EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4776
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43211 Posts
On August 19 2016 08:39 xDaunt wrote: You have to go into some pretty retarded contortions to not see the $400 million as a random payment. What should make the issue obvious is this: Obama lied about what the payment was for at a press conference earlier this year. That fact pretty much ends the debate. We ransomed their $400,000,000. We held it hostage until they gave the prisoners. The $400,000,000 was already their money which we just held up for bullshit reasons because we wanted the prisoners. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9135 Posts
Sadly it's not a The Onion article | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45025 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 08:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The State Department held the $400 million as ransom; they didn't pay a ransom because it wasn't their money. By definition. We didn't pay ransom. Its ransom because the evil man without a birth certificate who totally isn't an American citizen payed it to Iran. And then lied about..something. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote: This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument. Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. | ||
|
Hexe
United States332 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:04 xDaunt wrote: It's pretty damned clear what happened. Iran had the hostages. Concurrently, the US and Iran were litigating the dispute concerning the $400 million account. Iran used the hostages to get additional terms from the US in settlement of the pending litigation. You could also say that the US used the settlement as a bargaining chip to get the hostages back, but it doesn't change the fact that the US effectively paid a ransom by incorporating release of the hostages into the terms of the settlement agreement. just be happy he didnt up the price for 2 billion dollars like bobby bergdahl for five terrorists. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On August 19 2016 08:44 KwarK wrote: We ransomed their $400,000,000. We held it hostage until they gave the prisoners. The $400,000,000 was already their money which we just held up for bullshit reasons because we wanted the prisoners. exactly. without the prisoners (or other strong pressure iran could use), the US would likely never have payed that back. its effectively ransom, how can anyone deny that. but, considering the circumstances, paying the ransom is clearly the right decision. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote: i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:12 Paljas wrote: exactly. without the prisoners, the US would likely never have payed that back. its effectively ransom, how can anyone deny that. but, considering the circumstances, paying the ransom is clearly the right decision. Because they likely would have gotten the money anyways. It is just a question of when. On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote: Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). We struck a deal with them back in January of this year to give them back their money. It was payment for fighter jets back before the coup that we just kept because we froze all Iranian assets. | ||
|
Hexe
United States332 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:15 Plansix wrote: Because they likely would have gotten the money anyways. It is just a question of when. perhaps when they stop being the #1 sponsor of terrorism | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
The lobbying included attempts to gain positive press coverage of Ukrainian officials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and AP. Another goal: undercutting American public sympathy for the imprisoned rival of Ukraine’s president. The men have said they were not doing work that required them to register as foreign agents. Neither commented Thursday. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9135 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:15 Plansix wrote: Because they likely would have gotten the money anyways. It is just a question of when. Is it though? We gave our gold reserves to Russia for safekeeping during WWI and will never see it back | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:17 Hexe wrote: perhaps when they stop being the #1 sponsor of terrorism Are you talking about Saudi Arabia, your primary ally in the region, arch enemy of Iran? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote: Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 09:17 Hexe wrote: perhaps when they stop being the #1 sponsor of terrorism Why would they do that if we don't give them back their money? Our main export to the middle east are explosions and bombs. We threaten to bomb Iran several times a year if they don't do what we say. They don't have a lot of reasons to like us. | ||
| ||
