Weere is the MSM on Obama paying off Iran?

[93henfan]

Nope. Not ransom at all.

Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON—New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.

The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day,,.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-held-ca ... 1471469256

[GannonFan]

Nope. Not ransom at all.

Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON—New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.

The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day,,.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-held-ca ... 1471469256

[Bronco]

Anyone posting here that still thinks he's not a serial liar?

[JohnStOnge]

This is part of what I typed in my initial post in this thread:

If I had to bet I'd bet the Iranians used the hostages as leverage to get us to refund their money. But that's not ransom. We didn't give them anything that they didn't legitimately have coming to them.

Looks like I got it backwards. Looks like the US used the money Iran had coming to it as leverage to get the hostages released. But it's still not ransom. If you owe somebody money and give it to them that's not ransom. And if you say "I'm not paying you the money I owe you until you do what I want" that's not ransom.

It's still the case that the Iranians were not paid anything they weren't owed. Still the case that all we did was give them a refund on money they paid us for weapons that we never delivered.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

This is part of what I typed in my initial post in this thread:

If I had to bet I'd bet the Iranians used the hostages as leverage to get us to refund their money. But that's not ransom. We didn't give them anything that they didn't legitimately have coming to them.

Looks like I got it backwards. Looks like the US used the money Iran had coming to it as leverage to get the hostages released. But it's still not ransom. If you owe somebody money and give it to them that's not ransom. And if you say "I'm not paying you the money I owe you until you do what I want" that's not ransom.

It's still the case that the Iranians were not paid anything they weren't owed. Still the case that all we did was give them a refund on money they paid us for weapons that we never delivered.

Agree with that fully.

[UNI88]

This is part of what I typed in my initial post in this thread:

If I had to bet I'd bet the Iranians used the hostages as leverage to get us to refund their money. But that's not ransom. We didn't give them anything that they didn't legitimately have coming to them.

Looks like I got it backwards. Looks like the US used the money Iran had coming to it as leverage to get the hostages released. But it's still not ransom. If you owe somebody money and give it to them that's not ransom. And if you say "I'm not paying you the money I owe you until you do what I want" that's not ransom.

It's still the case that the Iranians were not paid anything they weren't owed. Still the case that all we did was give them a refund on money they paid us for weapons that we never delivered.

Did they reimburse us for the damage to our embassy? Did the hostages and their families ever receive compensation from Iran? If not shouldn't some of that money be redirected to those things rather than being given back?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

This guy lies more brazenly than Trump..............

[GannonFan]

This is part of what I typed in my initial post in this thread:



Looks like I got it backwards. Looks like the US used the money Iran had coming to it as leverage to get the hostages released. But it's still not ransom. If you owe somebody money and give it to them that's not ransom. And if you say "I'm not paying you the money I owe you until you do what I want" that's not ransom.

It's still the case that the Iranians were not paid anything they weren't owed. Still the case that all we did was give them a refund on money they paid us for weapons that we never delivered.

Agree with that fully.

That's bunk. You guys are bending over so much you can probably kiss your own butts now trying to justify this. Look at it from the other angle - the Iranians say "we won't give you the prisoners we shouldn't have until you pay us the $400M you owe us". That means the people holding hostages won't let them go until their demands are met. If that's not ransom, it's the closest thing to ransom you can get that it's immaterial if it's ransom or not. And if that wasn't bad enough, they spent the past few weeks lying about it and hoping that the story would go away. You guys need to be honest with yourselves - if Bush had done this, you would be bashing him, which would be the right thing to do. Regardless of who did it, GOP or Dem, it was caving into demands to release prisoners who shouldn't have been prisoners anyway.

[JohnStOnge]

- if Bush had done this, you would be bashing him,

No I wouldn't and I think you know that. Look, I said back when this thread first started that I thought there was linkage. But the payment for the arms is something the US and Iran have been negotiating for a long time. It's been a World Court thing. They reached an out of "court" settlement. Now we find that the US says it won't honor the settlement unless the hostages are released on schedule.

That's not "ransom."

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Agree with that fully.

That's bunk. You guys are bending over so much you can probably kiss your own butts now trying to justify this. Look at it from the other angle - the Iranians say "we won't give you the prisoners we shouldn't have until you pay us the $400M you owe us". That means the people holding hostages won't let them go until their demands are met. If that's not ransom, it's the closest thing to ransom you can get that it's immaterial if it's ransom or not. And if that wasn't bad enough, they spent the past few weeks lying about it and hoping that the story would go away. You guys need to be honest with yourselves - if Bush had done this, you would be bashing him, which would be the right thing to do. Regardless of who did it, GOP or Dem, it was caving into demands to release prisoners who shouldn't have been prisoners anyway.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about if you think I was ever bashing Bush pal. I sure wouldn't have for this. I ain't the kind of biased fuck that hold one side to a different standard than the other.

I work under the assumption that this being in front of the Hague and it might have gone against us then getting out from under this with that small of a dent when a case could be made that we would owe 5 times that...a fairly good business decision. Now if that assumption is incorrect then I would take to looking at other factors like 88 pointed out and so forth and could change my stance on it if the need arises.

Until then, JSO somehow nailed this down.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

This guy lies more brazenly than Trump..............

Says who?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... n-t-ransom

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... n-t-ransom

I don't think you got what was going on with that last one.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Z9lTUu3e8[/youtube]

[andy7171]

The Iranians are calling it a ransom payment.

It's a sad day when I think the fucking Iranians are tell the truth over our own President.

[Grizalltheway]

The Iranians are calling it a ransom payment.

It's a sad day when I think the fucking Iranians are tell the truth over our own President.

Yeah, it is sad that you you'd fall for Iranian propaganda. But not totally unexpected, I suppose.

[DSUrocks07]

The Iranians are calling it a ransom payment.

It's a sad day when I think the **** Iranians are tell the truth over our own President.

Yeah, it is sad that you you'd fall for Iranian propaganda. But not totally unexpected, I suppose.

Because falling for American propaganda makes you a "true American"

NOW leftists want to claim "patriotism and loyalty" as their own.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[andy7171]

The Iranians are calling it a ransom payment.

It's a sad day when I think the fucking Iranians are tell the truth over our own President.

Yeah, it is sad that you you'd fall for Iranian propaganda. But not totally unexpected, I suppose.

Yeah very sad.

1- Midnight delivery of changed out US dollars to Euros without Congresses knowledge
2- Prisoners held until said delivery
3- History of lying to the American people about dealing with our enemies.

Choose your own propaganda to believe. At least the Iranians arent lying about their intentions of "Death to America"

[GannonFan]

That's bunk. You guys are bending over so much you can probably kiss your own butts now trying to justify this. Look at it from the other angle - the Iranians say "we won't give you the prisoners we shouldn't have until you pay us the $400M you owe us". That means the people holding hostages won't let them go until their demands are met. If that's not ransom, it's the closest thing to ransom you can get that it's immaterial if it's ransom or not. And if that wasn't bad enough, they spent the past few weeks lying about it and hoping that the story would go away. You guys need to be honest with yourselves - if Bush had done this, you would be bashing him, which would be the right thing to do. Regardless of who did it, GOP or Dem, it was caving into demands to release prisoners who shouldn't have been prisoners anyway.

You don't know what the **** you are talking about if you think I was ever bashing Bush pal. I sure wouldn't have for this. I ain't the kind of biased **** that hold one side to a different standard than the other.

I work under the assumption that this being in front of the Hague and it might have gone against us then getting out from under this with that small of a dent when a case could be made that we would owe 5 times that...a fairly good business decision. Now if that assumption is incorrect then I would take to looking at other factors like 88 pointed out and so forth and could change my stance on it if the need arises.

Until then, JSO somehow nailed this down.

That's super, and you're missing the point, that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and so on, that it's a duck. Perception matters, and the perception is that the US wanted hostages released and timed the release of hostages to be done with the payment of money to the people that held the hostages. That's a dangerous precedent to set and it's even more laughable (if one could even laugh about this stuff) to then lecture the voters that they don't know what they're talking about and that no one anywhere will think it to be a ransom payment because we can point to money that we owed Iran at some point in the past.

It's a great story and clearly one that the administration wants people to believe, but the reality is, the rest of the world saw that Iran was holding Americans they shouldn't be holding and America gave Iran money to get them back. Political nuance and potential Hague arbitration outcomes don't translate well when you have headlines like that around the world. We lost the headlines on this and there's no arguing otherwise and that's where the real damage lies, no matter how much you want to walk the tightrope between what the dictionary definition of ransom and what the rest of the world believes happened.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

You don't know what the **** you are talking about if you think I was ever bashing Bush pal. I sure wouldn't have for this. I ain't the kind of biased **** that hold one side to a different standard than the other.

I work under the assumption that this being in front of the Hague and it might have gone against us then getting out from under this with that small of a dent when a case could be made that we would owe 5 times that...a fairly good business decision. Now if that assumption is incorrect then I would take to looking at other factors like 88 pointed out and so forth and could change my stance on it if the need arises.

Until then, JSO somehow nailed this down.

That's super, and you're missing the point, that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and so on, that it's a duck. Perception matters, and the perception is that the US wanted hostages released and timed the release of hostages to be done with the payment of money to the people that held the hostages. That's a dangerous precedent to set and it's even more laughable (if one could even laugh about this stuff) to then lecture the voters that they don't know what they're talking about and that no one anywhere will think it to be a ransom payment because we can point to money that we owed Iran at some point in the past.

It's a great story and clearly one that the administration wants people to believe, but the reality is, the rest of the world saw that Iran was holding Americans they shouldn't be holding and America gave Iran money to get them back. Political nuance and potential Hague arbitration outcomes don't translate well when you have headlines like that around the world. We lost the headlines on this and there's no arguing otherwise and that's where the real damage lies, no matter how much you want to walk the tightrope between what the dictionary definition of ransom and what the rest of the world believes happened.

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 shit 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 fucking money?

Yes, there are way deeper factors here and yes we don't know how this could affect shit going forward. However, we are dudes on a message board that don't have one fucking clue what all had to go into this shit 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!!".

[Grizalltheway]

That's super, and you're missing the point, that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and so on, that it's a duck. Perception matters, and the perception is that the US wanted hostages released and timed the release of hostages to be done with the payment of money to the people that held the hostages. That's a dangerous precedent to set and it's even more laughable (if one could even laugh about this stuff) to then lecture the voters that they don't know what they're talking about and that no one anywhere will think it to be a ransom payment because we can point to money that we owed Iran at some point in the past.

It's a great story and clearly one that the administration wants people to believe, but the reality is, the rest of the world saw that Iran was holding Americans they shouldn't be holding and America gave Iran money to get them back. Political nuance and potential Hague arbitration outcomes don't translate well when you have headlines like that around the world. We lost the headlines on this and there's no arguing otherwise and that's where the real damage lies, no matter how much you want to walk the tightrope between what the dictionary definition of ransom and what the rest of the world believes happened.

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 shit 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 fucking money?

Yes, there are way deeper factors here and yes we don't know how this could affect shit going forward. However, we are dudes on a message board that don't have one fucking clue what all had to go into this shit 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.

[Grizalltheway]

Yeah, it is sad that you you'd fall for Iranian propaganda. But not totally unexpected, I suppose.

Because falling for American propaganda makes you a "true American"

NOW leftists want to claim "patriotism and loyalty" as their own.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

No, it's called understanding the nuances of a situation (you're welcome kalm) and not just buying the Fox News version designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[DSUrocks07]

The Obama administration claims that it wasn't a ransom, but that "it was a payment contingent on the safe return of the sailors."


Soooo...a ransom then?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

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!!".

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.

[SDHornet]

The Obama administration claims that it wasn't a ransom, but that "it was a payment contingent on the safe return of the sailors."


Soooo...a ransom then?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Whoops.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

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!!".

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.