BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:40 PM

I have a close up photo of bin Laden's vaseline jar by his bed.
Today it takes on a new light.

I should post my collection of Usama photos from childhood to 53.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:32 PM

Don Firth !?
Perhaps there is not a finer man who as ever breathed. Certainly he's subject to the same human foibles and feet of clay as the rest of us, but he is a man among men. Just yesterday I was speaking to Beatrice Wombworthy and she said that Don was not only a scholar and a gentleman but indeed has displayed compassion in situations in which a common man would never be able to muster an iota of empathy.

As for his nation, well as Reginald Cocqueswain would say, "Thats a bit of apples and oranges now init?"

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:14 PM

As for Don Firth, his leaving has, I think, more to do with being unable to prevent justifiable criticism of his government's "violent, aggressive nastiness".

Not so. The justification is obvious.

Slamming me in my absence, Don T.? A bit cheesy, I calls it.

I'm still looking in from time to time. And I see that prejudice is still rife. Why am I not surprised?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:16 PM

bobad,
After reviewing a mere slice of bin Laden's porn collection I have already come across a video that included one of my ex girl friend's performances. While I have mixed feelings of outrage, hypocrisy and laugh my ass off reaction, I must say after my exaustive research on his porn collection, that it is indeed a small world.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:44 PM

DonT

"First instalment of repayment for US action re Osama bin Laden drawn in Pakistan today.

80 lives on account."

Richard Bridge

Let me rephrase what DonT said.

Pakistan? I told you so.


They killed fellow Muslims -- WTF is the matter with you people?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:30 PM

As if these fanatic terrorists need an excuse to kill people. Their real target is sycophantic hand wringers and they've reeled in a few from here.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:11 PM

And if you're looking for some primary source information:

http://twitter.com/alemarahweb

The Twitter page of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, i.e. the Taliban.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:05 PM

""YOU need to read a lot more carefully Don T!
I never said it.

And you have driven Don F away with your violent, aggressive nastiness.""


Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:42 PM

"Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it."

9/11 cost us 67 dead.
The single biggest loss of British life for any act of terrorism.
52 dead on 7/7.

Your comments Keith?

As for Don Firth, his leaving has, I think, more to do with being unable to prevent justifiable criticism of his government's "violent, aggressive nastiness".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:12 PM

Jim, I reject your offer.
You made a false statement about me.
A slur.
You have done it before.

As usual you can not produce the offending post because it does not exist.
It is another Jim lie.

I do not need to negotiate that you substantiate or withdraw.
Common decency demands that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:00 PM

bobad: "Looks like Osama wasn't just beating infidels: Porn found in Osama bin Laden's hideout."


Oh, how can I resist THIS one!?......I guess he had a lot more, than blood on his hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Never fails, with those guys!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:42 PM

Looks like Osama wasn't just beating infidels: Porn found in Osama bin Laden's hideout

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:32 PM

Let me rephrase what DonT said.

Pakistan? I told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:24 PM

"Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong! "
Pompous pratt - you have my offer, now you only need the balls to take it up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:15 PM

So Jim, I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears."
Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:51 PM

...and then there is this....!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:45 PM

I was having problems with the 'blue clicky' The post below is mine


Let's try this one....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:41 PM

YOU need to read a lot more carefully Don T!
I never said it.

And you have driven Don F away with your violent, aggressive nastiness.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:41 PM

13th May 2011

First instalment of repayment for US action re Osama bin Laden drawn in Pakistan today.

80 lives on account.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:40 PM

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:38 PM

Test this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:37 PM

""And, what did I say that I am lucky not to have said to your face?""

That comment was in direct response to an exceedingly insulting misrepresentation, by you, of my motives.

I put that insulting comment of yours in quotes at the top of my post as always, and once again you have proved that you cannot be bothered to read what others say, merely picking out one line and having to ask what it means.

As a debater of issues you are a dead loss without insurance, and if you won't read, or respond to what I actually say, I would prefer that you not bother to respond at all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:31 PM

Whether or not I am unjustly accusing a couple of posters here of anti-American bias, I will simply say just read their posts and judge for yourself.

When people descend to the level of nastiness (even to physical threats) exhibited in recent posts, it is obvious that any thought of rational discussion has flown out the window and it will be nothing but bile and spleen from here on in.

I have neither the time nor the inclination for this. TTFN.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:00 PM

Don T, even if he was not in complete control of Al Q, even if he had no status other than fighter, he could be engaged unless he surrendered.
And, what did I say that I am lucky not to have said to your face?
You would attack me if I said it?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:21 PM

"BUT that punishment must be the logical outcome of due legal process, not vigilantism.- Don(Wyziwyg)T

The raid, or operation, that resulted in the shooting of Osama bin Laden was not a "police action", there was no over-riding duty to arrest, or capture alive. The operation came about as a result of Osama bin Laden declaring war on the United States of America and her allies (Refer to Fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 and in 1998). The US Navy SEAL Team members were going into that compound to "get" their target (The self-declared head of the organisation that had been attacking and killing US citizens since 1993) dead or alive it did not matter one iota which. It was a straightforward military action against a self-declared enemy of the USA. There is no question of vigilantism about it.

Declare war and that crosses a line. From that point on it runs 24/7 until it has reached a conclusion one way or the other. It is entirely preposterous to say that Osama bin Laden is only the enemy and can only be shot when he is in a position to defend himself particularly inside an unfamiliar building where bin Laden had the advantage of intimate knowledge of his surroundings and where things might be. The SEAL who shot bin Laden had to make a split second decision and he made it the way he did. Not all that different from the decisions taken by the SAS Team that took out the PIRA ASU in Gibraltar in 1988 (Verdict - Lawful Killing on all three counts by a 9-2 Majority)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:01 PM

""Operationally, these groups will be wholly unaffected by Bin Laden's death. On the one hand, they were not under his control. On the other, they were already dedicated to attacking the West, and any additional anger caused by his death will only be one more factor amidst a plethora of real or perceived reasons their supporters have to attack the West.""

Thank you Keith, though I'm sure you won't enjoy it.

What you have posted here is effectively a counter to claims that ObL was a combatant, quite possibly rendering his killing illegal.

And before you and Don Firth get all knotted up again get THIS!

I'M FUCKING GLAD HE IS DEAD!!! Understand?

I am simply concerned with the legality, or otherwise, of the method.

Does US law no longer prescribe due process? Because if it does there should be a whole lot of US citizens asking the same questions.

Have we really more to fear from American boots trampling on our sovereignty than from Muslims blowing it up? Assuming of course that we don't end up with BOTH!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:41 PM

""Iraq of course had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.""

Disingenuous T.

By the time Geedub invaded Iraq, he had made sure that half of the US populace believed it was about ObL and 9/11.

In fact, by the start of hostilities I think he believed it himself.

That's the kind of thing that happens when you elect an imbecile.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:15 PM

"You Keith, are damn lucky that you haven't had the opportunity to say that to my face."

Say what Don?

And, you do not have to wait for an enemy soldier to get his gun.
That does not make him a prisoner.
Only if he actually surrenders.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:09 PM

"""Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it."""

You smug, self satisfied bastard. You and Don Firth are going WAY too far with this insistence on ignoring what we are actually saying, in order to attribute entirely false motives to our concerns.

You Keith, are damn lucky that you haven't had the opportunity to say that to my face.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:03 PM

""Was he a comabatant?
He had been.
He posed as such.
He had never announced a change of role.
Why should anyone not believe, in good faith, that he was a comabatant.
If he was not, and wanted to be treated as a non combatant, he should have told someone.
The US acted in good faith, on the evidence available.""

Irrelevant if, as reported, he was unarmed. If so, he was effectively already a prisoner, and we don't shoot prisoners do we? We hanged several Waffen SS men for doing that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:46 AM

""It always never ceases to amaze me when terrorists, and their sympathisers, complain bitterly about receiving the treatment that they meet out to others as a matter of course, apparently "human rights" and "rules of evidence" should only apply to protect those who utterly despise them. The victim of the terrorist is always at fault in the eyes of the terrorist. In carping on about such treatment they only reveal themselves to be what they truly are cowards to a man.""

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that Teribus. But I do have a different view of your second paragraph.

""Of course Osama bin Laden should not have been arrested, put on trial and sentenced, for the perfectly good reasons clearly explained in this thread by others. Osama bin Laden suffered the fate he deserved, shot down like a rabid dog and his remains cast beyond recovery in an unmarked spot to vanish without trace and without any prospect of any shrine or place or rememberance - the right to such places belongs to his victims and to them alone.""

Yes! He deserves every bit of that and probably worse, BUT that punishment must be the logical outcome of due legal process, not vigilantism.

If you load old Betsy, and go out and double tap your friendly neighbourhood dealer, he undoubtedly deserves it.

But you're still going to jail for life, convicted of murder.

Similarly, if you do what your government did to ObL, what makes you any better than him?

Due legal process would have done wonders for the reputation and good name of the United States.

As it is, you're going to find it more difficult getting on with the rest of the World now.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:42 AM

"Justify it or take it back. "
I'll take that as a no then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:15 AM

""Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts, which I do not regard as a criticism.""

Not hiding behind experts Keith. Hiding behind those you perceive to be experts, based solely upon the fact of their agreeing with your well documented, hard wired prejudices.

""Don T accuses me of setting myself up as an expert.
Not true. I just like to back up my posts with evidence.
I think it better than relying on prejudice and ignorance.""

What evidence? Your interpretation of international law. I had no idea you were that well qualified.........and you're NOT, are you? In fact ignorance and prejudice is exactly what drives you to blindly accept, and then re-interpret, the words of your so-called experts. It's all there in your record of posts on a number of very contentious subjects (the only kind you take any interest in).

""Don, Al Q launched a number of bomb attacks against US targets abroad and in New York that resulted in heavy loss of US lives.
These attacks culminated in the devastating attacks of 2001.""

Care to make a balanced statement about that, or do you really believe that they got their knickers in a twist spontaneously and for no reason? Your prejudice has control of your keyboard again, but what else is new?

""As I understand it, USA is entitled to strike back at Al Q, even on the soil of another country if they appear not to be taking effective action.""

AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT? No further comment required.

""Clinton made strikes against them in other countries using cruise missiles even before 2001.""

Tommy did it first Miss!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:59 AM

There are a million people with ideas no worse than Eastwood or Schwarzenegger. They didn't get elected. Those two did because of their representations of vigilantes. It's an undesirable part of the mass US psyche. At lest they were better actors than Ronnie Raygun, possibly the most inept president the Screen Actors' Guild ever had.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:49 AM

""How about the SLA? The Shining Path? The Tamil Tigers?""

If you wouldn't mind pointing out the precise number and dates of their attacks on your, or my, country Art, I may have to admit making a mistake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:31 AM

"it's on file for anyone to open "
Over 2000 posts on that thread.
How could anyone find it?

If you were not lying you could provide a link or a date time.
But you can not.

Instead you throw in more lies .

YOU brought up these "crocodile tears" for cruelly abused children.
Justify it or take it back.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 09:53 AM

"Now, please post an example of my "crocodile tears" or take back the accusation. "
As I said - it's on file for anyone to open - I have no intention in turning this thread into another of our pointless duets on a subject which has nothing to do with this one.
Answer something that is relevant to this thread and I'll reply - brefly - to something that isn't - I'll even throw in where you described Pakistanis as culturally inclined to paedophelia, presented African immigrants as plague carriers and questioned whether they should be entitled to medical treatment and any of your other profound thoughts.
I have become thoroughly pissed off with your making statements, then either twisting them or denying you made them when challenged - and particularly of your lastest stunt of unilaterally declaring 'thread drift' to relevant questions you can't answer; debate honestly or piss off - I personally can't be arsed with your lying and conniving - debate with some integrity and consideration to other contributors or not at all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 07:43 AM

Viewpoint by Anatol Lieven
Professor of War Studies, King's College London

The death of Osama Bin Laden is a triumph for the United States, which may considerably reduce the terrorist threat to the US and the West.

the main significance of this US success lies in its potential impact on the war in Afghanistan.

the end to what is widely seen in the Muslim world - and especially Pakistan - as the illegal occupation of a Muslim country should diminish the appeal of militancy in Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora, and reduce terrorist recruitment.

Operationally, these groups will be wholly unaffected by Bin Laden's death. On the one hand, they were not under his control. On the other, they were already dedicated to attacking the West, and any additional anger caused by his death will only be one more factor amidst a plethora of real or perceived reasons their supporters have to attack the West.

The killing of Bin Laden should reduce greatly the sting of talking with the Afghan Taliban, and the ability of the Republican opposition in the US to portray this as "weakness" or "treachery" on the part of the Obama administration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13266128

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 13 May 11 - 07:32 AM

Terribus ... the revenge for 09/11 has not just been contained within the Afghani and Pakistan.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:58 AM

Why do I have to make a deal?
You REPEATEDLY make accusations against me of things I am supposed to have done in previous threads.
I have a RIGHT to demand you justify those accusations, because I deny them.

Now, please post an example of my "crocodile tears" or take back the accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:53 AM

Do you a deal - I'll put up the reference to your whole disgusting exhibition - in all its gloriously full context - if you say why allowing the troops of a country with with a poor human rights record into your (Britain, Pakistan, anywhere's) territory in order to carry out an assassination, should not be a matter of deep concern to us all, especially when the massacre of civilians was also accepted as an option.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:40 AM

But wait a minute, you have already brought it into the thread, I am asking for clarification, so you can post it up with a clear conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:36 AM

Of course jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:23 AM

"Why don't you?"
Because that would be thread drift - the reason you won't mention US use of torture?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:59 AM

"THere for all to see, and can't be unwritten "

It should be easy to show us then Jim.
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:36 AM

"Too bad that Jim has descended to personal insults."
Sorry Don, a bit rich from someone who has accused us of being racist towards Americans, supporting strange causes (presumably Muslim terrorism) and (me in particular) of inventing widely known and acknowledged international incidents to prop up our prejudices and causes.
Rather than admitting that the special rendition flights actually did happen, and possibly still are still taking place, you attempt to pass them off as out-of-date, and, at best, promise that the culprits will get their punishment in the sweet bye and bye - not good enough if we are to understand and put right the shit-hole that the world has become, with the assistance of your various governments and presidents.
The only anti-Americanism on this thread has come from those who would down-play and cover up America's role in this miserable and highly volatile holy war, thus allowing present and future administrations to 'carry on the good work'.   
"I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears."
THere for all to see, and can't be unwritten - sorry Keith
"Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong!"
Then you must go to bed each night a happy man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:26 AM

"But, there has been no mention in this thread (I don't think there was) about the 100K+ innocent lives that have been lost in the retaliation against OBL and his evil deeds."

I would dearly love to know where this 100K+ innocent lives comes from. Even taking the highest estimated figures the total of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan comes to less than half that and as various NGOs and the UN have reported from Afghanistan 75% of civilian casualties have been caused by the Taleban and their allies.

Strictly speaking in Afghanistan since May 2006 there have been no lives lost in retaliation against Osama bin Laden as by then in Afghanistan the US-OEF mission was replaced by ISAF (Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are not even mentioned in the ISAF Mission Statement - In the summer of 2006 it was the Taleban from acros the border in Pakistan who declared war on ISAF's reconstruction effort, nothing to do with OBL)

Only in Pakistan are US-OEF attacks carried out primarily by drones where even the Pakistani authorities say that they are effective.

Iraq of course had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:20 AM

Do, thanks for your info.
A number of individual experts have given their own conflicting opinions now.

On whether the incursion was legal, I am obviously not qualified to have an opinion.
US government under the Attorney General will have planned it so that they at least had a good case. We will see if it is tested.

They claim that capture WAS an option and it was not predetermined to kill.
They would have to say that of course, and an order to kill will not be on the record if issued.

I know a bit more about the legality of a "fight"
An order to kill a prisoner is not legal and must not be obeyed.
The SEALS were on their own.
The legality depends on what happened and on what they had reasonable grounds to believe.
Your piece does not consider the possibility of a suicide vest or belt.
They would have to consider that he might have such a device.
Likewise his wife, who they gave the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 12 May 11 - 10:08 PM

Yes, I'm sure we can all agree what happened on September 11th, 2001 was a direct attack that 3k+ humans were murdered. But, there has been no mention in this thread (I don't think there was) about the 100K+ innocent lives that have been lost in the retaliation against OBL and his evil deeds. These lives also were a travesty in humanity madness , and yes, as Donuel mentioned the thousands who have been tortured in the process of seeking out the revenge of OBL.

I dunno,the hatred, distrust and revenge (from both sides) will continue as far as I'm concerned. No one can prove me wrong on this.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread once the celebrations of OBL's death subside, the questions regarding the legality of OBL's demise will surface evermore and the clouds of war will cover the truth and the current victors will write history in their own 'image'.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 11 - 08:36 PM

"Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"?"

You folks have a very warped opinion of the American people—warped in a very uncomplimentary way, which stems from—yes, your increasingly apparent prejudices.

Granted, there are a fair number of idiots with voter registration cards, but in that respect, we certainly don't outnumber the British.

Just because these two guys are fairly well-known actors does not automatically make them lightweights. Another bit of prejudice.

Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, California, where he was a resident, and he had some good ideas about what constituted the good of the community. The citizens of Carmel "made his day," not because of his firm jaw and cold eye, but because of his policies. Eastwood.

Conan the Barbarian got elected partly because he was a Republican in a state that is often kind to Republicans, but also because he is not stupid, despite what many people like to think, and he was (is) sufficiently "middle of the road" to appeal to some Democrats as well—AND the fact that he was strongly influenced by Maria Shriver, a member of the KENNEDY family (noting the latest, of course, that after 25 years, they are divorcing). Conan has actually been a fairly good governor. Far from ideal, but a lot better than some. Those are my impressions of him from several hundred miles north, but I will leave judgment to Californians, such as Amos. Schwarzenegger

In any interference in the internal affairs of places like Libya, we are not alone there, we were asked to join in, and are performing only a limited function. No "boots on the ground." The issue is human rights.

Look! Americans get shat on for interfering with countries that ride roughshod over their own populations. Americans also get shat on if some tin-pot dictator oppresses his own population and we DON'T interfere.

I don't think there are any plans afoot for the U. S. to invade the U. K. and set things right there. You're on your own.

Don Firth