 | | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) 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 —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | odious debts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
