en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3679570 Comments by Freetheweird http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641434587 The questions should be asked. Questions in themselves are not evidence. Opinions and claims from unnamed officials are not evidence in themselves. That the drone war is not as select and pure of purpose as presented is shown by real evidence. The drone program appears to have outlived its usefulness and is now providing diminishing returns and escalating unnecessary carnage. For those reasons, I believe it should be ended as it stands now. The contention I make is that there is no evidence that President Obama himself -- not the CIA, not top officials with leeway to make such decisions -- is deliberately, recklessly, personally targeting innocent civilians. That's not sweeping the drone program under the rug. It is making an obvious statement of reality. Such a reversal of character would be unusual for him, and I believe has more context than we know enough about. End the program, yes. Pretend that President Obama is somehow merrily conducting its every side result of civilian carnage is ridiculous. Mon, 13 May 2013 16:51:37 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641434587 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641430192 "You may hold him innocent of what are pretty clearly war crimes," uh, no, don't go there. I am saying there is no evidence that President Obama is deliberately, recklessly, personally targeting innocent civilians, not that he isn't ultimately responsible for any decisions he actually makes. I am against real and declared war crimes, no matter who commits 'em, but reasonable people can, and do, argue about those war crimes. Is it more or less of a war crime for combatants to deliberately embed themselves in a civilian population, to shield themselves behind innocent people, in order to commit murderous acts while counting on the higher humanity of their enemies to not attack them where they are? And must we always refrain, when it means those same combatants will then be emboldened to intimidate the civilian population to stay in place as shields, to build their arsenals, hatch their plans and launch their attacks? Is our restraint, when our foes would just as willingly kill their hostages themselves, always the only criteria? It's a legitimate dilemma, not just a partisan one. Let me make this clear before you heap another presumption on my head: I wish for this drone-bombing program to cease. I believe it has outlived its proven usefulness for some time, and now is showing ever-diminishing returns. It now seems to be killing more innocent civilians, incidentally, accidentally, or not, than it is taking out bad guys who would kill far more of them left untargeted. What I do not believe is that President Obama -- in direct opposition to a lifetime of character and intelligence, without any information that we are not privy to -- is continuing the program with reckless and deliberate disregard for innocent life. Mon, 13 May 2013 16:42:30 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641430192 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641416757 BTW, El Q -- Why are you equating 19th century social rules with equal service in the military? That was also a time when people of color were deemed to be generally less intelligent, moral and valuable than their white counterparts; the Irish were a race of amusing drunkards, and children could work in coal mines. History, and context, are your friends. Mon, 13 May 2013 16:15:10 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641416757 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641414097 Can you explain how "men will be men" and "women will be women" after combat training and while on duty? Other than using the latrine, and it's not that hugely different. There are smaller, slighter of build guys who aren't as capable of feats of strength as their brawnier counterparts. We don't automatically relegate them to support roles. They might turn out to be the best snipers, saboteurs and tank drivers, among other less strength-dependent jobs. It took a fundamental and profound change to integrate people of color into the military ranks at a time, not that distant, when a lotta white folks had been drilled with the idea that it demeaned them to eat, shower, sleep in the same barracks and fight alongside folks who looked different. It will take another effort of will and education, and the repeated demonstrations of those who can, to show that what we look like is not as important as how we think and function as individuals. Mon, 13 May 2013 16:09:52 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641414097 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641407892 You know what? They weren't all women, either. And lauding them is fine, but if that's an excuse for saying there's a place for women in combat and it's not carrying a gun, that's just silly. Now, if you can point to hard evidence that women just routinely wash out of training 'cause they can't keep up with the guys, go for it. Citing something vague about some alleged Marine Corps episode ain't it. Compared to the number of women in Marine basic training, how many able-bodied men wash out for one reason or another, despite their best efforts? Mon, 13 May 2013 15:57:56 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641407892 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641400373 Hard not to assume when you make statements that have been a staple of "conservatives" for years, such as "... (thus demonstrating once again that he doesn't really care about the Constitution..." You can disagree with a lot of things, but that's just hooey. Obama is a Constitutional scholar, taught Constitutional law for years at one of our top law schools. The Supreme Court can disagree about the Constitution; it doesn't mean the justices don't care about it. The POTUS can make controversial decisions affecting Constitutional law, that doesn't mean he doesn't "really care" about the Constitution. Mon, 13 May 2013 15:43:10 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641400373 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_23216587/tom-moore-recent-presidential-appointments-are-tarnished-by#IDComment641398287 Oh, yeah, it's all the fault of Barack Obama who won't over-ride laws, lack of the kind of evidence that can actually be brought into court, and reluctant prosecutors to go after people shielded by their pet law firms and bought Congressional reps. And has done absolutely nuthin' to try to change laws and policies, right. Just 'cause, well, see how much the financial industry supported his last campaign? 'nuff said. Mon, 13 May 2013 15:38:51 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_23216587/tom-moore-recent-presidential-appointments-are-tarnished-by#IDComment641398287 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641392509 What was not correct about what he said? Theoretically, as in theory, yes, anyone with cash and access can now do this, mental patient or not, actual tinfoil-lined basement or not. A potential desktop armory, theoretically. if you can disprove what he and many others are saying in a quite reasonable way, do so. Just claiming it's panic-mongering ignores the reality. Mon, 13 May 2013 15:27:25 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641392509 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641390531 What "actions"? "The beliefs of many people in this country" are that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was really born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim/Marxist, "pals around" with terrorists and has plans to grab all our god-given guns any day now and impose Sharia Law. How does anyone, let alone a liberal-progressive, take steps to have a "reasonable discussion to belay those fears" when those fears are so patently ridiculous but clung to, regardless? We can't have a "rational discussion" with the irrational, who wanna believe Rush, Breitbart, Alex Jones, FuxSnooze, Beck, etc. etc. rather than the facts. Nuts. Mon, 13 May 2013 15:23:26 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641390531 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641388064 To be clear, you're both presuming a lot on a vast amount of what you don't know. There is no evidence that President Obama is deliberately or recklessly, personally targeting innocent civilians. You don't know what his Defense advisers, all those generals "conservatives" love to insist must know more than a POTUS does on how to run the military, are telling him he needs to do with drones. And using it to bolster the tired "conservative" meme that this particular president for some reason "really doesn't care about the Constitution," unlike, oh, say, your hero Ronald Reagan is just lame. As was Paul's filibuster, although at least he showed how a filibuster really should be done. Mon, 13 May 2013 15:18:30 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641388064 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641385171 Yeah, laws don't stop all crimes so let's not have any. Background checks impede a small number of people from immediately getting gun permits so let's not have any that might put a real criminal out to some extra effort, extra dough and extra risk to get their own firearms. A national gun registry that would help law enforcement to track where and how guns are being distributed and sold legally as well as illegally is nuthin' more than an invasion of privacy and a gubmint plot to grab our weapons before Sharia Law takes effect. We have to keep it easy for criminals, after all.That's the price we pay for freedom. Snicker. Have a nice day in that tinfoil-lined basement churning out your usual kneejerk, canned and utterly hilarious responses, 123. Mon, 13 May 2013 15:12:44 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218201/pitts-ignoring-real-while-fighting-imaginary#IDComment641385171 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_23215836/richard-r-socash-university-faculty-personal-judgment-is#IDComment641055822 Mr. Socash, can you name three current professors teaching from a gratuitously far-left perspective? Neither can the "conservatives" here insisting that CU is unbalanced, a hotbed of liberal indoctrination and absolutely needs for more conservatives. Mon, 13 May 2013 04:23:23 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_23215836/richard-r-socash-university-faculty-personal-judgment-is#IDComment641055822 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_23225475/naropa-graduates-prepare-set-sail-new-adventure-university#IDComment641054263 Which I call what it is -- envious bullchit. Mon, 13 May 2013 04:19:54 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_23225475/naropa-graduates-prepare-set-sail-new-adventure-university#IDComment641054263 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_23225475/naropa-graduates-prepare-set-sail-new-adventure-university#IDComment641053944 Stereotype much? Mon, 13 May 2013 04:19:04 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_23225475/naropa-graduates-prepare-set-sail-new-adventure-university#IDComment641053944 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218333/greenlee-ethics-eye-beholder#IDComment641051291 Pretty specious criteria. Mon, 13 May 2013 04:12:26 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_23218333/greenlee-ethics-eye-beholder#IDComment641051291 http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_23218198/living-below-line#IDComment641050032 Big point which you have missed is that you don't know what this woman's situation was when she had her children. And if all poor people decided to have abortions I guess you'd approve, whatever their conscientious beliefs might be in that sort of matter. Mon, 13 May 2013 04:09:31 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_23218198/living-below-line#IDComment641050032 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641048549 Being in a "lower deck" where the ship's crew actually prevented those passengers from coming up to the upper deck was the huge role. Mon, 13 May 2013 04:05:43 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641048549 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641047434 Well done. It's never been about political correctness, however. Any more than integrating the units was about "political correctness." Mon, 13 May 2013 04:03:13 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641047434 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641047108 What part of the history I cited is wrong? Easily verifiable. Mon, 13 May 2013 04:02:20 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_23218197/militarys-major-shame#IDComment641047108 http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_23218198/living-below-line#IDComment640753655 Good on you, Valerie. It looks so easy from the outside, yes, and especially when people simply prefer to blame the struggling rather than look to ways to make the struggle easier or at least not blindly judge them. Been there, done that. You will, too. Sun, 12 May 2013 15:56:05 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_23218198/living-below-line#IDComment640753655