* Forwarded (from: netmail) by Roy J. Tellason using timEd 1.10.y2k.

Gary North's REALITY CHECK

Issue 220                                     March 4, 2003

GUN OWNERSHIP IN IRAQ

I have twice seen the same film clip on CBS news: an Iraqi citizen buying
what looks like a machine gun (Kalashnikov), and another citizen trying out
a semi-
automatic pistol's slide action.  Both times, the voice-over warned of
Iraqis preparing to defend themselves.

Nobody mentions the obvious: unless the film clip was staged, Saddam
Hussein lets Iraqis buy guns and ammo.

This testifies against the theory that Saddam fears an organized uprising. 
If he fears assassination -- his supposed use of look-alikes in public --
he doesn't fear it enough to impose complete gun control.

He claims that he has no weapons of mass destruction. In a recent article
posted on the generally hawkish World Net Daily, physicist Gordon Prather
cites long-suppressed evidence from a top Iraqi defector that there are no
WMD in Iraq.  The defector was General Hussein Kamal.  He was Saddam
Hussein's son-in-law.  He was assassinated when he later returned to Iraq.

     Separately, Kamal was interviewed by Rolf Ekeus,
     chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq
     and Chief Inspector Maurizio Zifferero of the
     International Atomic Energy Action Team, both
     established by the U.N. Security Council to
     implement UNSC disarmament resolutions. 

     Newsweek has obtained the U.N. document, verified
     its authenticity and reports in its current issue
     that Kamal told the same story to the CIA and to
     the Brits. 

     Immediately after the Gulf War ceasefire, but
     before the U.N. inspectors had arrived in Iraq,
     Kamal said he ordered the destruction of all
     chemical and biological weapons stocks and the
     missiles to deliver them. . . .

     The UNSCOM-IAEA inspectors -- and hence all U.N.
     Security Council members -- have known for at
     least four years that, as best the U.N.
     inspectors could subsequently discover, Kamal did
     tell the truth, when, in response to the question
     posed by UNSCOM inspector Nikita Smidovich: 

          Smidovich: Were weapons and agents
          destroyed? 

          Kamal: Nothing remained. 

          Smidovich: Was it before or after
          inspections started? 

          Kamal: After visits of inspection teams. You
          have an important role in Iraq with this.
          You should not underestimate yourself. You
          are very effective in Iraq. 

     So, according to Kamal, himself, not only were
     all chembio "weapons and agents destroyed", but
     U.N. inspectors had been "very effective" in
     ferreting out what the Iraqis had done. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31303

This information was kept secret until NEWSWEEK published it on February 24
of this year.  You might think that this story would have been front-page
news in every newspaper in the world.  It wasn't.

As I have repeatedly said, the coming war in Iraq isn't about al-Qaeda. 
It's also not about weapons of mass destruction.  It's about the control of
the price of oil at the margin and placing U.S. troops in the Middle East
to keep the pipelines open.

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/north/north022703.html

If Iraq has no WMD, then the invasion should be a cakewalk.  But there is a
wild card: the willingness and the ability of Iraqis to defend themselves
from attack, house by house.

Urban warfare is no picnic if the residents are willing to die, taking an
invading soldier with them, one by one.  (Unless, of course, the invader
uses gas.)

This raises the issue of the distribution of guns in Iraq.

HITLER'S GUN CONTROL LAW OF 1938

The media's talking heads constantly cite the government's accusation that
Saddam is another Hitler.  In one crucial sense, he is nothing like Hitler.
 Nazi Germany's 1938 gun control law was signed into law on March 18, 1938.
 

The following information is posted on the Web site of Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a pro-Second Amendment organization. 
If you want to know why there are Jewish supporters of this organization,
which has been around a long time, read the following.  You may be amazed.

     Until 1943-44, the German government published
     its laws and regulations in the
     'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of
     the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by
     law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German
     government publication had gathered a lot of
     dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the
     week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of
     the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave
     Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the
     Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis.
     We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun
     control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun
     control and then perfected it: they invented
     handgun control. 

     The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on
     Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The
     1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely
     elected German government that wanted to curb
     "gang activity," violent street fights between
     Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm
     owners and their firearms had to be registered.
     Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save
     democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that
     the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed. 

     The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and
     their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in
     March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited
     registration lists to seize privately held
     firearms from persons who were not "reliable."
     Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the
     Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership
     permits or decline to renew them. 

     In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis
     enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law
     introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership
     was restricted to Nazi party members and other
     "reliable" people. 

     The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses
     involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one
     day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS)
     savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish
     businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations
     under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews
     from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives. 

The site goes on to show that the 1938 German law was, passage by passage,
copied into the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. 

     The parallels between the Nazi law and GCA '68
     will leap at you from the page. For example, law
     abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts
     and New Jersey must carry identification cards
     based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law. 

The article goes on to identify the most likely political suspect in having
copied the Nazi's code into ours.  He was a Democrat and a liberal.  His
son now holds his seat in the Senate.  Click through.  

http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

Of special interest to Jews is the extension of the gun control law, which
was signed into law on November 11, 1938.  Historians will recall the
previous evening: Kristal night, when the windows of stores owned by Jews
were smashed by the Nazis.  Highlights of the law include:

     #1  Jews (#5 of the First Regulations of the
     German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935,
     Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from
     acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and
     ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing
     weapons. Those now possessing weapons and
     ammunition are at once to turn them over to the
     local police authority. 

     #2 Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's
     possession will be forfeited to the government
     without compensation. 

http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawEnglish.htm

This story is well known within the Second Amendment movement.  It was
JPFO's Aaron Zelman who first gave wide publicity to the 1938-1968
connection.  His book translates the 1938 law and then compares it, passage
by passage, to the 1968 act.

Needless to say, liberals have not acknowledged the error of their ways in
continuing to support the 1968 Act and its subsequent modifications.  The
1938-1968 connection has been tossed down the memory hole.  But JPFO keeps
dredging it back up.  The Web now helps keep the story alive.



AN ARMED CITIZENRY

From what the U.S. media report, citizens of Baghdad are armed.  An armed
citizenry threatens American troops.  For a decade, the U.S. military has
trained to deal with urban occupation, but a real-life situation has yet to
occur.

If their city is still standing, they may defend their homes from invading
forces.  If they don't defend, then some of them may later use their guns
to shoot occupying troops.  It's one thing for Iraqis to approve of
Saddam's removal by the U.S.  It's another thing entirely to think that
they will submit to long-term occupation of their country by U.S. troops.

There is no democratic tradition in Iraq.  The peaceful succession of
elected governments is not part of Iraqi tradition.

If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, he has hidden them well.  His
son-in-law thought they had been destroyed, we now learn.  If they really
were destroyed, then casualties to U.S. troops will be imposed by defending
troops and armed citizens.

This raises the question of legitimacy.  For two centuries, the United
States has gained enormous international legitimacy as the world's beacon
of freedom. (Switzerland has freedom, but it is a closed society -- closed
to immigrants.)  This nation has been seen as defending the rights of the
oppressed.  But an invasion of a nation across the planet and without the
ability to inflict damage on this nation will be seen by a billion Muslims
and maybe an equal number of non-Muslims as an unwarranted extension of our
military power: the reversal of Woodrow Wilson's heralded right of national
self-determination.

Cooperation is not a free resource.  It is most inexpensively gained
through voluntarism.  When it must be coerced, it gets very expensive for
the coercer.  This is why all empires eventually contract or are
overthrown.

The world cooperates with us through market exchange. It also cooperates by
allowing U.S. troops inside their borders: an estimated 130 countries.  But
a pre-emptive strike against a nation that must defend itself from a
superpower will not be seen as a legitimate act.  If Saddam doesn't use WMD
against us, then the Administration will find itself removed permanently
from the high moral ground.

If Saddam doesn't use WMD, the Administration will lose face.  It will be
seen as an aggressor nation.  If there is widespread armed resistance by
Iraqi citizens, it will cost the United States more than the lives of our
troops.

At that point, international cooperation will dissipate -- not overnight,
but steadily.  People don't like bullies.  They will take steps to increase
their
ability to resist.

The Administration will soon be in Catch-22.  If our troops enjoy a
cakewalk, then the justification for going in -- Iraq's WMD -- will
evaporate.  If Iraq does use WMD (VX gas), then our troops will have a
tough time of it.  The cost of victory will be higher than in 1991.  If
citizens resist at the cost of their lives, morale will collapse in the
military.  Warriors do not gain honor by killing people who are merely
defending their homes.
     
THE PRICE TAG

How much will it cost to win in Iraq?  Lawrence Lindsey was the
Administration's senior economic advisor when he estimated $100 billion to
$200 billion.  Then he was sacked.  Career-wise men learn.  With no
evidence
presented, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget now says $50
billion to $60 billion.  Here is a NEW YORK TIMES story (Jan. 2).

     Bush Administration Official Lowers Estimate of
     Cost for War With Iraq 

     BY ELISABETH BUMILLER 

     WASHINGTON -- The administration's top budget
     official estimated Monday that the cost of a war
     with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to
     $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier
     estimates from White House officials. 

     Mitchell Daniels Jr., the director of the
     Office of Management and Budget, also said that
     there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal
     2004 budget, though he declined to specify how
     large it would be. The Bush administration is
     scheduled to present its budget to Congress on
     Feb. 3. 

     Daniels would not provide specific costs for
     either a long or a short military campaign
     against Saddam Hussein. But he said the
     administration was budgeting for both, and that
     earlier projections of $100 billion to $200
     billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence Lindsey,
     President Bush's former chief economic adviser,
     were too high. 

     Daniels' projections place the cost of an
     Iraq war in line with the 1991 Persian Gulf War,
     which cost nearly $60 billion, or about $80
     billion in current dollars. But the United States
     paid for only a small portion of that conflict,
     with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan bearing the
     brunt of the costs. This time, diplomats say,
     Americans would likely bear most of the costs. .
     . . .

     The budget director's projections Monday
     served as a corrective to figures put forth by
     Lindsey in September, when he said that a war
     with Iraq might amount to 1 percent to 2 percent
     of the gross domestic product, or $100 billion to
     $200 billion. 

     Lindsey was criticized for putting forth such
     a large number, which helped pave the way for his
     ouster earlier this month. 

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jan/01012003/nation_w/nation_w.asp

According to the most recent report from the Treasury, the Federal budget
deficit for fiscal 2003 is $97.6 for the first four months.  A year ago,
the figure was a surplus of $8.4 billion.  (AP story, Feb. 24).

The war has not yet begun.

There are lots of predictions about the de-stabilization of Arab
governments if the U.S. invades.  I don't pretend to know how accurate
these forecasts are. Some things are obvious.  Most Muslims are opposed,
and these are the people the terrorists recruit.

CONCLUSION

The stock market will not do well if there is strong resistance in Iraq. 
The voters are not prepared for a drawn-out war, which would imply civilian
resistance.  But starving out civilians by quarantining Baghdad will win
America no laurels.  It will win the undying hostility of a billion
Muslims.

Americans expect another 1991.  But the price of obtaining this will be the
Administration's loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the world -- immediately
-- and the eyes of swing voters (2004).  Another 1991 will mean that there
were no WMD.  It will mean that the war was about stealing oil and avenging
a father's decision to quit on the battlefield.

Costs somewhere between 1991's costs and the de-stabilization of the entire
region are likely.  If costs are low, the President loses legitimacy:
"No WMD after all."  If they are high, he will also lose
legitimacy: "He failed to warn us!"  He needs a Goldilocks
solution: just right.  How many dead American troops are too many?  In my
view, one.  But I'm obviously an extremist.  When it comes to the Middle
East, and also the Balkans, I concur with Bismarck's assessment of the
Balkans: "Not worth the life of one Pomeranian grenadier."



---