I'm looking for a guy who lives in Australia, Dean Richard's, or Richard. His Birthdate is July 7th, 1962, or 1963. We both have been involved with the same lady at the same time, who lives in Hong Kong. If you know Dean, or if you see this posting Dean, please get in touch with me asap. At uneedhug@aol.com

YOU MIGHT WANT TO TRY THIS HEALTH SUPPLEMENT – YOUR DOCTOR MAY TAKE YOU OFF OF YOUR MEDICATION. IT’S A BEVERAGE CALLED XANGO, IT’S GREAT FOR PEOPLE DEALING WITH VARIOUS ILLNESSES SUCH AS CANCER, DIABETES, CHOLESTEROL, HEART AILMENTS, HIGH BLOOD, WEIGHT, LACK OF ENERGY, ARTHRITIS AND PAIN, ALLERGIES, SKIN AILMENTS, SMOKING AND MANY, MANY MORE! IT IS A DELICIOUS BEVERAGE WITH SOMETHING CALLED THE MANGOSTEEN FRUIT (STRONG ANTIOXIDANT) AND MANY OTHER FRUITS. THEREFORE, IT WON’T INTERFERE WITH YOUR CURRENT MEDICATION. MY BROTHER HAS HEPITIS C, WHICH IS A BAD LIVER DISEASE AND IS ON HEAVY MEDICATION AND HIS DOCTOR TOLD HIM TO TRY IT BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD FOR ENERGY AND TO BOOST HIS IMMUME SYSTEM – HE’S DOING GREAT I’M HAPPY TO REPORT, AND HIS WIFE TOOK IT FOR “HOT FLASHES” AND SHE’S DOING GOOD – MY BROTHER WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE HER (HA HA). I GIVE IT TO MY DAUGHTER AS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE TO HELP PREVENT SERIOUS ILLNESSES. I WENT TO THIS WEBSITE WWW.GOMANGOSTEEN.NET/EXCELLENTCHOICE AND ORDERED A CASE BECAUSE I HAD HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT IT. MY GRANDDAUGHTER ALSO HAD GOOD RESULTS WITH HER ECEMA. WHO KNOWS, IT MIGHT HELP YOU – IT’S WORTH A TRY.

       Quitting smoking is not just an easy way to do specially you use to it doing every now and then? But if you only think the effects of frequently smoking, well I think you well Quit! There are lots of ways how to Quit Smoking! But I think this way I tell you would be best enough for you to Quit. It’s called the NOSMOQ cigarette, a special herbal cigarette made for people who wants to Quit Smoking. It’s already proven that this is the #1 Stop-Smoking Cessation Aid Cigarette. Guaranteed 0% Nicotine Free! So no worry of having nicotine again.Dont afraid to Quit! Coz it’s for your good, and I’m’ here to help you together with NOSMOQ! Good Luck and be Nicotine Free.
       For more details just refer to the information listed below:



E-mail: webmaster1@3gcare.com
                               chrisjoy_16@yahoo.com
Call # Phil.Office :+63-32-412-4084
Fax #: (Japan) : 81-3-5960-5225
Tel # (Japan) : 81-3-5960-5222
Internet phone : 0303-916-770-6031

Address: KAWAI Bldg 6F, 1-32-6, Higashi-Ikebukuro, Toshima-Ku, Tokyo, Japan 170- 0013

PM ready to send troops to Solomons
By Tom Allard, Foreign Affairs Writer Sydney Morning Herald June 26, 2003
Australian troops and police will be sent to rescue the failing state of the Solomons Islands under a new policy of active intervention in the Pacific.

The commitment depends on the consent of the Solomon Islands government.

Disarming a violent militia hiding in remote jungle is expected to be one of the prime objectives of the Australian-led peacekeeping mission. The militia is led by Harold Keke, said by some locals to be insane.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, told Parliament yesterday: "Our willingness to undertake an operation of this kind does represent a very significant change in regional policy. It is not in Australia's interests to have a number of failed states in the Pacific."

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, called it "co-operative intervention". Forces were likely to be on the ground within weeks.

He said Australians did not want to be "neo-colonialists" and local support was a pre-requisite. But there was "no point in undertaking an operation like this in a half-hearted way".

Mr Howard signalled there would be a "quite substantial" deployment of troops and police.

Since the Townsville peace agreement in 2000 that ended a civil war, the Solomons has descended into lawlessness and corruption, and is effectively bankrupt. The police force is racked by divisions, extortion attempts on senior public officials are common, and killings are a weekly occurrence.

There are fears in Australian Government ranks that transnational crimes such as money-laundering, gun-running and even terrorist financing could take root if action is not taken.

Neil James of the Australian Defence Association, a long-time advocate of Australian armed intervention in the Solomons, said: "There's an arc of instability around Australia, but it's also an arc of responsibility.

"Certainly, it will be dangerous, but our people can handle it. It would become even more dangerous if it was left to fester for a couple of more years."

The final shape of Australia's contribution to a multinational security force is yet to be determined but it will involve ADF personnel providing protection for a contingent of police from Australia, New Zealand and a handful of other Pacific nations.

Seizing weapons - Mr Keke and his followers have a large stash of them and used them to kill up to 10 people last week - will be a main objective.

Australian bureaucrats will also be inserted into the upper echelons of the Solomons' Department of Finance, other government departments and the central bank, while jurists are also likely to be sent to rebuild the justice system. Australia and other nations will also provide financial assistance.

Mr Downer would not comment on the likely cost, but the Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimated that the operation could take up to 10 years, at a cost of $85 million a year.

Solomons Islands officials said there was popular support for intervention, and Papua New Guinea has also offered its approval. A meeting of Pacific island leaders in Sydney on Monday will be used to galvanise further regional support before the Solomons' Parliament meets in two weeks to vote on the proposal.

#

Unlimited power of arrest to ASIO
By Cynthia Banham Sydney Morning Herald June 26, 2003
Australia's domestic intelligence agency, ASIO, will have aggressive new powers from today to detain for an unlimited period citizens suspected of having information about terrorist offences.

The unprecedented powers are to be granted after the ASIO bill was passed by the Senate last night, when Labor agreed to support ASIO's right to seek successive warrants to detain citizens.

Each warrant can be for seven days, allowing ASIO to hold citizens, who have committed no crime but are believed to have information, for questioning over a total of three eight-hour periods.

Journalists, religious figures, doctors or teachers who, in the course of their work, inadvertently come into contact with a person with knowledge about a terrorist offence could be caught by the new laws.

The Government agreed to minor amendments which clarified the circumstances in which multiple warrants can be sought.

To justify a new warrant, here must be new information, not known to the director-general of ASIO when he sought a previous warrant. This additional information could be obtained during questioning under the previous warrant.

There is no limit to how many warrants ASIO could get in relation to one person.

Labor's deal with the Government came after the legislation looked like stalling earlier this week, when the Greens exposed the threat of "rolling" warrants.

Labor's spokesman for home affairs, Senator John Faulkner, told Parliament last night "it was almost the last straw" when it appeared the laws allowed for a "repeated warrant" regime.

But, with the new amendments, the legislation "does not allow for rolling warrants".

However, the Greens senator Bob Brown said it had taken three days to end up where the Government had begun.

He accused the Opposition of conceding that "serial warrants can take place". The only difference was that the situation had been spelt out. "It is no less dangerous now," he said.

Labor has been keen to prevent the Government from using the debate on the ASIO laws to suggest it was soft on terrorists, as it threatened to do in December. The bill was withdrawn from Parliament after the Opposition tried to insert safeguards into the new regime.

But after extensive negotiations over the past six months, the Government agreed to include a number of changes to the bill. These include a minimum age of 16, the introduction of a sunset clause requiring the laws to be re-submitted to Parliament after three years, plus a citizen's right to see a lawyer immediately after being picked up by ASIO.

Also yesterday, the Federal Government announced that the Australian Protective Service would be given new powers over people at airports.

Its members will be empowered to ask people to give their names and addresses, and reasons for being where they are.

In circumstances where they believe people have something which could cause damage or injury, they will be empowered to frisk search the suspects, order them to take off their coats and seize "items" from them.

#

Hill offers US forces a home
By Mark Baker, Herald Correspondent in Singapore The Sydney Morning Herald June 2, 2003
Canberra is preparing for a substantial expansion in military co-operation with the United States that could result in thousands more US troops training in and transiting through Australia.

The Defence Minister, Robert Hill, said yesterday that the Government was ready to step up joint exercises with US forces, to allow the Americans to conduct their own training operations in Australia and to expand facilities for US Navy crews to be rotated through Australian ports.

Senator Hill dismissed recent speculation that Washington was preparing to ask for permission to set up bases in Australia to reposition some of its large troop deployments in Japan and South Korea.

But he said the Government was ready to be "co-operative and helpful" in providing greater access as part of a continuing review by Washington of the positioning of its forces in Asia and around the world.

Senator Hill met the US Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, at the weekend on the sidelines of a regional security conference in Singapore, but said the issue of bases had not been raised.

Mr Wolfowitz told the conference that the US military was reviewing its "worldwide footprint" to recognise advances in technology and the need for greater force mobility. But he rejected a report in the Los Angeles Times last week that plans were being drawn up to relocate troops from bases in North Asia to Australia, Singapore and Malaysia.

"Maybe somebody down at the eighth level of the bureaucracy had dreamed up the idea of moving all our resources from Okinawa to Australia, but I can assure you that's not going to happen."

Senator Hill said the Government expected that the Pentagon review would lead to a request for greater military co-operation with Australia, which already hosts key US intelligence facilities.

"They will look for increased exercises and the use of some of our facilities for exercising either jointly or it might even be some of their own exercises.

"We provide extensive facilities for Singapore, and Singapore even prepositions equipment in Australia for its own exercises. So if the Americans asked us, it would be hard for us to offer them less than what we've offered Singapore."

Senator Hill also forecast the likely expansion of a program under which US warships transit Australia to rotate their crews, who are flown in and out of the country to avoid the vessels having to return to the US.

The first so-called sea swap took place in Perth this year, with a US ship transiting from the Persian Gulf. A second is planned later in the year.

"These are the sort of ways in which we can facilitate what they call their 'transformation of military affairs' - which basically means with new capabilities you don't have to have such mass, on the ground, forward-deployed [troops]. We would seek to be co-operative and helpful," Senator Hill said.

"We see that as the way the world is going, particularly with one global superpower, but we think people have misunderstood what that means and translated into the old way, which is large, permanent bases."

He said many of the proposed US military changes were being driven by economics and the extent to which advanced weapons systems had reduced the need for large formations of troops.

"It's a different way of doing business," he said.

#

Speech on iraq War by Tanya Plibersek MHR, March 2003
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (19-03-03 1.10 p.m.) -The member for Canning spoke about what the polls are showing in terms of public support for a war on Iraq. Of course it matters what the public thinks-and we had 300,000 people march in Sydney a few weeks ago in opposition to this war-but it turns my stomach when people start talking about whether a swift war will mean a rise in support for the Prime Minister or a long war will mean a rise in support for the opposition. When we begin to measure domestic politics according to the cost of human lives, whether they are the lives of Australian soldiers, Iraqi civilians or whoever else we are talking about, it turns my stomach. It is the end of our common humanity when we start looking at the polls to decide whether we make war on another nation or not.

The member for Canning again brought up the old furphy that people who are opposed to the war are not opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein. That is not the case. We have been very clear in saying that this man is a terrible dictator. But that is not why we are going to war against him. Six months ago, the reason we were going to make war on Saddam Hussein was because of his links with al-Qaeda. We have seen no links, so we disregard that as a reason and turn to the weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors say that, with more time, they believe they could successfully disarm Iraq. So that is no longer the reason. Suddenly we turn to Saddam Hussein's human rights record-the same record he has had, incidentally, for the last 20 years; the same record he had when Britain, the United States, France, Germany, China and Russia were selling him weapons or precursors; the same record that he had when the United States helped him in the war with Iran. It is not about Saddam Hussein's human rights record. He has had this appalling record for many years.

We need to find a way to peacefully disarm this man. I agree with that. There is no question about that from this side. What we say is that this is not the way to do it. The precedent that this sets in international relations is appalling. When we say that a country-whether it be the US or any other country-can pre-emptively attack because it believes it may be threatened, what message does that send to countries around the world? What message does it send to China about its relations with Taiwan? What message does it send to India about its relations with Pakistan? Why are their fears any less justified than the United States' fears of Iraq? In fact, in a situation like that of Pakistan and India, where you have two countries next door to each other with nuclear weapons pointed at each other, perhaps the threat is a more imminent threat and, perhaps, using this logic, they have much more justification for invasion. We set a terrible precedent when we say it is okay to invade because we fear our neighbours.

Who could have believed that the international coalition that was built to end terrorism could have been squandered so quickly? The international community was prepared to work together to combat terrorism, and George W. Bush has ended that preparedness to work together. He has ended the ability of the international community to work cooperatively for peace because he was not interested in cooperative work for peace.

I support disarmament. Many people in this chamber have campaigned long and hard for disarmament, and not just for the disarmament of Iraq. There are many countries that have weapons of mass destruction and I fear the possibility that they will use them in the future, but I do not see that invading Iraq will help at all with the disarmament of these countries. In fact such action may make these countries more likely not only to hang onto their weapons but also to feel that a weapons of mass destruction program is necessary for their own defence against their neighbours, particularly given this precedent of pre-emption that we are talking about. The US is going to use weapons in Iraq-like cluster bombs-that Australia has signed international conventions against and that we do not support the use of. So one of our two allies is going to use weapons that we believe should not be used in international conflict. How will our support help them use those weapons? How will having our ships refuelling their fighter planes help them drop cluster bombs on the Iraqi civilian population?

I think we have a serious moral issue before us when we start talking about disarmament as well. The weapons inspectors have asked for a few extra months. I cannot understand how this Prime Minister can be so keen to go to war so quickly and rush headlong into this terrible conflict. We are now calculating the cost. What a tragic situation we have before us. I think it is inevitable that we will lose Australian soldiers. My heart goes out to Australian soldiers and their families. I imagine the families at home now worrying about whether their sons, daughters, husbands or wives will come home from this conflict. Of course it is not just our troops, the American troops or the British ships that we care for; it is the Iraqi civilians. I have heard estimates as high as 260,000 possible deaths in Iraq from bombing, starvation and the typhoid that will break out when the water system and the sewerage system are destroyed and raw sewage flows into the water sources. We are talking about an enormously high death toll.

The government says that Saddam Hussein is responsible for a lot of civilian deaths and therefore must be stopped. He is responsible for a lot of civilian deaths; no one is attempting to defend his record, but how can we allow ourselves to become responsible for more deaths of the Iraqi civilians we are claiming we wish to defend? The logic that Saddam Hussein is killing people so we are going to save them by killing more of them is beyond me. What else can we do? People say there is no alternative, but there is. The weapons inspectors have asked for more time. As a start, we could give the weapons inspectors more time.

These people who are so keen to put all their muscle into going to war could instead put some of that muscle and money into international solutions. The United States is talking about spending $88 billion on this conflict; Australia will spend about $1 billion on this conflict. How about instead we spend $1 billion building up the Iraqi civilian population? How about instead we spend some of that money making their lives a little easier? We could spend that money in so many better ways. Dwight Eisenhower said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

If we are talking about a genuine concern for the Iraqi civilian population, I can think of so many better ways of spending $1 billion. We could spend it internationally, and not just on the reconstruction of Iraq. For example, we could spend it on feeding the one million people in the Central African Republic who are about to die of starvation. In September last year, the United Nations tried to take up a collection to help these people on the brink of starvation in the Central African Republic. Do you know how much Australia committed to that? Not one single cent. Do you know how much has been committed by the international community? Not one single cent. How much has Australia committed to supporting the UNHCR in their efforts to prepare for the inevitable flow of refugees from any Iraqi conflict? Not one single cent.

We have committed $800 million to waging war on Iraq. We have committed $10 million dollars to some postwar reconstruction-we have not paid any of that money yet-but when asked for money to help prepare for the inevitable flow of refugees from this conflict we have given not one single cent. We are prepared to say that we have a concern for the Iraqi population, but I have seen no evidence of that. I see no evidence of that in the way that we treat Iraqi refugees who come to Australia and I see no evidence of that in what we are prepared to do to support Iraqis in their homeland. I would like to see a real commitment to peace from this government. Instead of being prepared to make war on the population of Iraq, I would like to see the Prime Minister support international efforts to bring peace to Iraq.

#

Mean spirits betray a good cause
By Mike Seccombe, March 27 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald
Judi Moylan is a WA Liberal backbencher of good heart, more concerned with outcomes than ambition. She is the Howard Government's $7.5 million woman.

Last week she effectively traded her support for the Government's involvement in the Iraq war for extra funding for humanitarian relief.

Moylan displeased the warrior government last month by calling for United Nations weapons inspectors to be given more time to pursue a "non-violent" settlement in Iraq.

"I would favour containment," she said on February 17. "My preference could be to see a United Nations [military] team go in with the weapons inspectors."

Yet in the subsequent debate on Australia's war commitment, she did not break ranks by speaking against the war.

She did something more practical. Moylan went to aid agencies, seeking their views on what humanitarian assistance Australia could offer. Then, with the support of a few good colleagues, she lobbied.

In the subtextual way of politics, the mean men of government were made to realise these moderates would be less likely to speak out of turn if the money was forthcoming.

It worked. Last Friday Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told question time the Government would add $7.5 million to the meagre $10 million promised for humanitarian relief.

"The member from Pearce, has been ... assiduous in ensuring the Government addresses humanitarian relief in Iraq," he gushed.

And she has. But her government betrays her, as events yesterday showed.

When Opposition Leader Simon Crean asked the Prime Minister about Australia's aid commitment, Howard boasted the Government had also donated 100,000 tonnes of wheat, worth $40 million plus.

However, this really is aid to Australian farmers, not to Iraq. The wheat was on its way there, as part of the food-for-oil program, when the war started.

Then Immigration Minister Phil Ruddock was asked by his opposite number, Julia Gillard, to confirm the Government had halved its annual contribution to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Ruddock dodged, but the figures are in the budget papers. Funding was cut from $14 million to $7 million.

Which, means all Moylan's work achieved is a net $500,000.

#

Howard Risks War Crimes Charges
Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats
March 20, 2003

The Australian Democrats today called for Prime Minister John Howard to guarantee Australian troops would not be involved in any action by the allied forces against Iraq that breached international humanitarian law. Democrats leader Senator Andrew Bartlett said by following the US to war, Mr Howard could face prosecution in the International Criminal Court for the actions of any allied forces, including the US military, involved in the slaughter of civilians.

"This Government has followed the US into this illegal and immoral war against the wishes of the Australian Parliament and the Australian people. " Mr Howard is now so tied to the US, and has not had the gumption to insist US President George Bush comply with our accepted rules of engagement, that he must face the consequences of the actions of the combined forces," Senator Bartlett said.

"Mr Howard must be aware he risks investigation and prosecution for his complicity in any war crimes committed in the action against Iraq." Senator Bartlett said the Australian Democrats fully supported Australia's troops.

"Our own troops should not be vulnerable to the ramifications of US military actions. Australian troops deserve our full support," Senator Bartlett said.

"It is this Government, Mr Howard and his Cabinet that have made the abhorrent decision to commit them to this aggressive action." Senator Bartlett said the Democrats shared the concerns of a broad range of church, humanitarian, civil liberties, union and community organisations that the US led attack on Iraq may involve committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Senator Bartlett said the Democrats supported the Victorian Peace Network affiliates and committee of international law expert's investigations into the Howard Government's actions.

#

Anthrax jabs mutiny widens amid fears of cancer, sterility

By Craig Skehan in the Sydney Morning Herald

February 13 2003
 
The anthrax rebellion in the armed forces has widened, with another eight sailors en route to or already in the Persian Gulf refusing inoculations - bringing the total to 11.

The protests have been prompted by fears of serious health problems despite assurances from the Federal Government.

The Australian Defence Force confirmed yesterday that the eight were being sent back to Australia. Three sailors on HMAS Kanimbla who earlier refused the protective jabs are already back in the country.

Dozens of other Australian personnel have expressed serious concerns, fuelled by internet reports linking the anthrax vaccine to sterility in men and serious diseases like cancer.

There have been documented cases of major allergic reactions experienced by about one in 100,000 people being vaccinated. Other serious short-term results have also shown up among a very small proportion of the millions inoculated worldwide.

Claims of other, longer-term dangers have not been established, with some experts arguing that there is not enough evidence.

Rumours are circulating among service personnel that at least one Defence Force member has had a serious adverse reaction, but the force has denied this.

An anti-vaccination group, the Australian Vaccination Network, claimed yesterday that a Defence Department official had said privately that the affected person had been on board HMAS Darwin.

The Defence Minister, Robert Hill, maintained yesterday that there was no danger. "There have been some service personnel that have been reluctant to be vaccinated, which I don't quite understand because I am advised that it's a perfectly safe vaccination," he told ABC Radio.

About 2000 Defence Force personnel are being sent to the Gulf, and all must have an anthrax inoculation to serve in the area.

In the United States, there has been a campaign against the compulsory vaccination of military personnel. More than half of the 16,000 British forces being sent to the Gulf have refused the anthrax vaccine.

One of the three sailors sent home from the Kanimbla, Able Seaman Simon Bond, said there had been threats to the careers of those refusing, even though the vaccinations were supposed to be voluntary.

"All my mates are still on board the Kanimbla and they've still got concerns about this and there's nothing they can do about it," he said. "They've definitely created a morale issue. No one was happy about it."

The Defence Force chief, General Peter Cosgrove, denied at a Senate estimates committee hearing yesterday that there had been unfair pressure on service personnel. He did not want to discuss the numbers of those resisting because continuing "sympathetic discussion" was reducing the level of concern.

The Defence Force has acknowledged that originally 25 sailors on the Kanimbla objected to receiving the vaccine. Senior officers said yesterday that the inoculations did not begin until February 5, when the ship was already en route, because medical personnel had been waiting for educational material.

But the Opposition's spokesman on defence, Senator Chris Evans, last night criticised the delay, saying: "This increased risks faced by those on the Kanimbla. As a result those on board could not make the decision with the support of family and friends.

"Labor is very concerned about reports that sailors were subjected to pressure to take the vaccine."

#

Anguish as nation says goodbye

Sydney Morning Herald, January 24 2003

Australians have always been ready to fight, but most believe now is not the time, Tony Stephens writes

The word "farewell" rarely carries such powerful and poignant meaning as when young people leave for a war. Feelings ran deep yesterday, as young Australians were farewelled on their way to what looks like being another war.

Down by peaceful Sydney Harbour, at the quaintly named naval base Garden Island, the Prime Minister joined friends and relatives to farewell 350 navy and army personnel on their way to the Persian Gulf in the support ship HMAS Kanimbla. Today, 150 Special Air Service troops will be farewelled from their base in Perth.

The problem yesterday, and in the days to come, is that while all Australians wish these representatives of their nation well, most Australians believe they should not be going, at least not without United Nations approval. While everyone believes these young men and women would do a good job, nearly everyone hopes there will be no job to be done.

"You go with the united good wishes and prayers of all Australians," Mr Howard told those aboard HMAS Kanimbla. And so they do, although the coming days will test the faith of those who believe in the power of prayer. Non-believers may adopt Gandhi's view that prayer is not so much a request as "a longing of the soul".

Elsewhere during the day Mr Howard put a case for sending the defence personnel now rather than later - it would help keep the pressure on Iraq and enable troops to acclimatise and ready themselves for any possible military operations.

The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, reflected the nation's dilemma. He bade those sailing away a fond farewell but told them they should not be going without UN backing. He said later: "There are only three countries out of a United Nations of 191 that are involved in forward deployment. Australia is one of them and it shouldn't be."

The Premier, Bob Carr, also opposed Australian involvement without UN backing, adding: "Whatever debate there is in this country about the war, there's no doubt about our support for them as Australians are thrown into all the possibilities that war presents."

Anti-war protesters who converged at Garden Island urged Mr Howard to go to war himself. The Australian Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the Prime Minister knew he did not have the support of Parliament or the people.

Australia has a long history of going to war or, as we say now, going to keep the peace. A crimson thread links the men of Gallipoli to the peacekeeping force of East Timor, and now the men and women on the Kanimbla.

The land wars between Maoris and white settlers attracted 1475 volunteers from NSW in 1863. The NSW Government sent 750 to the Sudan in 1885, when a Herald editorial noted: "Talk as we may of the blessings of peace, there is nothing that half the world like better than a fight of one sort or another."

A colonial contingent sailed to the Boxer Rebellion, although the siege of Peking ended before they arrived. Soon after, Australians died fighting to help the British keep control over the freedom-seeking Boers.

Many more Australians died in the struggle between European empires known as World War I. World War II came to Australia's doorstep. Korea followed a few years later, and Malaysia and Vietnam and the Gulf and Afghanistan.

Australia's involvement in most of these wars seemed like a good idea at the time. Many don't look such good ideas today.

Probably none has had such little public support as this one, even if a war is finally demonstrated to be necessary.

#

Edited by author 01-24-2003 03:19 PM
Not since Calwell has Labor risked such a speech

By Tom Allard and Kelly Burke

Sydney Morning Herald, January 24 2003

In an unprecedented act for an Australian opposition leader, Simon Crean yesterday stood before 350 troops heading for the Persian Gulf and told them bluntly: "I don't believe that you should be going."

No leader since Arthur Calwell during the Vietnam War has openly opposed a military deployment and none has ever said so to the departing troops. Mr Crean's speech was hailed by Labor strategists as brave and coherent, but condemned by the Government as inappropriate. But Mr Crean said many families had approached him after his speech at Sydney's Garden Island, "saying to me that they were exactly the words they wanted expressed".

"I don't support the deployment of our troops in these
circumstances. I do support our troops and always will, and that distinction is fundamentally important," Mr Crean told the troops on the HMAS Kanimbla.

"The men and women of our fighting forces in a democracy are expected unquestionably to follow to accept the orders of the government of the day.

"You don't have a choice and my argument is with the Government, not you."

Mr Crean then gave a detailed account of Labor's policy position on a conflict in Iraq, saying the United Nations weapons inspectors should be allowed to complete their work before the military is mobilised.

The crew on HMAS Kanimbla appeared unperturbed by the Labor leader's comments.

"He still said he supports us, that's what matters," said Leading Seaman Cathy Pascoe.

Able Seaman Matthew Discombe, facing his first deployment, said he respected Mr Crean's position. "I thought he was honest, I thought what he said was pretty much to the point ... but I believe we should be going, for sure. It's a problem that needs to be dealt with and I believe Australians should be in there doing our part."

But Able Seaman Brooke Vogler appeared more guarded.

"I've got my personal opinion, but it's not up to me," she said.

"I'm here to do my job."

According to a Labor source, there was some debate within the party hierachy over whether Mr Crean should turn up to the farewell and what he would say.

Labor Left figures - some of whom oppose a war against Iraq under any circumstances - are understood to have urged him not to attend.

While Labor may end up supporting the troop deployment if a military action is launched under the auspices of the United Nations, Mr Crean's speech highlighted the deep divisions in the community about the deployment.

Australia's official Vietnam War historian, the Australian Defence Force Academy's Professor Peter Edwards, said there were some comparisons to the Vietnam conflict.

Calwell opposed sending the 1st Battalion to Vietnam in 1965, telling Parliament that Australia would regret it. But, unlike Mr Crean, Calwell was very much going against the public mood. He fought the 1966 campaign on the issue and was thrashed by Harold Holt.

It was not until 1969 that public opinion swung against the Vietnam War, Professor Edwards said.

#

The following nine points were adopted unanimously on January 17, 2003 by the AEU Federal Conference meeting in Adelaide. A media release was also posted on the Australian Education Union website http://www.aeufederal.org.au:

No War

The AEU Resolves:

1. That as an attack on Iraq will cause widespread death and destruction, increase insecurity and poverty in the world and threaten a wider conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere, including the South-East Asian region, the AEU is opposed to war against Iraq. Attacking Iraq to achieve "regime-change" is not only illegal but is likely to be counter-productive and lead to the strengthening of the repressive apparatus of Iraqi government. Joining an attack simply because the US wants Australian support is inadequate justification and has led to tragedy in the past.

2. Recourse to war is never justified before all non-violent solutions have been pursued. History is replete with examples of politicians committing other people's children to certain death, trauma and injury in war. The process of UN inspections and deliberations should not be pressured by US bullying of Security Council members into premature decisions. Neither should an Australian decision be pre-empted by a manipulated crisis created by the presence of huge US and British forces in the Gulf.

3. In view of US, British and Australian attempts to pre-empt UN processes, the Australian vessels currently enforcing the blockade on Iraq should be withdrawn immediately so as avoid any implication that Australian forces are in any way involved in a manipulated pre-emptive strike. A similar position should apply to Australian elements serving in US and British units. The blockade continues to inflict misery on innocent people in Iraq, and so should be lifted immediately. Further the bombing within the "no-fly" zones must cease.

4. The Australian parliament must have the opportunity to consult and debate the question of any military commitment prior to any decision. At that time those opposed to a military commitment by Australia will have the opportunity to assess any facts which the government or any other parties bring forward and to put their views before the community and the parliament.

5. That Education International be advised of the views of the AEU on the threat of war in the Middle East and be asked for its support in a campaign to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

6. The AEU commends those Australian political parties and individuals who have unequivocally opposed an attack on Iraq including the Greens and Democrats and many ALP figures including Carmen Lawrence and Laurie Brereton.

7. The AEU endorses the call of the ACTU for the rights of all to work and live in an environment free of harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, religion or culture and to work to increase the understanding of the international situation amongst its members.

8. The AEU will participate in and work to build the widest coalition of anti-war forces ever seen in Australian society such that the rush to war in Iraq by the Coalition Government will be rejected overwhelmingly by the Australian community and will mark the Coalition forever as unfit to govern Australia and lead to its removal at the next Federal election.

9. If the Howard Government commits Australia to an unjustified war, the AEU urges the people of Australia not to support or co-operate with the war effort in any way.

------------------------------------------------------------------
The following 13 points were endorsed by the AEU Federal Executive and provided to delegates at the AEU Federal Conference as background to making the above decision.


The Howard Government Threatens Our Security

Whereas:

1. It is a primary duty of government to create peace and security for citizens in domestic and international relations.

2. The terrorist attacks of October 12 2002 in Bali and September 11 2001 on the US can only be condemned and have profound implications for ordinary citizens to a peaceful existence in all countries. Contrary to the Fukuyama prophesy of unending Western moral and economic dominance following the Cold War, the West faces growing criticism of and resistance to global inequality and exploitation which provides a basis for the growth of military conflict and terrorism, unjustifiable as it may be.

3. Australia's security interests are not best achieved by servile responses to US policies when Australia's relations with our region are the worst they have ever been and face a rising tide of hostility in some large neighbouring nations and severe internal crises in others. Australia's security is best achieved by building strong regional alliances through mutual development programs and independent defence and mutual security arrangements which are not tied to the US military apparatus given its current aggressive posture.

4. Instead of acting to understand and address these issues, the Howard government has used the Bali tragedy to promote militarism and xenophobia rather than social and international security. The Bush, Blair and Howard governments have reacted in a superficial and reckless manner to terrorism by seeking to scapegoat nations like Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba and Iraq and to pursue aggressive US geo-political ambitions, notably the oil reserves of Iraq. In so doing they have created greater insecurity and the potential for increased risks to their own citizens.

5. The means of addressing global conflicts should lie primarily through the agency of the United Nations and there should be an emphasis on achieving peaceful resolution through a range of means including sanctions and the separation of warring parties through peacekeeping forces. These should be applied consistently to all countries where conflict and breaches of conventions exist, not just to those where the West's self interest is involved.

6. International Law and UN Conventions provide a means whereby military action can be taken by states where and a real and present danger exists to their security or where their borders have been violated. No such danger has been demonstrated by any nation in relation to Iraq. The removal of weapons of mass destruction cannot be achieved on the basis of rich countries having them and poor countries not...a comprehensive multilateral disarmament plan is required under the auspices of the UN.

7. The Iraqi government headed by Saddam Hussein is a militarised authoritarian regime which has a shocking record of abuses of human rights including the execution of trade union leaders and political opponents. Despite the profound repugnance of the regime in Iraq to those concerned with human and labour rights, there has been no link even alleged with the terrorist attacks on the West and no proof found of the existence of a threat to other states in the Middle East or anywhere else, despite an intensive UN inspection regime being allowed to search the country.

8. Israel under the Sharon Government is guilty of persistent defiance of UN resolutions, state-sponsored terrorism and the admitted existence of unmonitored weapons of mass destruction. This behaviour has not led to any question of "regime- change" in that country from the Bush, Blair or Howard governments, raising questions as to the real motives of these governments in advocating military action against Iraq. The British Government has even admitted that war against Iraq is required in part to secure its oil and gas requirements.

9. Meetings have been reported between the Bush and Howard governments to have secured commitments about the forces Australia would commit to war on Iraq regardless of UN processes. If this is so, these decisions are illegal in international law and fail any test of democratic process given that adequate time has been available to submit the question to parliament. The timing of war has reportedly been set on the basis of military exigencies and domestic US politics. Such timing would attempt to pre-empt the Australian parliament in order to lock the ALP Opposition into supporting a commitment once announced.

10. Commentators such as the Pentagon Papers' publisher Daniel Ellsberg have suggested on the basis of military leaks that a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" replica is being prepared whereby it is alleged that US troops are under attack or at risk from Iraqi missiles and WMDs to justify rapid unilateral action without UN mandate. Such a scenario could not be concocted without the military build up currently underway in the Gulf.

11. Any attack on Iraq will cost the lives of thousands of Iraqi citizens including innocent children and will divert scarce resources in both Iraq and the attacking countries from dealing with the true sources of terrorism and war through addressing social security and services such as health and education.

12. Leading military figures and veterans' organisations in Australia have opposed a commitment of Australian forces to Iraq including General Gration who headed the Gulf War contingent, Major-General Stretton, the Returned Services League and Vietnam Veteran's Associations as well as conservative political figures such as Malcolm Fraser.

13. The US and Britain stand condemned for hypocrisy when it is known that they were leading suppliers of weapons to Iraq in the 1980s for use against Iran. US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, a leading Bush Administration hawk, personally met Saddam Hussein in 1983 to negotiate loans for the purchase of US weapons including supplies of anthrax and bubonic plague from US chemical firms, when at that time Rumsfeld was a pharmaceutical company executive.

#

Force for Iraq bigger than one sent to Afghanistan

By Tom Allard

Sydney Morning Herald, January 23, 2003

Australia's troop deployment to Iraq, known as Operation Bastille, will be bigger than that sent to Afghanistan and freer to act independently.

The Federal Government has added a range of support personnel and equipment to back the SAS troops.

The RAAF, which played only a marginal role in Afghanistan, has also succeeded in getting more of its personnel involved through the planned deployment of a squadron of 14 F/A 18 aircraft.

They will be part of the initial air campaign that will pave the way for more than 100,000 combat troops to head for Baghdad and secure control of the country.

It would be the first time since the Vietnam War that Australian fighter jets have performed such a role.

The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, said yesterday pressure on Australia's allies meant there was a preference for Australian support capabilities.

Rather than United States troop-carriers dropping off SAS soldiers, the task will be undertaken by three Chinook helicopters, normally based in Townsville, and a C-130 Hercules.

A contingent of several dozen "quick reaction" commandos from Holsworthy's 4RAR regiment will be on hand to respond if they get into trouble. If they find weapons of mass destruction or come under chemical or biological weapon attack, elements from the Incident Response Regiment will be available to assist.

"The deployment suggests that we will be going in more as a self-contained unit," said a defence analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Aldo Borgu. "The US doesn't like forces to arrive who are totally dependent on them, so that's obviously been taken into account."

The deployment gives Australia's military the opportunity to test manpower and equipment as if it were fighting on its own.

Australia will have its own command centre, probably on board HMAS Kanimbla, although the senior commander will probably be stationed with the US commander, General Tommy Franks.

The chief Australian commander will be able to communicate with HMAS Kanimbla on the overall campaign strategy but the other staff at Australian command will issue the detailed orders to troops, analysts said.

#

Australian troops on rocky war path

By Tom Allard Defence Writer

Sydney Morning Herald, January 23, 2003

Australian troops today begin heading for the Persian Gulf as divisions at home and in the United Nations widen over the US push to launch a military strike on Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not quickly prove he has disarmed.

The unprecedented split in public opinion comes as protesters vowed to disrupt this morning's farewell ceremony for the HMAS Kanimbla, hosted by the Prime Minister, John Howard, at Sydney's Garden Island naval dockyard.

The transport ship, likely to double as the site of Australia's military command, is the first of a series of deployments of about 2000 personnel that will build to a military contribution substantially larger than that sent to Afghanistan.

A squadron of SAS troops, F/A-18 aircraft, Chinook helicopters, a Hercules plane, several dozen commandos, a navy diving team and Incident Response Regiment personnel with expertise in chemical and biological warfare are also slated to head to the Gulf.

They will join about 200,000 US and British troops already in the Gulf or en route. Two Australian P3-C Orion reconnaissance planes and two navy frigates are already in the Gulf region, helping enforce UN sanctions and protecting ships from terrorist attack. They will be deployed in any Iraq conflict.

The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, said the decision to send troops before a UN resolution on a war against Iraq was "for the safety of the forces, for them to be able to guarantee their professional best".

"We believe that they are entitled to a period within the region to acclimatise, to work with coalition allies," he said.

He said the deployment would put pressure on Saddam Hussein to voluntarily disarm.

Senator Hill stressed that he hoped the UN process would succeed and that the Government had not made a decision to participate in an attack on Iraq.

Nevertheless, he said it was a "reasonable inference" that if a military campaign eventuated, the Australian troops there would inevitably take part.

The comment highlights the Government's preparedness to back military action without the endorsement of the UN.

The prospect that the UN Security Council won't back armed intervention in the near term is rising after France and China called for weapons inspectors to be given more time. Both have the power to veto any Security Council decision on war.

A Herald poll last week found just 6 per cent of Australians supported involvement in a strike on Iraq without UN endorsement.

Opposition parties condemned the deployment, although they were anxious to say the 2000 personnel heading to the Gulf left with their best wishes.

"Australia should not be making any commitment in relation to the Iraq war unless authorised by the United Nations," Opposition Leader Simon Crean said. "John Howard should be listening to what the Australian people want, not just what George Bush wants."

The UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, will deliver his final report on Iraq on Monday.

NSW Greens senator, Kerry Nettle, who is organising the "peace protest" in Sydney today, said: "It's simply not the job of the Australian Defence Force to fight US oil wars."

#

PM talks tough as troops go

By Marian Wilkinson in Washington and Tom Allard in Canberra

Sydney Morning Herald, January 23, 2003

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has joined the United States in condemning Iraq's lack of co-operation with weapons inspectors as Washington warned that its diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein were "just about exhausted".

Mr Howard also refused to endorse giving the inspectors "as much time as they want" to look for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, putting him at odds with European allies of the US who argue for inspections to continue until at least March.

Responding to written questions from the Herald, he said: "The Government believes that the inspectors should have an appropriate amount of time in all of the circumstances, including Iraq's long and persistent track record of non-compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

"The Government does not believe [Saddam] is adequately co-operating."

Mr Howard said he "wishes to see the United Nations process deliver a positive outcome" but declined to rule out Australian troops participating in a strike on Iraq without UN endorsement, calling this "hypothetical".

His comments came as Australia became the first country apart from the US and Britain to begin deploying troops to the Gulf, with the departure from Sydney today of the transport vessel HMAS Kanimbla.

They also coincided with a strategy by President Bush and his senior officials to methodically set out a case for an early military strike against Iraq.

In a countdown to the state of the union address next Tuesday (Sydney time), the Administration is laying the groundwork with a series of major speeches.

Mr Bush, responding to the French Government's attempts to forestall war, repeated his threat that "time is running out for Saddam Hussein".

Overriding claims by the French and German foreign ministers that the Iraqi leader is being contained by the inspections, he told reporters: "It is clear to me now that he is not disarming, and surely our friends have learnt lessons from the past."

In what appeared to be a test of France's opposition to war, Mr Bush said the US would lead a "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. Australia is expected to join that campaign.

In response, France said it would ask the European Union to support its opposition to the war. The French indicated this week they would veto any Security Council resolution that called for war on Iraq in the immediate future.

As the troop build-up in the Gulf continued, the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said Mr Bush had no plans to declare war in his state of the union address to Congress. Other officials said it was unlikely that he would make such a decision before the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, visits Washington on January 31.

The drive for public support began on Tuesday with release of a State Department document, Apparatus of Lies, detailing its allegations against Saddam, whom it accuses of propagating a "brutal record of deceit".

The Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, told the US Institute of Peace on Tuesday there were "thousands and thousands of weapons" in Iraq not mentioned in Baghdad's December declaration. He repeated the White House mantra that "time is running out" and underscored the likelihood that the inspections will end with military action.

It was "very dangerous wishful thinking" to believe that Saddam would comply with UN demands for a full accounting of his weapons of mass destruction.

The Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, is scheduled to give a similar speech, emphasising the high UN standards for disarmament, and how far short Saddam has fallen.

#