| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam’s regime had a debt but what does
that have to do with Iraq?
|
Who else should pay it. When a company gets a new CEO, does its debt usually
get wiped?
|
Depends if the old CEO is responsible for bringing the company to its knees.
|
I found this interesting:
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 debt is odious for the population
of all the State. This debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a
regime’s debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently
it falls with the fall of this power.”
I expect most of the debt incurred during sanctions would have been
non-“odious”?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
