Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ...

From: • R.L.Measures (r_at_somis.org)
Date: 07/04/04 

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:09:56 -0700

In article <MuQFc.56$45.16092@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> In article <r-0407040230500001@192.168.1.100>, r@somis.org (•
R.L.Measures) writes:
> >In article <ssOFc.48$45.16143@news.uchicago.edu>,
> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >
> >> In article <r-0307040833230001@192.168.1.100>, r@somis.org (•
> >...
> >> >• The laugher is that Iraq stills owes the Russky's $12-billion for arms
> >> >shipments.
> >> >
> >> Well, yes. Extending credit in rough neighborhoods is a risky
> >> business.
> >>
> >• Maybe the Russky's should have used "Red Lining"?
> >
> Maybe:-) Well, as long as they were in the position to say "you pay
> or we kneecap you" (which is what it takes to extend credit in rough
> neighborhoods) they were fine. Later, of course, they weren't.
>
• Good points. It would seem to me that Russia should rightfully be paid
off with a percentage of current Iraqi oil production. Even at 10% of
production per year, payback would take only about a decade. However, as
I recall, Russia still owes the U. S. $11-billion from WW-II, and those
were for real dollars that were backed by silver

cheers. 

-- 
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org