This article by Neil Farquhar (NYT registration is free; don’t worry about Iraqi civilian war preparations includes this curious line (thanks to Slate.com for noticing):
Bolding added.
Leaving aside for the moment the implications for the danger to US (not Allied; get real) troops: Is this true? If so, what implications does it hold for the common (in the US) argument that widespread gun ownership is a protection against the imposition of dictatorship? Here we have a real example, but has it worked?
The dictatorship is already in place. What could be gained for them by fighting against it? Another dictator would take his place and oppress the people who tried to end it.
On the other hand, if someone tried to assume power, then the weapons would be a viable protection against that.
I think even you can see the difference, much as you try not to.
Has it been confirmed as anything other than Saddam’s propaganda to try to scare US troops? I remember reading that the Iraqui dissidents found it rather laughable, but I can find better things to do with my time than search to refute propaganda from a dictator who’s been lying for over a decade.