Iamacentristmoderate;
Well centain to stir up the apologists.
All the waffle of will we or won't we put boots on the ground is pointless.

My solution is somewhat different.
It should be agreed by as many countries as possible that a resolution
be agreed that ;
Considering history and recent history, it is clear that Islam and the rest of us cannot exist in the same space.
Therefore if we are all to exist on the same planet we need to subdivide this planet.
One division would be all majority Islamic countries.
The other division would be the majority nonmoslem countries.
All residents not in their majority countries should be compulsorily
removed to the other countries of their choice.
All moslem will need to move to the Islamic division to countries of their choice.

These movements could be financed by all states including the Islamic states.
It would take a number of years, but it would remove the Islamic
objection to Christians and other nonmoslems being in their communities.

Once the project was 50% complete all visitor entries would be banned.
Trade could be conducted by electronic means and no business visits allowed.
Aircraft of one division could be allowed to have flight paths across
the other division countries.
Ships of both divisions could have rights to transit the Suez & Panama canals.

Obviously a proposal like this will never be agreed by the left until
there is a major Islamic terrorist attack on many countries, in
particular countries such as Australia. Once they kill a few hundred
Australians there will be a shift in sentiment.
I doubt if the UN has the ability to implement a plan like this and
something like this will come about as a result of a threat to use nuclear weapons.
Islam will see it as a threat to remove the Middle East from the
world scene.

Every time a Muslim youth commits a violent act against Australian families,
Their families should be deported back to a Muslim country.

The terrorists can commit crimes against our families with the knowledge that their family will not suffer for their actions.

Would that 15year old youth have been willing to kill the father of
That family if he had known his own loved ones, his father and mother
And siblings would pay the price by losing their home and lifestyle here
To pay for his actions.

There is simply no strong deterrent to them committing these acts.
Hit them somewhere it hurts.
Like consequences for their own families when they attack ours.

I think that would stop these terrorist attacks
There needs to be consequences that hurt them in an area they care about.

So when IS is defeated America will just create another terrorist organization, after all they created this one.

They need a bogey man to sustain there military industrial complex and so they can print trillion of dollars from thin air which they have absolutely no way of backing up if people cashed in the electronically generated $"s for an actual hard object whether it be land or food etc.

Also so they can prop up the over inflated stock market.

Wait till the bubble bursts.

#Rhrosty

Once again you shoot from the hip without understanding the situation when you state::
"You've got all the (must do) solutions, bar one david; the one which compels Russia/Putin to join in with the rest of the civilised world to bring about planet saving cooperation and true and lasting peace in our time."

Had you read my article carefully before rushing into print you would have understood the purport of this quote by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:

"The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all"

That legal foundation is found in Article 42 of the Charter.

Until such a Resolution is passed concerted international action to defeat Islamic State is a pipe dream.

America seems disinterested in joining in sponsoring such a resolution at the present time. But it needs to happen sooner than later if the events of the last week are any guide.

Hollande hopefully can get Obama to support such a Security Council resolution. Hollande and Putin now seem to have agreed on such a resolution.

#plantaganet:

Option 2 won't happen - at least not until Islamic State has been beaten by a UN authorized fighting force. Probably Russia would veto such a UN peacekeeping force anyway. But one can still live in hope.

Given the UN General Assembly's outright prejudice against Israel - I would imagine the UN would choke before accepting help from Israel in any openly identifiable form. Probably its intelligence on Syria and Islamic State could be quietly used but not troops wearing UN berets.

The UN has no option but to go in with an armed force in my opinion.

The UN exists to end threats to world peace and security and has passed several resolutions stating that Islamic State is such a threat. The UN cannot do anything however until a resolution under article 42 has been passed by the Security Council.

david singer, ISIS is NOT a threat to world peace any more than any other group of muslims. The ONLY threat to world peace is allowing ANY muslim to live outside ANY majority muslim nation. Deport ALL muslims from ALL non muslim nations & we will have no problems any more.

Philip S, Americas financial mess does not mean that islam is not a problem.

CHERFUL, how very old testament of you, i will make an enlightened, conservative christian out of you yet.

Bazz, your plan is fairly similar to mine & i approve.

david singer again, the UN is a busted flush, the sooner it closes down the better off we will be. Q, are you suggesting the department of Foreign Affairs & Trade is incapable of running embassies? That the Commonwealth of Australia is incapable of negotiating treaties for defence & trade with other nations? Leave muslim nations alone, let them kill each other, let them sort out their own differences.

Western interests have only been pretending to destroy Islamic State - and Al Qaeda. They have been covertly sponsoring them for the purpose of providing an excuse to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs , especially to try and influence and financially benefit from oil resources. Russians have been working to stop the movement of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil into Turkey. Sold cheap and has been major source of finance for IS. Note Turkish Presidents son had business with something like 500 trucks carting this oil. Difficult to assess whether shoot down of Russian bomber was due to this, pressure from Washington or other reason. Anyway, Turks have obviously "shot themselves in the foot" with retaliation options- including subtle ones the Russians have.

Meanwhile Russians are going in harder genuinely destroying Islamic State infrastructure. Not as Yanks and associates have been doing, destroying civilian assets for help facilitate their real aim of overthrowing democratically elected President Assad. eg It seems when they recently claimed to have bombed IS headquarters in Raqqa, what they really hit was an equestrian centre, museum and stadium.