- Demand Turkey to close its border with Syria and Iraq as it continues to trade Weapons/fighters for oil with IS.

- Stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, as they openly fund Al Qaeda and covertly fund IS.

- Starting supplying Kurdish forces with heavy weapons and heavy armoured Vehicles. Because at the moment Kurds are only holding towns with basic weaponry and light artillery.

- Call for the USA to stop arming the Free Syrian Army. As the rebel group is a big supplier of weapons and men to IS. Which essentially makes the USA an indirect supplier of IS

It won't solve much, just wastes more money.

This type of decision should also be given to the public for their say in my opinion. I personally don't think going in bombing the hell out of Syria is a perfect plan, but its better than not doing anything. Many people will have their own opinion but one thing is for sure, ISIS needs to be stopped.

Is there a wrong and a right for this?

I think not, and that is the issue here.