EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4778
| 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
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
EDIT: note that none of DOJ, State, Obama Admin actually thought this Was a ransom. DOJ concerns about the after the fact spin have been vindicated. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:03 Slaughter wrote: From what you just posted doesn't it say the prisoner thing was a separate talk and that they swapped people? Seems like they are just concerned with people's feelings. They might feel that it's a ransom payment. Maybe that is why Obama wanted to drop it in the 1st place because now certain people are screaming about ransom and Iran is probably like loool Americans over this. And let me tell you, they are laughing at our government dysfunction and not how much of a sweet deal they got. Actually, the Iranians have released quite a few statements bragging about how much the Americans paid for the release of the hostages. I'm sure that they're having a good laugh at Obama's bungling of the optics, too, but that's just gravy to them. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:06 xDaunt wrote: Actually, the Iranians have released quite a few statements bragging about how much the Americans paid for the release of the hostages. I'm sure that they're having a good laugh at Obama's bungling of the optics, too, but that's just gravy to them. Yeah and North Korea brags about stuff all the time. When the majority of people know your bragging is hollow and just face saving in front of your own citizens then who cares. The problem is certain elements of the government are just looking for any arrow they can fire at the president. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:02 Dan HH wrote: There's no personal attack there, he argued against your point. And this fite me 1v1 irl brah attitude is not 'addressing the issue'. if there was one. He literally insulted his character but okay let's just ignore that | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:02 TheYango wrote: This is a reasonable argument, but it's a slightly different one than whether or not the money paid was ransom or not. Effectively, whether we as Americans consider the $400 million to be ransom money is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the rest of the world sees it as ransom, and insofar as it could be perceived as such, it endangers potential American hostages in other parts of the world. I would disagree with that, but you're free to be as humble as you please. Bolded. And remember, its not particularly what the French, the English, the Germans, and similar places report to their civilians, its what gets reported by state-controlled and pseudo-state controlled media in terrorist areas and the perceptions that grow around that. You can bet there is some blowhard 10:00PM radio/tv guy in Iraq talking about how America paid $400 million for four measly prisoners. On August 19 2016 10:06 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Viewed. The concerns were that the timing would be Viewed badly, most likely by bad faith Republicans looking for something to spin. Apparently DOJ was right, Republicans would spin this. EDIT: note that none of DOJ, State, Obama Admin actually thought this Was a ransom. DOJ concerns about the after the fact spin have been vindicated. Viewed is the point. Paying a ransom, in each individual case, is almost always the objectively correct thing to do. The problem is that it is not a 1-off game (in a game theory sense). Thus, what makes sense in each individual case, turns out to be bad in the long run, because of how it is VIEWED. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9016 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote: He literally insulted his character but okay let's just ignore that 'okay, let's just ignore that' is exactly the type of rhetoric he used and no, I don't cosider that you just insulted my character | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:10 Plansix wrote: Did you expect them to do anything but spin this as a good for them? Of course Iran was going to spin it. That's not the point. The real is point is the significance of Iran's ability to spin it. That's the red flag that the Justice Department was waving before the deal closed. It's the same reason why Obama did his best to cover up what really happened and insist publicly that the hostage release was completely unrelated to the larger settlement. He knew that, if the truth got out, it would send a bad message that could create further headaches for the US down the road. That's why he lied his ass off to prevent the truth from coming out. All of this talk about Republicans spinning the issue to their own benefit (which of course they are) is childish and irrelevant. What matters is the real effect on American foreign policy, and Obama let slip the appearance that the US will pay for the release of hostages. This is yet another moment (like his infamous Syrian "red line" remarks) where his actions on the world stage are wanting. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:17 Dan HH wrote: 'okay, let's just ignore that' is exactly the type of rhetoric he used and no, I don't cosider that you just insulted my character No, On August 19 2016 09:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote: You spinning this after the fact, after the Republicans asked for exactly this result, is entirely consistent with your character. If you can't make your point without making snide-ass remarks like this then you are just being a twat to begin with and I don't know why it's so hard for you to see that this is insulting | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote: He literally insulted his character but okay let's just ignore that XDaunt and Cannons have thrown down a bunch of times in this thread. Xdaunt is no stranger to throwing some hot flame when he disagrees with someone. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:20 xDaunt wrote: Of course Iran was going to spin it. That's not the point. The real is point is the significance of Iran's ability to spin it. That's the red flag that the Justice Department was waving before the deal closed. It's the same reason why Obama did his best to cover up what really happened and insist publicly that the hostage release was completely unrelated to the larger settlement. He knew that, if the truth got out, it would send a bad message that could create further headaches for the US down the road. That's why he lied his ass off to prevent the truth from coming out. All of this talk about Republicans spinning the issue to their own benefit (which of course they are) is childish and irrelevant. What matters is the real effect on American foreign policy, and Obama let slip the appearance that the US will pay for the release of hostages. This is yet another moment (like his infamous Syrian "red line" remarks) where his actions on the world stage are wanting. How do you feel Obama should have handled it then? I'm generally pretty clueless about FP-related stuff, so I'm genuinely asking. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:20 xDaunt wrote: Of course Iran was going to spin it. That's not the point. The real is point is the significance of Iran's ability to spin it. That's the red flag that the Justice Department was waving before the deal closed. It's the same reason why Obama did his best to cover up what really happened and insist publicly that the hostage release was completely unrelated to the larger settlement. He knew that, if the truth got out, it would send a bad message that could create further headaches for the US down the road. That's why he lied his ass off to prevent the truth from coming out. All of this talk about Republicans spinning the issue to their own benefit (which of course they are) is childish and irrelevant. What matters is the real effect on American foreign policy, and Obama let slip the appearance that the US will pay for the release of hostages. This is yet another moment (like his infamous Syrian "red line" remarks) where his actions on the world stage are wanting. But what is the alternative? Let them die in Iran, but appear strong? One of those guys was over there, likely working for the CIA. So its not like we didn't sign up for this. I think we need to entertain the idea that there is no viable solution that wouldn't make us appear to have given into Iran. Sometimes we need to take it in the teeth to protect our own people. Its the nature of FP. You can't win them all. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:21 Plansix wrote: XDaunt and Cannons have thrown down a bunch of times in this thread. Xdaunt is no stranger to throwing some hot flame when he disagrees with someone. I see that Why are you making whiney posts and giving him shit for defending himself then? Stop being such a damn shill all the time CC had it coming and everyone flips out on xDaunt for responding, ignoring the original affront to good manners by CC | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9016 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: No, If you can't make your point without making snide-ass remarks like this then you are just being a twat to begin with and I don't know why it's so hard for you to see that this is insulting You're right, I somehow completely missed that line and thought the issue was with another. My bad. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:23 TheYango wrote: How do you feel Obama should have handled it then? I'm generally pretty clueless about FP-related stuff, so I'm genuinely asking. He should have either created sufficient separation between the hostage release and the larger settlement such that no connection between the two could reasonably be made, or he should have kept the issue of the hostages completely out of the settlement agreement and negotiated for their release separately. The error was in creating a tangible link between monetary payment and release of the hostages. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:23 TheYango wrote: How do you feel Obama should have handled it then? I'm generally pretty clueless about FP-related stuff, so I'm genuinely asking. If Obama thought Iran was a good-faith partner of the level worthy of giving this kind of deal, he should have had the faith that a backroom handshake would ensure the release during the last few days of negotiations. That he felt that they were not, is indicative of his opinion of Iran's trustworthiness, which throws the entire agreement into disrepute. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2016 10:27 xDaunt wrote: He should have either created sufficient separation between the hostage release and the larger settlement such that no connection between the two could reasonably be made, or he should have kept the issue of the hostages completely out of the settlement agreement and negotiated for their release separately. The error was in creating a tangible link between monetary payment and release of the hostages. I think this is a valid point, although I don't know how fragile the trust between parties was. There might have been no way to convince Iran to do that. This entire problem could have been solved if we had viable banking systems with Iran. The physical transportation of the money is the real problem. On August 19 2016 10:28 cLutZ wrote: If Obama thought Iran was a good-faith partner of the level worthy of giving this kind of deal, he should have had the faith that a backroom handshake would ensure the release during the last few days of negotiations. That he felt that they were not, is indicative of his opinion of Iran's trustworthiness, which throws the entire agreement into disrepute. I would argue that the distrust was likely equal between the parties. People forget that turn the Iran deal we were talking about bombing them at least 2-3 times a week if it fell through. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Trump gave a good, yet Trumpian speech. Still too much protectionism and big "I will fix it" government, but he's had three solid speeches in a row, and hit a lot of good notes. If he apologizes to people by name (instead of citing "regrets") it will show he's making real progress. There is still time. Edit: I'm still not convinced, but this is some kind of Trump record. | ||
| ||
