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.
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.