News How are Iraqi rebels obtaining illegal arms?

[russ_watters]

It's a myth that an armed citizenry is any real protection against a dictatorship...

Caveat: in the American Revolution, individuals had weapons that matched those of the military and that is part of why it was possible then. Today, while the smaller guns may be similar, the vehicles and larger arnaments are not.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But you still have to have an army willing to kill its own civilians. For example, in the US there are nearly as many guns as there are houses. Trying to subdue an uprising on that scale would be impossible, especially considering the mass desertions that would occur if many in the Army thought they were fighting for an unjust cause against their own people. (Now, how possible is it to get a sufficiently large-scale uprising to defeat the Army is anyone's guess.)

The easier solution is to have an unarmed populace that the army can push around at the dictator's whim.

 

[Mercator]

How true this is. Now substitute the US with Iraq and you will better understand what is happening there.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think we all understand what is happening there. It is no surprise to any of us that the Iraqis have a sufficient number of armed nutcases to cause problems for our troops. Regardless, we stay until the Iraqi government has most of these issues under control.

 

[Smurf]

You assume that just because many american soldiers would desert rather than shoot their own country that the Iraqis would too, this is not necessarily true. First off all there's saddams private army that will whack you if you desert, then there's the fact that there are not quite 10 different culture groups all of which are on different levels of opression from saddam, and then there's the religious and exterior arab forces at work, each telling you what to do. this doesn't leave much leeway for a soldier to have morals.

 

[JohnDubYa]

You assume that just because many american soldiers would desert rather than shoot their own country that the Iraqis would too, this is not necessarily true.

I never made any such assumption. I never even mentioned Iraq, and none of my comments were aimed at the Iraqi situation.

 

[devil-fire]

to get a real rebellion going its takes some organization. even if Everyone in a town wanted to shoot a military patrol it would likely not happen because they would not think they would have the support of others and because of the lack of support, they would not shoot the patrol. the rebellions i have some knowledge of (mind you, this is few, history has not been my strong point) there were instigators who gathered support and verbal agreements from people like "when the shooting breaks out, ill be on side with you guys against saddam" and there weren’t many of those people in iraq because so many of them got caught and never seen from again, or caught and some thing horrible happens to them. So to imply that iraq was not heavily armed because they would have taken out saddam themselves is kind of weak to me.

i recall reading somewhere on the internet that saddam was armed by an arms dealer who had the full support and encouragement (although unofficially) from the usa just before the gulf war because at the time, it was thought by parts of the american government that saddam was going to invade iran (iran was hostile to US interests at the time) but after he got all the support he was going to get, he turned around and invaded kuwait

here is a link to an interview with an arms dealer http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/soghanalian.html

this is a quote from the link, about 3 and a half pages down

"You went from selling arms transferred from Eastern Bloc [Communist] countries to Lebanon, and then to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries?

Well, before I went to Iraq there were other places I was asked to assess, like Mauritania, the Polisario forces that they were fighting there. Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina. And then finally Iraq. We used to help the countries whose way of thinking was pro-Western. At that time it [Iraq] was pro-American, of course. Europeans didn't have an interest in them, so we had to keep those nations alive for their struggle.

How closely did you work with the American government on this?

I don't like to explore of the possibilities of what department of this or that, but very, very close, very close. "


even if the USA supplied the arms, would those same arms not need replacement parts? i don’t know a lot about guns but don’t they need to be basically gutted and replaced after X many rounds fired? i could be totally wrong about this since i have no experience about maintaining a firearm

 

[JohnDubYa]

Support from the US?

1991: Convicted on six counts of conspiring to export arms to Iraq without the required federal licenses, a violation of the U.S. Arms Control Export Act. The case, which included two former officials of Hughes Helicopter Corp., involved the sale of 103 combat helicopters and two rocket launchers in 1983 during the Iran-Iraq War. In 1992 he was sentenced to six years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The U.S. attorney had asked for maximum of 24 years and a $240,000 fine.

 

[omin]

Iraqis Believe in Right to Bear Arms

where are the iraqi rebels getting their weapons from? i thought that everyone or almost everyone from the former iraqi military who would have accses to small arms chaches either surrendered , were captured or were killed early in the invasion? is it just the small arms culture that has always been in iraq that is supplying weapons to these fighters? what kind of arms control is currently in place in iraq?

Saddam believe in the right to bear arms for his people. Something we have in common. Weapons are everywhere in Iraq as well as in the US.

But, Bush doesn't want American values in Iraq, especially when they also believe in defense of the Homeland.

 

[member 5645]

Saddam believe in the right to bear arms for his people. Something we have in common. Weapons are everywhere in Iraq as well as in the US.

But, Bush doesn't want American values in Iraq, especially when they also believe in defense of the Homeland.

this is pathetic. Can we return this forum to SOMETHING besides hyperbole and rhetoric?

 

[devil-fire]

the interview i linked too also had this in it

"1993: A federal judge reduced the conviction for sales to Iraq from six and a half years to two years; prosecutor would not explain. Soghanalian's attorney later said it concerned intelligence Soghanalian gave to U.S. law-enforcement officials to break up a $100-bill counterfeiting operation in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon. "

and

"You were convicted in 1991 for conspiracy on a weapons deal to Iraq. And now this recent conviction for wire fraud. Do you feel betrayed by the U.S. government?

Let me give you an example of the first charge they brought. I was charged on conspiracy with Hughes helicopter executives. ... Fine, so I'm conspiring with them. And yet, when the two others went in front of another judge, they got acquitted. So what am I conspiring to do if they went home free? I was convicted. Of course, that stays on your record saying you're a felon. I was convicted for six and a half years. But I did not serve six and a half years. When they needed me, the U.S. government that is, they immediately came and got me out"

it also states the man "has lived for more than 20 years in the United States as a permanent resident"

 

[JohnDubYa]

If he really had US support, why was he prosecuted at all? Why did the Attorney General ask for 24 years?

And is it really so unusual that someone would not serve his full sentence? I mean, that never happens in other cases?

Sorry, but what you have there is real shady evidence of any US support for his arms sales. Actually, it amounts to no evidence at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Missed this before:

But you still have to have an army willing to kill its own civilians. For example, in the US there are nearly as many guns as there are houses. Trying to subdue an uprising on that scale would be impossible, especially considering the mass desertions that would occur if many in the Army thought they were fighting for an unjust cause against their own people.

That's another caveat: since the soldiers are citizens and would likely agree that the government needs to be overthrown (in the hypothetical case that the vast majority of the citizens do), they'd likely join the rebellion. So in this case, guns in the possession of the citizens aren't really necessary anyway.

... just before the gulf war because at the time, it was thought by parts of the american government that saddam was going to invade iran (iran was hostile to US interests at the time) but after he got all the support he was going to get, he turned around and invaded kuwait

devil-fire, you have your timeline screwed up there: this arms dealer was selling Iraq American weapons long before 1991 and Iraq did go to war with Iran using our weapons.

 

[JohnDubYa]

That's another caveat: since the soldiers are citizens and would likely agree that the government needs to be overthrown (in the hypothetical case that the vast majority of the citizens do), they'd likely join the rebellion. So in this case, guns in the possession of the citizens aren't really necessary anyway.

Soldiers are usually not allowed to take their guns home with them.

 

[russ_watters]

Soldiers are usually not allowed to take their guns home with them.

No, that isn't what I meant. The premise was that the civilians with guns would be fighting the military. My point was that the military would choose not to fight the civilians.

 

[JohnDubYa]

All of the military, or just some of them? There will always be Loyalists. Without weapons, how would the citizenry fight the Loyalists?

 

[russ_watters]

All of the military, or just some of them? There will always be Loyalists. Without weapons, how would the citizenry fight the Loyalists?

Enough of the military for a coup in military leadership. We're talking about some pretty extreme cases here: in the Civil War, for example, the miliary split on its own and took sides.

 

[devil-fire]

If he really had US support, why was he prosecuted at all? Why did the Attorney General ask for 24 years?

And is it really so unusual that someone would not serve his full sentence? I mean, that never happens in other cases?

Sorry, but what you have there is real shady evidence of any US support for his arms sales. Actually, it amounts to no evidence at all.

i don't think the attorney general supported this guy, but i think people in the us gov gave this guy a lot of room to do his thing. the guy got off of a recomened maximum sentence of 24 years in just 2 years by offering intelligence in the past (why would past actions get him out? perhaps the possibility of furture unmentionable actions instead?). this person also refers to the usa as a friendly entity with a cooperative relationship.

this is the internet so Nothing on it is "proof" unless the source is credable. i consider this to be a credable sourse


i don't understand the comparison between the american civial war and possible situations in iraq. in iraq if a unit defects, their wives, children and close relitives are going to be killed as well as a much longer death for themselves. it would be a trade of lives really, between their lved ones and people they don't know who they have been ordered to kill. there were some thousand kurds killed by the iraqi army via chemical weapons and there were no large scale defection i know of because of it



russ_walters, after looking into the statement some more, you were right. my first stament of "just before the gulf war because at the time, it was thought by parts of the american government that saddam was going to invade iran (iran was hostile to US interests at the time) but after he got all the support he was going to get, he turned around and invaded kuwait" was actualy missleading.