 | | Right on the money
|
|
Some will be too quick to dismiss (URL) this article> as farce, but the underlying story is worth reflection. Dave! (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) I think it still has legs! (...) Indeed the Bolsheviks and East Germany(?) did cancel their international debt (as well as nationalise industry and seize land) when they took power; being raving communists they had little sympathy for the (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) That's if the company has no assetts. Iraq has assets; I doubt the war would have happened otherwise. ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) The company/CEO analogy is a bit squiffy, we're talking about soverign nations, not corporations which presumably are a bit more constrained and tend to make contracts, not treaties. So it ought to be ditched as not very appropriate The proper (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) Depends if the old CEO is responsible for bringing the company to its knees. Often when companies go into receivership the creditors receive a miniscule portion of what is owed. But generally those creditors are not barred from helping to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
