your opinion is consistent, I'll give you that.

Cameron being weak ?

Do him a favour, there's an election next year, if he sends in the Tornados now by next year it'll be boots on the ground and Afghanistan all over again, "Just when I thought I was out they PULL me back in again..."

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.

Completely agree with the OP, was voicing almost identically his words in discussions on the subject

But, the fundamental problem is that if the west ( US and UK ) once again try to rid the world of this scum then they will again be accused of ' colonialism and some other nutjob Islamic Fundamentaists will swear death to the ' infidels '

Only the muslims can sort out muslin loonies, but they dont want to, their faith is stronger than their basic humanity, until they can overcome that principle then we will forever be cursed with these murderers

The IS is operating close to the shores of the Med, and only around 20 miles from the Turkish border.

Little too close for comfort, don't you think?

With their now vast wealth, what's to stop them plotting and carrying out who knows what in Western countries? Don't say "intelligence", as 7/7/2005 and the death of De Menenzes (sp) proves that the UK is not infallible. You would think though, that Turkey would have a considerable enough armed forces to deal with any incursions into their territory by IS.

For a true global response all you need to ask is "Who are their weapons suppliers ?".

They have the money but they do not have the capability to manufacture accurate weapons and ammunition - Hamas make their own rockets but they are as accurate and predictable as a £2 bonfire night rocket and so would be the IS ones if they were making their own, so clearly they are purchasing munitions and as Kurdish sources are suggesting, they are purchasing very modern stuff, far more advanced than anything the Kurds have.

So who is supplying them and how is it getting shipped to them, questions where the answers will already be known by governments heavy with surveillance but light on the will to lean on their own weapons manufacturers or other countries with whom they have a "relationship".

Political will is all thats missing.

Did we not inadvertently give them a load of stuff when arming rebels to fight the Syrian government?

as I said, leave them to it, we're not The Empire anymore, time we accepted that fact.

Of course it's a direct threat. It may not right now, in August 2014, but if IS continue to take ground and absorb hardware and manpower, it will be before you know. Should they defeat the Iraqis and Kurds the entire area is suddenly under a huge threat, although as a Shia state Iran is a pretty considerable opponent (IS do not consider Shias to be 'true' Muslims).

Make no mistake, their goal is the re-establishment of the Caliphate under fundamentalist Sharia Law, and beyond that to establish their brand of Islam as far afield as they can. In many interviews they talk of the black flag over Downing St and the White House. Their policy is 'convert or die', no questions asked. How long before they look to take the West on directly?

Where do you think the motivation, and to varying degrees the planning and finance came from for 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid, as well as other attacks? And this lot make Al Qaeda look like those Widnes muppets invading the pitch last week.

No, eliminate them now while local forces can still put up a good fight, ideally aided by NATO air power.

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.

I believe the majority of their weapons are materiel captured from Syria and from when the Iraqi army abandoned their posts en masse, including a lot of US hardware.

A quick search tells me their haul includes SA-7 and Stinger surface-to-air missiles, M79 Osa, HJ-8 and AT-4 Spigot anti-tank weapons, Type 59 field guns and 52 M198 howitzers, 1,500 Humvees, T-54/55 and T-72 main battle tanks, M117 armoured cars, truck mounted DShK guns, ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, 4,000 PKC machine guns and at least one Scud missile.

Meanwhile the Kurds have little beyond light weapons. One chap on the news last night looked like he was armed with frigging musket.

That said, I'm sure their are weapons manufacturers or traders who would have no problem selling to anyone wielding a huge wad of cash.

and why should we?

did they donate to the disaster appeal after the fl... oh, sorry, there wasn't one.

let them deal with their own politics

Who are ' them ' and what ' politics ' are you referring to?

Bloody 'ell, that's a fair haul.