• 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!

Obama administration says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners

Absentglare said:
Iran is Iran, it was Iran's money. It wasn't the leader's personal wealth.

Yes, Iran has been butting heads with the US- but wouldn't it be better to mend that relationship than to have an enemy ? It's only $400 million and it was rightfully their money anyway.
Click to expand...

So, you feel that we owe money to these thugs that took over the country, ransacked our embassy, and took our people for a year and a half, even though they attacked our ally? And they are our enemy, but we should give them the money? No dice, they forfeited any right to that money when they attacked us and our people. I wonder what they would have to do for you to think we don't owe it anymore.
 
Anthony60 said:
So, you feel that we owe money to these thugs that took over the country, ransacked our embassy, and took our people for a year and a half, even though they attacked our ally? And they are our enemy, but we should give them the money? No dice, they forfeited any right to that money when they attacked us and our people. I wonder what they would have to do for you to think we don't owe it anymore.
Click to expand...

Anthony60,

That was 37 years ago!

And Iran's not our enemy. We've never "officially" been at war with them, cold or hot. Yes, they've been an irritating thorn in our side especially throughout the War with Iraq, but if we are to be that "shinning city on a hill" and have some integrity in how we act on the world stage even with countries we don't necessarily agree with 100% but especially with whom we owe a debt, I'd much rather our government played this particular card this way than for there to have been a true hostage situation where we had to ponied up fiat money to get them back.

As I said earlier, I really don't have a problem with this because it was Iran's money in the first place. Did Iran strong arm us? That's debatable. Certainly, they could have said, "Pay us our money or you'll never see your people alive again", but we could have also said, "Kill them and you won't get a dime! Plus, we'll go after anyone in your government responsible for their deaths." Nobody died, we got our people back, Iran got paid albeit less than they otherwise were due. All's well the ends well.

Could something similar happen with other bad players on the world stage? Doubtful. Let's not forget, there are Americans held hostage by other nations and other criminal/terrorist elements all over the world from North Korea to ISIS. As far as I know, we haven't paid any of them to get our people back. But folks are up in arms over this situation w/Iran because repayment of a debt we owed them happened to coincide with the release of our own people? Again, if the circumstances had been different and the situation had played out any other way, I'd probably be pissed about it, too. But when you hedge your bets, pay back less than you owe and still get your people back unharmed, I'll take that gamble any day of the week!
 
1) The money was part of a previous agreement that the U.S. wasn't upholding.

2) We are lucky Iran accepted our additional condition of releasing prisoners, the original agreement didn't stipulate that.

3) We should always actively try to rescue our people from draconian conditions abroad. The prisoners and the families are probably over the moon. (This should probably be #1 not #3)
 
Anthony60 said:
So, you feel that we owe money to these thugs that took over the country, ransacked our embassy, and took our people for a year and a half, even though they attacked our ally? And they are our enemy, but we should give them the money? No dice, they forfeited any right to that money when they attacked us and our people. I wonder what they would have to do for you to think we don't owe it anymore.
Click to expand...

Do you think that President George Washington was a thug ?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So when it's a Republican president, all failures lie with the local government, when it's a Democrat in office, all failures lie personally on the president's shoulders. At least you've finally admitted that the way Katrina was handled was an absolute disaster.
Click to expand...

NO that's not what I said, but I wasn't really expecting an honest reply from you. Thanks for not disappointing me.
 
Objective Voice said:
Anthony60,

That was 37 years ago!

And Iran's not our enemy. We've never "officially" been at war with them, cold or hot. Yes, they've been an irritating thorn in our side especially throughout the War with Iraq, but if we are to be that "shinning city on a hill" and have some integrity in how we act on the world stage even with countries we don't necessarily agree with 100% but especially with whom we owe a debt, I'd much rather our government played this particular card this way than for there to have been a true hostage situation where we had to ponied up fiat money to get them back.

As I said earlier, I really don't have a problem with this because it was Iran's money in the first place. Did Iran strong arm us? That's debatable. Certainly, they could have said, "Pay us our money or you'll never see your people alive again", but we could have also said, "Kill them and you won't get a dime! Plus, we'll go after anyone in your government responsible for their deaths." Nobody died, we got our people back, Iran got paid albeit less than they otherwise were due. All's well the ends well.

Could something similar happen with other bad players on the world stage? Doubtful. Let's not forget, there are Americans held hostage by other nations and other criminal/terrorist elements all over the world from North Korea to ISIS. As far as I know, we haven't paid any of them to get our people back. But folks are up in arms over this situation w/Iran because repayment of a debt we owed them happened to coincide with the release of our own people? Again, if the circumstances had been different and the situation had played out any other way, I'd probably be pissed about it, too. But when you hedge your bets, pay back less than you owe and still get your people back unharmed, I'll take that gamble any day of the week!
Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks this was just a debt we owed, and not ransom, is just lying to themselves. As I've detailed before, we don't owe them anything. As far as being our enemy, of course they are. Taking hostages, financing the killing of Americans in Iraq, what else would they have to do? It's mostly their government, but I don't know how much the people like us anymore, especially after Obama refused to support them as they tried to gather against the government there.
 
Absentglare said:
Do you think that President George Washington was a thug ?
Click to expand...

Thugs generally are not freedom loving people. Thugs are more of the type to deprive you, without due process, of your freedom and liberty, and many times that involves violence and government.

Do you think Stalin was a thug?
 
Anthony60 said:
Thugs generally are not freedom loving people. Thugs are more of the type to deprive you, without due process, of your freedom and liberty, and many times that involves violence and government.

Do you think Stalin was a thug?
Click to expand...

You ignored my question.

Thug : a violent person, especially a criminal

If you assert that those who overthrow their government are "thugs" then you are claiming that our founding fathers were thugs.

Now you are desperately reaching for an exception on the basis of how much the supposed thug allegedly loves freedom. I have now disposed of that exception.

Please answer my question; do you think President George Washington was a thug ?
 
apdst said:
The money was paid, on the condition that the hostages were released. That makes it a ransom.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Not that these things matter to you.
 
Anthony60 said:
Anyone that thinks this was just a debt we owed, and not ransom, is just lying to themselves. As I've detailed before, we don't owe them anything. As far as being our enemy, of course they are. Taking hostages, financing the killing of Americans in Iraq, what else would they have to do? It's mostly their government, but I don't know how much the people like us anymore, especially after Obama refused to support them as they tried to gather against the government there.
Click to expand...

We stole that money from them decade ago. It was owed.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This is a rather dishonest way of presenting it without taking a look at all of the facts.



Paying the money was part of the negotiations from the Iran Nuclear Deal which involved settling a grievance from the 70's. The Obama administration withheld what they already agreed to give them until the prisoners were released. People are making it out to be "We have these hostages, pay the ransom or else". You can keep trying to make this some big conspiracy but they've been pretty up front about the situation since they announced it in January. Why would you not want to use every bit of leverage you have to save American lives?
Click to expand...
There is only one problem with that analysis, well, make that two. Beyond the slavish desire on the part of people on the left to swallow every load shot at them by Obama, the actual statements of those people released by the Iranians contradicts what you have just outlined. It is the prisoners who were not released until the money arrived--which is the exact opposite of what you and your beloved leader claim.

You may return to your regularly scheduled fawning...
 
Fletch said:
There is only one problem with that analysis, well, make that two. Beyond the slavish desire on the part of people on the left to swallow every load shot at them by Obama, the actual statements of those people released by the Iranians contradicts what you have just outlined. It is the prisoners who were not released until the money arrived--which is the exact opposite of what you and your beloved leader claim.

You may return to your regularly scheduled fawning...
Click to expand...
Aha yeah right. ....

He aha te mea nui? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!
 
Fletch said:
There is only one problem with that analysis, well, make that two. Beyond the slavish desire on the part of people on the left to swallow every load shot at them by Obama, the actual statements of those people released by the Iranians contradicts what you have just outlined. It is the prisoners who were not released until the money arrived--which is the exact opposite of what you and your beloved leader claim.

You may return to your regularly scheduled fawning...
Click to expand...

Why would hostages be in a position to know why and when money was transferred?

And no, it's not "the exact opposite" of what was claimed.
 
Anthony60 said:
Obama administration says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners | Fox News

The Obama administration admitted Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran in January was contingent on the release of American prisoners being held in the country – while still denying that the payment was a ransom.

But it's not ransom!
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes that this case was about to be decided in a tribunal court and that Obama saved America millions of dollars is full of kook aide. It was a auto correct as I meant koolaid but then thought the auto correct was correct. Where is the evidence of the case? Where are the lawyers who were present to defend the position of the us? Barack Obama says jump and liberals say how high. There is zero evidence that the case was soon to be decided. In fact based on the evidence a good attorney could have blown this out of the water. The deal to sell arms was made and then Iran took AMERICAN hostages. This was then, not now. So all deals are off. You screw with us we take your deposit. Deal over and case closed. But as usual no one looks past the rose colored glass that Obama serves up his crap in!
 
Deuce said:
Why would hostages be in a position to know why and when money was transferred?

And no, it's not "the exact opposite" of what was claimed.
Click to expand...

Because they were sitting in a plane waiting for the cash to arrive before they could leave. And yes, that is exactly the opposite of what he claimed.
 
Fletch said:
Because they were sitting in a plane waiting for the cash to arrive before they could leave. And yes, that is exactly the opposite of what he claimed.
Click to expand...

Did hostages see the cash?
 
Absentglare said:
Sure.

Also, if you fail to make car payments and your car is going to get repossessed, you'd pay a "ransom" to get to keep your car.
Click to expand...

Or one can pay a ransom to have prisoners released. Pretty sure the Obama payment didn't involve cars but nice try.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066222859 said:
Or one can pay a ransom to have prisoners released. Pretty sure the Obama payment didn't involve cars but nice try.
Click to expand...

We owed Iran the money, it was Iran's money.
 
Deuce said:
Did hostages see the cash?
Click to expand...

Oh, they had to. Isn't that standard international protocol? Take all the cash and show it to the hostages before accepting it. You are living in some strange liberal fantasy world.
 
Anthony60 said:
We owed them nothing. The question is, after 37 years, why did Obama dig this up and send them cash in an unmarked plane? Might be an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Wow.

I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
 
Absentglare said:
Wow.

I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's the best decision you've made in a while. No need to continue to take a whoopin'. Sticking up for someone else's lie is never a good idea.
 
Anthony60 said:
We owed them nothing. The question is, after 37 years, why did Obama dig this up and send them cash in an unmarked plane? Might be an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...
That's not what the court said.

He aha te mea nui? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom