To Make War, Presidents Lie

LewRockwell.com ^ | 1 October 2002 | Robert Higgs

[CFW]

Saddam has and continues to commit horrors against his people, he continues to starve them for a source of media propaganda while he builds his palaces filled with who know what evil.

If this is the criteria for war ... when do we attack Mugabe? O wait a minit ...... does he have any oil?

[NMC EXP]

The .30 caliber carbine is a rifle, not a round, and would likewise deliver its lethal ammunition quite effectively.

Ahh...a debate on weapons details. I beg to disagree:

The .30 caliber carbine is a carbine, not a rifle.

The .30 caliber carbine is a round in addition to being a weapon.

=========================================================== Anytime a cartridge is adopted for use by the U.S. government, its chances of success among civilian shooters are quite good, regardless of its practical usefulness as a sporting cartridge. Such a cartridge is the .30 Carbine. Its too powerful for small game, not powerful enough for big game, and has never been available in an accurate rifle. And yet, this 1940's vintage military cartridge is still high up on the popularity chart among American shooters.

Introduced in 1940 in the M1 Carbine, this straight walled .30 caliber cartridge was loaded with a 110 grain round nose bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. As the U.S. Army saw it, the short, lightweight rifle was far more effective in the hands of the average GI than a pistol and yet much more portable than the longer and heavier M1 Garand rifle.

Whether or not this proves to be true is debatable, but one thing is certain; The thousands of M1 Carbines sold to civilian shooters through the NRA assured this cartridge lasting popularity.

At best, the .30 Carbine is enough cartridge for javalina and varmints at close range. At worst, it is a fun cartridge for venting cans and paper targets. Probably the most accurate firearms ever available in this caliber are the Thompson/Center Contender and the Ruger Blackhawk. H110, W-296, and 2400 are excellent choices for all barrel lengths.

Source: Hodgdon Data Manual, 26th Edition =========================================================== Hmm..... not to nitpick details, but a .30 caliber ROUND can be quite potent indeed, to the point of putting a hole roughly the size of a baseball in the back of your head. Its all about velocity, my son.

The .30 caliber designation is generic. I favor the 7.62mm x 51 version myself and have gone thru as much as 3000 rounds per season. Velocity is only half of the equation...don't neglect bullet weight.

Bottom line is that the .30 caliber carbine is a pistol round designed for a short, light rifle.

Regards

J.R.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Oooops. I mistook some of your earlier posts as being rational. My mistake. By all means, let's attack Iraq even though we cannot prove they were behind 9/11 and we cannot prove that they are going to hit us with WMD.

Would you be so willing to attaack Iraq if Clinton were the sitting Pres? Or would you suggest that Clinton was trying to change the headlines, or distract from something else?

[patriciaruth]

My tongue in cheek reaction was in response to those that bought into the line that Roosevelt lied to get us into WWII. If the attack on Pearl Harbor got us into the war as you said, then Roosevelt must have lied about it, ergo, Pearl Harbor never happened; it was a big lie.

Expecting really insightful comments or biting sarcasm from me in the middle of the night is probably not wise. I was just in the mood to string along the idiots who bought into this crack pot article.

[GeekDejure]

Graybird, the moral is simple. Never forget the pecking order's surprises. Today's superpower is tomorrow's conquered state. Yesterday's overlooked mob is often the ruler of tomorrow. Never underestimate the third world. And NEVER be complacent about barbarians !!!

[evad]

Would you be so willing to attaack Iraq if Clinton were the sitting Pres? Or would you suggest that Clinton was trying to change the headlines, or distract from something else?

Actually ET, I wouldn't think Clinton was trying to distract, I would KNOW it.

I remember the "character doesn't matter" crowd and their chants for eight years that all that was important about a president was his job ability.

Now we see that character is really the only thing that matters...and Bush has it. Clinton doesn't.

[JohnGalt]

And being an apologist for the state puts us in diametrically opposed political camps.

[Teacher317]

Eew! I'm not apologising for the State. I'm stating that these particular individuals did not create that particular intelligence "failure". There's a BIG difference.

[wasp69]

Ever read about the secondary explosions on the Lusitania? Our neutral country was shipping munitions to the English, risking innocent civilian lives....

The secondary explosions you were referring to came from the ship's boilers. When the cold seawater hit the hot boilers, they exploded. The section where the munitions were was not hit. Risking innocent English lives??? Are you kidding?? What about the English Admiralty who knew there was a hunter-killer in the path of the Lusitania and did not warn them. We put them at risk? Hardly.

while an inhumae blockade starved the German people.

Have you forgotten about the blockade around England? What do you think the Germans were doing with their subs and unristricted warfare at sea?

[JohnGalt]

Your first comment strengthen my position-- not sure if that was your intention. You concede that there were munitions on the Lisitania, correct?

Wilson was knowingly violating classical terms of neutrality by sending munitions to the English and Allies, while the English prevented food intended for Germany from landing in neutral Denmark, another violation of international law. The Germans had little choice strategically but to declare unrestricted targets because the Americans were breaking the terms of their neutrality.

[William McKinley]

William McKinley would call this tripe balderdash.

So I'll do it for him.

[Petronius]

Bush may be a "man of character," but that hardly entails that all his foreign policies are above reproach. Launching a pre-emptive strike against another nation will have far-reaching consequences that I doubt you have even considered.

If/when India makes the case that Pakistan poses a far greater threat to them than Iraq does to the U.S., on what grounds will we dissuade them? "No, only WE may defend ourselves thus." Russia will try the same thing against Chechnya; China against Taiwan and God only knows who else; and on and on and on . . .

You see, this isn't simply a matter of "Iraq bad . . . we good . . . must bomb . . . live happily ever after."
If we are the example the world should emulate, what type of example does a pre-emptive strike send? Does anyone in his right mind want other nations following this example? Does anyone in his right mind think they won't?

This drastic shift in foreign policy is not one that should be undertaken lightly and Americans sure as hell should not accept it because, after all, Bush would never lie. I'm not calling him a liar, but I think he's nearsighted. This isn't a slippery slope we're walking down; we're walking over an abyss.

.30Carbine, let me write your reply for you (including my response):

"Yeah? What about 9-11-01 you America-hater?"

A: Iraq didn't do that; a bunch of guys from Saudie Arabia did that and a war against Iraq will not help our war on terrorism. I _LOVE_ this country. That's why I want to avoid a foreign policy boondoggle.

[.30Carbine]

You are free to make any assumption you wish about me, and post any response to me you deem appropriate, but you are not free to put words in my mouth. That is my freedom.

You reveal only your own thinking when you do so; not mine.

[R. Scott]

Unfortunately I check out the Republic after breakfast in the morning.
I’ve had breakfast, my first cup of coffee and a cigarette. The dog has been feed and is curled up sleeping once again.
I then tend to take things at face value, forgetting that some post late night.

[listenhillary]

Saddam has and continues to commit horrors against his people, he continues to starve them for a source of media propaganda while he builds his palaces filled with who know what evil.

If this is the criteria for war ... when do we attack Mugabe? O wait a minit ...... does he have any oil?

Sounds like a wonderful idea(attacking Mugabe) Wouldn't the liberals just croak. Declaring war on a black dictatorship.

[wasp69]

Not meant to strengthen but I will agree that Wilson was an idiot and a liar. And yes I do concede that there were munitions on the Lusitania; I would be a dishonest student of history if I discounted that. However, I will not say that intentionally he sent those people to their deaths as I believe you implied. I place a lions share of the blame on Churchill and the Admiralty for allowing the Lusitania to sail into the path of a U-boat that was blockading the UK. I have a book written in 1919 about the history of the Naval side of WWI. I will share some things with you that you may find interesting and pertain to the discussion on Monday. Until then, here's hoping you have a good weekend.

[JohnGalt]

It was not my intention to imply a Wilson conspiracy; it was my intention to point out that Wilson was actively involved in violating the terms of American neutrality and understood that the Germans were liable to strike back. I look forward to your comments on Monday and, glimpsing into the future, we will have much common ground RE: Churchill.

[talk2farley]

Yes, I saw a special on the History Channel regarding whether or not their were weapons on board the Lucitania. The verdict? Inconclusive.

Moreover, this incident represents one of numerous attacks on American shipping by the Germ,an armed forces. If thats not provocation for a war, what is?

[talk2farley]

"All the evidence and fore-warning in the world will not prevent a missile attack or another 9-11-01. Only destroying those who would consider such actions will. Saddam openly and happily admits that he wants weapons that will accomplish that kind of destruction."

Exactly! Very well said. Every time the American people have demanded proper "provocation" before going to war (WW1, WW2, War on Terror), they have gotten it. In spades. And vowed never to repeat it.

Its time we take our vows seriously.

[talk2farley]

Well done! :)