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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mcg404 who wrote (19986)	1/3/2004 9:14:41 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81972

John > Does it make sense to you? Yes. As I read it, the US government used land, which belonged to the US people, but over which it had fiduciary control, as collateral for debts which it created. In order to give the bits of land a value, presumably so that they could be used as negotiable instruments, they were given various names eg “Wilderness Reserve”, “Wetland”, “Heritage River” etc. Eventually, as I understand it, these bits of priceless land passed into the hands of the creditors, presumably for a song. And, one can believe that under the land were also mineral reserves which the creditors obtained buckshee. The whole scheme was clearly a scam for passing assets to pals at the expense of the "slaves". Thanks for showing me that debate. However, I don't agree with either of them. In my opinion, the Iraq war had nothing to do with Saddam. He was simply the pretext and if it wasn't one thing there would have been another. The principal reason was oil and geopolitical control of the region. The second reason was to satisfy the Israeli/neocon aspirations. Apropos Saddam's "crimes", it is necessary to bear in mind that the UN Security Council did not approve invasion of Iraq for whatever reason. The invasion which occurred was a unilateral and illegal act of war performed by the US/UK coalition. There can be no rationalization, as Johann Hari attempts to do, that because Saddam was "bad" the war was "good". Either one abides by the rule of law or one doesn't, and if one doesn't one is a criminal --- period. There was no legal justification for what the US/UK did. In the eyes of impartial observers, they will be seen as criminals --- but who can do anything about it anyway? Might is right.

To: mcg404 who wrote (19986)	1/3/2004 8:51:21 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81972

but am unable to follow the logic of the part below. Does it make sense to you? I think Rivero was being a bit histrionic in this charge. The U.S. sovereign debt is a backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States. This is generally assumed among financial cognescenti to mean the taxing ability of the Federal Government. I've never seen a T-Bond or T-Bill that declared that the bond holder had a direct call on any real estate within the interior of the Empire. *** The crime w/r/t "the commons" is much better described by Robert Kennedy, Jr. in this fine j'accuse! Message 19546197