(08-18-2016 04:37 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 04:17 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-05-2016 05:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-05-2016 05:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-05-2016 05:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  No it wasnt. We were going to give them the money anyway.

Trump wouldnt have.

Yeah because Trump would have lost his temper and dropped a nuke and start WWIII.

Don't be such a hysterical old woman. LOL

If anything Iran deserves it. There's nothing good coming from that country.

Iran is a counter balance to Saudi Arabis in the region. Take away Iran and you essentially give SA control of the entire middle east.

Iran may not like us but they hate SA more.

We should let them fight it out. Winner takes all.

How much did we pay to convert US dollars into foreign currency? I can't imagine other countries or banking industries did that for free!

If they did, we should know why and how that went down.

On a mechanical basis, how much did that $400 million cost us?

"Millions for defense. Not one cent for tribute!".

What a difference 200 years makes.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

I am actually laughing more at the fact that the leftists on the board believed the government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-18-2016 07:24 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  I am actually laughing more at the fact that the leftists on the board believed the government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lynch was supposed to be SEC.

(08-18-2016 04:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  If this isnt considered a ransom... I dont know what is.

US SAYS $400M TO IRAN WAS CONTINGENT ON RELEASE OF PRISONERS

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran seven months ago was contingent on the release of a group of American prisoners.

It is the first time the U.S. has so clearly linked the two events, which critics have painted as a hostage-ransom arrangement.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...8-17-17-43

Beta Barry at his finest.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

So they went with the word "leverage". lol, spin at its finest.

(08-18-2016 04:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  If this isnt considered a ransom... I dont know what is.

US SAYS $400M TO IRAN WAS CONTINGENT ON RELEASE OF PRISONERS

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran seven months ago was contingent on the release of a group of American prisoners.

It is the first time the U.S. has so clearly linked the two events, which critics have painted as a hostage-ransom arrangement.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...8-17-17-43

Sounds like we got a good deal. " We give you your money back and you give us a couple of Americans. "

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-05-2016 05:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 08:58 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Jeez, it matters not if you believe it was their money. My money, your money, Fed dollars or their money, it was paid to secure the release of hostages. A ransom. And it was paid in cash. Secretly. In an unmarked aircraft. In the dead of night. In converted currencies. And Iran uses cash for terrorism, ergo, we just possibly paid for attacks against us. Most definitely against friends.

Max, no one has disputed it was announced in January. A non issue. Has zip to do with the CURRENT news.

No it wasnt. We were going to give them the money anyway.

(08-19-2016 07:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 04:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  If this isnt considered a ransom... I dont know what is.

US SAYS $400M TO IRAN WAS CONTINGENT ON RELEASE OF PRISONERS

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran seven months ago was contingent on the release of a group of American prisoners.

It is the first time the U.S. has so clearly linked the two events, which critics have painted as a hostage-ransom arrangement.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...8-17-17-43

Sounds like we got a good deal. " We give you your money back and you give us a couple of Americans. "

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

So was it a ransom or not fit?

(08-19-2016 08:05 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-05-2016 05:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 08:58 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Jeez, it matters not if you believe it was their money. My money, your money, Fed dollars or their money, it was paid to secure the release of hostages. A ransom. And it was paid in cash. Secretly. In an unmarked aircraft. In the dead of night. In converted currencies. And Iran uses cash for terrorism, ergo, we just possibly paid for attacks against us. Most definitely against friends.

Max, no one has disputed it was announced in January. A non issue. Has zip to do with the CURRENT news.

No it wasnt. We were going to give them the money anyway.

(08-19-2016 07:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 04:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  If this isnt considered a ransom... I dont know what is.

US SAYS $400M TO IRAN WAS CONTINGENT ON RELEASE OF PRISONERS

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran seven months ago was contingent on the release of a group of American prisoners.

It is the first time the U.S. has so clearly linked the two events, which critics have painted as a hostage-ransom arrangement.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...8-17-17-43

Sounds like we got a good deal. " We give you your money back and you give us a couple of Americans. "

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

So was it a ransom or not fit?

fit flopping...

Minor issue. We were giving them their money back anyway. Best to lever it.

Its not like we gave them something that wasn't theirs for the detainees. Who did that? Reagan.

But you're free to cling to it if you'd like.

(08-19-2016 09:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Minor issue. We were giving them their money back anyway. Best to lever it.

Its not like we gave them something that wasn't theirs for the detainees. Who did that? Reagan.

But you're free to cling to it if you'd like.

Why didn't the State Dept say all that to begin with? It's a half truth, but that's as good as we're going to get from DC these days and I'm referring to both sides of the aisle.

If we HAD to give it back, why didn't Iran just tell us no on the hostages? When you give someone money, whether you owe it to them or not, in exchange for people, that is a ransom.

(08-19-2016 09:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Minor issue. We were giving them their money back anyway. Best to lever it.

Its not like we gave them something that wasn't theirs for the detainees. Who did that? Reagan.

But you're free to cling to it if you'd like.

I completely understand telling Iran they better hand over US citizens if they ever wanted a dime of the frozen assets. The problem is the sequence of events and how it was handled. Obama again negotiated from a position of weakness by not securing the release of the detainees PRIOR to making an announcement on releasing frozen assets. His 'transparent' administration can't even manage to handle a simple financial transaction without muddying the waters.

It's a matter of appearance and principle. I can understand if a liberal doesn't understand those things.

(08-19-2016 09:49 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Minor issue. We were giving them their money back anyway. Best to lever it.

Its not like we gave them something that wasn't theirs for the detainees. Who did that? Reagan.

But you're free to cling to it if you'd like.

I completely understand telling Iran they better hand over US citizens if they ever wanted a dime of the frozen assets. The problem is the sequence of events and how it was handled. Obama again negotiated from a position of weakness by not securing the release of the detainees PRIOR to making an announcement on releasing frozen assets. His 'transparent' administration can't even manage to handle a simple financial transaction without muddying the waters.

It's a matter of appearance and principle. I can understand if a liberal doesn't understand those things.

Obama is such a progressive worm... U tell the Iranian Motherfuckers...to release the hostages as a show of good faith and then we will strongly consider giving u your money back...


But Obama the weak worm....is not capable of doing the basics...then goes up and lies to the press again....

History will not be kind.

(08-18-2016 04:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 04:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The timing was incidental. It was their money, and it was expected that if we didn't settle and return the $400M the Hague was going to issue a judgment against us for a much larger amount.

The agreement was the return of the $400 million, plus an additional $1.3 billion in interest, terms that Obama described as favorable compared to what might have been expected from a tribunal set up in The Hague to rule on pending deals between the two countries. U.S. officials have said they expected an imminent ruling on the claim and settled with Tehran instead.

Is there NO load of utter Horseschit that you won't just gleefully gobble up if it comes from the right left wing "source"? Pallets of Swiss Francs and Euros... On a plane. In the middle of the night. hahahahaha

While the hostages sit on the tarmac until the plane is down and cash confirmed. Incidental. lol

Why not just wire it to Switzerland or some other Country that has "financial relations" with the terrorist sponsors, and have them deliver the ransom?

Do you also approve of the 250 Brazilian Real being flown in now to spring Lochte and his swim buddies?!?

gobble gobble gobble...

Oh please, you're the one just gobbling up propaganda.

My "source" is the AP article that broke this story, the same one you guys are touting.

What difference does it make if it was wired or not? The plane had cash and prisoners for the exchange. Yes it was incidental. We were simultaneously negotiating many different issues with Iran at the time of the nuclear negotiations, including prisoner swaps and unfreezing accounts. The return of the money paid for weapons we never produced was an issue being litigated in the World Court, and it was expected we were going to end up paying a lot more than $400 million if we didn't settle when we did. But facts are no matter for you guys. You just lie about Obama paying ransom.

Admit it. This just drives you crazy right? Ie, the lack of real scandals out of Obama's administration? You guys have been salivating for one and spinning and hyping every faux Fox-Hannity "scandal" that hits the internet for 7 years but here we are, 5 months left and his popularity rating is in the black. 11 hour interrogations of his cabinet members. Nothing. We're going to kick your ass this November and see to it the next four years are just as miserable for you.

There are two sides to this; either the money was used as ransom, or the money was used as leverage. No matter which side you believe, the result remains the same; money was used to ensure the release of the American prisoners, and that is fact. The govt is just using semantics and hoping the story gets buried by something else.

(08-19-2016 10:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are two sides to this; either the money was used as ransom, or the money was used as leverage. No matter which side you believe, the result remains the same; money was used to ensure the release of the American prisoners, and that is fact. The govt is just using semantics and hoping the story gets buried by something else.

I don't even think they care about it getting buried anymore. It's just a big FU to everybody that isn't on board with O's agenda.

(08-19-2016 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are two sides to this; either the money was used as ransom, or the money was used as leverage. No matter which side you believe, the result remains the same; money was used to ensure the release of the American prisoners, and that is fact. The govt is just using semantics and hoping the story gets buried by something else.

I don't even think they care about it getting buried anymore. It's just a big FU to everybody that isn't on board with O's agenda.

exactly.

If Obama administration doesn't trust Iran like they publicly say....why the **** do they approve of nuclear plants in Iran?
It makes NO logical sense.
If Obama administration doesn't trust Syria, why accept refugees?
It makes NO logical sense.