Main Point (for those short on time):
The Howard government's linking of the Iraq war with oil has confirmed arguments against gun control laws.
A primary argument against gun control laws is that they become increasingly onerous in size and restriction. In examples such as the UK this manifested in virtually complete confiscation of private property and the freedom of personal choice.
The twisting of truth used to hide the gradual steps to our current Iraq involvement is exactly the same strategy being implemented with gun control.
Expanding on this point:
If you are in favour of gun control then the following will hopefully give you an insight into the unease I experience when I discuss gun laws with you.
My concern over what will happen to my private property (guns in this case) and my freedoms is vividly demonstrated by standing back and looking at how our country has been led to our current situation in Iraq.
Anther war in Iraq was looking likely before 911, however it serves as a useful memory post for most people. To the best of my recollection, the events and what we were told went as follows:
1) 911 occurs and many westerners are understandably fearful and confused. We are told that the perpetrators will be hunted down and caught.
2) Bush's government starts mentioning Hussein's Iraq and 911 in the same speeches and media releases. Iraq had *nothing* to do with 911. People start getting stirred up over Iraq and begin to link Hussein with 911.
3) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are announced. Colin Powell presents "evidence" to the UN and media outlets sensationally parrot this new threat from Iraq. We are told that Australia can confirm the intelligence and that we need to start worrying about the potential threat of Iraq.
4) Bush decides to invade Iraq. As an ally of the US, Australia commits to this action. We are told that it will be a short action to destroy WMDs and remove Hussein. We are assured repeatedly that it is not about oil and that we will only need to commit troops for a short period of time.
5) Iraq is invaded. No WMDs are found and Hussein is eventually removed. We are now told that we need to remain in Iraq for just a bit longer to help foster democracy and support the Iraqi people. We are told that it will cost a bit more than originally expected and that we may need to stay longer for the good of regional security.
6) Iraq is now described as a breeding ground for terrorism and a front line for Al-Qaeda. Despite Bush's announcements of "Mission Accomplished" we begin increasing the number of troops and finances to continue the war in Iraq.
7) US, Australian and UK military leaders admit that troops in Iraq will be needed for up to 10 years. We are told that the war is now required to fight terrorism in the region and protect the Iraqi people.
8) Howard's government now confirms that protection of oil interests is a reason for being in Iraq and that our troops will be required indefinitely.
In 8 (very broad) steps you can clearly see how our Australian government has taken us from a short term, relatively low cost war to eliminate WMDs to a costly, indefinite war to secure our oil interests.
This is *exactly* the same gradual steps of deception that are being used with gun control laws. Bit by bit they are made more oppressive and controlling.
Gun law supporters, when I argue with you I am doing so with the knowledge of where your laws will lead us. Don't expect me to believe that at some point in time the laws will not be taken to the level that they have in the UK. To assert otherwise is tantamount to a lie.
The same system of people (regardless of political orientation) that lie to and cheat the very people they are supposedly meant to serve, are the same people that you unfathomably trust to create the laws you want.
Forget the millions (billions in the US) of dollars that have been spent on the Iraq war. Forget the tens of thousands of people who have died in the Iraq war. Forget the lies and deception surrounding this war.
Forget all this and simply consider this: How can you support "leaders" that have no integrity?