Originally posted by SuzianneApparently, it's good to hate on logic these days.
NOW I know how Trump became the Republican nominee.
Yes, the Republican Party IS that stupid.
You're so desperate to characterize this situation as a 'clearing of the books' and somehow it is reconfigured in such a manner as to mean the Republicans have it all twisted?
We paid a ransom.
We.
Paid.
A.
Ransom.
We got bent over (stop me if you've heard this one), forced to accept the conditions by which the terrorist would be placated.
And took it like a ducking champ.
Only with an 'F.'
You're proud when you should be convulsed in shame, like the rest of the citizens of these United States.
Originally posted by sonhouseThis might help: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ransom-iran-400-million
Yeah, decades ago Iran gave the US 400 mil for weapons that we never delivered and now we gave it back. Remember the part where it was THEIR money we are giving back for weapons we never delivered. They made the mistake of thinking the US honorable.
So when the hostages were taken that was part of the deal so Iran paid themselves with their own money. ...[text shortened]... have come up. In fact I KNOW it would never have been brought up, not by Refumblicans for sure.
The most pertinent part:
In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.
Crucially for the present issue, it also halted a delivery of fighter jets that Iran’s pre-revolution government had already paid $400 million for. Normally the US would return the money if it wasn’t going to deliver the planes — countries don’t just break formal agreements like that. But it had frozen Iranian assets in the US as punishment for the hostage-taking — and that included the $400 million.
The hostage crisis was eventually resolved in 1981, at a conference in Algiers. But the Algiers Accords didn’t resolve every outstanding issue — including the legal status of the $400 million.
Instead, it set up an international court, based in the Hague, to deal with any legal claims that the governments of Iran and the United States had against each other, or that individual citizens of the two countries had against the other country.
This court, called the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. In any case, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.
This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama’s second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, the Associated Press’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.
"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.
So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.
By January 2016, the countries had struck a deal — the US would pay Iran $1.7 billion, which amounts to about $300 million in interest on top of the originally frozen assets (accounting for inflation).
The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.
The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.
So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues.
So unless you want to say that the US should violate an international agreement made with Iran 35 years ago by Ronald Reagan, they are entitled to the money (in fact it looks like Obama did a good job negotiating the amount down). IF that played any role in getting the US citizens released, all to the better but it seems unlikely. As Vox states:
Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are a fool. Led by a fool.
Apparently, it's good to hate on logic these days.
You're so desperate to characterize this situation as a 'clearing of the books' and somehow it is reconfigured in such a manner as to mean the Republicans have it all twisted?
We paid a ransom.
We.
Paid.
A.
Ransom.
We got bent over (stop me if you've heard this one), forced to accept the condit ...[text shortened]... oud when you should be convulsed in shame, like the rest of the citizens of these United States.
The only shame I'd feel is if I took this man's word for ANYthing.
He lies. It's what he does.
Enough said.
Originally posted by no1marauderI find it pathetic that all these conservatives would rather take the word of a pathological liar instead of doing even a minimum of research.
This might help: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ransom-iran-400-million
The most pertinent part:
In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.
Crucially for the pres ...[text shortened]... r money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.
It's also pathetic that, because of this, those who know better (the rest of us) have to take them by the hand and walk them through reality step-by-step before they "get it".
***Here's some advice for you conservatives out there who embarrass yourselves every time you take this man's word for ANYthing: Stop taking the word of a pathological liar for truth. You cannot believe anything he says. Save yourselves a lot of embarrassment and just laugh at him like the rest of us do. And stop supporting him with your hard-earned money. And stay home on election day. He's not doing any of you any favors.
10 Aug 16
The post that was quoted here has been removedThere are probably other instances not well known now just like those two.
But it is just like the repubs to try to claim we paid ransom for hostages, with them knowing full well it was Iran's own money they received.
Politics as usual in a presidential election year.
If it had been a repub president, the issue would never have been brought up.
Well, maybe it would have been by dems.
A political football is what it is at heart.
10 Aug 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMuch better than the best you can ever smell, like after your monthly bath.
Your recall of such exact and specific details is simply astounding, given the fact you read them all "years ago."
What a buffoon.
You and son "no interest paid" house should get together: he apparently considers your 'aroma' very nuanced.
10 Aug 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBTW, Dutchess64 has made it quite clear she is not and never will be my friend. I just admire her mind as opposed to yours.
Your recall of such exact and specific details is simply astounding, given the fact you read them all "years ago."
What a buffoon.
You and son "no interest paid" house should get together: he apparently considers your 'aroma' very nuanced.
11 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, you can teach her a thing or two about idiotic posts. Mr Flatasser himself. Tell me again how satellites are fakes and GPS comes from ground stations.
Sadly, you're unable to see how pathetic your derring-do of memory prowess will not find a fawning audience outside of sonhouse (who can't take his hands off your great mind) herein: we all "remember" your insipid "iidiotic" posts.
BTW, it is not love, just admiration of a fine brain. Something you never will have even if you live to be 200.