erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Perhaps if you'd actually been to Wasilla and/or Anchorage, you'd think better of her...

No, I'd think better of her if she she wasn't clueless about the single most important foreign policy change made in the last 8 years (among other shortcomings revealed when she's unscripted). Wasilla is neither here nor there. Anyone who wants to be in the White House ought to have at least a passing interest in U.S. foreign affairs. And that's all it takes to know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Sorry e... I assumed you wanted debate... If you think McCain = Bush, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

My point was... You said you're not impressed and think it showed a lack of judgement on McCain's part to pick her. In honesty, you think McCain = Bush... so he could have picked anyone short of Hillary, and it probably wouldn't have swayed you... so he probably doesn't CARE what you think about his pick. No offense, but you aren't going to vote for him if he sprouts angel wings... so whatis the point? The people in Alaska PROBABLY know a little more about her as a politician and leader than anyone else... and by and large they love her. Wasilla and Anchorage, and apparently Juneau LONG before she was a VP nominee spoke glowingly of her. She isn't on the ticket because of her knowledge of US foriegn policy. I'm a pretty smart person, and pretty good at foriegn affairs... and I don't know what specifically you're talking about as "the single most important change".... so I guess I'm a moron. I didn't read through the entire thread, so perhaps I've missed something.

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy. It was Biden and the other Democrats who questioned his general qualifications... and some Republican groups kept it up after he won... but not McCain... so the "throwing principle to the wind" comment is political drivel.

Now that's just silly. The experience question was the single most important reason McCain was closing the gap on Obama prior to the conventions. Quotes of McCain questioning Obama's experience are easy to find, including the following (from April):

“It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said.
(Full article here)

Re-read my quote. Only on national security issues has McCain really questioned his experience. Biden is the one who said he wasn't qualified to lead... generally... not just in National Security issues. BTW... compared to McCain, Obama has virtually NO foriegn policy experience... and apparently (at least in McCain's opinion) doesn't understand history (that being McCain's passion). Neither does Palin by comparison... but she isn't on the ticket to "shore up" his lack of credentials in that area.

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:More importantly... Obama is running against McCain... not Palin. This "heartbeat" junk is just that... junk. Should McCain win and something happen, Palin would not suddenly be carrying the mantle of the Republican party. She would be Gerald Ford. If she had good and popular ideas, then Congress would run with them... if she did not... then they would ignore her. McCain's appointments would remain in office, and to be honest, it would look pretty bad if she replaced a bunch of them. When the 2012 election came around, Republicans would be coming out of the woodwork to challenge her, despite the fact that she had been a "sitting" President... thus, as some argue... the ONLY qualified and eligible person in the world.

Quote:So are you saying it's not important for the VP to be ready to be President? If that's your position, then I can understand why you'd be ok with the Palin choice. I don't think most Americans share that opinion though.

Biden apparently does. According to Biden... Obama wasn't qualified to be President 6 months ago... now apparently he is the MOST qualified to be President. Even if you want to argue that Obama > Palin... She'll catch Obama if McCain makes it a year or two. Are we REALLY having this conversation?? Talk about silly. No, who the VP is isn't as important as who the President is. Sure, I'd like to have a great back-up to my starting QB... but I'm more interested in having the better starter. Obviously you don't share my opinion of McCain, and that is fine... but don't tell me what "most American's" think when the polls have it within the margin of error. If MOST AMERICANS put the priority you claim on the VP, then I guess McCain would be leading without her??

75Owl Wrote:McCann failed to make one point he could have made.
Both agreeed that we should use force to prevent genocide.
Obama keeps saying that we should not have gone to Iraq.
However, Saddam did engage in genocide. He drained the marshes
to get rid of the Marsh Arabs who opposed him. Whole villages of Kurds and Shittes were subject to poison gas.

Quote:If that were really the reason McCain and Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, you'd have a strong point. But it wasn't.

Wow... McCain and Bush... and Biden and 99% of Congress.... plus the vast majority of America. Why are we discussing Bush?? Oh yeah... because Democrats think its a convincing argument about McCain.

You can't poke holes in McCain's experience, so you say he might die in office and thus his selection of an outsider is more important than "the envoy of change" selecting a 30 year beauracratic insider and shows incredibly poor judgement.

If you want people to start responding to Democratic talking points with Republican talking points... fine... but our collective iq's will go down pretty quickly.

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So why isn't executive experience salient to the office of Chief Executive? I think it is this: if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not.

I'm confused -- do you not have a horse in this race? Neither candidate has executive experience, but executive experience seems important to you. That doesn't really jibe with your above statement.

We all have a horse in this race, because after it is over, we will all be sitting under the rear end of one of these two horses, and the amount and qualities of the manure that will be dumped on us will be different for each horse. Do you prefer the crap of the old warhorse or the crap of the spirited little colt that is very nice looking but wants to run very fast in the wrong direction?

My horses were scratched from this race long ago. McCain was my last choice among the Republicans. However, Obama is my last choice among all the candidates.

Executive experience is important, and I wish Obama had some and McCain had more. But this discussion now turns on the insistance of the Obama campaign/Democratic party that Palin's qualifications are inadequate to be a heartbeat from the presidency, while Obama's are more than adequate to be that heartbeat. There is a disconnect there that i pointed out and that a lot of people are busily trying to justify.

So just to be clear, you personally are a counter-example to your belief that "if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not".
Right?

Gosh, JO, I think everybody on this site and just about everybody who will vote is guilty of this to some degree. That is why I said that if the roles were reversed, the Dems would be touting the executive experience and the Republicans touting whatever the Dems are touting now. Clearly, the ideal way would be for every voter to approach the election process with no preconceptions or allegiances, then to make an unbiased selection based solely on the issues and the positions of the candidates on same. Maybe you followed this path - i won't put words in your mouth - but i didn't, and i suspect few did.

I think I can predict with a fair amount of certainty how a lot of posters here will vote in 2012, 2016, 2020, etc, without even yet knowing who the candidates will be and what their qualifications will be. I personally know two people who think neither blacks nor women should hold high office, but they will vote a straight Democratic ticket again this year, just as they done since 1934. Actual qualifications mean little if party allegiance comes first.

I already have confessed to being fooled by Jimmy Carter's executive experience. At least I never took him as a nuclear expert.

Since that fiasco, I have generally voted for the person who most closely tracks my opinions on the issues that are most important to me. The has usually been the Republican. The sole exception was 2004, when I voted for a Democrat - a black Democrat, if that matters. Clearly I wrote in someone other than the nominee. I rarely vote a straight ticket. Sorry if that surprises you.

If you are trying to set me up in some way, tough. We are all pots and kettles here, of varying degree, unless someone wants to proclaim their own purity. It won't be me.

Hambone10 Wrote:Sorry e... I assumed you wanted debate... If you think McCain = Bush, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I simply referenced the Bush Doctrine. Where did I say McCain = Bush? I'd take McCain over Bush in a heartbeat. (I did say Palin = Bush earlier...?)

Hambone10 Wrote:My point was... You said you're not impressed and think it showed a lack of judgement on McCain's part to pick her. In honesty, you think McCain = Bush... so he could have picked anyone short of Hillary, and it probably wouldn't have swayed you...

I'll certainly admit that McCain's pick for VP couldn't possibly have swayed my vote in November. But he could have picked plenty of other candidates (Pawlenty, Romney, even Giuliani) without causing me to question his judgment. They're all highly intelligent, qualified people with whom I disagree on quite a few policy issues. As is McCain. From what I've seen so far of Palin, she isn't.

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy.

Now that's just silly. The experience question was the single most important reason McCain was closing the gap on Obama prior to the conventions. Quotes of McCain questioning Obama's experience are easy to find...

Re-read my quote. Only on national security issues has McCain really questioned his experience. Biden is the one who said he wasn't qualified to lead... generally... not just in National Security issues.

Okay... I re-read your quote. You said McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in foreign policy. (emphasis added)

I wasn't arguing against your point that it was "only in foreign policy"... I was pointing out that it wasn't "only recently". It's been going on for many months. Had you said "or" instead of "and" I wouldn't have countered it.

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:If that were really the reason McCain and Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, you'd have a strong point. But it wasn't.

Wow... McCain and Bush... and Biden and 99% of Congress.... plus the vast majority of America. Why are we discussing Bush?? Oh yeah... because Democrats think its a convincing argument about McCain.

Come on. The Bush administration convinced us to go to war with Iraq primarily over WMD's. More broadly, to protect us from an imminent threat. Remember Condi's "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? They sent Powell to the UN to convince them Iraq was a threat to the rest of the world, not to its own people. What Hussein did to Iraqis was mentioned on many occasions to bolster the case, but it's just not reasonable to look back and say that was the primary reason we went to war with Iraq.

erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Sorry e... I assumed you wanted debate... If you think McCain = Bush, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I simply referenced the Bush Doctrine. Where did I say McCain = Bush? I'd take McCain over Bush in a heartbeat. (I did say Palin = Bush earlier...?)

Sorry... its so close to the mantra its hard to distinguish... but still... what does "the bush Doctrine" mean?? Especially in that the person who coined the Phrase, thus defining (at least for these purposes) what the Doctrine was... has said that Couric got it wrong... she mis-defined it herself. I don't know what "The Bush Doctrine" is, and I suspect you don't either. Until he puts out a paper saying "This is my Doctrine", it is simply someone's PERCEPTION of what he has tried to accomplish. For the purpose of the question, "The Bush Doctrine" is a media talking point.

Palin isn't Bush either. Her views on personal morality and conduct aren't mine either... but those aren't really the major issues of the day... and she isn't a former president's daughter... nor is she rich... NOR, for that matter, is she running for President... Nor did HE have a record of challenging his party as she does...

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:My point was... You said you're not impressed and think it showed a lack of judgement on McCain's part to pick her. In honesty, you think McCain = Bush... so he could have picked anyone short of Hillary, and it probably wouldn't have swayed you...

I'll certainly admit that McCain's pick for VP couldn't possibly have swayed my vote in November. But he could have picked plenty of other candidates (Pawlenty, Romney, even Giuliani) without causing me to question his judgment. They're all highly intelligent, qualified people with whom I disagree on quite a few policy issues. As is McCain. From what I've seen so far of Palin, she isn't.

Which is exactly why I said... perhaps if you'd been to Alaska... If you'd lived under ONE set of rules, and then lived under hers... Intelligence can be measured in a number of ways... and honestly... exceptionally smart people think they have the answers... but they may not have the answers for ME. The people of Alaska found someone who understands THEIR needs... not because she is smarter than they are, but because she has the same issues. One can ALWAYS hire smart people to get answers. I want someone who understands what legislation written by all of these supposedly smart people does to my family.

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy.

Now that's just silly. The experience question was the single most important reason McCain was closing the gap on Obama prior to the conventions. Quotes of McCain questioning Obama's experience are easy to find...

Re-read my quote. Only on national security issues has McCain really questioned his experience. Biden is the one who said he wasn't qualified to lead... generally... not just in National Security issues.

Okay... I re-read your quote. You said McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in foreign policy. (emphasis added)

I wasn't arguing against your point that it was "only in foreign policy"... I was pointing out that it wasn't "only recently". It's been going on for many months. Had you said "or" instead of "and" I wouldn't have countered it.

Obama made a statement that (in at least my, and JMC's view) showed his complete lack of understanding of military operations... the timetable... McCain was asked about it... He responded...

That is very far from Biden's comment a few months ago that Obama was inexperienced and unqualified to be President. The complaint about Palin isn't that she was a poor choice because she is inexperienced in foriegn policy... it is that she is inexperienced and unqualified to be President. McCain has NEVER said that Obama was inxperienced and unqualified to be President... so the fact that he doesn't see Palin as inexperienced and unqualified to be President isn't inconsistent... which is what you originally claimed... or you said the democrats you talked to said... My using and instead of or on a post in a long thread doesn't change the reality that McCain has NEVER said Obama wasn't qualified to be President... and CERTAINLY not VP.

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:If that were really the reason McCain and Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, you'd have a strong point. But it wasn't.

Wow... McCain and Bush... and Biden and 99% of Congress.... plus the vast majority of America. Why are we discussing Bush?? Oh yeah... because Democrats think its a convincing argument about McCain.

Come on. The Bush administration convinced us to go to war with Iraq primarily over WMD's. More broadly, to protect us from an imminent threat. Remember Condi's "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? They sent Powell to the UN to convince them Iraq was a threat to the rest of the world, not to its own people. What Hussein did to Iraqis was mentioned on many occasions to bolster the case, but it's just not reasonable to look back and say that was the primary reason we went to war with Iraq.

[/quote]

Let's not rehash this debate... He certainly said... he's done it to his own people... that is why we fear he will do it to others... or supply it to people like those who committed 9/11. Despite the 1992 treaty and the 46 or whatever re-affirming resolutions, he isn't complying with the international demand that he PROVE he has no WMD.

The ONLY reason he (or Clinton) NEEDED to take us to war was that they were in violation of the 1992 treaty. He violated those terms, and we could have started bombing the first time he kept inspectors out of a room. The inspectors were looking for WMD, and being kept out of rooms/buildings. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back... but it wasn't the "reason". If not for the 1992 treaty violation and the barring of the inspectors, his having WMD would not have by itself justified an invasion.

You are free to view it differently, or think that violating a cease-fire isn't enough grounds for the resumption of hostilities, but that doesn't make it legally correct. EVERYONE thought he had WMD. Hans Blix thought he had them... and Saddam confirmed that it was his goal that everyone think that. While this same fear existed before 9/11, I don't think anyone anticipated how vulnerable we were... or how devastating a WMD in Iraq could be to us on 9/10... not even necessarily because Iraq would use them on us... but because they support terrorism in other places financially, and we are trying to enforce sanctions on them... there is no reason to think they wouldn't support terrorism against the US financially... and perhaps with materials. Sure, that is my take on it... but we weren't going for a 51% vote in the UN... we needed 100%

FTR, 75 never said it was the only reason, or even that it was the most important reason... Only that if preventing Genocide was a reason to invade, then Obama would have supported invading Iraq much sooner.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:If you are trying to set me up in some way, tough. We are all pots and kettles here, of varying degree, unless someone wants to proclaim their own purity. It won't be me.

Just trying to reconcile your generalizations ("if your candidate has [executive experience] it is important, if he doesn't, it is not") with your apparent position (bothered by Obama's lack of exec experience even though your candidate candidate McCain doesn't have exec experience either).

Why am I trying to reconcile this? Well, if the cynical "if your candidate has it" quote is truly _your_ motivation for questioning Obama's lack of executive experience, I'd argue that this whole set of concerns is pure and simple partisan politics and no longer worth discussing. However, given that your positions don't actually seem aligned with the quote, I'm trying to first tease out where you're really coming from.
But as I type this, I think I realize I've lost interest in the discussion no matter what.

[attachment=1546]

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Sorry e... I assumed you wanted debate... If you think McCain = Bush, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I simply referenced the Bush Doctrine. Where did I say McCain = Bush? I'd take McCain over Bush in a heartbeat. (I did say Palin = Bush earlier...?)

Sorry... its so close to the mantra its hard to distinguish... but still... what does "the bush Doctrine" mean?? Especially in that the person who coined the Phrase, thus defining (at least for these purposes) what the Doctrine was... has said that Couric got it wrong... she mis-defined it herself. I don't know what "The Bush Doctrine" is, and I suspect you don't either. Until he puts out a paper saying "This is my Doctrine", it is simply someone's PERCEPTION of what he has tried to accomplish. For the purpose of the question, "The Bush Doctrine" is a media talking point.

Well, to help settle the Bush doctrine, there is actually no one definition of it, and in many ways, it does not officially exist. But certain elements of what is presumed to have made up the doctrine at one time or another have been codified. Check out the Wikipedia entry for more details. Right now, the most prominent piece of it (at least in a vocal way, as used for justification by the current administration) is the encouragement of democracy. But I'm pretty sure that's not what Couric meant. (Of course, part of the reason that the other pieces aren't relevant is that it is very difficult to project force elsewhere in the world, given current commitments. They've kind of tied their own hands with how things have been handled previously.)

The Bush Doctrine is a media created phrase - actually by a conservative commentator even before 9/11. Charles Krauthammer is credited with creating the phrase to describe a move toward unilateral action in foreign policy, as when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty and any pretense of working toward Kyoto. He more the nails down the 4 variants of the definition/evolution. It's interesting reading, needless to say.

Now, back to the arguments...

gsloth Wrote:[I]t is very difficult to project force elsewhere in the world, given current commitments. They've kind of tied their own hands with how things have been handled previously.

Not just their own hands. It is going to affect us for a while.

Gravy Owl Wrote:

gsloth Wrote:[I]t is very difficult to project force elsewhere in the world, given current commitments. They've kind of tied their own hands with how things have been handled previously.

Not just their own hands. It is going to affect us for a while.

Clinton was advised not to make the drastic cuts he did with the standing Army. Had he kept just two more divisions (even including light infantry) you wouldn't be having the situtation we have now.

Agreeing with you WMD, but giving Clinton the same benefit ALL Presidents should get...

It is difficult to project today what your needs will be in 2, 4, 10 years. Divisions take years to assemble and train... systems can take decades...

I suspect some also advised Clinton to make the military even smaller.

My point is... you make the best decision you can at the time with the information you have... when you look back, you SHOULD decide what went wrong and how you might fix it for the future, but this entire line of pointing fingers (not you WMD or anyone else on this board... but the culture we have) is just sickening to me.

Example... Barney Franks and Chris Dodd were very important in creating the problems we have today... I'm not mad that they made mistakes... I'm mad that we aren't fixing them, and letting guys like Franks, whose priorities are counter to solving the problem... tell us how to solve the problem.

We had enough soldiers that Rumsfeld doubted it would last six months, but the time it has taken is not really the biggest problem. An unnecessary preemptive war based on faulty intelligence was not going to put us in a good situation regardless of the size of the Army.

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:If you are trying to set me up in some way, tough. We are all pots and kettles here, of varying degree, unless someone wants to proclaim their own purity. It won't be me.

Just trying to reconcile your generalizations ("if your candidate has [executive experience] it is important, if he doesn't, it is not") with your apparent position (bothered by Obama's lack of exec experience even though your candidate candidate McCain doesn't have exec experience either).

Why am I trying to reconcile this? Well, if the cynical "if your candidate has it" quote is truly _your_ motivation for questioning Obama's lack of executive experience, I'd argue that this whole set of concerns is pure and simple partisan politics and no longer worth discussing. However, given that your positions don't actually seem aligned with the quote, I'm trying to first tease out where you're really coming from.
But as I type this, I think I realize I've lost interest in the discussion no matter what.

Good, becuase i don't think you are following it.

I would prefer that any candidate for president have some executive experience. I would prefer that all of these four have some or have more. I didn't choose these candidates. I believe that MCCain's command of a large military unit has been cited as executive experience, although clearly you do not count that.

In every other walk of life, we prefer experience. If you are to have open-heart surgery, most of us would prefer an experienced surgeon. If we are being sued, we want an experienced lawyer. Why then do we downplay the importance of experience in electing a Chief Executive?

If lack of experience but a nice personality and some ideas is all we need, I can think of thousands who qualify under that standard.
The whole Senate Foreign Policy committee qualifies. I qualify. yes, the bar is set that low.

I do think there will be a time in the future when the democrats are running a Governor against a Senator, and we will see an about face on this issue then. If Richardson had won the nomination, we would be hearing this now.

Gravy Owl Wrote:We had enough soldiers that Rumsfeld doubted it would last six months, but the time it has taken is not really the biggest problem. An unnecessary preemptive war based on faulty intelligence was not going to put us in a good situation regardless of the size of the Army.

Okay, So Rumsfeld was wrong. I doubt he would have given ANY time-table estimate if he hadn't been forced to... I suspect he would say, if i had been allowed to do it the way I PLANNED, it WOULD have only taken 6 months.... but that didn't happen.

unnecessary/preemptive are opinions... and I don't believe that most people in this country thought it was unnecessary or pre-emptive at the time.

Faulty intelligence?? Agreed... Do you believe they thought it was faulty at the time?? I certainly didn't... and honestly, neither did many others. Might it have been a stretch?? Absolutely... but the risk to this country was viewed at the time as favoring protection, rather than discretion.

The only valid questions are (IMO)

Why was it faulty?? What can we do to fix it??

Unless you think that voting for or against Obama or McCain makes any difference whatsoever to Rumsfeld.

I disagree with much of that, but I'll respond privately since it doesn't really further the discussion at hand.

Hambone10 Wrote:

Gravy Owl Wrote:We had enough soldiers that Rumsfeld doubted it would last six months, but the time it has taken is not really the biggest problem. An unnecessary preemptive war based on faulty intelligence was not going to put us in a good situation regardless of the size of the Army.

Okay, So Rumsfeld was wrong. I doubt he would have given ANY time-table estimate if he hadn't been forced to... I suspect he would say, if i had been allowed to do it the way I PLANNED, it WOULD have only taken 6 months.... but that didn't happen.

unnecessary/preemptive are opinions... and I don't believe that most people in this country thought it was unnecessary or pre-emptive at the time.

Faulty intelligence?? Agreed... Do you believe they thought it was faulty at the time?? I certainly didn't... and honestly, neither did many others. Might it have been a stretch?? Absolutely... but the risk to this country was viewed at the time as favoring protection, rather than discretion.

The only valid questions are (IMO)

Why was it faulty?? What can we do to fix it??

Unless you think that voting for or against Obama or McCain makes any difference whatsoever to Rumsfeld.

If you read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks (of the Washington Post) it was expected under best case predictions, that it would take 2 1/2 months to take down the Iraqi military.

Remember our battle plan was altered right off the bat because the Turks refused to let the 4th ID come in from the north. They had to come in through Kuwait. They were not in the fight.

We took out the Iraqi Military in under a month, using 1/4 less the ground warfare element contemplated by the original plan.

The Marines operated effectively more than 300 miles from the coast..something not even contemplated by "Forward from the Sea"

We won the battle but screwed up the occupation. Rumsefeld forgot that it takes more troops to occupy territory than to take it.

Of course, I blame Jerry Bremer too. CPA was a mess. Nobody knew what the hell was going on. But what do you expect from a crony of Henry Kissenger?

Its pretty well settled that the US Military knows how to break things and win battles, but doesn't do well in occupations.

Thank God Petraeus saved our bacon.

WMD Owl Wrote:Its pretty well settled that the US Military knows how to break things and win battles, but doesn't do well in occupations.

Thank God Petraeus saved our bacon.

One of the reasons my father proposed many years ago... and I still support and even more two-pronged military (with the reserves) than we have now. This isn't right, but I'll characterize it as:

One, a fighting machine.... biggest baddest muthas on the earth... THOR on Steroids and pissed off... armed to the teeth. Marines, Special Forces... Green Berets... This army would include those groups, plus guys who just barely didn't make the cut there as support. Their job is kill, take land or protect something worth killing innocents for.

the other, more peacekeepers... convoy protectors... guards... road builders... Not that these guys aren't trained to fight... but they don't have to have 3 jobs... their job is to keep what we've taken or protect something we want, but generally aren't willing to risk killing innocent people to keep.

There would still be overlaps between the services... but the PEOPLE wouldn't have to have 3 switches... scare, stun and kill... just two. that way, we're less likely to have guards making prisoners do naked pyramids for fun.

Gravy Owl Wrote:I disagree with much of that, but I'll respond privately since it doesn't really further the discussion at hand.

Thanks Gravy, I respect and appreciate your position.