[2dogs]

Practice makes perfect................................




U-S military tells Iraqis to turn in all guns or face arrest

Baghdad, Iraq-AP -- The U-S military is now telling Iraqis they cannot own or sell guns. Any Iraqi who does faces arrest, according to a new radio spot running in the country.

Lieutenant General David McKiernan, who is commanding U-S forces on the ground, says a new set of laws in Iraq are aimed at rebuilding law and order.

One problem U-S forces have is the tens of thousands of weapons Saddam Hussein's government gave out in its final days in power. Many ended up in the hands of looters or criminals.

McKiernan has issued a statement saying coalition forces will hunt down those people -- whom he calls a threat to everyone in Iraq. He is urging any Iraqi who owns a firearm to turn it in to coalition forces.

[SkunkApe]

I sure am glad we "liberated" those folks.

[Baba Louie]

Maybe America should just arrest ALL of the people in Iraq since I'm sure that freedom is not really the intended result of the foray, just a spin that sounded good and was accepted by the public here.
Kinda sounds like the British and the American colonists way back when.

Adios

[SkunkApe]

Bite your tongue, Baba Louie!

If we didn't really go in to liberate the Iraqi people, what other reason was there? Certainly not for WMDs; there weren't any after all.

Too little, too late on this news, I'm afraid. The American public has moved on, self-assured they've done their patriotic duty by killing foreigners and belittling the Dixie Chicks.

[Chris Rhines]

Not that this surprises me, but do you have a source/confirmation for this story?

- Chris

[SkunkApe]

Good point, Chris Rhines. I may have "jumped the gun" by not verifying the source.

It does say "AP", however.

[2dogs]

Sorry, I forgot the link.:o



http://www.wmtw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1279311&nav=7k6sBu3V

[Leatherneck]

Ok guys: if you were in charge of American troops on the ground in Iraq, what would you do? Mind you, they're having hostile encounters with small groups/individuals every day, and they're taking casualties.:rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Baba Louie]

Leatherneck,

I would hope that the American's troops over there would defend themselves against any who would do them harm. Be it rocks, RPG's or rifles.

Why should EVERY law-abiding Iraqi (I presume that there are some who fall in this group) be disarmed for the actions of a few?

Kinda sounds like the Demo's (and some Repubs) here in the US... disarm every law-abiding citizen because of the actions of the criminal element.

But I could be wrong.

Adios

[WonderNine]

I knew this would happen :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[moa]

I think is this is about the dumbest thing we have done in Iraq so far. Security is the biggest issue in Iraq now, and the coalition forces are not providing enough. The Iraqi citizens have to provide their own.

The newspapers are full of stories of Iraqi women scared to leave their homes and Iraqi men not going to work in order to protect their homes and women.

Looting and car jacking are still common events. The Iraqi's definitely need small arms to protect themselves and their neighborhoods.

Late last year as a "reward" to the Iraqi people, Saddam emptied his prisons of non-polictical prisoners.

I think this new "law" is stupid and will probably create more ill will toward coalition forces, and is not worth the effort.

[T.Stahl]

If I'd be an ordinary Iraqi citizen, THAT would be the first (and probably only) law I'd break. :neener:

[cordex]

This will not play well.

[Mizzoutiger]

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The military is somewhat of an enigma. While a good many of it's members are conservative minded individuals, the organization, as a whole, operates like a dystopian disaster story. Not bashing the military, I'm in the Army myself, but I gotta call it as I see it. It couldn't function any other way. The military sure ain't a democracy is it?

[Triad]

Ok guys: if you were in charge of American troops on the ground in Iraq, what would you do? Mind you, they're having hostile encounters with small groups/individuals every day, and they're taking casualties.
So if the National Guard is sent into LA to restore order after a big quake or massive riots and they are taking casualties due to hostile encounters with looters and gang members, you think the correct action for them to take is to require everyone to hand in their weapons?

[WonderNine]

http://bis.midco.net/cotlod/SpecialTroops.gif

[Sergeant Bob]

Mizzoutiger The military sure ain't a democracy is it?

It's like my old Flight Chief, MSgt M.J. Shenar used to say, "Bob, we're here to defend a Democracy, not to have one!"

Cute photochop there. :rolleyes:

[Seminole]

I sure am glad we "liberated" those folks.

Be afraid anytime you hear anyone with guns talk about "liberating" people. I find it remarkable that the U.S. government has taken to using the same euphemism used by Marxists during the Cold War.

[TheOtherOne]

I saw a news story a couple weeks ago about a guy over there that said he slept with a handgun under his pillow and anytime he heard a noise would grab it and get up and walk around his house to make sure his family was still safe.... I guess his house had been broke into once and he was really worried about looters.

I would hate to see him turn it in and rely on a wooden stick instead.


Are the "criminals" in Iraq really going to obey this order to turn in their guns... or just the honest people that aren't a problem to begin with?

Sounds familiar.

[alan]

Re all the small arms Sadam annointed people with before leaving, the bad guys certainly got some, but likely so did the law abiding.

Along comes Uncle Sam, who when faced with the breakdown of "law and order" opts to disarm the law abiding. Does that have a familiar ring? Does that make sense.

Answer to question 1 is yes, answer to question 2 is NO. Could we be that far off base, damned right we could be, and likely are.

[atek3]

Wait it gets better. In addition to the gun ban, we're about to impose iraq's first income tax, and socialised medicine, isn't that wonderful?

Hah, if federal tyranny got so bad that say texas, idaho, or wyoming seceded from the USA, next thing you now we'd have Operation Idahoan "Freedom"

atek3

[2dogs]

NYTIMES version of the story says only "military" type arms- not "personal" firearms will be taken. Who knows. Can't believe the NY Times anyway.




Allies to Begin Seizing Weapons From Most Iraqis
By MICHAEL R. GORDON


BAGHDAD, May 20 — Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.

The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.

Iraqis who refuse to comply with the edict will be subject to arrest. Only Iraqis authorized to use military-type weapons because of their police or military duties will be exempt.

"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

The weapons proclamation, which is to be issued by L. Paul Bremer III, the chief allied administrator for Iraq, and General McKiernan, is part of a broader effort to improve security in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

The need to secure Baghdad and provide security elsewhere in the country is expected to slow the pace of American troop withdrawals from Iraq, allied officials said. The United States has about 165,000 troops in Iraq. It is likely to have 100,000 in the fall, more than American planners had projected just three weeks ago.

Among other steps to strengthen security in Iraq, American forces are deploying a 4,000 strong military police brigade and more Humvees to improve the ability to conduct patrols. They are also repositioning American forces in the capital.

Allied officials are also considering a plan to bring Britain's 16th Air Assault Brigade to Baghdad. If approved by the British government, the British forces would be charged with training the Iraqi police and helping to safeguard the Iraqi capital, allied officials said.

Allied forces, however, do not plan to change the rules of engagement to encourage the shooting of looters, officials said. Allied commanders are eager to avoid an armed confrontation with Iraqi civilians.

There are some circumstances in which looters can be shot under the existing rules, but the main emphasis is to enable American forces to protect themselves against attacks.

Since allied forces toppled Mr. Hussein's government last month, they have struggled to fill the power vacuum in Baghdad and provide security in this capital of 4.5 million people. American military officials insist that the capital is safer than it was a month ago and that progress has been made in restoring essential utilities like electricity and water.

"Looting has gone down and violent crime has gone down," General McKiernan said. "The trend is down."

But robberies, looting, kidnappings and attacks by paramilitary forces are still frequent, prompting allied forces to step up their efforts to secure the country.

The weapons proclamation is an important part of that endeavor. The intention is to reduce attacks against allied forces, reduce crime and stop violent fights among rival Iraqi groups, allied commanders believe.

While General McKiernan talked about the ban in broad terms, other officials provided details.

Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.

Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.

For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.

Those who do obtain such licenses — security guards, for example — will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

To ensure that Iraqis are aware of the new policy the allies will saturate Iraqis with leaflets, use loudspeaker announcements and radio and television broadcasts. The edict will establish an amnesty period during which weapons can be turned in without fear of arrest.

The proclamation will also prohibit celebratory and other weapons firing within city limits, a measure that is likely to prove hard to enforce given the shooting that is often heard at night.


The weapons policy is just one element of the security plan. Allied officials are also trying to rebuild the Iraqi police forces. Some 7,000 police officials have indicated that they want to come back to work in Baghdad. But allied officials say they need to be retrained.

In the past, they say, the Iraqi police showed little interest in patrolling. Last night, there were just four police patrols conducted jointly by Iraqis and Americans, the first such patrols in the capital.

If the British forces are deployed in Baghdad, as expected, they will play an important role in the training. To avoid any association with the security forces of the former government, the police will wear blue uniforms instead of olive green. The original plan called for them to wear white shirts, but the Iraqis complained that that was unmanly and made them look like nurses.

Beyond that, allied planners are trying to reconfigure and reposition the allied force in Baghdad to improve security in the coming months. The main elements of that force include the First Armored Division, which is starting to arrive in the capital. The division has left artillery and air defense units behind and is being equipped with additional Humvees so that it can patrol the capital.

The Second Armored Cavalry Regiment is also being deployed. All told, it will have more than 300 Humvees, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander, said.

The Third Infantry Division withdrawal was halted for security reasons, but some units are expected to begin withdrawing as they are relieved by the First Armored Division.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/worldspecial/21DISA.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5062&en=bedbde438a3299e8&ex=1054094400&partner=GOOGLE

[Leatherneck]

When I asked "What would you do?" I wasn't necessarily supporting any confiscation at all (except in the case of misuse), let alone total confiscation. I was asking a simple question: If you were responsible for your troops' safety and welfare, would you do nothing about the firearms in the hands of--presumably--every Iraqi citizen? Or would you have some other way to minimize friendly casualties?:confused:

TC
TFL Survivor

[alan]

2 dogs wrote in part:

NYTIMES version of the story says only "military" type arms- not "personal" firearms will be taken. Who knows. Can't believe the NY Times anyway.

Do they, the NYT know the difference?

[DaveB]

I can't help but wonder whether this is a practice run for a domestic (USA) disarming.

It does make sense from a purely security point of view.

That argument has already been made domestically.

db