Obamas ransom to Iran raising questions

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XrayTed, Jan 23, 2016.

  1. XrayTed macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #1
    Someone should tell Obama and his handlers that the prime reason US and other countries have historically refused to pay ransom to criminals is that doing so only encourages more criminal actions, as the criminals rightly think they have a large payday in store.
    France started the trend of paying off kidnappers and extortionists long ago, the US held strong until the present administration. Now it to the point that they barely try to hide it. There was a massive payoff to the Taliban in return for a single US deserter. Now this, 5 "Americans" [most of whom are transplanted Iranians anyhow] who were guilty of nothing get returned in exchange for 7 convicted criminals and $1.5 billion.
    Those "detained" US sailors were sure let go quick at just around the same time too, probably hasn't surfaced yet what payoff set them free so quick.

    A very disturbing trend, one that promises to keep spinning in a circle until reigns are put on this elevated activist.


    `````````````````````````````````````




    The Obama administration's $1.7 billion payment to Iran to settle an arcane, decades-old financial dispute is prompting questions among Republican lawmakers trying to piece together the full scope of last weekend's dramatic U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap and the lifting of many American sanctions on Tehran.


    The announcement's timing, just after confirmation that three Americans left Iranian airspace, is leading to calls for investigations and shedding light on a little-known fund that the president can dip into when he wants to resolve international financial disputes. Legislative efforts are already afoot to curtail that ability.

    U.S. officials deny claims that the payment was a bribe to ensure the release of a total of five Americans traded for the freedom of seven people in legal trouble in the U.S. over business deals with Iran.

    Sunday's financial settlement between Washington and Tehran was largely lost amid U.S. elation over the release of the Americans and global interest in the latest benchmark in Iran's nuclear transformation. With the United Nations' confirmation that Iran satisfied the terms of last summer's nuclear agreement, it immediately recouped tens of billions in frozen assets and earned the chance to gain significantly more from suspended oil, trade and financial sanctions.

    The much smaller U.S.-Iranian agreement concerned more than $400 million in Iranian money, dating back to before the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the end of diplomatic ties, which the U.S.-backed shah's government used to buy American military equipment. The Iranians got that money back last weekend and some $1.3 billion in interest.

    The administration said the settlement was decided on its merits, with officials arguing that Iran demanded more than $3 billion and, at some points during the talks, much more for an agreement.

    Earlier this week, however, one Iranian military commander painted the payment in a different light. Mohammad Reza Naghdi, head of the Basij paramilitary wing of the powerful Revolutionary Guards, said the wiring of the funds was a payoff for letting the Americans go.

    http://news.yahoo.com/lost-amid-us-iran-news-1-7b-deal-191436744.html
     
  2. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #2
    Edit the title to read: "Raising questions form political hacks."

    The money paid to Iran was their own money, plus interest, dating back some thirty plus years. Its hard to call that a "bribe" or "ransom" when its the Iranians' own money. And if Iran had taken the case to international tribunal or court; the US could have been on the hook for far more.

    I know that Republicans think a constant state of semi-war is the natural state of affairs for this country. But its not. We still have many differences with Iran; and numerous disputes to work out.

    But one thing is for certain: Its far, far less likely that another generation of Americas fighting men and women will be sent off to fight, die and suffer in a useless war in the middle east; thanks largely to President Obama. And zero-minus thanks to Bibi Netanyahu and his running dogs in the Republican Party.
     
  3. XrayTed thread starter macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #3
    A ransom was paid, pure and very simple, no matter what kind of happy apologist spin you want to put on it.

    Do you think the USA should be paying ransom to this planets premiere sponsor of state terrorism, or not ?

    As far as your last, apparently you have been hiding under a rock for a while. The way things are going the odds are far, far more likely. It was amateur US policy that engineered instability in Egypt, that engineered near islamic anarchy in Libya, and had a completely disjointed policy in Syria for almost a decade, even going so far as to arm and fund radical islamist groups.

    As we speak, US is setting up airfields in Syrian territory, presumably gearing up for some kind of push that will be aimed at the legit leader of Syria, very possibly setting up a major conflict with Russia. It is precisely these amateur, engineered moves that has caused 1,000,000's of muslims to invade Europe and the USA - And its pretty obvious things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better.

    But oh yeah, move along here nothing to see, great job Obama ! [I've been to Afghanistan twice BTW and had my ass literally on the line, have you ?]


    U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush


    575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office—and yet, little in that war-torn country has changed.

    These numbers should give us pause. While the Administration has publicly conceded that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and claimed that it supports 'Afghan-led reconciliation', its policy on the ground is marked by a refusal to establish a timetable for full military withdrawal even after misleading Americans into thinking that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

    http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    No. It wasn't. It was Iran's own money, that had been frozen by the US during the Reagan administration. Decades before the Americans held in Iran even travelled to that country.

    But keep regurgitating your nonsense. I'm sure everyone is very impressed.
     
  5. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #5
    Regardless of this fact, the U.S. has a fairly long history of negotiating and paying groups deemed terrorist organizations. This includes negotiations held during the presidency of Right-wing demigod, Ronald Reagan. In fact, Reagan came to the presidency through negotiations with Iran, a country deemed a state sponsor of terror by our own state department. It doesn't happen often. When it does, it is not talked about much. It absolutely does/has happened. Unsurprisingly, the OP is short on facts in a number of ways.
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #6
    The Revolutionary Guard is not a big fan of Iran's nuclear agreement, and often a publicly expressed opinion offered by a guard official is meant to damage or weaken the position of the moderate faction of their own government, as well as to cast aspersions on the USA. Think proxy speech on behalf of the ayatollahs. That way the grand ayatollah Khamenei can still offer some neutral-sounding quasi-denial afterwards, but the message is out there for public consumption.
     
  7. XrayTed, Jan 23, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2016

    XrayTed thread starter macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #7

    Was not meant to be an in depth thesis on US-Iran relations for the past 4 decades.

    It was only when Reagan came to office, replacing the sissified left wing peanut farmer and liberal icon Carter, that the mullahs wised up and released actual American hostages, and lots of them.

    BTW, Iran is still deemed a state sponsor of terror by our own state department as I already noted. Nothing has changed, they are belligerent radical zealots as always - Thats precisely why I'm wondering why this administration is bending over backwards to indulge them.
     
  8. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #8
    If we were not in Afghanistan right now the Republicans would be screaming about Obama not protecting against complete takeover by Taliban. Since we are there, they're screaming about not having left. There is nothing President Obama can do that will please Republicans, who are still filled with chagrin (or possibly puzzlement if they are that stupid) that they have not occupied the WH since President George W. Bush left it.
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    Actually, it was the Carter administration that froze Iran's assets.
     
  10. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10

    Yet he's compromised with them several times and on many issues, to which the republicans then whine about not getting enough before turning around and taking claim (e.g. Romney's finally admitting sizable influence and support of the ACA after spending years hating it?) Why does Obama continue to want to work with them after all this time? Especially the economy, the GOP loved saying how the post-election rebound was due to the GOP getting elected (wasn't it McConnell who said it in Dec '14/Jan '15?) but it's all crickets (or "blame Obama mode" again) since. Despite Obama continuing Bush tax cuts, keeping in a lot of Bush's economic team (e.g. Geithner), bringing in Hagel and numerous other Republicans... if Obama has been playing chess to point out over 8 years how bad the GOP is by using their own philosophies, it's amazing how many haven't paid attention. Probably because they don't like a Black Democrat in the White House (their words, not mine.)

    On the plus side, none in the GOP can continue to say they would work to make Obama a one-termer... which is a really petty way to run things, I don't care which political party they're on.
     
  11. XrayTed thread starter macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #11
    Lol, the race card and blame Bush card played out in the same convoluted paragraph !
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Iran is the most reasonable country in the region.

    And quite frankly we live a multi-polar world now. The US is a pole. As is the EU as is China as is India as will be ASEAN.

    If you want to survive a multi-polar world you have to play by the rules. And the rules say Iran gets its money back with interest.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    That's fairly obvious.

    It's important to know that Reagan had been in office merely minutes when the Iran hostages were released. Now, a clear-eyed view would understand that the end of the hostage's ordeal came, not because of Reagan but rather thousands of hours of careful negotiations between U.S. and Iranian officials.

    Moreover, it's important to note two things: first, the announcement of the hostages' release was held until they left Iranian airspace and Iran had already agreed to release the hostages weeks before, but the deal was held up because of problems in moving U.S. money to Iran because of the Iraq-Iran War. The hostages were in Algerian planes on Jan. 19, but the holdup kept them on the tarmac.

    We had two overriding goals: get the hostages back and get Iran to a nuclear agreement. We've accomplished both of these tasks and settled a long-standing argument over money seized in 1979. Essentially, we gave them the interest that we earned when we seized $400 million of the Shah's money. The Iranians wanted $3 billion, but got $1.7 billion.

    Now, I'm not as sharp a negotiator as Donald Trump, but if someone wants $3 billion and you get them to take $1.7 billion, that doesn't sound like "bending over backwards."

    It's also worth noting that Obama used the same fund that George H.W. Bush used in 1991 to pay money to Iranians for military equipment the U.S. seized following the Iran hostage crisis.
     
  14. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #14
    Excellent, informed and thoughtful thread marred by a misleading, mendacious, and - unfortunately - politically illiterate thread title.
     
  15. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #15
    Nostalgia is a very strange thing. On that note, so is dementia.

    Iran Contra
     
  16. XrayTed thread starter macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #16
    Ah, Iran/Contra - Who would ever have thought you shills would have brought that one up ??

    Weapons for hostages with dubious presidential involvement vs $$ & convicted foreign prisoners for hostages with 100% presidential involvement. Explain the difference.
     
  17. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #17
    circumstances force it to be at the moment........but anyway, "most reasonable country in the region" isn't saying much

    it's their money, it's done its time in the lock-up......time to send it home
     
  18. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #18
    Regardless of your intent, the idea that the U.S. never negotiated with terrorist organizations prior to the Obama administration is in no way true. It is 100% false.
     
  19. XrayTed thread starter macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #19
    More than likely, the reason it was being held for 3 decades was not because we are mean, but rather because the USA until now didn't see it as "their money" but rather the Shah's money or his legitimate heirs.
    Since he was ousted by an overthrow which the US never recognized, he has no legit heirs. We don't have formal embassy relations with them now ... So actually that is another facet to this quasi-scandal.

    Have the Obamanites unilaterally given the mullahs legitimacy by showering them with Shah $$ ? What other outstanding claims can we expect from the mullahs now that they know they have a compliant and accommodating sponsor in high places ?
     
  20. Robstevo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2014
    #20
    There wouldn't have been any deaths if it wasn't for that Republican **** bush.
     
  21. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #21
    Isn't this the same lump of money our alleged Muslim Coward In Chief promised the Iranians during that pathetic moment of simpering capitulation our Communist Left Wing Apologist Democrats called a "nuclear arms deal"? Now we're giving it to them as a bribe?

    At the very least, the political hay that's been made from it has been worth every penny.
     
  22. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    That makes very little sense. Your argument is that it really belongs to another corrupt now defunct monarchy.
     
  23. XrayTed thread starter macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #23

    Its been almost 8 years you know, that feeble excuse was worn thin years ago.

    Almost 3X the amount of US deaths in Afghanistan alone under Obama than Bush, and thats all you have to fall back on ?
    Pathetic - And if I recall correctly, which I do - The media was salivating to photograph and publish damn near every coffin that came home pre 2008 ,,, And suddenly they lost interest once Obama crawled from the gutter to the throne.

    I'd be willing to bet my paycheck [over $2K net] against yours that vrdrew didn't have the slightest clue that so many have died under Obama when he said hours ago:

    "But one thing is for certain: Its far, far less likely that another generation of Americas fighting men and women will be sent off to fight, die and suffer in a useless war in the middle east; thanks largely to President Obama."

    And thats because of him getting a free pass in the media that you guys get your opinions from. If that isn't crass propaganda then I don't know what is.
    Yeah, thanks President Obama, thanks alot.

    I have been to dozens of military funerals this past decade, many of them close personal friends. That is far more than any person should have to go to in a lifetime, and it ain't over yet. I have a vested, personal stake in this, whereas you its just partisan agenda, dead and mangled servicemen mean nothing to you.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 23, 2016 ---

    Ok, then you explain why the $$ was in escrow for 3 decades.
    You don't have to like it, but what I said is EXACTLY the reason why.
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    It was an asset frozen when Iran was placed under sanctions.
     
  25. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #25
    Yes I'm saying it doesn't matter why it was initially frozen. Why does it matter that it was held for 3 decades? You seem to be of the opinion that it belongs to the US because the previous government is now defunct.
     

Share This Page