Reply With Quote
happens all the time
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politi....html?adkey=bn
ransom is against the law
lock him up!
happens all the time
lock him up and I doubt it happens again
The cash was from a 1970s arms deal. What do you guys think of Iran Contra?
still illegal with what they did
"The facts are clear," Feinstein told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "This was a negotiation over, I think, a 1979 sale. This is Iranian money that was frozen. The agreement was that the $400 million be returned to Iran."
She added, "Now Iran was going to release hostages that we very much liked released. Would we send the money before they're released or after they're released? I ask for your judgment. I know what I would do. It would be after they are released. And that's exactly what the administration did and I think it's very much the right thing."
except that's not the order it went in...the prisoners sat under guard at the airport in Tehran until the money landed.
Fuzzy, your blue team pom poms are getting in the way of your objectivity on this one. Red and Blue both up frequently.
meh. reagan did the same with the iran-contra scandal.
I find it hard to believe that the ones most vocally opposing this move would otherwise be in favor of paying back Iran debts prior to the release of hostages.
so if someone else did it it is ok got it
The money was for the settlement of that arms deal. There is no question about it. Now it is possible that the Iranians threw in the hostages to make it work but that is different that us asking for quid pro quo.
And I point out Iran Contra to show that you only care when your opponent s up. Do I have to detail how I cannot stand Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, and Obama once again?
I was removing old vinyl le in my kitchen during the summer of the hearings. I was using some incredibly potent adhesive remover....had to open all the windows for the 2 days I was using it. It was also 100+ outside. I had the Iran/Contra hearings on the tube while I worked. I was usually hallucinating quite freely by 2:00. I couldn't tell if I was really stoned or if Oliver North really believed his own testimony.
Huge money laundering operation, tbh
I pointed out that the White House and Pelosi are lying about the order of events. Why lie about it? They are saying they didn't pay the money until the hostages were released. According to the hostages it was the other way around. They sat at the airport under guard until the money landed and was verified and then they were allowed to board the plane to leave. That's a big difference.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/hostage...efore-leaving/
Despite the fact that the article you linked does not confirm your assertion, why is the order in which the events occurred a big difference?
cmon dude...white house is insisting they didn't pay the money until the hostages were released. It was the other way around. Iranians didn't release the hostages until they got the money. They even told the hostages that if the plane didn't get there they wouldn't be released.
quit being so blue pom pom obtuse.
If USA had not owed Iran any $Ms, then yes it would have been clearly ransom payment.
But since the USA did owe Iran $Ms, the definition of the transaction depends on who's defining. and clearly rightwingnuts love to trash the knitter.
larger context: the Great Satan toppled democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953, installed tyrant Shah, leading to 1979 Iranian revolution, US hostages, USA-Iran hostilities, etc. Iran hating USA is blowback for USA ing around in Iran.
If the imperial/predatory Great Satan would stopping ing around in other countries, the world would be a much better, safer world.
GOP rhetoric notwithstanding, that’s not what ‘ransom’ means
The background on this story is a little convoluted, but the United States has owed Iran money since 1979 – they bought some fighter jets, but we didn’t deliver (or refund the money) after the revolution and hostage crisis. The subsequent dispute has lasted ever since.
The two countries reached an out-of-court settlement after Secretary of State John Kerry’s team concluded they were almost certain to lose at an international arbitration tribunal.
Vox’s Zack Beauchamp summarized what he described as a “dumb controversy” quite nicely.Tony Fratto, a veteran of the Bush/Cheney White House, spent a little time yesterday urging the right to steer clear of this made-up controversy, calling it “silly.”
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. […]
[T]he basic logic of [the right’s criticisms] 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?
Apparently referring to Republicans, Fratto added, “We’re not showing how we can be serious.”
That’s true, though GOP officials and candidates don’t want to appear serious; they want to appear outraged over a story they don’t seem to understand.
Beauchamp’s Vox piece added, “The bottom line, then, is that the AP story uncovers
no real evidence suggesting that the US agreed to give Iran money that it wouldn’t have gotten otherwise as part of the hostage release deal.
There’s smoke here, but no fire.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
And you rightwingnuts GET SUCKERED YET AGAIN, EVERY TIME!, by Repug fabrications, witch hunts, LIES.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-19-2016 at 09:41 AM.
The article you linked specifically stated:
A. That is was not clear whether the second plane had the cash.
B. The State Department would not confirm the order in which the events took place.
Last I checked Nancy Pelosi was not a member of the Obama administration.
All that said, if it happened exactly as you want to believe, as HRC would say, what difference would it make?
Well, ask the two latest Americans the Iranians have arrested. Arresting innocent Americans seems to become a pretty profitable enterprise. Can we find some obscure "debt" to the Iranians to justify sending another 200 million in unmarked bills to coincidentally coincide with their release?
So you believe the hardliners arresting these people for political leverage wouldn't have happened had the admits ration not settled that debt?
I realize the company line is we don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't pay ransom for hostages, but the reality is foreign policy is a little more nuanced than that...but you know that all ready.
CC, other extreme rightwingnuts here are knee-jerk suckers and believers in every single Repug fabrication, propaganda
I don't know whether they would or wouldn't have arrested additional Americans and I realize these situations are complicated. Bottom line is they have two more Americans and we now have a precedent of paying 100 million per head to get hostages back. Maybe we don't want to see it that way but I'm willing to bet the Iranians see it that way.
the state dept admitted it it has nothing to do with if you are a democrat or a republican
both have been corrupt that is why the establish is a afraid of a outsider
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
