Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

Its called "Where Empires go to Die" for a reason, was anyone really foolish enough to think this would end in any other way than defeat?

As someone whose been there, and met plenty of gadflies like the Col, I thought this paragraph in the NY Times summed it up perfectly.

"Colonel Davis can come across as strident, labeling as lies what others might call wishful thinking. Matthew M. Aid, a historian who examines Afghanistan in his new book “Intel Wars,” says that while there is a “yawning gap” between Pentagon statements and intelligence assessments, “it’s oversimplified to say the top brass are out-and-out lying. They are just too close to the subject.”

The most famous of the "classic blunders" mentioned by Vizzini in the Princess Bride - "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - was reputedly advice given by General Douglas MacArthur to President John F. Kennedy, in 1961.

ratherfish wrote:The most famous of the "classic blunders" mentioned by Vizzini in the Princess Bride - "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - was reputedly advice given by General Douglas MacArthur to President John F. Kennedy, in 1961.

You might say it's............

We abandoned Iraq. A country that has a long history of central government and Obama's "bad war" for Afganistan that never has. We could assure Afganistan would not again become a nest of terrorist training by sweeping it clean from time to time.

Iraq however will soon be taken by Iran and there goes the leverage of a US presence next door to the apocalyptic death cult from hell that is the leadership of Iran.

A logic that Obama and Ron Paul share.

How can thinking men actually believe appeasement will prevent a group that longs to bring caos to the world to prepare for the arrival of the 12th Imam, denies the holocost, and exports terrorism world wide, from doing exactly what they SAY they will do???

ratherfish wrote:Iraq however will soon be taken by Iran and there goes the leverage of a US presence next door to the apocalyptic death cult from hell that is the leadership of Iran.

A logic that Obama and Ron Paul share.

How can thinking men actually believe appeasement will prevent a group that longs to bring caos to the world to prepare for the arrival of the 12th Imam, denies the holocost, and exports terrorism world wide, from doing exactly what they SAY they will do???

Thank you for confirming that you know absolutely nothing about Iraq's cultural make-up. Iran has a bit of pull with the Kurds in the north, but Baghdad and south is a whole different story. If you only ever watched US media you might have missed the fact that those MFs were not just killing US soldiers, but were killing civilians and each other since the beginning of the insurgency. Sunni car bombs into Shiite markets and vice versus isn't anything new. Granted, with our withdrawal it will likely pick up as they no longer can target US interests.

First, it's not appeasement by definition. Second, force is always the first resort of the unthinking.

Appeasement, by definition, requires that you actually have something to give. Appeasement purchases "peace" at the price of some sovereignty. If you come over to my house and demand that I let you barrow my car or else you will torch it, appeasement would be consenting to your demand and threat in order to prevent the torching of my car. Quite simply I've relinquished a bit of my sovereignty over my car to purchase peace and in that sense I will ultimately fail (which is why actual appeasement has a bad connotation). However, you backing off your demands for me to relinquish my sovereignty over my car and your threats to torch it (regardless how it is accomplished, peaceful or otherwise), can not by definition be appeasement; I gave you nothing.

Some VA localities like to make their own firearm laws in contradiction to State law, particularly pre-emption. It is well established that the State of Virginia has authority to pre-empt those localities; it is sovereign in that area. Appeasement would be the State giving in to the localities and permitting them to regulate firearms. It can not be appeasement if the locality, through a variety of means, has a change of heart and removes it's laws and demands. Again, the State hasn't given up it's sovereignty and thus it can't be appeasement.

The same is true with the United States and the various UN grab grabbing schemes. The US has sovereignty and it's only appeasement if the US gives into the UN's demands because at that point sovereignty would be transferred in order to purchase whatever. It's not appeasement if the UN backs down from it's demands.

Again and again, the removal of one's demands against another's sovereignty is not appeasement, giving into those demands is. Resisting those demands can be anything from ignoring to avoidance to sanctions to cover operations to outright force. As in the first example, the law would look poorly on me shooting you for threatening to torch my car. VA law would still look poorly on me doing so, even if I caught you actually torching my car but without immediate bodily harm (although some states like Texas differ on that point). That being said, if you try to torch the car while I or another person are in it, I'm going to use every resource as effectively as I can to stop you. VA law, which is heavily based on Common Law, considers me part of the problem if violence were to erupt until you actually take action. That's exactly because up until then, there isn't anything to actually defend against...bullets are not an acceptable or civilized solution for an self-proclaimed VIP a$$hat who makes demands on your sovereignty, neither are bullets an acceptable or civilized solution for words. Bullets are an acceptable and civilized solution for actions which are going to cause you harm.


This is an important and critical concept to understand! Anti-gunners make the same mistake when they try and take your guns away based solely on the idea that you could do someone harm. They will go so far as to ruin your whole life if you so much as make one tiny, but illegal modification to your firearm. Imagine being a felon after spending the next 10-20 years of your life in jail for what amounts to $1 in parts or 5mins of work with hand tools? It's outrageous to punish people who have committed no harm!

You'd have to be the most ignorant ideologue to actually believe that Obama and Ron Paul want Iran or anyone else to have more nuclear weapons. That's just plain stupid. However, the ignorant course of action you're recommending practically guarantee's they get them. Do you honestly believe that anything short of outright toppling of the oppressive Iranian regime will keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons? No, of course not. At best you can delay it a few years, that's all; does it really matter if Iran nukes Israel in 2015 or 2021? However, toppling Iran by force won't make it a peaceful nation (I would have thought we learned that with Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently I am wrong). In fact it only encourages those nations who find themselves at odds with us to get a nuke or increase their stockpiles because once again it proves to be the only thing that will bring the warhawks to the negotiating table. Who was that leader of Libya again who gave up his nukes? He's living a prosperous life right?

Who's playing world cop and making demands on who's sovereignty here? Don't get me wrong, Iran, just like that self-proclaimed VIP a$$hat, is not a good neighbor. The region and the world would be better off with a more reasonable government there. Most of the Iranian people would be far better off too...the Iranian government doesn't shut off their Internet for "Islamic" reasons, it's all about squashing rebellion. The Iranian people are generally oppressed and don't support their government, but nothing gets even the opposition party to rally behind the government like ignorant US politicians threatening to invade Iran like we did their two neighbors. That being said...

The way to accomplish that isn't to invade Iran. Do that and generally someone even crazier than the guys you overthrew will take their place...or have you forgotten how the current Iranian government came to power? The best chance of a peaceful Iran is the (relatively) highly educated and westernized population to toss those dictators. Iranian elections are hardly free. The Iranian government is one of the most radical in the region, but the Iranian people are the most westernized. The irony of the situation is that we keep pursuing a policy which alienates us and our interests from the people and props up the government.

The Iranian government won't give up their nukes because they know that if they do, we will make sure it's the end of them.

I wasn't commenting on the cultural make up.

I was commenting on the totalitarian genocidal apocalyptic death cult from hell leadership. Who is dertermined to go nuclear. Sorta like a known sociopathic killer being allowed to buy hand grenades!

Sure....take all you want to blow out thise stumps in your yard!!!!!!!

The People of Iran are some of the friendliest most generous I have ever known. They diserve a better life outcome than strapping on a bomb for the mahdi. Vast doses of Levi's and sattelite dishes are in order! So they know that their present conditions are despot induced.


"The Iranian government won't give up their nukes because they know that if they do, we will make sure it's the end of them."

I do not agree..
In fact they would probably attract billions in aid by abandoning Israels destruction, nukes, and financing world wide terrorism.

ratherfish wrote:I wasn't commenting on the cultural make up.

No you weren't...the point was it was critically relevant to your statement and stands in contradiction of it.

...strawman deleted...

ratherfish wrote:The People of Iran are some of the friendliest most generous I have ever known. They diserve a better life outcome than strapping on a bomb for the mahdi. Vast doses of Levi's and sattelite dishes are in order! So they know that their present conditions are despot induced.

Agreed, they do deserve a better life. The Iranians already have lots of satellite dishes and lots of western products. If the Iranian community and actions of the oppressive Iranian government are any indication, they've come close to tossing the despots out on several occasions. The last time Obama cut the legs out from under them (as the Arab Spring was getting full tilt they cut the Internet off and Obama did his wishy washy, no leadership thing).

ratherfish wrote:

gunderwood wrote:The Iranian government won't give up their nukes because they know that if they do, we will make sure it's the end of them.

I do not agree..
In fact they would probably attract billions in aid by abandoning Israels destruction, nukes, and financing world wide terrorism.

Why does the current government of Iran care one bit about these things? Aren't they that death cult from hell? Like most governments, their first creed is always to stay in power. Do whatever it takes to stay in power, principles come second. This is exactly why Christians in Iran can purchase alcohol and many Muslims (dressed as Christians) apparently do too. It seems the government knows about it, but looks the other way because again, rule number one is stay in power and they obviously feel that's a bridge too far.

In that respect, we agreed. The Iranian government is crazy and will acquire nukes eventually. The question is, do you continue a policy which has made it abundantly clear to them that the only way we will let them stay in power is if they have Nukes (historical evidence supports that belief) or you accept the fact that they are going to get them unless they are removed from power. In that case, you have two choices. Remove them by force or support processes which may (life is uncertain) encourage a revolt. As you alluded too with the Levi's and sat dishes comment, economics is a powerful weapon. Trade has opened up China to western ideas and integrated them into the world. In a way our extensive trade with China has reduced the potential threat (excluding the irresponsible debt policies of the US) than restriction of trade has done for Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.

On one hand I have warhawk policies which at best only delays their acquisition of nukes by a few years and puts me in a position whereby they are more likely to use them against me or my allies because of those very policies. On the other hand, I can marginalise the Iranian government by attempting to reach out to the people and take the risk that we have more in common with them than they do with their government. You won't ever accomplish that by threatening to invade Iran. Could you imagine how quickly we would rally around Obama if China threatened to attack the US and Obama held a death to China rally?

Edit: As a side note, yes, Iran is active in financing and supporting terrorism. However, as far as I've researched, the Iranian government is mostly involved in Middle East terrorism (Hezbollah). Unlike our "friends" the Saudi's, whom actually finance global terrorism. That's not an excuse for what Iran does and it should be a firm point in our outreach to the Iranian people, if you want to be part of the global community and all the economic rewards of being so, financing terrorism isn't not an option...but because we want the Saudi's oil on the world market we look the other way so there is precedent for doing otherwise.

Please explain the 12th Imam and how he is to be brought fourth.

I have no dog in the fight other than standing against insanity. Handing nuclear weapons to those who need to bring caos into the world as a matter of faith is insanity.

ratherfish wrote:Please explain the 12th Imam and how he is to be brought fourth.

I have no dog in the fight other than standing against insanity. Handing nuclear weapons to those who need to bring caos into the world as a matter of faith is insanity.

How do you know these people actually believe what they espouse and don't just use it as part of the rhetoric of staying in power? Sort of playing the part you know?

As I stated once before, they didn't start a nuke program until roughly one month after being thrown in the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, I really think they wanted nukes as a deterrent from getting "regime changed" and it backfired completely.

Ideally both sides will stop saber rattling and actually work something out that doesn't involved large scale death and destruction, but thats unlikely, so hopefully the Iranian government is deposed at the very least in the end.

Kreutz wrote:

ratherfish wrote:Please explain the 12th Imam and how he is to be brought fourth.

I have no dog in the fight other than standing against insanity. Handing nuclear weapons to those who need to bring caos into the world as a matter of faith is insanity.

How do you know these people actually believe what they espouse and don't just use it as part of the rhetoric of staying in power? Sort of playing the part you know?

As I stated once before, they didn't start a nuke program until roughly one month after being thrown in the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, I really think they wanted nukes as a deterrent from getting "regime changed" and it backfired completely.

Source?

Ideally both sides will stop saber rattling and actually work something out that doesn't involved large scale death and destruction, but thats unlikely, so hopefully the Iranian government is deposed at the very least in the end.

I merely believe whay they say... If they said Kreutz's sould be driven into the ocean, you be wise to believe it too!

A gutless president didn't back regime change when given the opportunity.....Surprised?

How about that explanation about the 12th Imam????????

ratherfish wrote:I have no dog in the fight other than standing against insanity. Handing nuclear weapons to those who need to bring caos into the world as a matter of faith is insanity.

Again, no one is talking about handing them nukes. That's a silly sound bite you interject to avoid answering questions. Kruetz and I have, at some length I might add, tried to explain why the situation is more complex than you make it. Furthermore, we've tried to explain why continuing the sabre rattling, as you propose, will not stop Iran getting nukes, but actually hasten it as it actually supports that crazy regime by rallying support. At this point, thanks in large part to the sabre rattling, there are no real good solutions. We're likely facing a nuclear Iran in any case.

You've made a lot of claims, so you do appear to have a dog in the fight.

ratherfish wrote:As I stated once before, they didn't start a nuke program until roughly one month after being thrown in the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, I really think they wanted nukes as a deterrent from getting "regime changed" and it backfired completely.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

In his (January 29th-Kreutz)2002 State of the Union Address, Bush called North Korea "a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens."[1] He also stated Iran "aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."[1] Of the three nations Bush cited, however, he gave the most criticism to Iraq.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Timeline_of ... .80.932004

August 2002: A spokesman for the MEK terrorist group holds a press conference to "expose" two nuclear facilities in Natanz and Arak that they claim to have discovered. However, the sites were already known to U.S. intelligence. Furthermore, under the terms of Iran's then-existing safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Iran was under no obligation to disclose the facilities while they were still under construction and not yet within the 180-day time limit specified by the safeguards agreement.

Iran initially constructed in secret its gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water production plant at Arak. The existence of these major facilities was revealed in 2002, and they are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.

Iran has had peaceful nuclear program for decades, it appears they started to weaponize around 2002...for some reason.

I merely believe whay they say... If they said Kreutz's sould be driven into the ocean, you be wise to believe it too!

Source for this claim? The "drive Israel into the sea" bit has been floating around since the 1967 war and seems to resurface periodically.

A gutless president didn't back regime change when given the opportunity.....Surprised?

No actually, and it was a major error on his and the State Departments part.

How about that explanation about the 12th Imam????????

How about an explanation of how Armageddon will bring about the Rapture?

Your blabbering jibberish.

Wikipedia is a contributory on line diatribe and not suitable sourcing for anyone but Huff-Po.

Your statement of weaponizing one month after Bushes declaration is not founded in fact. Or at least you have not presented them here.

Other than the fact that you blame Bush....whodathunk?
...
"Source for this claim? The "drive Israel into the sea" bit has been floating around since the 1967 war and seems to resurface periodically."

Sorry, I get nausious reading little stinkies quotes.... Hint.. look for the ones translated from his native toungue. His english statements are sweetness and light. Wonder if that has anything to do with his religion promoting the use of lies to gain advantage over infadels...
Ya THINK?

I'm not aware of armageddon bringing about the rapture....or Christions being commanded to bring about armageddon....

Is that pre-millenialist, Post-millenialist theory ? This would be a good time to Quote a Biblical scolar....but you can't. You made it up!


I hesitate to even repeat the tale of the 12th Imam because when most westerners hear it they think the teller is insane......and it is.

So come on justifiers...

Tell everyone about the 12th Imam, the core belief of your stinky little puppet dictator!!!!!

Are you afraid?

Interesting read as it puts it all in a nutshell for you

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm

Bingo!

We have a winner!!!


Just the crew we'd like to see getting the nuke!

ratherfish wrote:Your blabbering jibberish.

Wikipedia is a contributory on line diatribe and not suitable sourcing for anyone but Huff-Po.

Your statement of weaponizing one month after Bushes declaration is not founded in fact. Or at least you have not presented them here.

Er, I'm sorry it's not good enough for you?

Other than the fact that you blame Bush....whodathunk?

There is the fact that responsibility exists, yes.

Sorry, I get nausious reading little stinkies quotes.... Hint.. look for the ones translated from his native toungue. His english statements are sweetness and light. Wonder if that has anything to do with his religion promoting the use of lies to gain advantage over infadels...
Ya THINK?

Wait, I can't use wikipedia, but you get to just use nothing? Come on, the source for the "drive Israel into the sea" line, what is it?

I'm not aware of armageddon bringing about the rapture....or Christions being commanded to bring about armageddon....

Is that pre-millenialist, Post-millenialist theory ? This would be a good time to Quote a Biblical scolar....but you can't. You made it up!

I will confer with the finest "Chistion scolars" in the land once I figure out what those are.

And don't play dumb; there is no need for that. You know what I'm talking about; chiefly the Armageddon in Megiddo triggering the Rapture; you know, the whole reason you "Christian Zionists" remotely pretend to give a crap about Israel?

Its really not much different from the 12th Imam (the Madhi) wielding his magic sword to kill a ton of unbelievers as Jesus pulling a sword from his mouth and doing the same.

I hesitate to even repeat the tale of the 12th Imam because when most westerners hear it they think the teller is insane......and it is.

Your horrible grasp of English is making the syntax is way off, so is the Westerner hearing the tale insane? The teller of the tale? The tale itself? The Madhi is again really not much different from Jesus as presented in the book of revelations, in fact if I recall the Madhi and he are partners in kicking ass and killing jews.

So come on justifiers...

Tell everyone about the 12th Imam, the core belief of your stinky little puppet dictator!!!!!

Who are you talking to? Who is justifying what? What the hell have you been talking about?

Are you afraid?

Amused and puzzled yes. Afraid? Oh no. Please don't stop. I love you.

You have kool aide.

I'll have coffee!




Pssst! Don't look now but you seem to be equally ignorant of all religion!

SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!