Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I would have more sympathy for his plight IF he had actually spoke up about this BEFORE the Primary.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state ... 44340.html

Newt Gingrich, who suffered a 14-point drubbing in Tuesday's primary, will challenge the Republican Party of Florida's plan to award all 50 of the state's delegates to winner Mitt Romney.
"All campaigns and the RNC have known since then that Florida was winner take all," Curry said Thursday. "It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

Much like the case of him not being on the ballot for Virginia's primaries and trying to use the Courts to change the outcome, he is complaining about the measure after the fact. Do we really want to nominate someone and possibly put him in the Whitehouse if he just complains and tries to change the rules after things don't go his way?

I sure don't

Blah. The Republican primaries are so damn depressing this year.

SHMIV wrote:Blah. The Republican primaries are so damn depressing this year.

Yes it is. And after the primaries are over, we can all look forward to taking another bite out of the same crap sammich we had in 2008.

Sounds delicious.

We've already been privy to a whiny douchebag for the last 3 years in the White House... We don;t need another,,,, Newts NOT gonna get the nomination so it would bide well nationally if he would just STFU and go away.

Ron Paul is the only one that I sorta like (I like his domestic policy, but Not real comfortable with his foriegn policy), but I think we ought to throw the whole bunch out and start over

I agree. Whatever credibility Newt had, he has now squandered it in my opinion.

Taggure wrote:Ron Paul is the only one that I sorta like (I like his domestic policy, but Not real comfortable with his foriegn policy), but I think we ought to throw the whole bunch out and start over

Why does everyone say that? Its like its programmed. Our current and past foreign policy is disgusting, how would a change make it worse?

Kreutz wrote:

Taggure wrote:Ron Paul is the only one that I sorta like (I like his domestic policy, but Not real comfortable with his foriegn policy), but I think we ought to throw the whole bunch out and start over

Why does everyone say that? Its like its programmed. Our current and past foreign policy is disgusting, how would a change make it worse?

Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the worlds police, but the fact that he is okay with Iran having a nuke is something that don't agree with. Not with Irans out and out hatered of the US and Iseral I just don't agree with it and do not see it in our best interest.

I think we should mind our own f&^%$in business too..No more foreign aid to countries that hate us,US out of the UN ,United Nations out of NY for good,,, Withdraw from the International Monetary Fund and clean up our own house before we venture out to save a world that expects handouts from us gratas all the time

Taggure wrote:Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the worlds police, but the fact that he is okay with Iran having a nuke is something that don't agree with. Not with Irans out and out hatered of the US and Iseral I just don't agree with it and do not see it in our best interest.

Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons?

We all have the right to self-defense don't we?

Kreutz wrote:
Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons?

For the same reason that we don't like letting convicted felons have guns.

SHMIV wrote:

Kreutz wrote:
Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons?

For the same reason that we don't like letting convicted felons have guns.

Last I checked only 1 country ever used a nuke in war.

Twice.

On cities chock full of civilians.

And that country gets to decide who is worthy? Seriously?

Had Pearl Harbor not happened and the Japanese kept their noses in their business, would we have used a nuke? You like to paint an ugly picture without portraying the entire scene...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The Japanese cities that were bombed were given notice. We flew over those cities in advance and dropped a lot of fliers that stated our intention. We may have even given the date and time on those fliers; I believe we did.

Also, it was a defensive act. As Jason pointed out, we likely would have skipped that war if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor.

Although this is about Iran (which has the same apparent right to nuclear weapons as any other country), as for Japan and Pearl Harbor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harb ... acy_theory scroll down to the statements by high ranking officials section, very interesting. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the "happy ending" to letting Pearl Harbor get us into WW2.

If I were Iran, I would feel I need nukes too with all the saber rattling and "regime changes" going on.

If Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel can have some, why can't they? Its just fair.

Kreutz wrote:Although this is about Iran (which has the same apparent right to nuclear weapons as any other country), as for Japan and Pearl Harbor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harb ... acy_theory scroll down to the statements by high ranking officials section, very interesting. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the "happy ending" to letting Pearl Harbor get us into WW2.

If I were Iran, I would feel I need nukes too with all the saber rattling and "regime changes" going on.

If Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel can have some, why can't they? Its just fair.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I happen to believe that if Iran was to get nuclear warheads that they would be uncontrollable to say the least. I am not sure if they would actually make good on their threats against Israel and the U.S. Well, at least I hope not; because the implications of the nuclear blast in Israel would also have devastating affect Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Iran themselves from all the fallout. That is not even considering the fact that if Israel detects the launch both you and I know that they will launch theirs and then all or the Middle East will become a Hot Zone. No more Oil!

In my opinion Iran having a nuke could be the catalyst for the next world war in the making. Now whether we stick our heads in the sand and choose to ignore them saying “oh this does not affect us”, or try to limit their access to this capability through whatever means necessary (Diplomatic – Kinetic actions) I believe it is in the best interest of the world not just the United States that Iran never gets a nuclear warhead.

Take it or leave it; am I right or wrong who knows, but that is my opinion and I know everyone has their own.

Oh by the way here is a good article that I found

http://www.armscontrol.org/print/3407

Bottom line for me is that I feel that Iran cannot be trusted to exercise the restraint and rationality that a nuclear-capable state ought; nor do I trust Iran to be capable and stable enough over time to control who has access to the weapons.

In fact, reading this thread has left me with a very disturbing thought: If I was one of those wild-eyed crazies in Iran, and If I suddenly had access to even a crude nuke with limited ability to deliver same, it would certainly occur to me while threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz and sink the American Navy that if I could sink that nuke in the shipping lanes and detonate it remotely under the keel of a US carrier, THE WORLD WOULD BE IMPRESSED WITH WHAT I COULD DO! Remember the USS Cole?

I agree they can;t be trusted with nukes,,,Hell some of that culture in that area is still living in centuries past with their archaic BS and customs ,,, Last thing the world needs is an adolescent with bad fashion sense to have his finger on any nuclear weapons button..