• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Dept admits: $400M payment was contingent on release of prisoners

Slyfox696 said:
I find it amusing that giving Iran it's own money is now considered ransom.

No one honestly thinks the timing of the money and release of prisoners was coincidental. Obviously it was not coincidental. But a ransom usually suggests paying your OWN money to get what you want, not paying someone money which is already theirs.

It's clear what happened. We had something of Iran's, they had something of ours, we made a deal and took care of it. Also, if I understand correctly, we were probably going to have to pay that money (and maybe more) to Iran, regardless of anything else, so essentially we made a deal and traded Iran it's own money that we were going to have to pay anyways and in return got Americans back on US soil.

That's not exactly a "ransom" in any traditional sense. I understand it makes a great political football, but the truth isn't really nearly as interesting.

This article was a pretty good read for being a quick read.
Click to expand...

Here is a hypothetical scenario:

Crook: "You own me money!"

Victim: "Well yes, I do...and I'll pay you back someday."

Crook: "Tell you what, I've kidnapped your daughter. Pay me the money now...or else."

Victim: "Okay, okay...here's the money I was going to pay you...someday...release my daughter!"

Shrug...I don't know, but hey...I think the police, our judicial system...everyone involved...would call that ransom. Don't you?
 
Mycroft said:
Here is a hypothetical scenario:

Crook: "You own me money!"

Victim: "Well yes, I do...and I'll pay you back someday."

Crook: "Tell you what, I've kidnapped your daughter. Pay me the money now...or else."

Victim: "Okay, okay...here's the money I was going to pay you...someday...release my daughter!"

Shrug...I don't know, but hey...I think the police, our judicial system...everyone involved...would call that ransom. Don't you?
Click to expand...
Here's another hypothetical:

Kid 1: "I paid you my milk money for your chicken tender, so give me the chicken tender"

Kid 2: "No, after you paid me, I decided I don't like you"

Kid 1: "Well fine, if you don't give me chicken tender or give me back my milk money, I'm taking your apple and not giving it back"

Kid 2: "I'd like to have my apple back"

Kid 1: "I'd like to have the money I paid you for the chicken tender you didn't give me"

Teacher: "If you don't give the money back, Kid 2, I'm going to make you give the milk money back AND make you give him YOUR milk money also"

Kid 2: "Here's your money back"

Kid 1: "Here's you apple"


Good luck finding an officer who would call that ransom.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I find it amusing that giving Iran it's own money is now considered ransom.

No one honestly thinks the timing of the money and release of prisoners was coincidental. Obviously it was not coincidental. But a ransom usually suggests paying your OWN money to get what you want, not paying someone money which is already theirs.

It's clear what happened. We had something of Iran's, they had something of ours, we made a deal and took care of it. Also, if I understand correctly, we were probably going to have to pay that money (and maybe more) to Iran, regardless of anything else, so essentially we made a deal and traded Iran it's own money that we were going to have to pay anyways and in return got Americans back on US soil.

That's not exactly a "ransom" in any traditional sense. I understand it makes a great political football, but the truth isn't really nearly as interesting.

This article was a pretty good read for being a quick read.
Click to expand...

Y9ou would have to take this administrations word that the money belonged to Iran in the first place.

There has been no evidence of that, and besides it was paid in cash.
 
Mason66 said:
Y9ou would have to take this administrations word that the money belonged to Iran in the first place.

There has been no evidence of that, and besides it was paid in cash.
Click to expand...
Umm, there's PLENTY of evidence of that. It's reported all over that the USA owed Iran that money for fighter jets never delivered to Iran. And it legally HAD to be paid in case, that's been discussed many times as well.

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your information, but I can provide some better sources if you'd like. I've already provided one from Fortune and here's one from Time.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Umm, there's PLENTY of evidence of that. It's reported all over that the USA owed Iran that money for fighter jets never delivered to Iran. And it legally HAD to be paid in case, that's been discussed many times as well.

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your information, but I can provide some better sources if you'd like. I've already provided one from Fortune and here's one from Time.
Click to expand...

That is not evidence that THIS money was payment for that.
 
Mason66 said:
That is not evidence that THIS money was payment for that.
Click to expand...
You're right. Iran paid $400 million in the 70s and we paid them $400 million in 2015. You're right, there is NO evidence they could possibly be linked...you know, except for everyone who has come out and explicitly said they were linked.

But besides all of the evidence, there's no evidence. Right?

Sometimes there are just no words for the stupidity partisanship brings.
 
Slyfox696 said:
You're right. Iran paid $400 million in the 70s and we paid them $400 million in 2015. You're right, there is NO evidence they could possibly be linked...you know, except for everyone who has come out and explicitly said they were linked.

But besides all of the evidence, there's no evidence. Right?

Sometimes there are just no words for the stupidity partisanship brings.
Click to expand...

This administrations word is not evidence.

They already admitted Obama lied about the transaction, so there is no reason to believe anything else they have to say about it.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Here's another hypothetical:

Kid 1: "I paid you my milk money for your chicken tender, so give me the chicken tender"

Kid 2: "No, after you paid me, I decided I don't like you"

Kid 1: "Well fine, if you don't give me chicken tender or give me back my milk money, I'm taking your apple and not giving it back"

Kid 2: "I'd like to have my apple back"

Kid 1: "I'd like to have the money I paid you for the chicken tender you didn't give me"

Teacher: "If you don't give the money back, Kid 2, I'm going to make you give the milk money back AND make you give him YOUR milk money also"

Kid 2: "Here's your money back"

Kid 1: "Here's you apple"


Good luck finding an officer who would call that ransom.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Nice try, but no cigar.

Iran didn't take an "apple". In any case, Kid 1 should have been punished by Teacher for taking the apple. Teacher was negligent.
 
Did we owe this money in the 1st place? If yes...then I had no issue with this exchange.
 
Mycroft said:
Here is a hypothetical scenario:

Crook: "You own me money!"

Victim: "Well yes, I do...and I'll pay you back someday."

Crook: "Tell you what, I've kidnapped your daughter. Pay me the money now...or else."

Victim: "Okay, okay...here's the money I was going to pay you...someday...release my daughter!"

Shrug...I don't know, but hey...I think the police, our judicial system...everyone involved...would call that ransom. Don't you?
Click to expand...

Except this isn't analogous.
 
straykatz said:
Did we owe this money in the 1st place? If yes...then I had no issue with this exchange.
Click to expand...

Yes, we did. It was part of an arms deal decades ago and we stiffed the Iranians because our relationship was going to hell.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Nice try, but no cigar.

Iran didn't take an "apple". In any case, Kid 1 should have been punished by Teacher for taking the apple. Teacher was negligent.
Click to expand...

Its better than your example. This money was part a decades old arms deal we never held up our end of.
 
Deuce said:
Its better than your example. This money was part a decades old arms deal we never held up our end of.
Click to expand...

That's not in dispute here, is it?
 
Mason66 said:
This administrations word is not evidence.
Click to expand...
It's not just this administrations word. I've told you that. You really should try reading about things before you comment on them.

They already admitted Obama lied about the transaction
Click to expand...
Really? How do you figure that?
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Nice try, but no cigar.
Click to expand...
No, it's actually very apt. In fact, it's MORE accurate than your example.

Iran didn't take an "apple".
Click to expand...
And we didn't promise them a chicken tender either. So congratulations on realizing what the word "analogy" means. :roll:
In any case, Kid 1 should have been punished by Teacher for taking the apple. Teacher was negligent.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Teachers, and the law, are making things equal/whole all the time. It's literally the point of civil litigation.

In this case, the United States took money for a product (aircraft) they didn't deliver. Iran wanted its money. The US and Iran went before a world tribunal and it was very likely we would have owed a lot more than the $400 million we paid (which I believe is part of a $1.7 billion settlement, if I'm not mistaken). As part of the negotiation towards the settlement, towards the end of negotiation we stated that getting our citizens back would have to be part of the deal. Iran agreed, and we gave them their money we owed them and they gave us the prisoners.

At the end of the day, the United States took money for something they didn't deliver. I understand the reasons they didn't deliver and I'm not saying they were wrong, but it IS a fact that we took money we didn't earn. So we gave Iran back their own money, but only on the condition that they release the prisoners.

That's not really a ransom, except to partisans who love a good political football.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It's not just this administrations word. I've told you that. You really should try reading about things before you comment on them.

Really? How do you figure that?
No, it's actually very apt. In fact, it's MORE accurate than your example.

And we didn't promise them a chicken tender either. So congratulations on realizing what the word "analogy" means. :roll:
Nonsense. Teachers, and the law, are making things equal/whole all the time. It's literally the point of civil litigation.

In this case, the United States took money for a product (aircraft) they didn't deliver. Iran wanted its money. The US and Iran went before a world tribunal and it was very likely we would have owed a lot more than the $400 million we paid (which I believe is part of a $1.7 billion settlement, if I'm not mistaken). As part of the negotiation towards the settlement, towards the end of negotiation we stated that getting our citizens back would have to be part of the deal. Iran agreed, and we gave them their money we owed them and they gave us the prisoners.

At the end of the day, the United States took money for something they didn't deliver. I understand the reasons they didn't deliver and I'm not saying they were wrong, but it IS a fact that we took money we didn't earn. So we gave Iran back their own money, but only on the condition that they release the prisoners.

That's not really a ransom, except to partisans who love a good political football.
Click to expand...

An "apple" is not analagous to a human life. Sorry, but your scenario STILL doesn't win the cigar.

As far as the rest of your blather, it's not in dispute so you are spouting irrelevancies.

Bottom line, Iran kidnapped American citizens and used them as a bargaining chip...and Obama went right along with them. The result...they got their money, we got our citizens...and Iran kidnapped another citizen. Guess what...thanks to Obama and his caving to ransom demands, Iran is going to do this kind of thing any time they want.
 
Mycroft said:
An "apple" is not analagous to a human life.
Click to expand...
...I'm dumbfounded at hard this seems to be for you.

As far as the rest of your blather, it's not in dispute so you are spouting irrelevancies.
Click to expand...
So you don't dispute it, yet you're still claiming something which isn't true.

And you don't see a problem with this?
 
Slyfox696 said:
...I'm dumbfounded at hard this seems to be for you.
Click to expand...

And I'm dumbfounded that you think so little of an American citizen's life that you'll compare it to an inanimate object like an apple.

So you don't dispute it, yet you're still claiming something which isn't true.

And you don't see a problem with this?
Click to expand...

I've claimed nothing that isn't true.
 
Mycroft said:
And I'm dumbfounded that you think so little of an American citizen's life that you'll compare it to an inanimate object like an apple.
Click to expand...
I guess you don't understand the concept of an analogy. It is a little more in the advanced learning category.

I've claimed nothing that isn't true.
Click to expand...
Your entire premise isn't true. We both know it isn't true because you agree everything I said regarding how this all went down was true.

So let's recap. You don't understand how analogies work, you acknowledge what the facts really are but STILL cling instead to a narrative which doesn't fit with the facts.

I think the worst part about all this is you probably really don't understand why your position is so absurd.
 
Not ransom, you can't pay ransom with THEIR money.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I guess you don't understand the concept of an analogy. It is a little more in the advanced learning category.

Your entire premise isn't true. We both know it isn't true because you agree everything I said regarding how this all went down was true.

So let's recap. You don't understand how analogies work, you acknowledge what the facts really are but STILL cling instead to a narrative which doesn't fit with the facts.

I think the worst part about all this is you probably really don't understand why your position is so absurd.
Click to expand...

So...you are reduced to just saying, "Nuh uh!!!"

Begone, little one.

you-are-dismissed-749788.jpg
 
Mycroft said:
So...you are reduced to just saying, "Nuh uh!!!"
Click to expand...
Umm, actually, that's what you're doing. You're saying despite all the facts and evidence, facts and evidence which show the money was already Iran's and was already being negotiated AND was likely to cost America MORE if not for the negotiation, your response is basically "nuh uh". I mean, that is almost exactly what you're doing.

I find it amusing how silly politics makes some people. But why bother with things like intelligent thought when it's so much easier to spew stupid.
 
Mycroft said:
An "apple" is not analagous to a human life. Sorry, but your scenario STILL doesn't win the cigar.

As far as the rest of your blather, it's not in dispute so you are spouting irrelevancies.

Bottom line, Iran kidnapped American citizens and used them as a bargaining chip...and Obama went right along with them. The result...they got their money, we got our citizens...and Iran kidnapped another citizen. Guess what...thanks to Obama and his caving to ransom demands, Iran is going to do this kind of thing any time they want.
Click to expand...

A bargaining chip for what? Money we were already going to pay them?
 
Well, it looks (very smartly) that the US might have been holding the money ransom so that the Iranian promise of releasing the prisoners was done. Not too stupid IMHO when dealing with a sketchy administration like the one in Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom