|
|
 | | odious debts
|
| (...) I found this interesting: (URL) What are odious debts?> "If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on the money
|
| (...) I was trying to preempt objections along the lines of "that's ridiculous, Hussein didn't really say that." But you're right--my phrasing was a little unclear, and I am in fact I'm all for farce. So farce so good, I say. Dave! (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on the money
|
| Oh, and another thing, only marginally related, I deplore the ambiguity about Taiwan that seems so favored in Foggy Bottom. If I was driving I'd come out and say "Taiwan is free, you're not. They want to be independent, that's fine with us, and you (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on the money
|
| (...) You say "farce" like it's a bad thing... It's farce all right, but farce based on the truth, and that's the best (or worst, depending on whose ox is being gored) kind. Realpolitik is just a bad idea. Always was. Better to be principled even if (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on the money
|
| (...) My favorite part: Saddam was also heartened by Mr. Bush's promise that, "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq." With new attacks by and on US and other foreign occupation forces, the former strongman stated, (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
