Weere is the MSM on Obama paying off Iran?

[SDHornet]

If we had any brains, we would have negotiated their release as part of the nuke deal that Iran made out with...but no, lets throw in some money into the swap because we "owed" it. Seems legit.

So we didn't take the money back in 79? We didn't owe it?

Ok, I stand corrected.

We owed it, and had zero intention on ever paying it, and had plenty of other opportunities (namely the most recent Iran nuke deal) to get those sailors back by other means. Bottom line is it's just another failed Obama negotiation/action to add to the list.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

The delinquent debtor claims that it wasn't a ransom, but that "it was a payment contingent on the safe return of my cable service."

Ok, so a ransom then.

Oh wait, you actually owed that money? Got it, not a ransom then.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

So we didn't take the money back in 79? We didn't owe it?

Ok, I stand corrected.

We owed it, and had zero intention on ever paying it, and had plenty of other opportunities (namely the most recent Iran nuke deal) to get those sailors back by other means. Bottom line is it's just another failed Obama negotiation/action to add to the list.

We got them back...it seems like it succeeded so far...

But I wish we had gotten things done in a different fashion, one more like you suggest for instance, but we don't know jack shit about what getting this sort of thing done took so you know...I'll trust that we did the best we could for ourselves with all the parameters presented.

[AZGrizFan]

But it must have been the right one because Comey is a straight shooter who does't play politics and lets the chips fall where they may....at least now that he is no longer on the board of the giant bank with ties to the Clinton Foundation...

It depends on perspective- I disagree with the decision Comey made, but I am pretty sure I know why he made it. And it is consistent with what I have said about him before.

I stand by what I have said about Comey- you may think you have me in some kind of an AZ - Palin thing, but that really only resonates in your own head and nowhere else.

Not sure I understand the reference....

[houndawg]

It depends on perspective- I disagree with the decision Comey made, but I am pretty sure I know why he made it. And it is consistent with what I have said about him before.

I stand by what I have said about Comey- you may think you have me in some kind of an AZ - Palin thing, but that really only resonates in your own head and nowhere else.

Not sure I understand the reference....

You're wildy enthusiastic endorsement of Palin for VP is a of course Hall of Fame moment here, surpassed only by JBBs gay porn meltdown. CInDy wants us to know that his ringing endorsement of Comey as a straight-shooter, non politician, let the chips fall where they may kind of guy who then promptly rolled over for Hillary, his old pal from days of being on the Board of a bank that had ties to the Clinton foundation, doesn't rise to that level of Zness . So he drops a few cryptic comments insinuating that he knows the inside skinny and that there is much more here than mere mortals can possibly comprehend.

[YoUDeeMan]

Holy shit, there is some serious denial going on here.


Owing a power company? WTF? Yeah, if we contracted to pay for power, and then didn't pay for power delivered, and they cut off our power until we pay, that isn't ransom.

But, if someone snatched your sister and told you that you had to pay your bar bill...that is not a business transaction...that is kidnapping and paying a ransom.

JFC, Ursus, you usually have more brains than what was used in your reply above.

The rest of you who identify this as any other thing than paying a ransom are out of your minds.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Holy shit, there is some serious denial going on here.


Owing a power company? WTF? Yeah, if we contracted to pay for power, and then didn't pay for power delivered, and they cut off our power until we pay, that isn't ransom.

But, if someone snatched your sister and told you that you had to pay your bar bill...that is not a business transaction...that is kidnapping and paying a ransom.

JFC, Ursus, you usually have more brains than what was used in your reply above.

The rest of you who identify this as any other thing than paying a ransom are out of your minds.

Nope, you can sort it however you want to but the fact is that it was money owed them. That is how the example was set up.

If we didn't have that money sent to us then you would have a stance for this being ransom. We were gonna pay the money anyway as part of that deal...so getting an assurance of saving lives makes it ransom...bullshit.

A lot of times I see you post with much more brain power than missing the simplicity of the point on this one too Cluck so I guess we'll just have to be disappointed in each other today.

[JohnStOnge]

As I understand it it's even less "ransom" than I initially assumed. I assumed that we owed the Iranians money and they said they wouldn't release those people unless we paid what we owed. Instead, it looks to me like the two countries reached a settlement on us paying them what we owed then WE said, "We won't pay you what we owe you unless you release those people."

That's not paying ransom. You can say it is until the sun goes into nova but it's not.

Which by the way brings up another lie on the part of Trump after he said "I will never lie to you" a couple of days ago. He's been calling it "ransom." That's lying.

[CID1990]

Yeah, don't see it that way but Iran has been promoting it this way since it happened but our enemies have been taking hostages for decades, and have been getting payments for decades...maybe not from the US, but the families or some other source, but the US not giving that **** don't seem to stop them does it?

I made this point on AGS a few minutes ago and will remake it here just to show how I look at it. I owe the power company money, I won't pay them. They will hold my power ransom until I pay them.

Or, did I just owe them the **** money?

Yes, there are way deeper factors here and yes we don't know how this could affect **** going forward. However, we are dudes on a message board that don't have one **** clue what all had to go into this **** to get things done and how it all played out...so I don't trust your idea on it anymore than that. I also don't trust your predictive outcomes.

The deal would have happened and if we hadn't made sure we got our people back then some of you dullards would be here saying "WTF?!!, how did we not make getting our peops back part of this thing!!! Obama is an asshole!!".

Exactly. We dangled a $400 million carrot in front of them, they took it, and we got our people back.

Too bad we can't dangle a $400 million carrot in front of the VA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

As I understand it it's even less "ransom" than I initially assumed. I assumed that we owed the Iranians money and they said they wouldn't release those people unless we paid what we owed. Instead, it looks to me like the two countries reached a settlement on us paying them what we owed then WE said, "We won't pay you what we owe you unless you release those people."

That's not paying ransom. You can say it is until the sun goes into nova but it's not.

Which by the way brings up another lie on the part of Trump after he said "I will never lie to you" a couple of days ago. He's been calling it "ransom." That's lying.

You and the rest of the robots DO realize that this money we "owed" Iran goes back to agreements made with the Shah, right?

You also realize that this tenuous claim is one that has been grasped onto in the hopes of having the Iranians hold up their end of the nonbinding nuclear agreement, right?

Saying we own money to a regime that bears no relation to the one we were dealing with (because one is a state sponsor of terrorism and the other (no matter how oppressive) was not) is about the most fvcktard way of couching that s fiasco I can't believe thinking people are embarrassing themselves by repeating it

trying to sell this to the American people is Exhibit A of the level of contempt that this administration has for the intelligence if Americans

btw while we're on the subject of "owing" people money, when are those tort payments to the former Embassy hostages going to start posting to peoples' bank accounts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

As I understand it it's even less "ransom" than I initially assumed. I assumed that we owed the Iranians money and they said they wouldn't release those people unless we paid what we owed. Instead, it looks to me like the two countries reached a settlement on us paying them what we owed then WE said, "We won't pay you what we owe you unless you release those people."

That's not paying ransom. You can say it is until the sun goes into nova but it's not.

Which by the way brings up another lie on the part of Trump after he said "I will never lie to you" a couple of days ago. He's been calling it "ransom." That's lying.

You and the rest of the robots DO realize that this money we "owed" Iran goes back to agreements made with the Shah, right?

You also realize that this tenuous claim is one that has been grasped onto in the hopes of having the Iranians hold up their end of the nonbinding nuclear agreement, right?

Saying we own money to a regime that bears no relation to the one we were dealing with (because one is a state sponsor of terrorism and the other (no matter how oppressive) was not) is about the most fvcktard way of couching that s fiasco I can't believe thinking people are embarrassing themselves by repeating it

trying to sell this to the American people is Exhibit A of the level of contempt that this administration has for the intelligence if Americans

btw while we're on the subject of "owing" people money, when are those tort payments to the former Embassy hostages going to start posting to peoples' bank accounts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I realize it goes back to the Shah. A country is a country. The country, Iran, paid the United States for weapons. The United States, for reasons that are understandable given subsequent events, opted not to deliver the weapons. And the United States did not give the country, Iran, its money back.

Do you think it's right to keep money a country paid the United States for weapons that are never delivered? I understand not delivering weapons. But do you really think it's right to just keep the money?

[CID1990]

You and the rest of the robots DO realize that this money we "owed" Iran goes back to agreements made with the Shah, right?

You also realize that this tenuous claim is one that has been grasped onto in the hopes of having the Iranians hold up their end of the nonbinding nuclear agreement, right?

Saying we own money to a regime that bears no relation to the one we were dealing with (because one is a state sponsor of terrorism and the other (no matter how oppressive) was not) is about the most fvcktard way of couching that s fiasco I can't believe thinking people are embarrassing themselves by repeating it

trying to sell this to the American people is Exhibit A of the level of contempt that this administration has for the intelligence if Americans

btw while we're on the subject of "owing" people money, when are those tort payments to the former Embassy hostages going to start posting to peoples' bank accounts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I realize it goes back to the Shah. A country is a country. The country, Iran, paid the United States for weapons. The United States, for reasons that are understandable given subsequent events, opted not to deliver the weapons. And the United States did not give the country, Iran, its money back.

Do you think it's right to keep money a country paid the United States for weapons that are never delivered? I understand not delivering weapons. But do you really think it's right to just keep the money?

YES DING DING DING YES


your myopic, oversimplified question proves that you have lost your goddamn mind

go see someone for that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DSUrocks07]

Yes I realize it goes back to the Shah. A country is a country. The country, Iran, paid the United States for weapons. The United States, for reasons that are understandable given subsequent events, opted not to deliver the weapons. And the United States did not give the country, Iran, its money back.

Do you think it's right to keep money a country paid the United States for weapons that are never delivered? I understand not delivering weapons. But do you really think it's right to just keep the money?

YES DING DING DING YES


your myopic, oversimplified question proves that you have lost your goddamn mind

go see someone for that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to mention that he flat out ignored the second part of your question.

Facts are such an inconvient thing when you want to stump for your favorite candidate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Not to mention that he flat out ignored the second part of your question.

Facts are such an inconvient thing when you want to stump for your favorite candidate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I didn't answer the second question because it's an opinion. The first question incorporates a matter of historical reality.

The central fact here is that it was not a ransom payment. If that's inconvenient for some that's the way it is.

And you ought to know by now that I'm no big fan of Obama. But I'm not going to say he paid ransom when he didn't pay ransom. Just like I'm not going to say he ought to be criticized for not going to Louisiana last week when the Governor specifically asked him not to go.

[CID1990]

Not to mention that he flat out ignored the second part of your question.

Facts are such an inconvient thing when you want to stump for your favorite candidate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I didn't answer the second question because it's an opinion. The first question incorporates a matter of historical reality.

The central fact here is that it was not a ransom payment. If that's inconvenient for some that's the way it is.

And you ought to know by now that I'm no big fan of Obama. But I'm not going to say he paid ransom when he didn't pay ransom. Just like I'm not going to say he ought to be criticized for not going to Louisiana last week when the Governor specifically asked him not to go.

You've come a long way baby

The Islamic Republic of Iran, that is



Here's a news flash for you JSO- th only inconvenient interpretation here is your own. The Islamic State has NEVER had agreements with the United States- with one exception

They have been taking US hostages since 1979. They also realized that that nuke program would be even better than hostages when it come to the Great Satan

The nuclear deal itself is a ransom payment- and we actually agreed to pay them money owed to a government as defunct as Hannibal's legions in t name of "security"

An installmentm payment on a ransom is still a ransom

[93henfan]

CID is absolutely doing a quadruple mastectomy on this thread (JSO's and Ursus' moobs).

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

CID is absolutely doing a quadruple mastectomy on this thread (JSO's and Ursus' moobs).

Nope, it's simple. It wasn't ransom. That is it. All the other stuff is great conversation and hell I don't disagree with much of it. That is why the only point I really went at is...it isn't ransom.

[Skjellyfetti]

Is our treaty with pre-revolution Cuba for Guantanamo Bay null and void?

[GannonFan]

CID is absolutely doing a quadruple mastectomy on this thread (JSO's and Ursus' moobs).

Nope, it's simple. It wasn't ransom. That is it. All the other stuff is great conversation and hell I don't disagree with much of it. That is why the only point I really went at is...it isn't ransom.

The problem is, what you or I think relative to it being ransom or not isn't relevant. It's what the other parts of the world think it is, and because it was so bungled by the administration in terms of timing and publicity, the other parts of the world have seen it as ransom. Perception matters, sometimes even more than technical definitions, and in that regard, this was ransom.

[GannonFan]

Is our treaty with pre-revolution Cuba for Guantanamo Bay null and void?

Only if they agree to take the prisoners we're still stuck with who are there.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Nope, it's simple. It wasn't ransom. That is it. All the other stuff is great conversation and hell I don't disagree with much of it. That is why the only point I really went at is...it isn't ransom.

The problem is, what you or I think relative to it being ransom or not isn't relevant. It's what the other parts of the world think it is, and because it was so bungled by the administration in terms of timing and publicity, the other parts of the world have seen it as ransom. Perception matters, sometimes even more than technical definitions, and in that regard, this was ransom.

I think I already agreed it was poorly setup timing wise but maybe that was on AGS and not here but I don't disagree. I don't think it will embolden others that are not already taking Americans as it is. It happens, and has happened for a long time and what we have done has not stopped those that want to cause the US harm.

The relatives are always gonna pay or find a way to try and do it. Of course the money is vastly different and my feeling about things could be wrong but maybe the optics are the other way..."Hey, they finally paid their bill!"

Eh, probably not.

[CID1990]

Is our treaty with pre-revolution Cuba for Guantanamo Bay null and void?

No.

We are maintaining it for the eventual return of the legitimate government of Cuba

When Iran reestablishes the old regime then we can give them the weapons they wanted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

We are maintaining it for the eventual return of the legitimate government of Cuba

lol.

how nice of us!!!



Cid for Trump's Department of State press secretary.

[JohnStOnge]

CID is absolutely doing a quadruple mastectomy on this thread (JSO's and Ursus' moobs).

No he's not. You're just predisposed to agree with him. It wasn't ransom. You can say it is as much as you want. CID can say it was as much as he wants. But it wasn't.

[93henfan]

CID is absolutely doing a quadruple mastectomy on this thread (JSO's and Ursus' moobs).

No he's not. You're just predisposed to agree with him. It wasn't ransom. You can say it is as much as you want. CID can say it was as much as he wants. But it wasn't.

OK thanks for allowing me to continue to say it was ransom.

It was ransom.