 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Vince, I peaked back onto this before going to sleep. I just had one horrifying thought, before I get to your post. Ted and Tuomerehu, if you make defining Odious Debt part of UN sanctions, then the bastards who loaned the dictator money for the weapons (if this is the case) are more than likely going to be on the security committee. Think about it. Who supplies weapons on credit - Soviets (I don't know about Russia, I have seen indications they are largely cash and carry now, like the Israeli's), EU and the USA big time, PRC. See a problem. Great idea, but it's going to have to be some exterior body, maybe working starting off the world court.
Vince, I suspect we are looking at this from a totally different vantage point. Unless I get it wrong, alot of your arguments look at the dictator and the civilian population. I brought that up as background.
I am going for the free market solution. To borrow an analogy that I think largely works - the moves by banks in the USA to make bankruptcy laws work in their favor. The banks make credit easy to get, knowing the rules, and now want to change the rules so they don't have to actually judge someone's credit history.
I want the arms trade to get stuck in that paradigm. If you are loaning money to a dictator, let's use Saddam as an easy case, then your cash is at risk. If he gets overthrown, greedy/stupid, monstrous, or in some combo of the three, then you're going to lose your debtor. The country is not responsible for those things you loaned the dictator money for. Only permanent items still there (aka collateral - plus certain other items as in food aid) are things you still get money for, like a house in a bankrupcy.
I know the analogy is not perfect, but it suffices. Shut off the arms/money to these states, and it gives the opposition forces a chance. Without it, you just have lots of dead Kurds or Shia. That's why Davout's case won't change a thing, of course the dictator will plunder the country's national resources and pledge them for the weapons to keep him in power. No duh.
Dictators will still exist if Odious Debt becomes recognized and accepted. At least some of them won't have much more than light infranty units. Insurgents will have a chance. Please note this does not apply to Turkmen's in western China, people in that kind of situation don't have a chance, period. However, that is the exception, not the rule.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Vince, I suspect we are looking at this from a totally different vantage point. Unless I get it wrong, alot of your arguments look at the dictator and the civilian population. I brought that up as background.
I am going for the free market solution. To borrow an analogy that I think largely works - the moves by banks in the USA to make bankruptcy laws work in their favor. The banks make credit easy to get, knowing the rules, and now want to change the rules so they don't have to actually judge someone's credit history.
I want the arms trade to get stuck in that paradigm. If you are loaning money to a dictator, let's use Saddam as an easy case, then your cash is at risk. If he gets overthrown, greedy/stupid, monstrous, or in some combo of the three, then you're going to lose your debtor. The country is not responsible for those things you loaned the dictator money for. Only permanent items still there (aka collateral - plus certain other items as in food aid) are things you still get money for, like a house in a bankrupcy.
|
You're probably correct about my vantage point. I try to look at it from the point of view of the oppressed (as well as the oppressors). Looks like you are discussing it from an economic POV. The last paragraph above sounds like you are discussing an financial investment. It does make sense that anyone making a risky investment should be willing to accept the risk. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Whoha
Well Germany was forced to pay war reparations after WW1, wasn't exactly the smartest thing to have done. |
Its true that reparations were a contributing factor to what followed but they were largely forgiven by the middle 30's in part to appease Hitler and that they slowly became unenforcable. Two nations opposed to forgiveness? France and Poland.
It was a lose-lose situation. If you were in favor of forgiveness you were aiding Hitler. If you were against it you were aiding Hitler by giving him someone to blame for Germany's problems.
Forgiveness is not always the answer.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002 time: 05:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Vince278
My, aren't we in denial.
Evidence can be presented (and manufactured) to support any point of view. In any case I'm sure you'll find fault with anything that is presented that counters your argument.
(besides, how much hard evidence of such a transaction do you expect to find?)
Your quote above means nothing. Weaker accusations have stronger evidence? People who are typically losing an argument will stray from the factual discussion and resort to semantics, emotion, and rhetoric. |
You are sarcasm proof, are not you ?
There have been so many lies about France (French passports to Saddam, rockets manufactured in 2003, etc) that i think necessary for the discussion that statements about supposed misconducts be solidly supported. Once again this is not the case. May I add that would it have been the case, I believe that it would have deserved some headlines in nexspaper specialized in french bashing.
And yes, there are some newspapers able to bring to attention very nasty subjects, past or present, to the point that I sometimes believe that the French are masochists.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|