Check this wild article from CNN.com about trading on Saddam's futures, A contract on Saddam.
Here's the trading screen on Saddam's future, Tradesports.com.
Friday, January 17, 2003
A great article from The Mercury News on the anti-war protests tomorrow, Anti-war movement taking shape.
On A.N.S.W.E.R., the sponsors of the protests, "Many of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s lead organizers have close ties to the International Action Center, formed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and to the Workers World Party (WWP), a socialist sect whose politics often are criticized as too left, too doctrinaire, even for Bay Area liberals. Some of the WWP's more controversial positions are its support for the governments of Iraq and North Korea; its backing of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic; its claims that reports of Serbian atrocities against Muslims and Croats were overblown; and its defense as recently as 2000 of the Chinese government's deadly crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989."
On the A.N.S.W.E.R.'s anti-israeli stance, "One of the biggest divides is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While more moderate anti-war groups like the ``Win Without War'' coalition have pointedly skirted the contentious issue so as not to alienate mainstream Americans, the World Workers Party, the International Action Center and now A.N.S.W.E.R. are staunchly pro-Palestinian.
``"In the anti-war movement it's some kind of taboo thing to bring up Palestinians,'' said Richard Becker, a member of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s steering committee and a longtime member of the WWP. "But if the United States is arming Israel, that's a war. Some view Israel as a shining example of democracy in the Middle East, and they are worried that liberals will withdraw support from the anti-war movement if we criticize Israel. But we think it's possible to have big, mass actions and support the Palestinian cause at the same time."``
On A.N.S.W.E.R., the sponsors of the protests, "Many of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s lead organizers have close ties to the International Action Center, formed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and to the Workers World Party (WWP), a socialist sect whose politics often are criticized as too left, too doctrinaire, even for Bay Area liberals. Some of the WWP's more controversial positions are its support for the governments of Iraq and North Korea; its backing of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic; its claims that reports of Serbian atrocities against Muslims and Croats were overblown; and its defense as recently as 2000 of the Chinese government's deadly crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989."
On the A.N.S.W.E.R.'s anti-israeli stance, "One of the biggest divides is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While more moderate anti-war groups like the ``Win Without War'' coalition have pointedly skirted the contentious issue so as not to alienate mainstream Americans, the World Workers Party, the International Action Center and now A.N.S.W.E.R. are staunchly pro-Palestinian.
``"In the anti-war movement it's some kind of taboo thing to bring up Palestinians,'' said Richard Becker, a member of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s steering committee and a longtime member of the WWP. "But if the United States is arming Israel, that's a war. Some view Israel as a shining example of democracy in the Middle East, and they are worried that liberals will withdraw support from the anti-war movement if we criticize Israel. But we think it's possible to have big, mass actions and support the Palestinian cause at the same time."``
I listened to the Ronn Owens radio show this morning and he asked the following question, regading tomorrows anti-war protest in downtown San Francisco:
If war is not the asnwer in how to deal with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, then what is?
Owens said he hasn't seen the supporters of the anti-war protest realistically answer this question, and I haven't either. I do not want my country to engage in any war, and I certainly wasn't a supporter of the first gulf war, but until I see someone, anyone answer the question of how we're supposed to deal with Iraq with anything other than war, than I will not support the anti-war protests.
Protesting is good. Protesting is great for our country, but I wish the people who organize these protests would provide alternative answers and courses of action to whatever they're protesting. It is irresponsible and immature to protest without an alternative realistic course of action. The world of 2003, the new millenium is much too complicated to simply say no, to say I don't like what you're doing, and then not offer a better and realistic way to do things.
What's ironic to me, is the anti-war protestors aren't even talking about the situation with North Korea, which I think is much more explosive than the Iraq situation. Is it okay for the US to go to war with North Korea, but not okay to war with Iraq? North Korea has nuclear plants, they backed out of the nuclear proliferation treaty, and they've threatened the US with war? But are their anti-war protests going on about war with North Korea? NO! What gives with that?
It seems logical, doesn't it, that if you are anti-war, you should be against war with any country and not just some countries.
If war is not the asnwer in how to deal with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, then what is?
Owens said he hasn't seen the supporters of the anti-war protest realistically answer this question, and I haven't either. I do not want my country to engage in any war, and I certainly wasn't a supporter of the first gulf war, but until I see someone, anyone answer the question of how we're supposed to deal with Iraq with anything other than war, than I will not support the anti-war protests.
Protesting is good. Protesting is great for our country, but I wish the people who organize these protests would provide alternative answers and courses of action to whatever they're protesting. It is irresponsible and immature to protest without an alternative realistic course of action. The world of 2003, the new millenium is much too complicated to simply say no, to say I don't like what you're doing, and then not offer a better and realistic way to do things.
What's ironic to me, is the anti-war protestors aren't even talking about the situation with North Korea, which I think is much more explosive than the Iraq situation. Is it okay for the US to go to war with North Korea, but not okay to war with Iraq? North Korea has nuclear plants, they backed out of the nuclear proliferation treaty, and they've threatened the US with war? But are their anti-war protests going on about war with North Korea? NO! What gives with that?
It seems logical, doesn't it, that if you are anti-war, you should be against war with any country and not just some countries.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Christopher Hitchens has a new piece for the UK Mirror on Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors, Grim Truth About to Emerge in Iraq. Hitchens is my favorite grouchy Brittish intellectual. I love it when he and Chris Matthews go at it on Hard Ball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)