Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (103367)	6/29/2003 2:33:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

CB, it seems odd that the USA and others considered Saddam to be an illegal and beyond the pale regime with no legitimacy, yet the debts he incurred should be transferred to his enslaved population. So little legitimacy that he could be attacked and deposed militarily. It was he and his acolytes who incurred debts. Not Iraqis or the land or oil. The oil wasn't Saddam's property in any reasonable sense except by conquest. Now he's lost it by conquest, in the age old way. Therefore the creditors have lost it too, by conquest. They shouldn't have loaned to a conquering thug. Suppose a bunch of hill-billy thugs from up the Hudson Valley took over New York and managed to get somebody, say the USSR, or China, to lend them money, perhaps for the nefarious purpose of tightening control so that even more money could be channeled to the lender. Then, suppose NZ troops came and deposed the thugs. Would you say the New Yorkers should continue to owe the debts of the thugocracy? It is clearly unjust to impose charges against poor people who had no say, not even a ballot box vote, in the obtaining of credit or the spending of it and who obviously obtained no benefit from it. I say bad luck to creditors who loaned anything to Saddam's regime. A clean slate for a new state. Mqurice