Armed intervention did make it worse! ISIS thrived in Iraq; in a power-vacuum in Iraq created by just the sort of armed intervention you are suggesting.

Of course I don’t think the current situation is acceptable but you are talking about imposing ‘peace’ over a vast region with deep sectarian divides, porous borders, no recognised government and one that is awash with weapons; that’s not a situation that sounds like it would have a positive outcome.

We tried hard in Iraq; it didn’t work. We tried very hard in Afghanistan; it didn’t work. We half-arsed tried in Libya; it didn’t work. So now we’re going to try exactly the same in Syria and Iraq and hope it will work?

You are clearly comparing this situation to the previous one in Iraq, and as I have demonstrated it is very different.

You still haven’t come forward with a suggestion as to how this situation should be dealt with.

Anyone who believes in personal liberty.

Do you think that the current situation is acceptable? Or preferable to general peace but with the odd suicide bomb?

The current situation is one of the worst possible outcomes IMO. I doubt armed intervention could actually make it any worse.

I’m not suggesting we deal with it because it is easy, but because we have a moral obligation.

If I had my way, I would slaughter them all. I would then have the larger population centers of Syria and Iraq guarded by UN controlled peacekeepers, supplemented by other forces for dealing with any remote up rises. But any solution must be a long term one.

So you condone the industrial scale rape of women in Syria and Iraq? Or at best, feel indifferent to it?

As I clearly said before, this situation is very different to Iraq, Libya etc. We aren’t dealing with one crackpot dictator, we are dealing with an ideology that represents the very worst aspects of human nature. And by letting them create this Islamic State, we are allowing them credibility.

How do you suggest we deal with it?

To be honest, I think it’s pretty sickening that we haven’t done already. We aren’t talking about toppling a dictator here, or securing oil. ISIS are every bit as bad as the Nazi’s.

We have the ability to do something about it, but we stand aside and let people be massacred, raped and tortured by these monsters.

Nukes didn’t stop the USA from sending troops in to Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. All Iran would gain by obtaining Nukes is to make them even more of a target for the US and Israel.

It’s probably just a matter of prudence. A few SAMs cost nothing compared to the value of the jets there.

Not a plot, nothing to plot against. Just a mechanism that has evolved. No conspiracy, it’s just what happens when you make public services with public funding an available cash cow for private companies. The fact it is allowed to happen is simply a facet of the Government of the time representing those such a system benefits more than those it does not. That is not a plot as such.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but the private sector is just a drop in the ocean of NHS problems. Internal inefficiencies, an utterly corrupt and unsustainable procurement system and the culture of golden handshakes and ‘jobs for the boys’ will be costing the taxpayer untold millions, if not billions per year.

The whole thing needs to be pared back. I admit that I don’t have the answers, but it cannot continue the way it is.