I have lived in both Iran and Saudi and have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East for around 30 years.

Beechguy is correct. It ain't gonna calm down if/after Iran gets nukes. Look for tension to ratchet up and an arms race to begin big time. Things will NOT calm down after Iran gets the bomb.

Perhaps I should remind that my original comments on Iran & nukes are based on

the many dictating threats made against Iran from Israel & others.

Basically a threat that if they should continue to develop nuclear in a direction deemed not acceptable by those

who have nuclear ....one of which ( Israel) who does not even take part in the NPT along with NK ..Then they will in

so many words be attacked. I fully expect this to take place shortly. I hope I am wrong but then again will not be surprised.

So any talks about tensions ratcheting up *after* is once again proven to be silly by those who claim nothing will

reduce tensions. Once again using the idiotic tactic of preemptive strikes. In essence it is they who are even now

increasing tensions.

So what use is it to talk of things calming down after when the hypocrites will in fact never wait to see.

Yet in further posts I pointed out that those who already have such capabilities are never threatened to the degree

that those who do not are.

As for your query of what if I were president Truman...

I will agree it is well off topic & better left for another topic.

But to put it as simply & briefly as possible....

I would never order the annihilation of a large civilian population

as a supposed means to a earlier end of a military war. Whats next? Invade a country & rape all the women & children

to put the next war to a sooner end? Is one less evil than the other? Evil is not disguised no matter the reasons claimed.

[While al Queda terrorist are twice likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamist) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which the US troops are stationed.

How do you account for the 7th July attacks on the London Underground?

Home grown suicide bombers, living in a welfare state that provides everything.

Also the liquid-explosive IEDs that were going to be used by approx. twenty volunteers on the UK-US transatlantic flights in 2009 (I think). All home grown.

Plus shoe bomber.

Plus the two doctors at Glasgow airport.

And so on ...

The number of proven bombers (actual or potential) produced by the UK is way out of proportion to the islamic population of the country.

I am not Robert Pape but you could email him?

Personally I am not familiar with some of the events you are citing

Nor am I clear on whether they were actual suicide bombings

or attempts?

I note you said *were* going to be used in one instance & AFAIK the shoe bomber is about

on par with the underwear bomber as far as credible.

The otehrs as I said I am not familiar with

The 7th July London Underground was a coordinated attack on three tube trains and a bus. >50 deaths.

The liquid explosive IEDs were a mixture of Tang and hydrogen peroxide in plastic bottles, with hollowed-out torch batteries stuffed with detonators. Not very big bangs, but in pressurised cabins at 30,000 feet - very effective. British intelligence were on to them quite early but let them run with the project until the local organiser was down-loading flight schedules. The US authorities were being kept in the loop and they decided that it was time to stop the people. They got the ISI in Pakistan to arrest the organiser (guy called Rauf) and thus the Brits had to arrest the local people. There were eighteen to twenty volunteer bombers, some had already made their martyrdom videos and so forth, plus the local organisers. Jail terms of twenty to thirty years handed out. Rauf escaped from ISI custody when he went to have a piss and never came back. The Americans claim he was later killed by a drone in the Tribal Territories, but no body ever displayed.

The two doctors in Glasgow were actually working in the English midlands, but went on a mission to bomb a plane. Unfortunately they had a problem with their car, can't remember what, and crashed it through the glass entrance to Glasgow Airport. Somebody yelled 'BOMB' and the local citizenry, as is their habit, dragged the guys out of the car and thumped them - very hard. Don't mess with the Jocks.

At about that time there was also a car left in Haymarket, near Piccadilly in London (there's one in Manchester, too), that was thought to have a bomb in it. Can't recall all the facts right now.

There have been other arrests in London, Luton and the Midlands on unrelated incidents, resulting in terrorist convictions. The British intelligence agancies and the police seem to catch most of these guys, but as I said earlier - these are home-grown terrorists, without the direct visual example of their homeland being occupied by alien troops. Don't care whether they regard Pakistan or England as their homeland, both are states with the ability to determine their way forward without military occupational influence. And not all are of Pakistani descent - some are British converts to Islam, some are West Indian / African (converts or born in Islam).

And again, Britain is a socialist model welfare state, where you don't need to work to live, so what's their motivation?

[While al Queda terrorist are twice likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamist) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which the US troops are stationed.

How do you account for the 7th July attacks on the London Underground?

Home grown suicide bombers, living in a welfare state that provides everything.

Also the liquid-explosive IEDs that were going to be used by approx. twenty volunteers on the UK-US transatlantic flights in 2009 (I think). All home grown.

Plus shoe bomber.

Plus the two doctors at Glasgow airport. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19522388/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/nbc-uk-terror-suspects-include-doctors/

And so on ...

The number of proven bombers (actual or potential) produced by the UK is way out of proportion to the islamic population of the country.

I am not Robert Pape but you could email him?

Personally I am not familiar with some of the events you are citing

Nor am I clear on whether they were actual suicide bombings

or attempts?

I note you said *were* going to be used in one instance & AFAIK the shoe bomber is about

on par with the underwear bomber as far as credible.

The otehrs as I said I am not familiar with

dam_n! I had a list of references ready to post, then got cut off on the Internet.

I'll dig 'em out tomorrow.

I thought we were talking about Gaddafi! The Libyan plot thickens; an armoured column of up to 250 vehicles has crossed the Libyan border into Niger; was Gaddafi in it or not? Or will he join it later?

I thought we were talking about Gaddafi! The Libyan plot thickens; an armoured column of up to 250 vehicles has crossed the Libyan border into Niger; was Gaddafi in it or not? Or will he join it later?

It's not over by a long-shot.

Expect a future Libya that is "occupied" by coalition forces....

I thought we were talking about Gaddafi! The Libyan plot thickens; an armoured column of up to 250 vehicles has crossed the Libyan border into Niger; was Gaddafi in it or not? Or will he join it later?

It's not over by a long-shot.

Expect a future Libya that is "occupied" by coalition forces....

It may come to the foreign boot trampling over the hills and wadis of Libya, but much more likely is the foreign shoes tiptoeing aroud the corridors of power, discreetly in the background. A covert occupation rather than an overt one.

Puppets tend to start yanking back on their strings and severing them.

I thought we were talking about Gaddafi! The Libyan plot thickens; an armoured column of up to 250 vehicles has crossed the Libyan border into Niger; was Gaddafi in it or not? Or will he join it later?

It's not over by a long-shot.

Expect a future Libya that is "occupied" by coalition forces....

It may come to the foreign boot trampling over the hills and wadis of Libya, but much more likely is the foreign shoes tiptoeing aroud the corridors of power, discreetly in the background. A covert occupation rather than an overt one.

Puppets tend to start yanking back on their strings and severing them.

Up until 1969 King Idris was in power, backed by the British Army, who had a large presence in the country. The Americans were around Tripoli (Wheeler Airbase, is it? Can't remember the name).

Now the boots on the ground will be rigger boots, worn by all the oilmen. But what's the betting they will be in Chinese sizes, with Sinopec taking all the oil that France and Britain hope to get?

I have lived in both Iran and Saudi and have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East for around 30 years.

Beechguy is correct. It ain't gonna calm down if/after Iran gets nukes. Look for tension to ratchet up and an arms race to begin big time. Things will NOT calm down after Iran gets the bomb.

Same 30+ years in ME.

Same opinions.

I like the Irani people, but not the regime - cannot trust them in anything, as they do not think in the same way as any Westerner. If they think that Armageddon will bring in a new Islamic order when the dust settles, they'll drop every bomb in their arsenal, and the consequences can go dam_n.

The Saudis are shit scared of them, the Iraqi's are split down the middle.

The only thing that Iran, Iraq and Syria agree on is death to the Kurds. Turkey would happily go along with that, but disagree with all other points that these countries may raise.

The trouble in Bahrain - part of the much-vaunted Arab Spring movement - was caused by the shi-ite majority of the population wanting to overthrow the Sunni majid (king). Backed by Iran of course - looking to control ALL the oil in the Gulf region.

I've lived most of my life in the Far East, so I have only a superficial knowledge of the Middle East. But the upheaval seems to have covered the whole of the North African coast, plus Yemen, plus Syria and Iraq, with the Israel/Palestinian dispute unsettled; how stable are the remaining countries, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and especially Iran? I remember the Shah, Mossadeq in his pyjamas, the embittered old Ayatollah from Paris... and now Ahmedinajab, none of whom seemed particularly conducive to stability.

I've lived most of my life in the Far East, so I have only a superficial knowledge of the Middle East. But the upheaval seems to have covered the whole of the North African coast, plus Yemen, plus Syria and Iraq, with the Israel/Palestinian dispute unsettled; how stable are the remaining countries, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and especially Iran? I remember the Shah, Mossadeq in his pyjamas, the embittered old Ayatollah from Paris... and now Ahmedinajab, none of whom seemed particularly conducive to stability.

I lived five years in Iran, spending time in Tehran, Isfahan and Kermanshah on a fairly regular basis. I left, as did nearly all Americans, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in Paris in January 1979. Until sometime around mid-1978, Iran was a lovely place to live. The Shah was ruling, the citizens were generally happy (although frightened of SAVAK), there was a developing middle class and the economy was good. The political climate changed drastically after Jimmy Carter failed to back the Shah when he tried to put down the growing revolution of Islamic fundamentalists. The situation spiraled down into a chaotic scene after that and remained so for the last half of 1978 and all of 1979.

Iran, on the surface, appears calm now. The current regime has shown Syria how to handle demonstrators in the past. There is an undercurrent of dissent needing outside assistance to break free from the Ayatollahs. They won't get it from the current administration in Washington.

Saudi Arabia is, perhaps, the more settled of the countries in the middle east. They have a thriving economy and a growing middle class. The current King has agreed to spend a great deal of money on the citizens to insure they will remain with him and the situation seems settled. They have always had problems with the Shiites in the Eastern Province and they will always have problems there. The Iranians stir the pot there and in Bahrain constantly.

The Iranian government are the prime trouble makers in the Middle East. They support Hezbollah, Hamas and every other terrorist group financially and with arms and equipment. They are the primary snakes in the grass in the ME.

Turkey is inconsequential, although they would like to be players.

Jordan is holding their own but it is tenuous.

Lebanon is always on the edge due to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

Syria follows the drum beats from Iran.

Iraq must settle their Iranian question before they can exert much influence.

Egypt is a work in progress. I am thinking it will end up as an Islamic Republic under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. I hope I am wrong.

A covert occupation rather than an overt one.

Puppets tend to start yanking back on their strings and severing them.

As is the historic accounts of nearly all resistence to colonial occupations.

The ease of transition of power in Tripoli cannot be overlooked here. Gaddafi was disliked as a leader as were his policies.

Whether the people want a western style democracy and also whether they get one we will have to wait and see.

Justification for his and his family's excess over the decades surely cannot be given. Just look at the British MP's languishing in prison for a few thousand pounds worth of fraud....

Whether the people want a western style democracy and also whether they get one we will have to wait and see.

The alternative. What if they don't find the Western way to befit their civilisation?

What if they don't find the same Western exceptionalism not that extraordinary to mirror?

Perhaps they have something in mind.

Thanks, ChuckD. So much of the stability of the region is going to depend on what Iran does (or suffers).

Like zzaa, I seriously wonder whether Western-style democracy would work in Libya.

Democracy is the best option available. Democracy is a political language which will vary widely in dialect. People need to have fair representation in government, how they go about that and what is deemed as fair will depend on many things including ethnicity (tribal affiliation), culture, religion, and even geography.

The ease of transition of power in Tripoli cannot be overlooked here. Gaddafi was disliked as a leader as were his policies.

Whether the people want a western style democracy and also whether they get one we will have to wait and see.

I spent more than ten years in Libya, during the 1980s.

Even in Benghazi and Cyrenaica I found very few people who were anti-Gaddafi.

He had provided them with free education, free medical care.

The one gripe early in my stay there was that there were no goods for sale, even food was poor. But by the time I left all that had changed and just about anything was available - even Tunisian / Algerian wine in the Tripoli markets.

Libya is two separate countries - East (Cyrenaica) and West (Tripolitania) or coastal (farming) and Sahara (Bedouin). This makes for many complications, which will not be solved by the rebels who have now occupied most of the coastal areas. At least Gaddafi had experience of command before he rose to power. These guys are amateurs and will be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood / Al Quaeda before the year is out.

The ease of transition of power in Tripoli cannot be overlooked here. Gaddafi was disliked as a leader as were his policies.

Whether the people want a western style democracy and also whether they get one we will have to wait and see.

I spent more than ten years in Libya, during the 1980s.

Even in Benghazi and Cyrenaica I found very few people who were anti-Gaddafi.

He had provided them with free education, free medical care.

The one gripe early in my stay there was that there were no goods for sale, even food was poor. But by the time I left all that had changed and just about anything was available - even Tunisian / Algerian wine in the Tripoli markets.

Libya is two separate countries - East (Cyrenaica) and West (Tripolitania) or coastal (farming) and Sahara (Bedouin). This makes for many complications, which will not be solved by the rebels who have now occupied most of the coastal areas. At least Gaddafi had experience of command before he rose to power. These guys are amateurs and will be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood / Al Quaeda before the year is out.

"These guys are amateurs and will be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood / Al Quaeda before the year is out."

Agreed.

The ease of transition of power in Tripoli cannot be overlooked here. Gaddafi was disliked as a leader as were his policies.

Whether the people want a western style democracy and also whether they get one we will have to wait and see.

I spent more than ten years in Libya, during the 1980s.

Even in Benghazi and Cyrenaica I found very few people who were anti-Gaddafi.

He had provided them with free education, free medical care.

The one gripe early in my stay there was that there were no goods for sale, even food was poor. But by the time I left all that had changed and just about anything was available - even Tunisian / Algerian wine in the Tripoli markets.

Being vastly more experienced on the ground in Libya than anyone on this forum, I was hoping that you'd comment on Flying's link.

From your comment above, it seems that you agree with the basic premise of the article.

Being vastly more experienced on the ground in Libya than anyone on this forum, I was hoping that you'd comment on Flying's link.

From your comment above, it seems that you agree with the basic premise of the article.

You mean the one in post 26?

I hadn't read it - I usually look at the extracts in the poster's text and, if I think it's worth further effort, then check the whole thing.

In Flying's case there were no extracts, so I skipped it without noticing it.

As it's an Icelandic blogger who's written the article I could very well know him (or her) as I was working with entirely Scandinavian people for eight years there.

But the article is rather exaggerated the other way. If you take this article and mix with a few Daily Telegraph articles and Camoron speeches, then you'd get a more balanced perspective.

The blogger says that Gaddafi is not the ruler - theoretically quite correct. But he was on television virtually every night, either expounding at a symposium on the Green Book or other reason, and what he said carried the weight of authority.

As an instance :

One evening he was musing about Libyan national dress, which is quite distinctive. Peculiar trousers, peculiar jacket and a fez. He was commenting that this was being discarded in favour of 'American' clothes (jeans and shirt). Next day there were hundreds of activists in the streets cutting off peoples jeans at the knees and snipping ties below the knot. But Gaddafi had not said to do this - his musings were just that - expressing some sadness that the national identity was being chipped-away-at by such modern fashions. His followers then sought to outdo each other in pleasing their idol.

I was based mainly in Benghazi, which is the major city in the old Cyrenaica. The people there did not particularly like Gaddafi on the whole, but they were utterly opposed to any plots to overthrow him. F'r instance - I don't like Julia Gillards policies, but if New Zealand sent a few warships across the Tasman to support Pauline Hanson, I doubt that 1% of the Aussie population would welcome them.

The old regime in Libya, after the Second World War, was led by a king - Idris Senoussi. The Senoussi are a sort of cult-cum-tribe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi

who fought for independence. Some of them worked for me in Benghazi, as government liaison officers (secret police).

This current rebel government has several of it's leaders affiliated.

Gaddafi was a middle-of-the-road muslim, observant to an extent, but also a visionary socialist. He put down all extremist religious views. In Benghazi there were Catholic nuns working as nurses, a Catholic church used by all Christian denominations on different evenings. At Christmas it was packed for the various services all evening. In Tripoli the cathedral was closed while I was there (1984??) because of disputes about rents (or so the story went), but that was the only intolerant act I saw against non-muslim religious beliefs. (Not like Saudi Arabia!!)(Or current Iran). Israel was never allowed to enter into any conversation - on the weather maps it was marked in black the whole time I was there. Britain won this honour for a few years, around the time of the Yvonne Fletcher shooting and the subsequent diplomatic expulsions, but that was anti-Israel, not anti-Jew.

Generally, within Libya, things were peaceful. We ran the Hash every week, at weekends most expatriates would go down to a beach about 40km from Benghazi to avoid the locals staring at all the girls in swimsuits, but the rest of the time it was a good place to be.

I'll read through the entire article in the next few days - if I am not watching the World Cup - and comment later.

If he's not in Sirte, he's dead already.

Well, I was half right!

The ease of transition of power in Tripoli cannot be overlooked here. Gaddafi was disliked as a leader as were his policies.

Whether the people want a western style democracy and also whether they get one we will have to wait and see.

Whether the people want a Western style democracy doesn't come into it.

The current de-facto president has announced that the new republic will have laws based upon Sharia law. No consultation, just that the Islamists have taken over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html

Next step will be to ask for Chinese assistance in getting the oil flowing. Even under Gaddaffi the Chinese were becoming one of the largest nationalities represented in the workforce. These guys are not Western-oriented.