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?

[ResultsNetwork]

Saddham is only told what his minions believe he wants to hear, which in this case means he is being told that the people will defend his regime until the" last drop of blood." Under these circumstances, it would make sense for him to encourage people to arm.

However, he might be in for a big surprise come February.

[B.O. Plenty]

One possible reason: Sadam is clearing out. I bet he has a nice chateau already bought in France. The armed citizens of Iraq will not be able to get to him since he will be in FRANCE! Sadam hopes that the Iraqs will use the weapons on the U.S. anyway, but we shall see....but he and his friends and family will be in FRANCE!

[sailor4321]

What do you want to bet that only certain Iraqis are being told to arm themselves...

[vbmoneyspender]

Here is a question for you? How did Fox get its information that arm sales in Iraq are increasing? Answer that question and you will be able to answer all of the questions you posed in your post.

[Larry Lucido]

Not nearly enough information. Whether or not the report is anything more than Iraqi disinformation, I suspect that permission to purchase or carry any weapon is given on a very restricted basis. Then again, it could be a sign of desperation.

As to your last question, it's apples and oranges. Being armed in Iraq might be like having a fire extinguisher in a forest fire. You still have reason to be scared, but I suppose you could delay the inevitable somewhat.

[Puppage]

If Saddam DOES give his people guns....you can believe it will be WITHOUT AMMO

There is no way that he would allow those oppressed citizens weapons. I don't believe it for a second.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Not knowing a blessed thing about Iraq other than what I read in the press accounts (which qualifies me at least as much as anyone on network news or the major daily press), I'll shoot from the hip...

From past accounts, Saddam had less than 30% of the support of his country. Possibly less because I heard that statistic on a lefty screed on NPR. More accurately, it seems that about 70% of Iraqis do NOT want Saddam in power. These folks, if we are to believe the news you report should be able, then, to buy weapons and fight against Saddam. Except that:

1) Saddam has ruthlessly ruled that country and largely broken his active opposition. In addition, public displays of his wrath carried out by his goon squads and beloved son Uday further discourage active resistance or the organizing needed to mount determined resistance.

2) In WWII, similar conundrums were overcome by Stalin with groups like the Ukrainians and, even, Chechnya (SP). His solution? Promise them a cessasation of persecution, restoration of homeland, benefits, etc., etc., etc. and arm them for his service with small arms only. Then, as a former Russian officer of my acquaintance said, stand behind them with machine guns and mow them down if they disobey the slightest order.

3) Saddam knows the international propaganda value of making such an announcement. It makes a claim to the idea that teeming masses of joyfull Iraqis are flocking to buy arms for grandma and the kids and the entire country is more than thrilled to face the American invader. Your post asks exactly the kind of questions that Saddam may find useful.

4) Assuming the story is true and even if the ordinary citizen can now buy an AK, the state machine will not fail to make a note of who bought it and what their loyalites are (they may also deny such a sale as well based on secret information about an individual). After the need for armed resistance is past (so the thinking goes) coming to collect the weaponry will be a priority task. This was one of the first things the secret police did with the former Bolshevik army when Lenin secured power.

5) I would ask what verification there is for this policy. I would ask what kind of weapons are being distributed. I would ask what kind of documentation follows the purchase. I would ask what news service breathlessly brought this tid-bit of information to our shores. I would ask why this is important information at this time.

6) Following the thinking of the usual nitwits in the media, let's try on their thought process for its fit and finish: 'Since we already know that Saddam is an all around loveable dictator and has done nothing but shower health and happiness on his country, the Kurds, Kuwait and the soldiers that went to the Gulf in round one, why should we doubt that this is an honest policy and not duplicity?'

These are just a few thoughts that run through my head this fine morning. Haven't had my full dose of caffeine yet though.

[Cacophonous]

Nah, it was the gun shop owners that said the average Iraqi citizen is armed enough to fight for a year...which indicates ammo.

[Puppage]

I still don't believe it. Do you really think a ruthless dictator like Saddam would actually allow those that he oppresses, weapons that COULD very well be used against him?
I suspect most Iraqi's are for the removal of Saddam. I may be wrong, this is just my opinion I'm tossing around.

[vbmoneyspender]

You are correct not to believe Iraqis who go on TV and talk about what is going on in Iraq. No one says anything in public in Iraq that is not already scripted by Hussein and his secret police. And if you do say something on TV that Hussein disagrees with, you and your family end up dead, but not before you are tortured and the female members of your family are raped. In this case, Hussein is trying to put out propaganda that the average citizen is on his side and is willing to fight to the death against the Americans. I suspect that the target audience for this propaganda are the useful idiots in this country who don't understand that Iraq is a Stalinist dictatorship where you get killed if you do things the regime doesn't like.

[sd-joe]

It is very easy to let the "little people" get some guns, when you have THREE LAYERS of the best armed and most dedicated fighters standing between you and the "little people".

Don't forget. There are the people. Then there is the military. Then there is the Republican Guard. Then there is the Special Republican Guard. Then there is the special Palace guard (I forget what they are actually called.)

Let the people have some guns. Big deal. They have as much chance as you and I have of gettng into Fort Knox.

[Ches]

If there was a massive military build-up at our borders would it galvanize our society? Forcing the anti-gun lobby to buy weapons? Or, since they're liberals, demand that the government issue them? Would they prepare to fight side by side with us evil NRA types to protect the homeland?

For the most part, I think YES, of course, that's in this country.

[Cacophonous]

Saddam has been in power for thirty years..he's not going to do anything to jeopardize his power from within, and he's not going to France (as somone on here has suggested).

The people arming themselves say they are willing to fight the US and sacrifice themselves, all because of the US support of Israel and because of US interventions.

So...why isn't Israel behind us? Are we fighting a war for Israel, that Israel is less than enthusiastic over, against a people that may not want to roll over and play dead as quickly as we claim?

We have managed to put Saddam in a pickle; one of the key rules of negotiating is to give the other guy an out. The conversations with Iraq have gone something like this:

US: "We want to inspect to see if you have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. If we find them, it is proof that you are in violation of the agreement you signed, and we will invade. If we don't find them, we won't believe you and we will invade."

Saddam: "We don't have any."

US: "We don't believe you. We know you have them. We're going to invade you."

Saddam: "Where are they then?"

US: "If you don't show them to us how would we know? Get ready for an invasion. We'll kick your butts because you'll never see it coming."

Saddam: "OK, we'll allow inspections."

Inspectors: "We didn't find anything. But we didn't find proof that they don't have them either."

US: "Good enough for us. We'll invade."

What are they going to do if, after we invade, we find no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, just as they have claimed, and that the UN have not been able to find? Oh yes...Saddam is really nasty; why, he jammed our missiles so they wouldn't hit him, and he put an untrained mob against us. It's theater of the absurd.

Or, more likely, what if we invade, and Saddam uses his WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (and I have no doubt he has them) against US troops? Or worse yet (in the eyes of Washington's Amen Corner) against Israel?

He would not have used them without an invasion; he would know the retaliation would be brutal; he didn't last thirty years in that region by being an idiot. The only reason he would use them is in the event he were threatened. And by George, we're giving him the opportunity.

At the very least, the Bush War Machine should be happy...between armed civilians shooting at them, and their purchase of JDAM jamming equipment, they can blame all collateral damage on Saddam.

[Cacophonous]

If there was a massive military build-up at our borders would it galvanize our society?

Then maybe the Iraqi people don't want the US to intervene...

[sd-joe]

"What are they going to do if, after we invade, we find no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, just as they have claimed"

What are you going to do if after we invade, we DO find Weapons of Mass Destruction. Are you going to say "thank you Mr Bush for saving us from a terrible threat." Or are you going to continue to whine and make idiotic statements?

[Ches]

I don't have the inside scoop on what the Iraqi people want, just what I read from the news media. Look at what the Germans were willing to do for the homeland and the Third Reich.

[spodefly]

Sure, they can buy guns, but taking a cue from the ever-alert gun grabbers here in the US, the gun purchases will be limited to 1 per month, the guns cannot be black and ugly looking, can hold no more than 10 rounds, and must shoot environmentally safe 'no lead' bullets, not the evil jacketted 'cop killer' bullets. Plus, anyone that has ever had any restraining orders (i.e., divorced) or any conviction for anything more serious than watering the lawn on off days will be prohibited from purchasing one.

Common sense gun laws for the children.

[Cacophonous]

As I said, I have no doubt that he has them; I just don't care if he has them. He's not a threat to us unless we provoke him. An invasion is a pretty sturdy provocation.

I think it's asinine to think we can curtail any sort of technology, and that it is impossible to keep it from spreading, and that it is inevitable that he will either have or get them eventually anyway.

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

[Ches]

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

I agree. He would be a bigger idiot than they are portraying him as. Brazil now wants nukes; is that because they're afraid Iraq may invade them? Or maybe they're afraid of North Korea coming there and telling them how to live?