[TheLastBoyScout]

Slate.com asks in this article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080201/) , why, if personal weapons are a defense against a police state, haven't the Iraqis overthrown Saddam. I responded, and I want as many others as possible to respond, because this guy sounds like an anti in need of convincing.article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080201/)

[Art Eatman]

First off, ya gotta HAVE a personal weapon. This ain't the case in the average police state. Then, ya gotta get close enough to use it. That means ya gotta know where is the target, or when is the target moving from Point A to Point B. Hussein's movements around Iraq are kept hidden or disguised to the greatest extent possible.

Hard to deal with the lesser lights of a regime when any goof means horrible deaths for one's family as well as yourself. And you can factor in the secret police and the snitch/reward system and all that...

Saddam's regime is entrenched and in control of the forms of violence. Had all of the Iraqi population been armed, back there when he came to power, the story might have been different.

Art

[TheLastBoyScout]

Art, the points about target location and fear of secret police were in my response to the author of the original article. His article claims that the Iraqi's do have weapons... in addition to your points, I theorized that possibly:
--They were never issued ammo
--They can't organize
-- They remember what happened to the Kurds (Would you think you could win on your own against an enemy who has been known to use an entire conventional arsenal + nerve gas on his own citizens inside his own borders)
Email the author. Reading the article gave me the impression he was mocking the 2A, Madison, and the NRA

[Chipperman]

For the same reasons the Germans never overthrew Hitler.

[ahadams]

at least I can be reasonabley sure I got their attention.

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

First off I need to preface this by saying that I only showed up over here
at the request of a pro-gun friend who ran into this article more or less by
accident. Poor Timothy apparently makes every hoplophobic mistake in the
book, the biggest one being to assume that a half-armed police state (such
as Iraq, Hawaii, or Washington DC) in which only the local forces of the
regime (be they disguised as local or state police, or some sort of military
organization, as in Iraq) have arms represents an armed citizenry. This of
course is completely false and negates his entire argument. But that isn't
the only problem with his article. He also blindly assumes that any
firearms anywhere equate to the same result. Were that the case,
Switzerland would have a higher per capita murder rate than any major
American city, since the vast majority of Swiss citizens are members of
their military reserves and thus keep not only automatic weapons and
ammuntion at home, but live handgrenades as well! My goodness! Just think
of all the damage that would cause if Mr. Noah's fantasies were in fact
true! Too bad for him that is not the case.

Of course the real kicker of this article is that by publishing it in Slate,
Noah tacitly admits what we've been teaching the fascists in the "gun
control" movement for some time now: that only a few diehard left wingers
and their hangers-on even believe the "gun control" lies any more. I did
hear correctly in that you folks here at Slate can't exist in a free market
(via selling advertising), didn't I?

Sincerely,
Arlin H. Adams
ahadams2@earthlink.net
NRA Life Member

[wQuay]

Armed or not, I don't think the average Iraqi hates Saddam. I've read similar things about North Korea- the people will actually defend their dictator.

[LostOneToo]

Chipperman, do you mean because the majority liked him and they had the highest standard of living in Europe at the time? I don't think that fits the Iraqi lifestyle. I have read several places that Saddam doesn't really bother the average common folk and lets them do about what they waht as long as they are smart enough NOT to talk bad about Saddam.

No doubt he is a ruthless dictator and should be overthrown but I also wonder why, if he is so bad, the people have left him alone. I do not buy the excuse that they are not armed well enough to overthrow him; do they value life more than freedom or do you think they, for the most part, have never known anything else are are content to be good little sheeple?:scrutiny:

[pax]

Good discussion, but it really belongs in L&P.

pax

One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way -- prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs. – Robert Heinlein

[Croyance]

After Desert Storm, George H. Bush tried to encourage the Iraqi's to rebel. He even said that America would support such a rebellion. They did in the north and south (Kurds and Shiites respectively). During peace talks with Iraqi leadership, they negotiated to have military helicoptors within Iraqi controlled territories.
Under the cover of gunships, the Iraqi military advanced out of Baghdad and crushed the rebellion in the south. Years later, video tapes made by Iraqis came out, showing the troops torturing and killing the civilian population. The rebellion in the south was never very organized, and only controlled the south for only a couple of days. The rebels had the aid of renegade military units.
The United States claims that they did not enter because they couldn't tell one side from the other. The southern rebellion was very disorganized and had no leadership structure. The attacks in many southern towns could be seen by allied troops on the other side of the line.
In the north the Kurds rebelled. Many in exile returned. Long story short, we did not support them either. Many civilians died fleeing. When footage of Iraqi gunships targeting refugees aired, we set up a no fly zone.
In both cases we did not support the rebels.
The short answer is that Bush didn't want American soldier's deaths. One (of many) reasons is that he would have lost votes - since Viet Nam Americans have been particularly sensitive to soldiers dying. Second, the UN resolution called for the coalition to kick the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. Third, it was felt that a fragmented Iraq would destabalize the region, and if we went in we would have to administer the area.

[ahadams]

A friend who *was* an Infantry NCO durring Desert Storm and is now an Anglican priest was part of a unit which got to watch Iraqi attack helicopters level two villages in Iraqi controled territory after the official end of the war. Because they had been told not to do so, my friend and his platoon could not intervene.

[Chipperman]

Lost One,

My point in making the parallel between Saddam and Adolf was was more that both ran ruthless Police states. The average Iraqui believes that they are best off minding their own business. Asking too many questions or rocking the boat can very quickly get you and your family killed. It was the same in Nazi Germany.

I agree with your point that intially Hitler was a savior to the German people. By the time late '43 rolled around, and the German public started to shake off the illusion, it was too late.

Saddam has never created the same economic and quality of life boom in Iraq that Hitler did in Germany. Unfortunately, people are too scared to band together because "spies are everywhere". Saddam has even killed members of his own family. It will be none too soon when he is taken out. My fear is that he will escape from Iraq when the bombs start falling.

[Russ]

How do we know this story is true and if it is, do the Iraqi's have bullets for their guns? Seems they would be hot commodities with all the sanctions.

[BigG]

My guess would be that the people really don't think of themselves as "Iraqi." A lot of lesser developed countries do not have a strong nationalistic tradition like we may have in the USA. The Iraqis outside the circles of power in Baghdad may identify more with their tribe or other small traditional unit.

I know this was one of the reasons that the Bolsheviks were able to overthrow the Czar and take over power without repercussions from the peasants. They had no tradition of self sufficiency. In fact, they were owned and went along with the real estate.