(09-24-2019 10:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample funds to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

1. Yes and no. It was legally seized in our banking system, which is a risk that one runs when using any banking system, particularly a foreign one.
2. No. It secured an "agreement" that had no legitimate prospects of working. How can we possibly know that it "was working"? When your inspectors can't be allowed into certain parts of the country, and can't hold surprise inspections, how can the inspections possibly guarantee or ensure anything?
3. See supra.
4. We are unable to trace the money, so there is in fact no evidence what it was or was not used for. We could have had a fairly effective check by releasing the money in tranches, say 10% per year for 10 years, contingent on good conduct by Iran. Terrorist activities funded by Iran, with or without these funds = no more money.
5. Again you are focusing on a tracing of funds that isn't possible. Maybe they had enough, maybe they didn't. But if getting the money were made contingent on not engaging in such activities, then we would have had much more leverage.
6. See supra.

In the end, it was appropriate to return the money at some point and under some circumstances. And a treaty that would have severely curtailed Iran's nuclear ambitions would have been worthwhile. To that end I would have supported the agreement if:
1) It established a rigorous inspection protocol that basically included go anywhere, at any time, with short or no notice;
2) It released the money in tranches, over a decade or longer, contingent on good behaviour by Iran; and
3) It had been ratified by the senate as a treaty (which I believe would have been possible with 1) and 2) included).

But 0 for 3 on those criteria pretty much make it a terrible agreement IMO.

Iran wanted its money back, and the continued ability to work on its nuclear program in clandestine fashion. Obama and Kerry wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted.

(09-24-2019 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample funds to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

1. Yes and no. It was legally seized in our banking system, which is a risk that one runs when using any banking system, particularly a foreign one.
2. No. It secured an "agreement" that had no legitimate prospects of working. How can we possibly know that it "was working"? When your inspectors can't be allowed into certain parts of the country, and can't hold surprise inspections, how can the inspections possibly guarantee or ensure anything?
3. See supra.
4. We are unable to trace the money, so there is in fact no evidence what it was or was not used for. We could have had a fairly effective check by releasing the money in tranches, say 10% per year for 10 years, contingent on good conduct by Iran. Terrorist activities funded by Iran, with or without these funds = no more money.
5. Again you are focusing on a tracing of funds that isn't possible. Maybe they had enough, maybe they didn't. But if getting the money were made contingent on not engaging in such activities, then we would have had much more leverage.
6. See supra.

In the end, it was appropriate to return the money at some point and under some circumstances. And a treaty that would have severely curtailed Iran's nuclear ambitions would have been worthwhile. To that end I would have supported the agreement if:
1) It established a rigorous inspection protocol that basically included go anywhere, at any time, with short or no notice;
2) It released the money in tranches, over a decade or longer, contingent on good behaviour by Iran; and
3) It had been ratified by the senate as a treaty (which I believe would have been possible with 1) and 2) included).

But 0 for 3 on those criteria pretty much make it a terrible agreement IMO.

Iran wanted its money back, and the continued ability to work on its nuclear program in clandestine fashion. Obama and Kerry wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted.

The agreement was working.

(09-24-2019 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The agreement was working.

We can't possibly know whether it was or was not. Just not possible.

What is it that we know that suggests to you that it was working?

(09-24-2019 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The agreement was working.

We can't possibly know whether it was or was not. Just not possible.

What is it that we know that suggests to you that it was working?

The Democrats and Whoopi told him that it was. You know the voices of reason.

(09-24-2019 04:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The agreement was working.

We can't possibly know whether it was or was not. Just not possible.

What is it that we know that suggests to you that it was working?

The Democrats and Whoopi told him that it was. You know the voices of reason. 'view' that matters 'mostest'

couldn't help it fify...

(09-24-2019 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

That is exactly what he did. But you are an ostrich.

1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample funds to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

How does the left know that Truett Cathey used money earned from Chick Fil A to donate to organizations opposing gay marriage?

1. I'm not the left.
2. Da Fuq does this have to do with CFA?
3. Where has anyone claimed that any boycott was solely due to TC using only CFA money for donations? And I have never even followed that story and my family eats at CFA whenever we're near one. My guess is that the boycott of CFA was because that's his biggest source of income.

Sidebar: Boycotts are stupid anyway.

I guess I need to spell it out for you. You claimed Iran never used that $150 billion for terrorist activities. The left claimed Chick Fil A needed to be boycotted because Cathey used money earned from CFA to donate to organizations that opposed gay marriage. Can you make the connection now or are you just playing stupid?

(09-24-2019 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

That is exactly what he did. But you are an ostrich.

1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample fundS to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

Alright. You aren't an ostrich. That is an insult to the intelligence of an ostrich. Prime example is #4. How does the left know that Truett Cathey used money earned from Chick Fil A to donate to organizations opposing gay marriage?

It was their money and we had it. We had frozen it for decades because of their terrorist activities.

Mmmm Chick-fil-A going to grab me some on my drive South on Monday.

That boycott is awesome!