Iraq is new drugs transit point

[segovius]

Now that Afghanistan is back as a major league drug producer, iraq has emerged as the major transit point for smugglers and their illegal consignments.

According to the head of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Hamid Ghodse, massive consignments of narcotics are entering Jordan via Iraq en route for destinations in Europe. The lawlessness and chaos of Iraq makes it perfect as a major clearing house for the record drug production now coming in from Afghanistan.

Jordan police have noted record levels of arrests for trafficking offences - all via Iraq - over the last year and in Iraq itself drug use is soaring, something that was virtually unknown under Saddam.

Ghodse noted that last month 3 million pills of Captagon - containing fenetylline, a central nervous system stimulant - seized at the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Significant quantities of cannabis resin used in the manufacture of hasish and and chemicals like acetic anhydride, which is needed in the illicit manufacture of heroin, have increasingly been smuggled to Iraq, he said.

Morever, medicines containing internationally controlled substances are available in the Iraqi market without the required prescription" Ghodse added.

This is not good news :(

[segovius]

oh, forgot link (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.166196080&par=0)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
something that was virtually unknown under Saddam.

Should we have Saddam back then?

[MarcUK]

Actually segovius, who would be a good leader for iraq in your opinion and why?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Should we have Saddam back then?

It's not for me to say - some Iraqis certainly want him back.

Also I believe the rate of infection with cholera, TB, polio etc is now the worst of any developing country and vastly exceeding what it was under Saddam.

So I guess it depends on your benchmark. If it is 'having the US in power' then the answer would be no, oth, if it was having less child deaths, less infectious diseases and not having the country turned into a drug-haven then you may reach other conclusions.

Btw, I'm sorry to have to say this but I must tell it like it is: your reply to the topic was perhaps one of the lamest I've ever seen from you. Very poor - almost Naples-esque. You can do much better.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Btw, I'm sorry to have to say this but I must tell it like it is: your reply to the topic was perhaps one of the lamest I've ever seen from you. Very poor - almost Naples-esque. You can do much better.

I was just asking a question. I wasn't being snotty in any way. I was asking what you were implying by the statement. Seems reasonable and fair. Sorry it doesn't meet your posting standards.

:rolleyes:

BTW...your subsequent post doesn't appear to answer the question definitively. You seem to imply that life would generally be better if Saddam was back in power.

Yes, there are some troubling things happening now in Iraq. But also some good things that have not happened before. The troubling things are likely a result of the current instability which MAY giev way to stability over time. I'm not defending the administration...but this kind of change for a country is huge and creates incredible instability. Question is whether it is short or long term.

Dictators create stability for sure...but usually at some other price.

Singapore is perhaps the best example of a true "benevolent dictatorship". Iraq (w/Saddam) perhaps not so much.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Actually segovius, who would be a good leader for iraq in your opinion and why?

Depends on what problems one would want the leader to address.

If, for example, one wanted a leader who opposed the systematic looting of his country's resources by a foreign power then one would make one choice.

Similarly with Arab nationalism or the opposite.

Then again if one wanted to buy into a US hegemony and reap some perceived rewards in terms of 'westernisation', the choice would again be different.

The problem is that no appropriate leader exists as Saddam had all the appropriate candidates killed off. Over time some may emerge who are not Islamists or Pan-Arabists but this will take a long time and at the moment the US are driving things full speed in the other direction.

This drugs business is moire proof of that. I'm not sure that people realise how many golden gifts the Bush admin keeps handing the Islamists - they have single-handedly upped their numbers by an unbelievable amount of gaffes which seem calculated to do just that.

This is gold to them - fight the US, look at the drugs on our streets just like the west. And that's before it shows the hypocrisy (or incompetence) of the 'war on drugs'.

So in short, your answer is probably near enough: anyone but the US. Literally, even the UK.

Establish some force there to keep order but one that has some semblance ofsanity driving it's agenda. It doesn't have to actually BE sanity - just not obviously insane. A sense of justice might help too.

This force could stay until homegrown leaders arose and avoid setbacks and disasters in the meantime.

[MarcUK]

do you think it might be a good idea to split Iraq into 3 provinces, Kurd, Sunni and Shi'te and let them each have their own leader? with a possible reunification in say 20 years?

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
do you think it might be a good idea to split Iraq into 3 provinces, Kurd, Sunni and Shi'te and let them each have their own leader? with a possible reunification in say 20 years?

Isn't that Bush's alleged 'Civil War' plan ?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
do you think it might be a good idea to split Iraq into 3 provinces, Kurd, Sunni and Shi'te and let them each have their own leader? with a possible reunification in say 20 years?

That idea has been floated before and would probably be a disaster. Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdish state to begin with. Iran would likely move to "annex" the Shi-te state. And that doesn't even address the issue of who gets the oil and the pipelines. I suspect all out war would errupt.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Isn't that Bush's alleged 'Civil War' plan ?

i dunno! thats why im asking :p

would it be a good idea for an all arab multinational force to fill the role you suggested until the homegrowns come through?

would other ME countries do that?

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
i dunno! thats why im asking :p

would it be a good idea for an all arab multinational force to fill the role you suggested until the homegrowns come through?

would other ME countries do that?

The problem is (surprise) religion. There will be sectarian divides if the force was a conglomerate and if not, well, that's trouble for someone.

I am also far from convinced that you could find an Arab force anywhere who is capable of the job. Possibly you have found the one group who could make a worse mess than the US.

Anyway, who would do it ? Iraqis wouldn't let Saudis or Kuwaitis in. The US would not sit back and let Syria or Iran do it.

If the UN had not been so downgraded this is exactly the sort of job that they could do.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was just asking a question. I wasn't being snotty in any way. I was asking what you were implying by the statement. Seems reasonable and fair. Sorry it doesn't meet your posting standards.

:rolleyes:

BTW...your subsequent post doesn't appear to answer the question definitively. You seem to imply that life would generally be better if Saddam was back in power.

Yes, there are some troubling things happening now in Iraq. But also some good things that have not happened before. The troubling things are likely a result of the current instability which MAY giev way to stability over time. I'm not defending the administration...but this kind of change for a country is huge and creates incredible instability. Question is whether it is short or long term.

Dictators create stability for sure...but usually at some other price.

Singapore is perhaps the best example of a true "benevolent dictatorship". Iraq (w/Saddam) perhaps not so much.

You're absolutely correct with regard to his implications. Despite being asked consolidate the Iraq discussion, Seg continues to start thinly veiled anti-Iraq war threads. Each one paints picture of doom and gloom and is intended to opine that we should never have gone to war, had no business going to war, and should leave Iraq ASAP.

[Chris Cuilla]

I think the Bush plan was more basic than creating a civil war...they could have done that by now. I think the real plan was about attempting to divide the middle east and establish a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq (enabling a pull-out from Saudi Arabia)...and providing a strike launch point for every place in the M.E.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by SDW2001
we should never have gone to war, had no business going to war, and should leave Iraq ASAP.

yay, you finally get it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
yay, you finally get it.

Well, even if there was agreement that going into Iraq was ill-advised, leaving ASAP would likely create even more problems at this point.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, even if there was agreement that going into Iraq was ill-advised, leaving ASAP would likely create even more problems at this point.

fuck it, there is going to be a hell of a problem whatever happens, might as well leave now and let a solution find itself now, rather than exactly the same problem in 5 years time, plus 5 years of everyone getting killed.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
fuck it, there is going to be a hell of a problem whatever happens, might as well leave now and let a solution find itself now, rather than in 5 years.

Perhaps. I don't think it is that simple though.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Perhaps. I don't think it is that simple though.

well there is the small problem that oil would hit $200 a barrel, but I dont personally give a toss about that.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
well there is the small problem that oil would hit $200 a barrel, but I dont personally give a toss about that.

I think you'd end up caring more you you think.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think you'd end up caring more you you think.

maybe, but i'd like to experience it, and i'd like the US and the UK to experience it, and I'd like everyone who egged on this illegal war to experience it, and i'd like quite a few of our Republican friends on this board to experience it.

I've already experienced it once (im partly to blame), and i got through it, and came out the other side a different person with a different perspective. So while the last 5 years just about everyone in the West has been living on the edge of their credit limit, and being greedy and gluttonous, raising the price of houses till no one can afford them, buying 4 cars a year, gun-ho, warmongering shallow idiots, I've been paying off my debts, keeping a low profile, expanding my mind and preparing for the proverbial to hit the fan.

I might suffer a bit, but I cant wait to see their faces when the shit hits their fan. Western society is perverted beyond recongition, and it needs a fundamental kick up the ass to bring people back to reality.

The only mystery is why it hasn't happened already.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You're absolutely correct with regard to his implications. Despite being asked consolidate the Iraq discussion, Seg continues to start thinly veiled anti-Iraq war threads. Each one paints picture of doom and gloom and is intended to opine that we should never have gone to war, had no business going to war, and should leave Iraq ASAP.

I think you'll find that I have posted just one Iraq thread (this one) since I had the knock on the door from the authorities after an unknown patriot brought my un-American activities to the attention of the powers that be.

I was going to say that surely one thread is permissable but then again, I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Whatever.

I would have thought that if the subject of this post is true then it is worthy of discussion - certainly the (non-US) media outlets think so - uhh.....wait......I just got it.........

[groverat]

Ideal Iraqi leader?

Gamal Abdel-Nasser


Too bad he's dead. :(