babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Baghdad's Residents Snap Up Guns, Rifles

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Baghdad's Residents Snap Up Guns, Rifles
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 March 2003 06:16 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From ABC News

quote:
Baghdad residents are snapping up pistols and hunting rifles; trenches and sandbagged gun positions are multiplying. Militiamen loyal to Saddam Hussein say they're ready for a fight to the death.

(snip)

Guns are very common in Iraq. Even so, gun shop owners say business has risen by 25 percent over the past month, with cheap pistols priced under $100 in highest demand. The shops are not allowed to sell assault rifles, but store owners say hunting rifles are selling fast.

(snip)

Mohammed, like millions of Baath Party members and militiamen loyal to Saddam, also has a Kalashnikov, the weapon of preference for most Iraqis. Occasional violence between rival tribes and Iraqis' love of hunting mean hardly an Iraqi household is without at least one firearm.


This is why I'm so skeptical of claims that this will be over quickly. The Iraqi people have a long history of resisting invasion. Ask the British. If it comes down to a battle for Baghdad, it could get very bloody. Expect American soldiers coming home in body bags and pictures of dead Iraqi teenagers on the BBC.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3558

posted 06 March 2003 06:29 PM      Profile for Apples     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The most relevant historical parallel to use here is the Gulf War. The Iraqi army is going to get steamrolled by the U.S., and there is nothing militiamen armed with hunting rifles can do about it.
From: no | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 06 March 2003 06:33 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Militiamen loyal to Saddam Hussein say they're ready for a fight to the death.

Exactly (what they are going to get).

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 March 2003 06:34 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The most relevant historical parallel to use here is the Gulf War. The Iraqi army is going to get steamrolled by the U.S., and there is nothing militiamen armed with hunting rifles can do about it.

Disagree. The first Gulf War was one of containment, not an invasion. And I don't for a moment think that the US can lose. The question is what the cost will be on both sides.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 06 March 2003 07:45 PM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In Regards to your comment Apples:

quote:
“The most relevant historical parallel to use here is the Gulf War. The Iraqi army is going to get steamrolled by the U.S., and there is nothing militiamen armed with hunting rifles can do about it.”

How about we use a more realistic one, because the ‘Gulf War I’ was anything but a real war.

Vietnam, Lebanon or Palestine you choose!

Vietnam was considered a full-invasion, and that ended in disaster for the Americans. Granted they now have more advanced weaponry but the method of fighting that occurred in Viet and what the Iraq (Baghdad) invasion will evolve into are going to be similar. This is the proven technique of Guerilla warfare, granted if the philosophy is present (in other words if the people truly reject occupation as may be the case, contrary to what CNN propagates). This will be disastrous for the United States army. The North Vietnamese perfected this method of combat as have the Lebanese resistance groups in Lebanon.

In Lebanon after three months of constricting Beirut from the outside world, Israeli troops invaded the city on September 15th to the beginning of October 1982. The result of the short lived occupation was plenty of death and guerilla style attacks from all groups on the occupiers, regardless of their individual Ideologies. Even though the Israeli promised support for influential groups within the country, it was irrelevant. It is the undying will of the resistance to eject foreign troops from its lands as an outside occupier which is unbreakable and their key to success.

I don’t think that technology will help them significantly in the long run. We know that in the occupied territories (Palestine) where these militia men armed with less then hunting riffles (relatively speaking) have caused havoc on the Israeli army and the moral of that nation as a whole. Yes, the death and destruction on the Palestinian side is much higher than the Israelis, as will be the case in Baghdad as related to the U.S. but resistance of occupation never dies, at least not in a land that has seen more wars than all the battles the west has fought combined.

When the real battle begins it will not be army against army. It will be people against the occupiers. It is a different kind of battle, a warfare style that is new to the world, something the Americans do not have very much experience with. This new asymmetrical-warfare forces us to re-examine the whole concept of how we conduct war and whether entering into this new form of warfare would be feasible for us. In comparison it is right up there with carpet bombing civilian targets during the World Wars, this was a new modification of warfare techniques that were introduced in that period that have changed the way we conduct war. Warfare is about military minds and the ability to be victorious regardless of what or who it is you face. Simply refer to Hannibal the Carthage who took on Rome and surrounded it with Elephants via the Alps. Or the 16 million Russian civilians that died defending mother Russia against the Nazi during the Second World War, by the way these civilians are still to this day not considered civilians because they took up arms in resistance (changing their status from civilian to willful combatant). That, along with the help of Mother-nature secured the defeat of the invading German army.

With all of this in mind there of course will be losers in this war. The most heart wrenching ones are the innocence involved, children, the general civilian population of Iraq, history, humanity and their dignity. Saddam Hussein must go but like the President of the United States the removal should come from within.


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 06 March 2003 08:34 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saddam Hussein must go but like the President of the United States the removal should come from within.

At least there's hope that, when the Iraqis see that freedom is in sight (when U.S. troops appear on the horizon), they'll turn all those guns on Saddam and ice his ass.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 08:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Will we in the US get the same opportunity? To our leader?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 March 2003 09:50 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of an attack on Baghdad, this story at the Guardian caught my eye.

quote:
US troops seen at key Saudi airport

Hundreds of American troops have taken control of a civilian airport in Saudi Arabia, close to the border with Iraq, according to a witness. The move - which has not been officially confirmed - calls into question the kingdom's public statements that it will not facilitate a military strike against the Baghdad regime.

It also raises the prospect of a surprise US land attack on Baghdad across the desert from the south-west. The town of Ar'ar which the airport usually serves is only 255 miles from the Iraqi capital as the crow flies, through mostly unpopulated territory.


If they're planning a surprise attack, it won't be a surprise for long now that it's in the papers.

Edited for grammar.

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 06 March 2003 10:24 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no need for a surprise attack.

Dubya has already stated, in his televised speech tonight, journalists and others will be notified a few days ahead, sufficient time for them get out of "harm's way."

Besides, what do you suppose Saddam's armed forces could possibly do to stop the American onslaught? Give it a week, or maybe two, and it will be all over.

Saddam should start running. Now.


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 06 March 2003 11:34 PM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Give it a week, or maybe two, and it will be all over.

I fear that it will only be beginning.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 March 2003 11:43 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Give it a week, or maybe two, and it will be all over.

You're dreaming. The Iraqis will pay most of their price all at once. For the Americans it'll be a death of a thousand cuts. This will take years to play out.

Edited to add that on second thought, the Iraqis may keep on paying for years too.

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 06 March 2003 11:58 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure you remember the Taliban ... how they boasted that 1 Taliban equalled 1000 American soldiers!

Ha!

(Boys, if you care about the fate of the Iraqis, better get cracking and urge Saddam to call it quits. He has about one week left ... before the USAF begins its bombing.)


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 March 2003 12:00 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Afghanistan isn't over yet either. How many years did it take for bin Laden to "blow back"?

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 07 March 2003 12:31 AM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CyberNomad said:
quote:
“I'm sure you remember the Taliban ... how they boasted that 1 Taliban equalled 1000 American soldiers!”

I don’t remember ! what your source on that quote; maybe it will help me understand where you draw your opinion? Oh Yeah and Kandahar! Is nothing in relation to Baghdad. Baghdad is a big as any mega city in the U.S. Do you really think that the 250 000 troops are there for any reason other than Baghdad? Like I stated earlier, if the will of the general population is to resist occupation then the U.S. is in for a longer battle than it is anticipating.

CyberNomad said:

quote:
“There is no need for a surprise attack…
Dubya has already stated, in his televised speech tonight, journalists and others will be notified a few days ahead, sufficient time for them get out of "harm's way."… Besides, what do you suppose Saddam's armed forces could possibly do to stop the American onslaught? Give it a week, or maybe two and it will be all over.”

Surely, you’re kidding? The war itself has been going on since August 2, 1990 the day Saddam invaded Kuwait; I haven’t seen anything to indicate that there has been a clear and decisive winner. I can definitely identify the losers but not the winner(s). If it is a clear victory that you are suggesting in your comment, I suggest you reexamine the facts.


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 07 March 2003 12:59 AM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim said:
quote:
"the Iraqis may keep on paying for years too"

Sorry Slim I can’t help it; I need respond or even add to it. When you say “paying” I don’t think I understand what that really means. Are you suggesting for example that they have paid a dear price under the leadership of a tyrant for the past 25years plus, and will probably be paying again under the new leadership that will take over after Saddam is gone? Or maybe you are suggesting that young Iraqi girls that are having their uterus, and wombs taken out because the cancer rate has increased by five folds due to the excessive amounts of radiation from Depleted Uranium ordinance that the Great American Army used and plans to use again in the Gulf against the Iraqis (but not as a weapon of mass destruction )? Heck maybe you mean that the Iraqi peoples wealth in the form of natural resources will be used to pay for the wars, the deployments, restitution, rehabilitation of a fragile U.S. market, and other things that can be pillaged while the mayhem is going on?


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 March 2003 01:07 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Onomatopoeic rendition of the United States forces in Iraq:

*BADABOOMBADABOOMBADABOOMBADABOOMBADABOOM*

A prosaic statement of the aftereffects would be to imagine the cloud of dust a stampeding herd raises on the plains.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 March 2003 01:14 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When you say “paying” I don’t think I understand what that really means.

All of the things you discussed plus the possibility of civil wars and the general mayhem and brutality that often follows occupation. In particular I think the Kurds are screwed. Again.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 07 March 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr.Conway and Slim,

I would have to say that things look grim!


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca