So Iraq's second city (Mosul) and indeed the whole of the province (Nineveh) is now under the control of Islamist militants. As is Fallujah, and other major locations.

What was the point of the war? Or no, forget that. There wasn't one. At least the solution is straightforward, even if it hasn't yet occurred to Mr. Maliki. Just pick up the phone and get our renowned Middle East Peace Envoy Blair to come flying in. I fully expect calm will be restored within minutes of his arrival.

[iThe mother of all lies.[/i

Genuine question, do you mean Islamist fundamentalists? If not what makes them militant?

If the coalition's initiative fails in Birmingham, we'll end up with a similar situation there and elsewhere in the country.

Yes they're all coming to get us Dally. ...

I'm relying on you Dally to give me at least 40 mins notice of when to get the hell out of this city when the fundamentalists take over city hall, until then I'll stay in my hotel for as long as I can sending back eye witness reports - I'm your very own Kate Adie, but not as butch.

These bloody Middle Easterns coming over here and taking our schools. I blame the EU.

I'm not such a student of religion that I want to propose definitions, but seemingly the attackers simply intend to secure a fully Islamic state run in accordance with their version of Islam. Maybe you could say a fundamentalist is one who can be as fundamental in their beliefs as they want without necessarily forcing it down other peoples' throats, whereas a militant may be one who decides that it is their duty and life's mission to impose their views on everyone else by threat or force, or get a perfect 10 if they die trying.

[urlhttp://www.arrestblair.org/[/url

The mess that is Iraq has nothing to do with Bliar, apparently.
It's all down to the Syrian conflict and our inability to involve ourselves in it for the greater good.
He really is a total fooking t0sser!

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/tony-blair-iraq-essay"We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't.[/url

What's with the "We" bit?

I honestly cannot recall ever being canvassed on the decision to invade Iraq. Mebbe I was pi[iss[/ied at the time?

The megalomaniac will never admit it was a disaster.
His god was on his side.

Blair and Bush lied in 2003 and for them to say that the situation in Iraq now is nothing to with 2003 really is a joke. As for Blair being a Middle East peace envoy......that really is a sick joke.

[iThe deeper the whale dives, the more desperate he becomes.[/i

[urlhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100276498/tony-blair-isnt-mad-but-if-he-wants-the-west-to-intervene-in-iraq-a-period-of-silence-on-his-part-would-be-welcome/[/url

Following Blair's weekend outbursts after the loosening of the straight-jacket, if (big if) The Guardian is to believed the US may be cosying up to Iran with a view to some sort of initiative over Iraq. How many times can sides be changed?

Reported in the Times too Dally. Funny how in Syria IF the yanks had intervened it would have been against Assad, therefore arguably on the side of ISIS. Next door in Iraq they would be supporting the state against ISIS. The Iranians ability to exploit the situation in Iraq should not be under estimated, I think.

Dally, didn't Tony Blair pretty much say what you have said all along that the world has become a more dangerous place since Obama was elected pointing to his (and others) inaction over Syria?

Yes (although I predicted the world would become more dangerous in the euphoria of Obama's election and seem to recall the wannabe thinking classes on here rubbished my thoughts) but he seems to have omitted to mention that his apparently illegal involvement in Iraq also lead to inevitable problems and doesn't see to think that further meddling will just cause more long-term problems.

The message Blair is delivering that the Syrian conflict has spilled over into Iraq is supported by other diplomatic types not known for supporting the original invasion in Iraq in 2003.

I am pretty sure one of them has said he'd wish Blair would shut up because with Blair saying this the message which is not wrong is lost under all the indignation he has the cheek to offer an opinion.

Blair is also probably right to suggest Iraq could have descended into civil unrest the same way as other Arab countries have done had there been no invasion.

None of that means the invasion was right (which he still seems to think it was) and I am certain it radicalised many leading to thousands of deaths between 2003 and before Syria kicked off but that doesn't mean the current situation is all down to what happened in 2003.

ISIS is an organisation that supposedly wants some sort of joint Syrian/Iraqi state and its military operations have previously been predominantly involved in the Syrian civil war. There was even a revolt in Syria where other groups opposed to Assad rounded on ISIS trying to kick the foreign fighters it is noted for having out of Syria.

Lakhdar Brahimi who was as close to the action as you can get being the former UN representative to Iraq holds no truck with Bliars revisionism!

[urlhttp://www.channel4.com/news/people-dont-listen-to-tony-blair-any-more-brahimi[/url

Seems a good way to proceed to me: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... EFFER.html

Seems a good way to proceed to me: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... EFFER.html

Well I can't watch that at the moment but saying something didn't exist before 2003, which is the headline on the site, doesn't mean the only reason it does is because of the invasion of Iraq. It would mean what has happened in Syria has nothing to do with the organisation which I think is obviously not true.

Blair can waffle as much as he wants about Syria, Arab Springs et al, but most independent observers are in agreement that the fragmentation and destabilisation of Iraq is down to the Allies phoney War on Terror.
You see, the 'New Iraq' spiel was just fantasy, even when they put their own puppet-master in control, the one they are now trying to blame for the countries current woes.
When you launch an indicrimate war against a sovereign state, whilst in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innnoent people, bombing the country by air to smithereens without any serious attempt at putting it back together again, you unshockingly get just that, destabilisation.

The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake but it still doesn't mean the only reason ISIS exists is for because of it and it doesn't mean the conflict in Syria isn't a huge reason why this organisation exists either.

It looks like whoever said Bair should keep quiet because if he pointed this out the message would get lost in the noise was right.

The ISIS thing is a really complex one with backers from all over the place including Kuwait which was of course invaded by Iraq.

It is indeed complex and here's [url=http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_06_18/I-told-you-so-says-Galloway-as-Cameron-warns-of-UK-terror-threat-6895/George Galloway's take on it[/url.

Ignoring the grandstanding, I find it hard to argue with much of his analysis and conclusions. More interestingly, the article suggests that, however you do it, Gorgeous George "has started the process" of asking Parliament to impeach Bliar for his role in the Iraq invasion. Now that will be an eye-opener.