Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns?

Vanity, sort of

[Cacophonous]

I just heard on Fox News that sales of guns in Iraq are increasing, and that Iraqi citizens are being encouraged to arm themselves in light of the imminent US invasion.

Now, if the title of this post (Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns) is true, then surely the opposite must be true: that a government that does not fear its people will not be afraid to let them arm themselves. I happen to believe both are true.

So a few questions:

How much does Saddam really fear his people if he is willing to arm them? Stated differently, how much do they hate him, if he is willing to let them arm themselves? Perhaps they dislike the notion of a foreign government telling them how to run their country more?

How should be more scared, armed Iraqi citizens, or unarmed Brits?

[MoralSense]

Iraq is a police state, with spies and stooges in every walk of life. It isn't safe to speak about anything anywhere. I suspect that the "legit" gun dealers are stooges. I suspect as well that the military/police presence is so powerful that the possession of a handgun or two doesn't make much of any difference in the freedom of people who own them -- that is to say, their freedom is nil; they can be captured, imprisoned, tortured, or killed at a whim.

[sd-joe]

"The point is he is not going to use them unless threatened."

WOW. I am glad that you are ALL KNOWING, and can see the future. Could I rent some time on your crystal ball? I have some stocks I want to pick.

As far as curtailing the spread of technology. You are right that it is impossible to keep it from spreading. However, the technology is now so dangerous to life on this planet, that we must do what we can to suppress or eliminate those people who are most dangerous in potentially using it against us.

[TheDon]

LOL! Americans are often duped by thinking there is a free press in other countries, such as Iraq.

[Bob Mc]

You guys seem to assume Saddam and Kim Il Sung are benevolent, rational leaders of legitimate governments.

They aren't. They make Hilter look like an amature. They are murderous, hateful, vengeful, psychopaths who have killed masses of their own people and now threaten the modern civilized world, basically backing themselves into a corner and have no other choice but to go out with a bang.

Neither their own people nor the rest of the world supports them. When American tanks drive through downtown Baghdad, the people will be cheering them on waving American flags. Just you wait and see.

[Cacophonous]

I think if he were inclined to use them, he would have already. Remember, he's a baaaad man, bent on world domination like Hitler or Stalin...hell, he hasn't even conquered the region.

Why hasn't he used them yet (he's had them at least since the Gulf War)? Why hasn't he blasted Israel, sworn enemy of Islam (even though he is not an Islamic fundamentalist)? Why not Kuwait? Americans have had troops over there for twelve years, why hasn't he used them against the Americans?

There are only two explanations: that he either does not have them (and I'm sure he does); or that he is not inclined to use them unless threatened.

[sd-joe]

"The point is he is not going to use them unless threatened."

There is using them, and there is simply that having them gives one the threat of using them. Which has tremendous effects on other countries all by itself.

If Iraq had fully functional and useable Nuclear weapons, could we even threaten to invade? Probably not.

Are we dealing with Korea differently, because they probably do have some weapons? You bet.

Has Isreal avoided another major attack from antagonistic Arab neighbors because it has them? Probably.

Could Iraq threaten attacks on its neighbors, like Kuwait, and keep us from responding, if it had nuclear weapons? Yes.

Everything changes. They don't necessarily have to be used.

[Deathmonger]

Your intuition is correct--only Saddam's Baath party members are allowed to be armed. If everyone in Iraq was armed, there would not be a Saddam anymore.

[WorkingClassFilth]

You're going a little beyond the subject of your original post. A debate on the wisdom or validity of the impending invasion is something quite different from whether or not Saddam is, in fact, allowing the freedom of individuals taking up arms. But, without meaning to provoke a day-long session at the keyboard, I'll shoot you a couple thoughts…

For the record, I am not a spittle-flecked, rabid proponent of the campaign to invade Iraq. I am, however, willing to accept the idea that Saddam is worth eliminating (and I WAS a rabid, spittle-flecked raving lunatic when Bush Sr. didn't go the whole nine yards and eliminate Saddam then). I believe foresight must be the bedrock of foreign policy and that foresight should be based on what is the likely historical outcome - not some pollyannaish theories about global peace like Chamberlain so ably demonstrated.

Other than that, I don't really have any more information other than that which is out there for everyone else. From that information, I conclude:

1) There is an Al Quaida connection via the shadowy meeting in, I believe, Paris. In any event, Saddam has been more than happy to make other, less direct, connects and alliances with Islamic terrorism.

2) Saddam has already used WMD on Kurds and, seemingly, on US troops that served in Desert Storm. Ask some of them. Chemical exposure badges were indicating exposure almost uniformly according to some of the accounts given by soldiers there. The story was that they were defective. Then, in the 1990's, a epidemiological picture began to develop that supports the contentions of Gulf War veterans.

3) Evidence gathered after round one shows that WMD production (nerve agents, biologicals) was a part of Saddam's enterprises. Given the fact that he has killed upwards of 2 million unarmed people and given his nerve agent use on Kurds and his outstanding treatment of Iranian combatants (remember the electrocutions and bodies being used as earth works?), I don't question his viciousness, his unilateral willingness to liquidate weaker forces with WMD or his unacceptable role in the world's make-up.

4) Reporting on NPR, no less, has it that sources in Iraq say Saddam has hidden much of the evidence of his WOD sealed in containers buried in the desert sands someplace.

5) He is working on nuclear capabilities and according to intelligence sources that examined his nuclear research operations in the wake of Desert Storm, he was nearly three years from completion at that time. Estimates before the invasion had been tendered that he was a decade out, or more.

6) I accept nothing…repeat…NOTHING that the UN says or does. To my thinking, any concessions to UN involvement is purely political theater. In the same way, anything the UN does on behalf of the United States is purely political theater. Forget even raising any credible points on anything including the date, weather conditions or the color of green grass if the source is the UN.

I have answered the questions of your original post, that is, the credibility of Saddam's campaign to arm his populace. With the additional thoughts above in mind, I have responded to the gist of your second post, which seems, largely, to be an indictment of why we shouldn't invade Iraq.

In short, I fundamentally disagree with your inaccurate and naive statement:

"He would not have used them [WMD] without an invasion…"

He has used them. He is willing to use them without defensive reasons. Thus, I assume he will use them. It is only a matter of time. In the same way, I believe this is the case with much of the evil and disorder in this world - it'll come gunning for us sooner or later and what we think or feel about it won't much matter.

In this single idea, I will support a firm, rational and consistent national policy that is proactive on behalf of US interests. For better or worse, the idea of 'Empire' is part and parcel of what we are doing here. We may not like (and I do not) but it is thrust upon us by virtue of our role and dominance in the world. America faces enemies within in the form of Marxian globalists, enemies without in the form of Marxian globalists and, currently, a resurgence of the Islamic conquest imperative.

The future, as I see it, holds inescapable conflict. Given the scope of our enemies, conflict will continue to be the price of independence in the increasingly clamorous world order. To my thinking, we cannot be faced with anything but a bitter and long conflict if the goal of preserving America as a free nation is worth preserving.

Beyond the fallacies of believing in Iraqi press releases in your first post and what I consider to be naiveté in the second post, I guess I'm not really all fired up to debate the coming invasion except to say that I tend to agree with the idea that a war on terrorism has much greater implications than many Americans (and ALL of the presstitutes) are capable of imagining.

[sd-joe]

"I think if he were inclined to use them, he would have already. Remember, he's a baaaad man, bent on world domination like Hitler or Stalin...hell, he hasn't even conquered the region.

He IS a BAD person. He loves to torture people. He has used chemical weapons on citizens of his own country. etc. However, you reach too far. I do not think he is bent on world domination, just regional domination and furthering Arab control and domination.
He has not conquered the region because he has been slapped back whenever he tries (and he has tried). Remember Kuwait. Remember Isreal demolishing his nuclear plant.

Why hasn't he used them yet (he's had them at least since the Gulf War)? Why hasn't he blasted Israel

Well he has had some weapons and he has been trying to develop others. He HAS USED chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. Nuclear development has been stopped by (1) Isreal's attack, (2) the Gulf War, (3) the Inspections etc.

There are only two explanations: that he either does not have them (and I'm sure he does); or that he is not inclined to use them unless threatened

No, there is another explanation. The circumstances have not yet been right for him to use them to either achieve a great enough effect, or to use them in a way that can not been traced easily back to him (like developing a weapon that could be spun off and actually set off by a terorist organization.

[Ches]

My hubby, who posted the earlier comments, has gone down to the local gun store. I'll put in my two cents.

"When American tanks drive through downtown Baghdad, the people will be cheering them on waving American flags."

I sincerely hope and pray this is the case. However, who do these people fear more? Saddam or the Great White Satan? I do not for a moment think that Saddam is benevolent to his people, nor do I have a special insight into minds of the people. I do, however, believe Islamic minds work completely different than ours or at least view the world in a completely different way.

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Blue Collar Christian]

I get it! Just like a bank robber won't use his gun unless he's threatened. Now I'm enlightened.

[Blue Collar Christian]

That's not necessarily true. Most US of Americans are armed or could be in short order, but even here it would have been difficult to impossible to organize enough people together to run off the Clinton Administration and the Anti-gun members of Congress without a government sponsored crackdown resulting in the deaths or imprisonment of the chain of command. However, we still have somewhat open elections that are in essence, peaceful coups.

[Cacophonous]

I get it! Just like a bank robber won't use his gun unless he's threatened. Now I'm enlightened.

Actually, you don't get it, and probably are incapable of getting it. A better analogy is that of the bank security: they are in control of the money and will not need to use their weapons unless threatened. Saddam is in power; he is not the one seeking power, much as your bank robber is the one seeking the money.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Saddam is told exactly what he wants to hear. At the "elections" held a few months ago, it was reported that he won 100% of the vote, for two reasons; first, everyone is afraid NOT to vote for him. Second, everyone is afraid to report that everyone didn't vote for him.

He is feared and hated MUCH more than he is loved.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Not seeking power? You mean like over the Kurds? He has and will use WMD. He's just waiting for the right time for the most effect, even if only as a threat, the same as the US, sorry to say.

[Bob Mc]

" Saddam is in power; he is not the one seeking power, ..."

Saddam (as evidenced by his multiple assaults on Iran, the Kurds and Shiites of his own country, his Kuwait invasion of 91 where he also threatened to invade Saudi Arabia had we not stopped him, and subsequent attacks on Israel) is definitely a power hungry pyschopath.

In fact he is worse than the bank robber analogy. A better analogy is to compare him to a pyschopathic serial murderer. It's absurd to think you can appease him by just leaving him alone, and hope he will calm down and be good. He wants us to give him more time. If he could he would nuke NYC.

[Bob Mc]

"However, who do these people fear more? Saddam or the Great White Satan?"

I truly believe most of these people in these tyranical middle east countries know their leaders are corrupt and evil. I believe many know the "Great White Satan" is government propaganda. They tow the line because they have no other choice. It is mandated by government. They will be killed if they don't. Some actually learn to play the act up for all it's worth and actually receive government favor for the act.

Most of the common people just want their government to leave them alone so they can make a living, just like everyone else in every other country. A few may think the Americans will also be repressive, but they have suffered greatly with their current governments, and I suspect they doubt it could be any worse.

I believe once the "extremists" are destroyed, some may actually began to improve their lot. Iran is a good example of a country that is on the verge of shrugging off their oppressors and installing a more democratic government. Once the ball starts rolling (modernization and democracy for the middle east) these tyrannical rulers will crumble like the house of cards they are.

And even if none of this comes true, then the ONLY other alternative we have is to MAKE THEM FEAR US, even more than their petty rulers!

[Ches]

You could well be right about the propaganda (Great White Satan). I, however, am not privy to the information the State Department and the Pentagon have. I can only have faith that the current administration is in fact doing the best thing. I would like to see more than Bush's tax cut proposal to bolster my confidence that this is a true conservative agenda not just globalism run amuck. Maybe repealing some of the ridiculous gun control regulations for example?

The reverse domino theory you describe in your scenario sounds good, if somewhat optimistic.

Unfortunately, it looks like the poor peasants may end up in the crossfire. Shot in the back by Saddam if they don't advance or anihilated by us if they do. Yes, fear is a powerful thing.

[lavaroise]

Seggragated armament for the Baath party and Bedouins. The rest of the population is not armed. This is the result of fear itself.