Hello! It's very informative and splendid page! A lot of news could be
found here. I like it for it's streght apply to the problem! Thank you
very much

One option the US has is to send our money as a grant and use it to shame the French and Russias. IN this case you also have the issue of war reperations - that should be given up - I do not think countries got reperations after WWII.

In most cases, countries honor (althougth generally restructure, including with a haircut) debt incured by previous regimes.

If they did not they would have trouble borrowing in the future.

Perhaps a line can be drawn that loans made to non elective regimes can be ignored when a democratic regime comes into power. Saying why should the people pay a debt incurrec by an elected person. The problem there is that many governments recognize such people as legitimate. It would help democracy to have suh a policy becasue no one would make loans to dictators.

This whole thing points out a problem with international laaw - there is no such thing and no enforcement mechanism. It is a mater of mutual convenience. This is the joke when everyone quotes international law agianst Israel. They almost alwaays get it wrong but it is not really relevant when your counterparty does not follow it.

The Fech by the way are famous for harasing Russia for czarist debt. At the last Paris aishow, Russian did not send certain airplanes because there was a threat that creditors would grab them.

I propose that the debt be repaid by shipping what's left of Saddam's palaces back to the financiers. How much do you reckon a golden toilet's worth?

Aren't we still waiting for the Rooshians to honor the debts the Soviets repudiated in 1917?

Give them the torture chambers and rape rooms too, if that will make them feel any better.

And we should work a free trade agreement with Iraq to boost/diversify their economy.

I say ship the burned hulks of the military hardware the French and Russians sold Saddam back to them. And bill them for the freight charges and cleaning up the resulting brownfields.

While were at it, perhaps send the plutonium back (not saying in what form) c/o the Elysees Palace?

I might add, in favor of screwing the French, that they did not show much hesitation in repudiating their debts to the American servicemen buried in their cemeteries.

I would note that the Vietnamese government honored the debt that South Vietnam to the US even after the fall of Saigon...

Yeah, CH, and the $#@%! French got the USA into that mess, too.

Should the American people have to pay for Saddam's Bills?

Should the American people have to pay the bills for Bush's deception, hype, and woefully misguided Iraqi nationbuilding enterprise?

Sadly, both these huge and separate bills will eventually have to be paid somehow. Right now the enormous untold costs of this foolish and deceptive spectacle in Iraq is falling squarely on the shoulders of America's unborn grandchildren. That’s not fair.

Can we have a little more focus on the unemployment, the archaic electric grid system, clean water facilities, wetlands reclamation, and numerous health care issues here in America, - and a little less on Iraq? Pretty please?

Yeah, let's "Screw the Iraqis", grab their oil, and use the profit to rebuild 'our' country!

In the case of the United States helping to pay for Iraqi reconstruction, one could make the case that we are making an investment in our own national security--albeit an investment with tremendous ancillary benefits for the Iraqis as well.

Tony,

Unfortunately, the world doesn't cease to exist while we set our house in order. To ignore the world at large is to default to the foreign policies of despots, the EU, the UN, and many other scoundrels who most definitely do not have our interests at heart.

Isolationism is the inclination of most Americans because we are a very independent minded and self-reliant people. But the twentieth century is filled with the graveyards other nations made while we refused to address the causes until we were forced.

The main lesson to draw from 9/11 is that ignoring the world is a fools errand. If we won't help free the world's enslaved (note that this is not hyperbole considering the number of actual slaves worldwide)when it is morally right, we should at least do so when it is in our nations best interests. That is the sworn obligation of our leaders.

Since WWII we've had plenty of opportunity for the self-anointed saviors of politics to begin saving the world. But they have shied from the effort, preferring instead to occupy themselves with comfortable lives attending seminars and speeches on our country's and the world's ills.

Moral passion has failed the oppressed. So now we try Enlightened Self-interest and accomplish more in a few years then all the preaching of the last 50. Should we just stop? Should we abandon the Iraqis, again? Walk away from Afghanistan, again? Hole up in our rich western enclaves and tell pretty stories to each other while our brothers suffer?

Those with a heart say engage the world. Those with a mind say invest in the world. But who are these craven few who want none of that? Selfish, scared, and ignorant? Should this be our policy?

This one is easy folks. Run the presses night and day. Print up all the Saddam paper bills you need and use them to pay off the debts. The Iraqis, of course, will instead use Iraq's new currency exclusively...

The concept of odious debts, in this case, is quite reasonable. The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity to vote whether or not to assume the debts. Neither did anyone else. These were debts run up by a dictatorship.

Those who loaned money to that dictatorship are owed nothing, but the US or anyone else. When you loan money, you are taking a risk. In this case, the risk is that the debt won't be repaid because the loanee was overthrown. That it was done by the US rather than the people of Iraq is irrelevant.

Screw those who profitted in Iraq, wherever they are - America, Europe, Russia, whatever.

Refusing to repay the loans just might make it harder for the next despot (or some current despots) to get funding. That would not be a bad thing!

The concept of odious debts, in this case, is quite reasonable. The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity to vote whether or not to assume the debts. Neither did anyone else. These were debts run up by a dictatorship.

Those who loaned money to that dictatorship are owed nothing, by the US or anyone else. When you loan money, you are taking a risk. In this case, the risk is that the debt won't be repaid because the loanee was overthrown. That it was done by the US rather than the people of Iraq is irrelevant.

Screw those who profitted in Iraq, wherever they are - America, Europe, Russia, whatever.

Refusing to repay the loans just might make it harder for the next despot (or some current despots) to get funding. That would not be a bad thing!

Outstanding comment wlpeak, and the answer is no, - this should not be our policy, and America cannot walk away from our commitments, (justified or not) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The world is a global village.

That said, could there be a "little less focus" on the plight of the downtrodden Iraqi's, and "a little more attention paid" to the downtrodden in America.

I would also forward that no one here is without sin, and that there are many "...scoundrels who most definitely do not have our interests at heart" in the Bush administration.

Musharef in a speech before the UN shortly after 9/11 eloquently warned that the West, and America must address the why of 9/11, more than the how, or whom to defeat this enemy.

He compared (and I don't have a copy of the speech, so this is not a perfectly accurate quote but) the terrorist organizations to a tree, and explained that pruning the leaves actually strengthens the plant, and to eradicate this problem, America must examine the roots of why these people hate us so much.

Bush, and collective America has not begun to entertain this critical approach, and the pruning (though we all applaud the successes) is not addressing the roots, and many of us believe the Iraq war, created an even larger terrorist forest, with even deeper, more gnarly roots.

Okay, Tony, since you know so much, YOU tell us why violent fundamentalists among the Islamic Ummah hate the U.S. so much; what we should do to make them hate us less; and why we should do that instead of whatever we're doing now.

I would much rather read a reasoned explanation of all the above, than a mass of mealy-mouthed assertions and confused metaphors, with an unelected and dishonest dictator cited as an authority.

Which was not your intent, I am sure.

David, the only thing that ever comes out of your mouth here seems to be slurs against other groups, be they Jewish, Muslim, gay, or whatever. How about you take your racist ass and get it off our blog.

... or next time we alter your comments, they're going to say things you probably don't want to be associated with.

- Management

Tony, if our recent experience with terrorism has taught us anything, it is this: A threat does not go away just because we choose to ignore it. Point of fact: Bin Laden's fascination with the twin towers did not abate after the first attack, a truth we learned to our sorrow.

What was the "pruning" that led to that particular bit of fanaticism? I have heard that Mr bin Laden was ticked because we had sullied his holy land, Saudi Arabia, with soldiers during the first Gulf War. If that is the case, it says to me that terrorism finds justification wherever it will, and that a superpower engaged with the world cannot hope to anticipate, much less defuse, every grievance against it.

What we can do--must do--is eliminate threats before they can array against us. This does not mean simply snipping a little here and there, but digging the entire weed up by the roots, as we recently did with the Hussein regime in Iraq. Of course doing so will invite reprisals. But I believe they would come regardless, whatever the excuse.

Finally, I would agree with you that America must "examine... why these people hate us so much." Surely, there are things we can do (I would argue that in Iraq we are doing them) to diffuse that hatred. But if by "these people" you mean radical Islamic fundamentalists, it will matter little what we do. The truth is, they hate us because they believe their religion instructs them to. And until they examine--or re-examine--that belief structure, we will continue to be enemies.

They'll re-examine their belief structure when Mecca, Medinah, and several other Arab cities lie in radioactive rubble....

--
Got change for 10 million people?

First I am heterosexual. Second, I live New York and need only look south to the gaping hole in our great city where the World Trade Centers once stood for a reminder of the horrors threatening America.

We here in New York have constant reminders of this ugly reality in the sudden appearance of "Hercules Units" at Pen Station, or the curious stopping and checking of every white van entering any tunnel, or the increased security in every building. We have a visceral and sobering appreciation of the threats the jihadist pose to America, and few here are untouched by the horrors of that terrible day.

Third, anyone familiar with my commentary, (and you can toggle down to the bottom of this site or google my name for a peek) knows that I share your determination, and passionate commitment to hunting, capturing, or killing every single jihadist mass murderer and those that aid and abet them on the planet.

We divide only on the best approach to defeating this enemy. You obviously defend Bush's actions including what I view as a deceptive, enormously costly, bloody, gross misappropriation of American resources wasted on war against the wrong Muslims, and a woefully misguided more exceedingly costly and bloody nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq.

I agree with our intelligence that warned Bush that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would actually strengthen the jihadist mass murder gangs, foment global distrust and animosity toward America, and provide a recruiting bonanza for the mass murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

Iraqi's are secular Muslims, not jihadists. Jihadist are those other Muslims, abundantly well funded wahabi freaks and Bush "good friends" in the House of Saud, that Bush curiously shields to this day. See this link

I am sure all of you have important causes, reasons, and solutions to offer as well, and that is the thrust of my commentary. We must examine the why. We must attack the roots of jihadist Islam. That mission will take us eventually, one way or another to Saudi Arabia, and did not prior to the war, involve Iraq.

This is a debate about Iraq's debts, Tony... and as always, you turn it into something else. I've had it, I'm done. You're gone from here, courtesy of Mr. IP Ban. You want to rant? Get your own blog.

"Odious Debts". Good name for a Rock and roll Band?

Does it get more odious? This is my perspective from where I view events (Paris, France) and also provides some context that I think some (including Tony) overlook:

Timeline:

November-January: Our (former) allies demand US goes through UN. UNSC adopts Res. 1441 by a vote of 15 to zip finding Iraqi Regime in violation of all prior resolutions and giving regime final chance to cooperate unconditionally or else. France's requirements of the UN route and last chance for Iraq are met, signaling its commitment to support the U.S. on those terms. France sends aircraft carrier (often forgotten detail) and in early January Chirac instructs French military high command to prepare troops for deployment (another often forgotten fact). Blix declares after interim report (December) and official report (January 27) that Iraq is not cooperating unconditionally. This means that Iraq is in de facto violation and just pulled the trigger on itself. Note that all of the foregoing occurred prior to SOTU (Jan 29) or Powell presentation (Feb 5).

Non-odious version:

Having met France's demands and with Iraq having missed its final opportunity, the U.S. is joined by France in deployment of forces to Iraq. This encourages political support from Germany, with Russia agreeing reluctantly and China abstaining, and military support from Turkey. Iraq is liberated by a multinational force under UN auspices and restoration of order and reconstruction is carried out with the blessing and support, political and financial, of the world community.

Of course, this didn't happen. But I suggest that the political and practical context today would be quite different if it had.

Odious version:

Having given assurances and signaled its willingness to provide troops, France changes course and De Villepin stabs Colin Powell in the back. Not only does it reneg on prior commitments, France actively organizes a hostile opposition to the U.S. position, sways undecideds on UNSC to vote against the US, guaranties its own veto, intimidates the Eastern Europeans and the Turks, blowing hopes of a Turkish front. The U.S. is left hung out to wither in the hot sun and sandstorms, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed. Chirac's treachery is rewarded by the French citizenry with an 85% approval rating, popular hopes for a U.S. defeat, and De Villepin non-committal neutrality on the question of a Hussein victory.

Notice I have not mentioned uranium, sixteen words, forty-five minutes, or any other such nonsense.

The 87 Billion Dollar Question

Shouldn't the actions of the Bush administration and the question of odious debts be viewed in this light? How about reimbursement of interest paid? Reparations? Sanctions?

What's all this nonsense about paying off Oday's debts????

terrorists make hay on claims that 'others' did something for which they have the 'right' to create mayhem and fear.

... back the banana boat up here. one of the presumptions in the united states is that each person is responsible for his or her own actions and beliefs. terrorists and those who support them would have the world believe that they are 'victims'.

the point is, one can either create and build ... making a life, or one can wreck havoc and destroy.

this choice is a choice regardless who you are or where you are in the world. you have a choice between doing good and doing evil. if your actions cause harm to innocents, then the results of those actions are not 'good', creative or life. if your actions end harm, then your actions are creating life.

the united states has done alot of things. some of them have been reprehensible, yes. but the number of those actions is tiny compared to the good we've done in the world. has any other country started a peace corps? how many other peoples around the world routinely field doctors, specialists, nurses and workers at a moment's notice when a natural disaster occurs? and who did that first? who set the example?

what other country opens it's doors and lets people from other places enter and become full citizens? we don't allow naturalized citizens to become president of our country, but we do let them participate in every single other legal activity within our boundaries.

what other country allows the kinds of freedoms and responsibilities we have in the united states? think about it. long and hard.

as for ecological issues... bush isn't the issue. during the clinton administration a great deal more harm was done to our environment and ignored by the EPA. i know. because i personally tried to resolve several local issues .... personally trying to raise awareness at a local, state and federal level. the local authorities were willing, but the state (govenor engler & crew) and the federal government (EPA and clinton) were completely uninterested and unwilling to help. in point of fact, the EPA insisted that if i contacted them again (i had called and written, making no threats) that they would take legal action against me, not the people who were causing the problems.

Going beyond "French bad; America good", the posters here may want to consider the following:

1) the CPA by definition is PROVISIONAL; only a legitimately elected government will have the moral authority to repudiate past debts.

2) The US govt is not the sole lender in this world. US-chartered and foreign banks (not just govts) made loans to a regime recognized by the UN and the US govt (remember Rumsfeld's handshake?) Asserting the doctrine of odious debts may be a little more tricky in the context of a commercial loan made to a recognized govt.

3) If the US govt, acting through the CPA, repudiates prior debts, then the US taxpayer might have to bear the cost of the debts, because that action could be a "taking" of property under the 5th Amendment, requiring just compensation. Thanks, but my tax burden is high enough already. (see the US Supt Ct case entitled "Winstar" for a discussion on how the US govt can be liable to banks when the govt changes rules mid-stream.)

4) If a later Iraqi govt were to repudiate debts, it may not be able to get access to the capital markets. Banks are notoriously reluctant to lend to governments which just stiffed them on a multi-billion dollar debt.

5) according to the link, only 40 billion in debt (including interest) is held by western governments (the Paris Club, if i'm reading the links correctly). while that's a hefty chunk of cash, it's only 1/3rd of the estimated 120 billion debt. also, Iraq may still owe another 120 billion in reparations arising from its invasion of Kuwait.

6) should iraq be able to escape its war reparations obligations due to the US's invasion? seems odd. if I owned property destroyed by the Iraqis in GWI, had my claim recognized by the UN, then had my claim repudiated by the CPA, I might be going off to court.

cheers.

FDL,

Those are all good points. I think a couple are exaggerated, such as a claim under the 5th amendment, but the general thrust is valid.

People are sounding off first on the moral principle: whether the very concept of odious debts as justification for debt relief or repudiation makes sense. If you accept that the principle makes moral sense and perhaps foreign policy sense - ie discouraging odious regimes - then you have to look at the cost-benefit analysis in the real world.

David, the only thing that ever comes out of your mouth here seems to be slurs against other groups, be they Jewish, Muslim, gay, or whatever. How about you take your racist ass and get it off our blog.

Um, pardon me if I missed something, but nothing at all in the previous post seems to justify this sort of attack. (And who made this post? It's not clear at all. "David Davenport" isn't listed as a writer on this blog, much less as "the management" which I would expect would refer to Joe.)

If what happened is that David Davenport made a post after David Ross's, and the text was removed and replaced by this condemnation, may I suggest that Joe (or whoever wrote this) get much clearer about who they're addressing, to avoid inadvertantly splashing mud on similarly-named bystanders, and also about what is happening. It's easy enough to add a phrase like "[Post made by David Davenport here has been deleted by Joe Katzman because it was so offensive I didn't want it in my bandwidth]" before or after your comments to clarify the situation.

The latter was the case, jeanne.