Should countries refuse to honor debts run up by dictators?

[Mr. Harley]

I'm not familiar with the technical term, but some economists have evidently floated the idea that when a country gets rid of a dictator (like Iraq) then that nation is not obligated for the international debts run up that had to do with anything except economic development. In the case of Iraq that would mean honoring debts concerning oil field or infrastructure development, but not debts for building palaces, nerve gas production, equipping internal security forces, military weapons, etc.

Most industrial nations and international banks are utterly opposed to the idea. They say it would stop economic growth in third world countries. I like it. If banks and countries have to be careful on what the money they hand out goes to, maybe they will be a little more careful about who they load money to.

[Jon Miller]

yes

than maybe corporations will quit lending to dictators

and people will quit proping them up

Jon Miller

[Dis]

no

mainly because Bush is considered a dictator. And I expect countries to pay up their debts to the U.S.

[Ned]

I think this is an idea long overdue. If a regime is under UN sanction one of the sanctions could be that any debt entered into in violation of the sanctions is void. (I would almost hope that this is the law anyway.)

[Vince278]

Against.

It seems to me that a vast majority of the third world never intended to pay back the loans in the first place. The trend to "demonize" first world countries that do not "forgive" the loans is just plain wrong. It encourages the financial irresponsibility that plagues the third world.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
no

mainly because Bush is considered a dictator. And I expect countries to pay up their debts to the U.S.

[Mr. Harley]

Vince, how can a "third world" country never intend to pay when a dictator is running it. The DICTATOR may not have intended to pay, but the people had no choice.

Once the people regain their rights, should they be obligated to pay for the weapons used to kill them? That's exactly whats happening right now in many countries, not just Iraq. Try telling the Kurds that they owe France, Germany, and Russian.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Once the people regain their rights, should they be obligated to pay for the weapons used to kill them?

Are you saying we should be obligated to pay for the weapons used to kill them?

[Mr. Harley]

If you voted for the dirty bastard who approved the arms sales? Yes. If your company sold them to a dictator, who used them to keep his people oppressed, read as in butcher civilians. Yes. Maybe that way people will stop supplying the weapons, or at least be more careful and insist on cash and carry, limiting the weapons distribution.

[Vince278]

It would be better if we just refuse to sell to certain dictators in the first place instead of forgiving their country's debts.

I am against people who think they are actually entitled to have their debts forgiven.

A change in government does not wipe the slate clean. The nations on the losing end of WW1 and WW2 were still responsible for their debts and reparations (even though some were eventually forgiven).

After a change in government how will you separate a dictator's supporters from non-supporters? Will we only require them to pay off the debt? A country bears a certain responsibility for its own leadership. The government should not be able to maintain power for long if a majority of the people are against it.

Lets also not forget that alot of the debt is non-military in nature.

[Serb]

Yes of course.
Russia owes sh!tloads of money since Tsar's times. Tsar was an evil dictator, communists who came later were evil bastards, USSR was an evil empire. Why should we pay hundreds of billions now? Modern Russia is not responsible for debts of those evil freaks.

STOP THE DEBTS!!!









P.S.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
yes

than maybe corporations will quit lending to dictators

and people will quit proping them up

Jon Miller

Or maybe it would make the life under a dictator even more miserable.

It's very difficult to know...

[Q Classic]

i agree with vince.

[chequita guevara]

Of course you do, you conservative bastard!

The term is odeous debt. Under most legal systems, you cannot be held liable for debts you did not enter into voluntarily. For example, a thug holds a gun to you and makes you take out a loan at usurious rates. You could go to court and have the debt declared null and void. If individuals have this right, why should not groups of people?

What would be more interesting to to force the supporters of the dictators, internally and internationally to pay the debts.

[Q Classic]

@che