Liberty Navy [LN] Feedback Thread

[Sarawr!?]

US Military generals share political opinions quite regularly, and some quite famously so. Quite a few of them have shared strong anti-war views even, some have advocated for complete nuclear annihilation of other countries who we have not even necessarily been in open conflict with.

Calling Rachel 'rowdy' for basically saying that while no government is perfect, HER GOVERNMENT is still worth fighting for and being loyal to, and that the terrorists should surrender because their cause/the way they're going about their cause is totally wrong?

What sense does that make. In fact among some of the other characters in the [LN], Rachel is a staunch militarist and one of the first to invoke patriotism in order to motivate others. Admitting that no government is infallible does not make her unfit for command, neither does sharing an opinion regarding privatized police forces, especially when the overall point was that while some decisions made by the government are questionable, the government of Liberty is still RIGHT, and the "Commonwealth of Liberty", is still a fallacy, and a cause not worth dying for.

I really don't understand how you're not seeing this, or why you're focusing on one minor part of what was said overall, especially when what was said, was said in order to illustrate the fact that THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERTY IS NOT A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, and so no, the military cannot do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, contrary to what the Hellfire Legion/Commonwealth want people to believe.

---

[LN] Recruitment | Rachel Baker Bio