 | | Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(URL) is very simple. Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. And, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that. And that is what the US taxpayers expect," Surprise, surprise, the invasion was more about (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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: 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
