Iraq's prime minister has asked parliament to declare a state of emergency after Islamist militants effectively took control of Mosul.

Nouri Maliki acknowledged "vital areas" of the country's second largest city had been seized.

Overnight, hundreds of armed men seized local government's offices and police stations before taking control of the airport and the army's headquarters.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27778112

What the Yankers (and their puppets) need is a strong man ... anyone know what Saddam Hussein is up to these days?

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Iraq's prime minister has asked parliament to declare a state of emergency after Islamist militants effectively took control of Mosul.

Nouri Maliki acknowledged "vital areas" of the country's second largest city had been seized.

Overnight, hundreds of armed men seized local government's offices and police stations before taking control of the airport and the army's headquarters.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27778112

What the Yankers (and their puppets) need is a strong man ... anyone know what Saddam Hussein is up to these days?

Met Tariq Aziz there on my first ever trip,great city,and tolerated it's multi minorities so well in the Saddam days.On my last visit I wrapped up in Arabic headdress,dodging the nationalist militias who took up residence after Saddam left.

the same man who oversaw the destruction of Iraq and the foolish act- dismantling the army, is now head of the CIA in Ukraine.

So we know how that will work out.

Just finished reading Heinrich Harrer's 7 Years In Tibet . There was a centuries old prediction that a country from the North would overtake Tibet and then rule the rest of the world. They always though it would be Russia.

now we know- China will one day be our Master. They already own the USA.

Thanks for this, B-Liar !

ITK - I seem to remember you were in favour of Western interference in Iraq as well as in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria... you can't have your cake and eat it without getting indigestion.

JK2006 wrote:
ITK - I seem to remember you were in favour of Western interference in Iraq as well as in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria... you can't have your cake and eat it without getting indigestion.

Then you remember entirely wrongly !
(Have you forgotten all my posts about MadBush and B-Liar ?)

The difference between Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the others is that in Iraq a foreign army invaded and imposed a regime.

Its quite natural for those invaded to feel a common sense of purpose and bitter enemies united to throw out the invader.

In the other countries you mention, the people rose (independently) to overthrow their authoritarian governments. (Surely you remember the months of peaceful protest in Syria before they realised that only the gun would achieve their aims? Surely you remember the promises made by the West - but never delivered - to encourage them ?)

In these countries democracy WILL prevail - but as it took around 1000 years for our democracy to become established why do you expect others - with absolutely no experience of democracy - to achieve it overnight?

No ITK I do remember all your posts - yes, you knocked Blair and Bush but then you turned and started urging Western support for those opposed to the Arab regimes (except the protesters in the UK). Your constant is (usually) support opposition - often with violence.

Quiet correct JK. Another ITK constant, frequently used, is the obvious and rhetorical question - set out in the last paragraph of his last post.

Yes; for me, not only will democracy never be achieved overnight but IT DOESN'T work!

As the species (thanks to media) gets more superficial daily, voting based on simple slogans, good hair and white teeth will only elect handsome morons.

Dictators may be ghastly (often are) and only achieve things early on, before corruption sets in, but the freedom of expression and behaviour very quickly takes over and the morons rool. How long did it take before Twitter became the ghastly world it is now? About six weeks.

JK2006 wrote:
No ITK I do remember all your posts - yes, you knocked Blair and Bush but then you turned and started urging Western support for those opposed to the Arab regimes (except the protesters in the UK). Your constant is (usually) support opposition - often with violence.

ITK is very selective about who he supports.
I remember Kurds and Shias rising up against Saddam,in the same way as in Libya,or Syria.In fact the same racial groups in Syria get his support,but fail to in Iraq.
He wanted the same idiots who got it wrong in Iraq and Libya to do it again.
Personally I'd get the west out of Muslim lands,let them sort themselves out..because we've made a disaster of an oil driven foreign policy out there.

Pattaya wrote:
Personally I'd get the west out of Muslim lands,let them sort themselves out..because we've made a disaster of an oil driven foreign policy out there.

Thats all that I - and they - are asking for !!!!

BUT, typical of the West - cock it all up and then blame someone else !

btw - The Insurgents have almost grabbed Tikrit now !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27800319

JK2006 wrote:
No ITK I do remember all your posts - yes, you knocked Blair and Bush but then you turned and started urging Western support for those opposed to the Arab regimes (except the protesters in the UK).

You are STILL confusing two entirely different scenarios, JK !

Your constant is (usually) support opposition - often with violence.

My constant is ALWAYS support the underdog ... and unfortunately violence is not only necessary but often desirable to end the conflict quickly.

The Cold War maintained peace - because the powers knew the other meant business (and had the capability).

I remember 3,000,000 people marching peacefully through London - protesting about B-Liar's planned invasion of Iraq. He ignorred them all and invaded anyway - just 2 weeks later. IF just 1% of those protestors had turned up at Downing Street (armed !) its arguable that the Iraq conflict would never have happened - and millions of lives would have been saved.

B-Liar knew he could ignore the peaceful ones.

Dictators usually seize power through violence - hold onto power through violence - and will only be removed from power through violence. Its sad ... but thats the way it is.

B-Liar DID listen to the IRA (because he knew they meant business !) and was soon offering deals / pardons etc ! (Just as Mrs T had listened to the poll tax rioters !)

If we had honoured our promises to help the Syrians when they asked for it, millions of lives could have been saved also, and the area would not now be heading for an Al Queada Caliphate right across the area.
You can hardly blame the Syrian people for accepting help - when they were being bombed, and gassed - even if they did feel the folks were a bit dodgy ! We didn't help them - someone else did ... now we pay the price for it.

You reap what you sow.

When you were (always) supporting the underdogs during the Tottenham riots, I didn't spot you on TV, ITK... or were you busy burning down Croydon furniture stores at the time?

In The Know wrote:
btw - The Insurgents have almost grabbed Tikrit now !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27800319

UPDATE - The Insurgents have now grabbed Tikrit (halfway between Mosul and Baghdad).

I wonder where they are heading next LOL ?

JK2006 wrote:
When you were (always) supporting the underdogs during the Tottenham riots, I didn't spot you on TV, ITK... or were you busy burning down Croydon furniture stores at the time?

No he imported cheap labour migrants to do it for him

the only invasions that work are those where the inhabitants are killed off. Like in the USA & Oz.


but for the UK, USA Iraq is a success because they have control of the oil. The fate of Iraqis is entirely inconsequential.

And it will be the same in Ukraine.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
We didn't help them - someone else did ... now we pay the price for it.

The Iraqi government has asked for US drone strikes (beware wedding parties !)

This is getting serious - Barack Obarmy will be setting a red line next !!
(or, worse still, he'll be sending John Kerry to talk to them - sternly !!!)

hedda wrote:
Iraq is a success because they have control of the oil.


Not any more, hedda ... (I know things are moving fast) but do try to keep up !

hedda wrote:
Iraq is a success because they have control of the oil.


Impeach Tony Blair : As Iraq burns, Parliament should put this deluded liar on trial, writes SIMON HEFFER

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-26596...es-SIMON-HEFFER.html

I have problems with all this criticism of Blair with his actions in Iraq. Blair was democratically elected, as was Bush - not once, but TWICE. Blair's decision to go to war was ratified by the democratically elected Parliament. Iraq was a dictatorship, ruled by a cruel and unjust tyrant who murdered many of his own people, and many Iranians.
History will judge, but in my opinion history will judge Blair to have acted correctly.
Is ITK saying Churchill should have been bought to trial by declaring war on Hitler - no, of course not.