Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "The US is doing limited bombing, but am I missing something? I seem to recall that there were more than 2 countries in the world, including quite a few in "the East" and even in "the Middle East". Why is it then just the job of the UK to play world policeman and spend more billions we don't have on a war with IS? (Which does have the money, effectively both Qatari backing and what they have seconded and looted effectively making their top brass billionaires).
Why can't the world "gang up" on this scum? Why the deafening silnce and sitting on hands around the entire globe?
If no other countries have an appetite for a fight then they could all chip in a few billion apiece to pay for mercenary efforts in their name.
Our problem is that the UK is actually in no position at all to be the world policeman, and the world and IS well knows this.'"
And that's why I mentioned NATO, as well as Iran and Turkey.
The combined air power of NATO has more than enough punch to destroy or severely weaken IS. That then allows the Kurds, Iraqia, Syrians and even Lebanese to sweep up and wipe them from the face of the earth. The West could put 'advisors' on the ground - normally SF from the US and UK, but it's for the locals to actually finish the job.
Where I would like to see the UK take the lead is with Cameron saying "enough is enough", and committing considerable RAF assets to destroying IS. I have little doubt many other NATO countries would follow suit.