 | | Bush Down Plays Need for Plan (on Deficit)
|
|
From Reuters: ((URL) ) - quote - When asked about the U.S. dollar's fall in value and market concerns about the deficit, Bush said: "We certainly need to send a signal to the capital markets that we're going to maintain spending discipline." - end (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geneva Convention
|
|
(...) Why indeed. Sorry. :-0 Scott A Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet? (2 URLs) (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Geneva Convention
|
|
(...) I don't believe it belongs in .general either. I imagine it was an honest mistake, not a deliberate attempt to stir up controversy or circumvent the topic guidelines, although I could be wrong. LUGNET doesn't enable you to just pick up a post (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) Who else should pay it. When a company gets a new CEO, does its debt usually get wiped? (...) That may be a reason for some *individuals* to appose the invasion. However, it does not explain the millions across the world who opposed the war; (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) I'm not really surprised are you. (...) Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam's regime had a debt but what does that have to do with Iraq? Of course that is the only reason certain countries opposed military action in the first place. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
|
|
(...) Let's put some fresh meat on these bones: (URL) Iraqi civilian deaths 'avoidable'> ==+== Human Rights Watch raises some serious questions about the way in which specific weapons were employed. It strongly criticises the use of cluster (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
I liked this: (URL) Scott A (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
Hmm. One would think that open competitive bids would be in the best interests of US tax payers and Iraq citizens? Heard the latest: (URL) Oil firm 'overcharged' US in Iraq> Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) Mmmmmm. I understand that these conditions (who may supply under these contracts) are in respect of the aid money being provided by the US. It would not be unheard of for donors to impose these sorts of conditions when giving money. I guess (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) This is an interesting question in the macro-sense: can the debts of a government that is overthrown be collected, especially if that government was corrupt and engaged in wholesale theft of its nation's resources? Is it comparable to a (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
