Subject:
|
Iraqi reconstruction funding
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:51:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
71 times
|
| |
|
|
From:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=2&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq
"The Bush administration strongly opposes using loans for the Iraqi
reconstruction request."
Why shouldn't Iraq pay for this, exactly? Take me through this logic again?
"It argues that Iraq's $200 billion debt is already more than it can handle,
Um, why would a new government not repudiate a former government's debt in this
case? It was good enough for the Soviets. An important lesson would be dealt to
banks and governments, don't loan to dictators because you might not get paid
back.
"that future oil revenues will be needed for additional public works programs,"
Is that neccesarily a good idea? What happened to the idea of giving the oil to
the people?
" and that there is no Iraqi government in place with authority to take on the
additional debt. "
Whose fault is that?
"They also say that using future oil revenues as a collateral would boost the
argument of those who claim the war was fought to gain control of Iraq's oil."
Um, why would that matter one way or the other? If it wasn't, what does it
matter what people think? If it was, how exactly does transferring money from US
taxpayers hide that fact from anyone?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Iraqi reconstruction funding
|
| (...) I like your thinking on this, Lar. I'm with you 100%. Of course, the "powers that be" might have a different view of these ideas. It makes one want to inquire as to their motives, of course. (...) What people? The future consumers of Iraq, you (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
