Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It depends on whether you view a nation as more akin to a car or to a corporation -- or, more accurately, more like property or entities. If Joe hits you with his car and then sells his car to Sally, you don't sue Sally. If Joe's corporation steals from you, and he sells his shares to Sally (or she gets them in a hostile takeover), you sue the corporation even though Joe will not suffer.
|
I agree. I guess the basic explanation is that I don't view the common Iraqi guy as ever having been a shareholder in Saddam's Iraq.
Quote:
|
Generally, nations are treated as entities. Hence the continuation of debts. The "odious debt" exception is interesting, but hasn't prevented creditors from asking any number of African countries to pay debts incurred by tyrants, for example. If we are to introduce an odious debt concept, it needs to be one that can apply to situations even where the change in regime is not brought about by the US.
|
Actually, (and this is based on memory, which is a dangerous statement all by itself), odious debt was first applied in the situations of some small african countries. It's not a new concept.
(ETA - And now, I'm disappearing again - NOT ducking replies.)
