Confederacy of Slavic Republics

Im sorry I don;t agree with the Civilian Court argument. They re enemy combatants and should be treated like the captured POWs they are. And I don't agree with Santorum's views on Homosexuals, but I think for now that issue has to be put aside, there are just too many problems in the world right now for it to be a major issue and the fact the Paul wants to shut the nation away from the world. At a certain point we have to be realistic. We made a mess in both countries I agree with that, but to just leave and pretend it didn't happen would be just asking for us to return in 10 years to fight the same war that could have been fought in the early 90's is unjustifiable. And at the moment I don't see ANY of the Republican candidates beating Obama (I'm still going to support the running mate out of principle though). And our civil liberties are not being abused by the CIA or FBI, I understand the fear that we should have of them abusing our liberties cause it keeps them on a leash not to do that. But to mutilate them as Paul wants puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting the wars we now fight. I also feel that in the next year we re going to have major problems with Iran and with Paul's isolationist stance I see a nothing short of genocide occurring there without US intervention. Like it or not we ARE the world's police and not because we want it, but because no one else is willing to do that. We don;t need a Chamberlain which Paul most certainly is. I'd rather have Obama be FDR then, cause I know he'll do more then just do nothing.

I think you've misconstrued Paul's foreign policy stance. It's not isolationism, it's anti-hawk/imperialism. Nations and peoples around the world aren't pissed off at us because we're rich and prosperous, but because we laud over and police the world. I firmly believe that if you're talking about our foreign policy, you have to look at it from the perspective of the world. If you were Iran and were being denied the right to operate nuclear energy facilities for several years with no diplomatic progress in sight, you'd be frustrated too. Its ridiculous to believe such a policy wouldn't have repercussions. What-more, rather than exhaust ALL diplomatic talks/negotiations, we choose to bully Iran with sanctions and threats. Militarism in today's world is asking for trouble, and to go to war with another nation, like Iran, or coordinate a nuclear strike is folly. If we were to truly try all diplomatic approaches in solving Iran's nuclear program and they all failed miserably, then i might support more aggressive approaches. But instead, we've avoided any diplomatic talks with Iran for decades and only in 2004 or 2005 did we actually sit down with them. And when it didn't work out like we had hoped, the idea of a diplomatic solution was dropped way too easily.

As far was Guantanamo concerned, i couldn't' disagree more. This is where the problem of this issue lies at heart. You say they're armed combatants and are therefore unworthy of habeus corpus and a lawyer. Except, they haven't even been proven guilty of terrorist actions yet and already you call anyone suspicious, "enemy combatants". Why are they guilty before even being proven so? Why give up on the rule of law so easily? Obama supported this idea with the "National Defense Act" which basically said that if someone thinks you are a terrorist, you could be whisked away to Guantanamo, be denied a lawyer, habeus corpus, and be detained for an indefinite amount of time! Now, on the other hand, if we take it that our suspicions are always correct, and those suspected of these crimes should be treated as POWs, whatever happened to the Geneva convention? Are we to ignore it and water-board these "armed combatants"? We got this form of torture from the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War where it was used at Hanoi Hilton on U.S. POWs. And please don't say it isn't torture. In interrogations, you want the suspect to tell you the truth, not whatever makes the simulation of or actual physical pain stop.

Due to recent raids sweeping across NS, I've decided it would be best to bar WA delegate access to the Regional Controls. Since we do not have any members of this Confederacy in the WA (and technically have no WA delegate), this seems to be the proper course of action to maintain our security. The perpetrators of these recent raids are The Black Hawks, and while personally i neither endorse, nor condemn the actions of both defenders and raiders, i imagine our region might prove a nice war-zone for their conflict. This measure will be lifted when things begin to die down.

Heh, on the note of me, I've been pretty inactive as of late due to the fact that my computer is in disrepair. HOPEFULLY, I'll have a new hard drive by the end of the month. Cheers.