 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So in other words, the US, as the invading and occupying party, should have first call on Iraq's oil revenues, and other countries with pre-existing commercial obligations can go hang, as can the Kuwaitis, who were invaded and plundered 12 years before?
If the Iraqis are paying their foreign debt, then obviously, we are not. And if we, as an occupying power, are contracting reconstruction to American and American-favored countries, then we get to pay for it. Don't like it? Then don't do it and get out. Simple, really. After we fix, at our cost, what infrastructure, etc. we destroyed, pursuant to our obligations as an occupying power. If it's expensive, then maybe the American people will think twice before jacking off to the notion of invading other countries. |
We caused very little damage. Further, we have no legal obligation to pay for its reconstruction. All we have an obligation to do is maintain order, provide food other essentials and provide for a new Iraqi government in due course.
We could, suspect, let Iraq lie in ruins as did the USSR when it occuppied Germany. But instead we are going forward with reconstruction out of our own pocketbook until a new Iraqi government is formed. At that time, they will take charge of reconstruction.
But, how are they going to pay for it? They simply cannot place a contract with a French firm and order the US to pay for it, can they? No, they have to pay for it themselves.
So, if all the oil money is gone to pay France, Russian, and Germany - the unholy alliance - and to pay Kuwait and Iran, there will be no money for reconstruction.
Now, this is where I think we get stuck. We are so f*cking kind and generous as a nation that I think we will pick up the tab for the French reconstruction contract.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
Might not be a bad idea to limit investing in dictator-led bananalands. It is a form of moral hazard. Yes, this could get misused for trivial changes in government. But the current situation gets misused by sweetheart deals (with kickbacks and the like) with dictators.
I don't think there is an easy answer. It is not a trivial or settled issue. It has been discussed since the 1898 war, when we argued against Cuba having to honor certain debts. There was born the concept of "odious debt". I'm not really arguing a position so much as raising a flag to say that this is not a settled issue.
Also, the terms of the debt do not prevent Iraq from selling oil regardless. They are not in recievership. (no state ever is.) So the attempt to hold them over the barrel in terms of current sales allowance versus debt satisfaction can be resisted.
Last edited by TCO on 26-04-2003 at 01:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
States have the right to nationalize, they simply have to pay people something for the seazure close to amrket value at the time. And who is talking about recivership? The new Iraqi government will work out the schedule of payments when they are back in power. Simple enough.
But as I said ealier, if you want to change the way the world does business, do it with your money, not someone elses.
Ned:
quote:
But, how are they going to pay for it? They simply cannot place a contract with a French firm and order the US to pay for it, can they? No, they have to pay for it themselves.
So, if all the oil money is gone to pay France, Russian, and Germany - the unholy alliance - and to pay Kuwait and Iran, there will be no money for reconstruction.
Now, this is where I think we get stuck. We are so f*cking kind and generous as a nation that I think we will pick up the tab for the French reconstruction contract. |
As I told GP, the parties to whom Iraq owes some finantial obligation will work out a schedule of payments: if all of Iraqs money was not going to debt relief under Saddam, why would it be so now?
There is also nothing unholy about France, Germany or Russia.
The US claism it wants to create a democratic Iraq that will be a model for the area. To do so we do have to spend billions upon billions. We can do far less, just pack up and leave..but don;t expect a democratic Iraq to be the result of such an action.
You Ned claim lofty, no, HEAVENLY MADATED!!! goals in Iraq and state anyone who did not share them SPAWNS OF EVIL!!!. Well, moral crusades cost lots of money, lots and lots of money. If you are unwilling to pay the costs of your moralistic crasading, don;t do it at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
States have the right to nationalize, they simply have to pay people something for the seazure close to amrket value at the time. And who is talking about recivership? The new Iraqi government will work out the schedule of payments when they are back in power. Simple enough.
But as I said ealier, if you want to change the way the world does business, do it with your money, not someone elses.
Ned:
quote:
But, how are they going to pay for it? They simply cannot place a contract with a French firm and order the US to pay for it, can they? No, they have to pay for it themselves.
So, if all the oil money is gone to pay France, Russian, and Germany - the unholy alliance - and to pay Kuwait and Iran, there will be no money for reconstruction.
Now, this is where I think we get stuck. We are so f*cking kind and generous as a nation that I think we will pick up the tab for the French reconstruction contract. |
As I told GP, the parties to whom Iraq owes some finantial obligation will work out a schedule of payments: if all of Iraqs money was not going to debt relief under Saddam, why would it be so now?
There is also nothing unholy about France, Germany or Russia.
The US claism it wants to create a democratic Iraq that will be a model for the area. To do so we do have to spend billions upon billions. We can do far less, just pack up and leave..but don;t expect a democratic Iraq to be the result of such an action.
You Ned claim lofty, no, HEAVENLY MADATED!!! goals in Iraq and state anyone who did not share them SPAWNS OF EVIL!!!. Well, moral crusades cost lots of money, lots and lots of money. If you are unwilling to pay the costs of your moralistic crasading, don;t do it at all. |
1. Many nationalizations do not adequately compensate the people who lose their property. It is not generally about a transfer at market prices. It is about seizing the means of production.
2. What if iraq defaults on their debt? (They're never going to pay it all anyway. They weren't doing so when Saddam was in power.) They just have to deal with people being less-willing to loan to them in the future. But it might actually be a smart move.
3. As I said, the terms of the loans did not generally attach directly to oil revenues. So the creditors do not have any extra right to stop foreign trade. (They may choose to do so wrt sanctions and the like. But their grounds there are just the existing legal arrangments. None of the sanctions were put in place because of debt collection.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
GePap, actually, I was in favor of Gulf War II primarily as an exit strategy from the region. We had to get the matter of Saddam resolved one way or the other in order for us to pull out. Bush has promised a pullout. But I note that Clinton did too in Bosnia and Kosovo, but we are still there. I only hope that we get the new Iraqi government up and running ASAP and pull out completely.
Last edited by Ned on 26-04-2003 at 03:40
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
I thought the US low interest loaned the billions to the 'new' Russia and they paid their loans due with it. Our way of supporting democracy there.
I recall this from a news program years and yeats ago. Stuck with me because I couldn't believe they were giving US taxpayer money to the Rooskies, just a wrong thing to do. Now look at how our new friends treat us, AT missiles taking out Abrams.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
No, it's not the end of the world. Like I said, Iraq has already been in default for decades.
But default does create some problems, like what happened in Russia. I think Russia probably did the right thing in default/devalue, although they have been pretty lucky to have subsequent periods of high oil proceeds. Saras and Sten probably have some good things to say about this.
Edit: Some random googling indicates that Russia is paying on some $48 billion in Soviet-era debt to Paris Club members. Russia's total external debt is something like $150 billion, 2/3rd of which was incurred during Soviet times.
Given all of this, Russia might be in the right to use all the power at its disposal to pressure Iraq to pay much of her debts. But then Iraq would also be in the right to say "sod off" and renegotiate terms.
Last edited by DanS on 08-05-2003 at 04:58
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneWolf
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Private companies found to be selling and transporting illegal Iraqi oil could face legal penalties in all sorts of states outside of the US. Just because of that major US oil companies would not be eager to get their hands on Iraqi oil, if it meant legal nightmares for them in other states. That would make the US government the one selling Iraqi oil on a market unsure about buying it, probalby making the US government also the only interested buyer. And that would create one giant political firestorm.
You guys want to keep the French and germans out of Iraq? Why the hell do you think then they would not act to stick it to you and make your job more difficult and dangerous? As i said earlier, grow up kiddies. |
Well, I think that they would and they have and they will in the future. And yet you and they seem to think that we should continue to treat them as "friends" (oh, so touchy feely). I think you ( and they) need to grow up.
If they (and you) want to be adversaries, let's go, but no crying! Enough with this "alliance" silliness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Let it be the French, p l e a s e...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Sure they can. It will be interesting to see who they pay the money to, and even more interesting when American trade with countries who don't like it is affected.
There's always a price to pay - and if you don't work hard at making friends, pretty soon you have a lot of enemies. Not necessarily military threats, but countries that just don't like you.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2003 00:41
|