Politics 'Ransom' paid to Iran?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
blue32 said:
So four people outweighs the lives of many more that will die because of Iran using the money to fund more terrorism?

IMO, If I were the leader of this country I'd have setup black-ops missions to go fucking get them. Iran can suck a dick. When they get all huffy puffy and wanna start shit, I'd carpet bomb the fucking sand to glass. But that's just me.

Iran should not be able to procure ransom from the greatest country on this planet. We have the military might to squash them and we should have.
Click to expand...
Actually sounds like you want to get all huffy and start shit...what they did was part of the process of solving a problem
 
I fail to see what the non-ransom paid in January has to do with BENGHAZI!!! Oh, but with the Trump campaign imploding and many people, even Republicans, figuring they'd rather vote for a sane candidate despite disagreements with her, BENGHAZI!!! may be all that's left. True, nine investigations have not resulted in anything indictable but maybe the 10th planned for this fall will. I someone mentions a new episode of Law & Order we'll hear the real crime is BENGHAZI!!! Talk about cooking dinner and we'll hear Hillary's goose is cooked because BENGHAZI!!! Mention Damian's new shoe line and we'll hear Hillary will be in prison clothes because BENGHAZI!!! Zika is spreading and Senator McConnell acknowledged the bill proposed was deliberately loaded with poison pills so it would not pass and we'll hear about people died in BENGHAZI!!! I'd bet most of the BENGHZI!!!-philes could not even specify the "lies" of Hillary Clinton, they just know she did. True, there was no stand down order. True, she was not asleep (it was mid-afternoon in DC). But we KNOW she personally killed thousands at BENGHAZI!!!

Hillary Clinton said that the lessons of Benghazi (as opposed to BENGHAZI!!!) are to fight to bring the perpetrators to justice. And to learn the lessons so such an attack is never repeated. For example, not a good idea for Congress to cut security budget for US embassies in volatile parts of the world. That's what serious people do when such tragedies happen.

And oh yes, no ransom was paid, it's 8 months old news, Trump did not see a video of a delivery in Iran.
 
riverman said:
Actually sounds like you want to get all huffy and start shit...what they did was part of the process of solving a problem
Click to expand...


Whoa calm down turbo... You're getting triggered.

No.. what they did was negotiate with terrorists and cave into demands. Then hide it under some stupid shit about giving back a terrorism funding state their 'original money'.

You don't give money to terrorists..... period.

It's cool though right? I mean who cares about who they'll kill next.


War and suicide bombing are two different things. I'd gladly sacrifice troops to save innocent lives. That's what we do as Americans, and what we've always done. And the people that sign up for the armed forces understand that risk.
 
riverman said:
I'm glad you're not leader of this country..you'd have us in another yet war in the middle east that will cost trillions
Click to expand...

How many hostages yet to be held will you be willing to pay ransom to get back?
 
Denny Crane said:
But no video exists.
Click to expand...

You understand that Trump has already admitted he made all that shit up? So you are defending bullshit that even Donald Trump disavows.

barfo
 
barfo said:
You understand that Trump has already admitted he made all that shit up? So you are defending bullshit that even Donald Trump disavows.

barfo
Click to expand...

You do realize there is a video made by the Iranians showing the ransom, right?
 
Denny Crane said:
You do realize there is a video made by the Iranians showing the ransom, right?
Click to expand...

I realize that Trump never saw it or knew about it, and was talking out his ass, which everyone in the world now agrees to - even Trump - with the sole exception of Denny Crane.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I realize that Trump never saw it or knew about it, and was talking out his ass, which everyone in the world now agrees to - even Trump - with the sole exception of Denny Crane.

barfo
Click to expand...
Or Trump had a come to Jesus meeting with top republicans, and they came out of that realizing it's better not to fight your silly battles.
 
Denny Crane said:
Or Trump had a come to Jesus meeting with top republicans, and they came out of that realizing it's better not to fight your silly battles.
Click to expand...

Yes, that apparently did happen. Now all we need is for someone to have a meeting with you, so that you can stop fighting Trump's silly battles for him.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yes, that apparently did happen. Now all we need is for someone to have a meeting with you, so that you can stop fighting Trump's silly battles for him.

barfo
Click to expand...

There you go again.
 
MarAzul said:
How many hostages yet to be held will you be willing to pay ransom to get back?
Click to expand...
to get hostages was just a throw in with the deal.....this was an Iranian account in Denver set up before the Shah was ousted...the money was for arms purchased and never delivered between 1979 and 1981 from what I read and was part of the negotiations to relieve sanctions in trade for Iran stopping a nuke weapons program....the hostages were a gesture of good faith. It's called diplomacy and the current leader of Iran is a moderate who can be swayed, unlike the last 4 leaders they've had....for Iran...the young are basically waiting for the old guard to die off.
 
I applaud the effort to get Iran and Cuba to the bargaining table...people think in short term fixes but long term fixes are actually more realistic. If you happen to love Trump and hate Muslims....then my thoughts about all this won't change anybody.
 
riverman said:
to get hostages was just a throw in with the deal.....this was an Iranian account in Denver set up before the Shah was ousted...the money was for arms purchased and never delivered between 1979 and 1981 from what I read and was part of the negotiations to relieve sanctions in trade for Iran stopping a nuke weapons program....the hostages were a gesture of good faith. It's called diplomacy and the current leader of Iran is a moderate who can be swayed, unlike the last 4 leaders they've had....for Iran...the young are basically waiting for the old guard to die off.
Click to expand...

I notice you most definitely did not answer the question. Well I probably will ask it again before too long.
I sort of like the 10 bucks in a stuffed bag approach. The Muslim hostage taker can accept and pretend it was a haul, or fuck up and reject the final offer. Either way the hostage is leaving.
The incentive to take another is really low after either choice.
 
riverman said:
hate Muslims
Click to expand...

You do understand, that there is another possibility? Try thinking about understanding Muslims through careful study and observation through experience.

Ha! but I see you got a "like" for as far as you went.
 
MarAzul said:
How many hostages yet to be held will you be willing to pay ransom to get back?
Click to expand...
I don' understand the question Marz...if they haven't been held yet...how are they hostages? How many deals are you willing to keep payment on that you never delivered on? There's a question...so I guess stolen art from WWII would be finders keepers?
 
riverman said:
to get hostages was just a throw in with the deal.....this was an Iranian account in Denver set up before the Shah was ousted...the money was for arms purchased and never delivered between 1979 and 1981 from what I read and was part of the negotiations to relieve sanctions in trade for Iran stopping a nuke weapons program....the hostages were a gesture of good faith. It's called diplomacy and the current leader of Iran is a moderate who can be swayed, unlike the last 4 leaders they've had....for Iran...the young are basically waiting for the old guard to die off.
Click to expand...
Simply not true.

There were negotiations to free the hostages ongoing for quite a while before the nuke deal was even pondered.
 
Denny Crane said:
Simply not true.

There were negotiations to free the hostages ongoing for quite a while before the nuke deal was even pondered.
Click to expand...
What's simply not true is your posting about 400mil pd for ransom.....and ransom only...I don't know about those hostages being negotiated for since 1979....I think you're thinking of Ross Perot's employees when Carter was in office...we still have this little place called GITMO ourselves..and we've held political prisoners without bail for many, many years. What Obama did needed to be done...and I think this probably bothers you more than what happened...it's an opportunity to use the president as a scapegoat again...an ongoing theme
 
riverman said:
What's simply not true is your posting about 400mil pd for ransom.....and ransom only...I don't know about those hostages being negotiated for since 1970....I think you're thinking of Ross Perot's employees when Carter was in office...
Click to expand...

The hostages in question were being held since the 2000s. Negotiations to free them about as long. To say the hostages were freed for any reason beyond the $400M in cash flown to the terrorists in the middle of the night, right before the hostages were released is kind of naive.

Here's the Clinton News Network's take:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/opinions/iran-payments-ghitis/index.html

Despite Obama administration denials, the transaction looks very much like a ransom, adding one more disturbing layer to what was already a troubling and secretive agreement, and ensuring that relations with Iran, and the agreement over its nuclear program, will remain near the top of the agenda for the next president.

Indeed, in January, when the deal was announced and the hostages released, many complained that the Obama administration was paying a ransom. The White House vehemently denied it, explaining that the $1.7 billion figure had nothing to do with the prisoners. Furthermore, it argued it was a good deal for the United States, settling a $10 billion claim filed by Iran at an international tribunal in The Hague over Iranian funds frozen in 1981, a matter separate from the much larger sums involved in the agreement to dismantle Iran's nuclear program.

But is the White House telling the truth? State Department Spokesman John Kirby has repeated the Obama administration's denial, stating that the talks about settling the frozen assets claim and freeing the imprisoned Americans were conducted by entirely different negotiating teams.

That explanation, however, is hard to swallow. A large cash payment at a time of a prisoner release looks precisely like a ransom payment. And that's what the Iranian commander of the dreaded Basij militia called it when he said the money "was in return for the release of American spies." If Iran thinks it was ransom, then for practical purposes it was.
 
More:

Since the nuclear deal was reached, Iran's spending on its military has grown exponentially. That has allowed it to help its ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and the Hezbollah militias gain the upper hand in the Syrian war. Worse yet, just this week the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stoked conspiracy theories, blaming the United States for the failed coup in Turkey and warning that negotiations with Washington on regional issues would be "a lethal poison."

Iran has also stepped up its missile program, which U.N. resolutions had banned in addition to proscribing the nuclear program. After all, developing missiles capable of carrying warheads is a key requirement for a country seeking to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Despite recent Iranian military spending and political rhetoric, the Obama White House views the nuclear deal as its paramount foreign policy accomplishment.
 
you lost me at Clinton News Network...and you seem to really put a lot of weight behind...looks very much like....then using an Iranian soldiers bluster as a backup to the theory. I read articles about both takes on this and I believe that it was a deal that builds a foundation for dialogue and diplomacy....I believe John Kerry's take on it...apparently, you don't.
 
Iran is surrounded by warring neighbors...they were spending money on arms back when we froze their money...we're spending money on military, China is, Russia is, France is, and on and on...Iran can spend their own money however they like unless you think we should just take their country from them. If they are buying our weapons again, I guess you'd give them a free pass
 
I'd be way more worried about Kim Jong Un firing missles at Japan...don't see a lot of hawks shouting at them from the rooftops
 
riverman said:
you lost me at Clinton News Network...and you seem to really put a lot of weight behind...looks very much like....then using an Iranian soldiers bluster as a backup to the theory. I read articles about both takes on this and I believe that it was a deal that builds a foundation for dialogue and diplomacy....I believe John Kerry's take on it...apparently, you don't.
Click to expand...

CNN, mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Cheerleaders for Obama.

Remarkably, they actually did their job in writing that article. The money quote:

"If Iran thinks it was ransom, then for practical purposes it was."
 
Denny Crane said:
CNN, mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Cheerleaders for Obama.

Remarkably, they actually did their job in writing that article. The money quote:

"If Iran thinks it was ransom, then for practical purposes it was."
Click to expand...
So assuming there's one universal thought in Iran...."if" is such a money statement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top