Obama pays $400 million to Iran who releases four hostages

[printcraft]

So, you have evidence that tax dollars are funding abortions?

Come on...... On paper, by law, they can't use that money "specifically" for abortions.
You do know how soup is made right?
It's like saying that a particular ingredient does not contribute to the whole.
Its a false premise only believed by the easily duped.

 

[T.Lex]

If the USA expects other countries to abide by the decisions of the International Court at The Hague, shouldn't the USA also abide by those decisions, even with they go against us? Can't have it both ways...

As I understand it, we hadn't "lost" yet.

So, we admitted defeat and paid up.

Oh, we also did so without holding Iran accountable for amounts they owe the US. Even if we had lost, we could've appropriately claimed setoffs against the money they owe us.

 

[printcraft]

^^^^^^^Just put it on my tab.

 

[KG1]

1) Because the UN doesn't have a common currency. Yet.
2) Because a dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.
3) Because the dollar-printing presses are already working 3 shifts and couldn't output any more than they already are.

On point #3 we could ask the NORKS to ramp up their counterfeiting operation and help us out.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So, you have evidence that tax dollars are funding abortions?

ok.... Let's say you are a private group. You spent $1 million on operation expenses and $500,000 on painting widgets. Then the government gives you $1,000,000 and tells you that you can NOT spend it on painting widgets. So next year's budget is $2.5m. You spend $1 million on operations, and $1.5 million on painting widgets. You did not spend a dime of the government's money on painting widgets but you tripled the number of widgets you painted. Any fool would say the government funding was used to paint more widgets.

explain to me how you can prove which income was spent on which expense in a co-mingled account.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Doc nails it!

 

[Sylvain]

I wondered why it was in foreign currency

It is illegal for the US to make monetary trades with Iran using US dollars, but apparently legal for the US to send them Euro bills.

 

[Sylvain]

[FONT=&quot]Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials.[/FONT]

BTW if any of you guys find where they store those pallets full of Euros that you are apparently not using, I can PM you my address!

Crazy that a country with billions in debts has pallets of cash laying around.

 

[hoosierdoc]

BTW if any of you guys find where they store those pallets full of Euros that you are apparently not using, I can PM you my address!

Crazy that a country with billions in debts has pallets of cash laying around.

Hey, we prefer our debts in trillions, thank you!

 

[Jludo]

I finally read up on it, I know it won't change anyone's opinion but to get a deeper understanding:



At the time, the United States said it had settled a longstanding Iranian claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague, releasing $400 million in funds frozen since 1981, plus $1.3 billion in interest that was owed to Iran.
The funds were part of a trust fund Iran used before its 1979 Islamic Revolution to buy U.S. military equipment that was tied up for decades in litigation at the tribunal.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Absurd. They are a terror sponsor. Screw that.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I finally read up on it, I know it won't change anyone's opinion but to get a deeper understanding:



At the time, the United States said it had settled a longstanding Iranian claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague, releasing $400 million in funds frozen since 1981, plus $1.3 billion in interest that was owed to Iran.
The funds were part of a trust fund Iran used before its 1979 Islamic Revolution to buy U.S. military equipment that was tied up for decades in litigation at the tribunal.

I agree. Thats why (my) Post #12 seems to be the most reasonable explanation. Ransom? Absolutely not. (that wouldnt be legal or proper) Wheels getting greased? Abso F***ing LUTELY!.

 

[Jludo]

I agree. Thats why (my) Post #12 seems to be the most reasonable explanation. Ransom? Absolutely not. (that wouldnt be legal or proper) Wheels getting greased? Abso F***ing LUTELY!.

It mentioned in the article that the Treasury dept. objected to the timing but the State dept. went ahead with it. Wonder if Obama's given up on appearances.

 

[oldpink]

And we are to totally ignore the timing of this.
From the exact same administration that for four years straight received mails from and sent e-mail responses back to their own Secretary of State, who was using what was clearly an unauthorized e-mail address the entire time.
But, hey, at least they have that capital "D" next to their names, so they will be excused, regardless of what they do.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Not buying it.

But U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.

Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.

just because WE say it isn't a ransom doesn't mean THEY don't. And since they took the prisoners I guess it's THEIR opinion that matters here

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874

 

[jamil]

Yesterday I heard an interview of the WSJ reporter who broke the story. His biggest contention and what raises suspicion most is the timing, the method, and the secrecy. Everyone pretty much knew about it then, and questions were raised then and weren't answered. So now we find out the payment was made in cash, and the "most transparent administration ever" still doesn't answer the questions about it. It's kinda suspicious anyway that the money was paid in cash, and the hostages were released promptly after. But to hide the details from the public, given public apprehension with deals involving Iran, does not follow unless one is completely foriegn-and-domestic-policy retarded, or is hiding something. Again the administration is putting itself in the position of having to admit to one of two negatives: either incompetence, or corruption.

 

[Leadeye]

Meh, dc business as usual, taxpayers pick up the tab to make the big money bigger and the political players look like hero's on the world stage. Old jimmy's high water mark of foreign policy at Camp David was just sitting down with Sadat and Begin, opening the US checkbook and asking how much for you guys to stop fighting. It's always easy to "negotiate" when you're giving the other guy a blank check.

 

[jamil]

Meh, dc business as usual, taxpayers pick up the tab to make the big money bigger and the political players look like hero's on the world stage. Old jimmy's high water mark of foreign policy at Camp David was just sitting down with Sadat and Begin, opening the US checkbook and asking how much for you guys to stop fighting. It's always easy to "negotiate" when you're giving the other guy a blank check.

It's my understanding that this wasn't taxpayer money per se. Decades ago we made a deal with the Shaw of Iran to sell military equipment. Iran made the payment but the Revolution happened before we delivered the equipment. We froze the money and put it into some trust. This deal was supposedly a repayment of the money, plus interest payments agreed upon by both sides. If they get to make that deal, that part isn't as objectionable as the timing, methods, and secrecy of payments. If it was any sort of ransom, that's a direct violation of US law. Not that laws against what this president wants to do is all that important to him.

 

[Leadeye]

Good point, if it was all above board, why all the secrecy. The answer is out there, you just.....

Always follow the money

 

[two70]

I only have a narrow disagreement on this.

I do think Obama believes he has done the right thing for the country, in any specific decision. But, it is like stumbling through a dimly-lit maze. You can see the exit sign off in the distance, and at each crossroads, you make the decision to turn in the direction you think will get you closer to the goal.

The problem is, there's no coherent strategy for the total of all the decisions. Each one is made without regard for any other decision.

I disagree, his strategy is only incoherent if you assume his goal is the well being of the country. In my opinion, he has clear goals and most decisions are made in pursuit of them. Those goals are more power and more control and the well being of the country is antithetical to the pursuit of those goals.