Author Topic: Iran  (Read 1579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8035
  • Manna: 294
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Iran
« Reply #70 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 12:24:35 »
Looking quite evident now that the commercial airliner was intentionally shot down. Not sure how this will be dealt with, Canada may issue a cheque for the 63 Canadians on board.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Iran
« Reply #70 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 12:24:35 »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12389
  • Manna: 218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iran
« Reply #71 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 13:57:37 »
4WD. Not only was I alive I was serving during that time and we got out of Nam because of all the anti war rallies and public opinion.  We cut bate and ran and then tried to declare it a victory.  Ford announced there would not be any more US involvement Jan 1975.  In April Saigon (the capital of south Viet Nam) fell and was over run by the communist forces and the government of south Viet Nam surrendered.  Now how in any way is that a victory???

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iran
« Reply #72 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 15:31:01 »
50 yrs ago our stance on Iran WAS probably about oil, money and keeping the Russians out of Iran. Now as we are virtually oil independent, our Iran stance is or should have been even with Obama about their worldwide sponsor of terrorism and the likely potential the will get a nuke  to add to their terrorism toys. As we have seen, Obama’s apology tour and disasterous deal with Iran only only project weakness. We have zero need for their oil or money and this President rightly has no desire for endless wars there especially hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. I DO believe he WILL do whatever it takes to prevent Iran getting a nuke. I’m convinced most of the Iranian citizens are tired of the 7th century mullahs mucking up their lives. And I’m sure they don’t want us running their lives. We can get along with most Iranians. The longer the Mullahs stay in power, the less likely the Iranian people will flourish.

We can’t undo mistakes of the pat, but we also don’t have to repeat our mistakes of the past. We don’t need the Iran policies of the 1970’s and we certainly don’t need W Bush policies in the ME and we certainly do NOT need Obama’s Iranian policy or appeasement. I suspect Trump’s strength will result in some real negotiated progress. The last thing Trump needs is protracted war in and around Iran. And the Iranian people deserve better than what the Mullahs have wrought on them. Maybe the mullahs will see a little light.
I would say that is a good assessment of the Iran situation. Because of our need to control the supply of oil and fear of communist influence, the CIA, along with Britain's blockades, helped overthrow Iran's newly elected Prime Minister and gave the Shah full power. A large part of Iran's population has hated us ever since. Of course the Shah was overthrown by the mullahs after 25 years. and so here we are, and we can't change it. Trump's strength may indeed result in real negotiated progress if he shows Iran he can be trusted. But one man's negotiated progress is another man's appeasement. Was Obama's deal that Trump tore up, negotiated progress or appeasement? I don't have foresight enough to say one way or the other, but with the obvious misleading characterizations Trump put out about the deal, with giving Iran $150,000,000,000 so on and so forth, I am sorry to say, I trust Obama's version of this matter more than I trust Trump's.
« Last Edit: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 16:02:44 by Norton »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #73 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 16:35:46 »
Obama’s deal was pure appeasement. Why do you Trust Obama’s deal? Iran used the money we released to build the missiles they shot at us. What part of cash strapped state sponsor of terror with 150 Billion dropped in their lap is hard to understand? And they had a clear pathway in 5 years to attain a nuke. Nah, no can trust Obama on this one. Most everyone with any sense agrees a Nuclear Iran would be catastrophic, except the appeaser and apologist in chief Obama. Obama’s deal bought us nothing, except a projection of weakness and appeasement? Not even good will. I think there IS a deal with Iran we could live with and they SHOULD, if they want sanctions off. I don’t think Trump mislead about Obama’s deal. We gave them 150 Billion dollars that we were holding from them for good reason because of the sanctions had the same effect of us just giving them 150 Billion of our own money. It went to fund terrorism. I would hope you strongly reconsider your Obama thoughts or just don’t vote. PLEASE! You are probably ga ga over the Democrat lineup this time around. I would just as soon not know who strikes your socialist fancy from that band of ne’er do wells.

What difference does it make if we characterize it as giving them 150 Billion or releasing 150 Billion we were holding because of sanctions? They didn’t fix their behavior to have money released. It was an incredibly stupid deal so Obama could kick the nuclear can to the next President. Very noble of him!
« Last Edit: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 17:04:05 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Iran
« Reply #73 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 16:35:46 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9134
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: Iran
« Reply #74 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 17:20:17 »
... I am sorry to say, I trust Obama's version of this matter more than I trust Trump's.

It's strange that someone who comes to the political forum and spews nothing but Democratic talking points would be "sorry" he supposedly trusts Obama more than Trump.

You're not fooling a soul, Norton. Not.one.soul.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Iran
« Reply #74 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 17:20:17 »



Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #75 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 17:50:24 »
with giving Iran $150,000,000,000 so on and so forth, I am sorry to say, I trust Obama's version of this matter more than I trust Trump's.

It truly does not matter about the $150,000,000,000.

Did you ever once stop to ask yourself why it was done in secret, in the middle of the night?

First, it is not the $150,000,000,000 that is of key importance it is what one of your preferred news agencies CNBC has to say on the subject. Surly you will believe them........



The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access to the US financial system

KEY POINTS
The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal.

The administration did so despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

“The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html

No, it is not the $ $150,000,000,000   it is the fact

The US paid Iran $1.3 billion in secret.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12830688/us-iran-cash-payment-ransom

And had they not been discovered we would never have known.

This is "Your" Obama.... not exactly an upstanding citizen and not a politician to be proud of.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iran
« Reply #76 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 19:30:33 »
Rella
The 1.3 billion was a settlement the US and Iran reached in an international court of arbitration involving $400 million worth of arms that Iran had paid for but the US had not delivered. The sale of the arms took place shortly before the hostage crisis of 1979 and the US had been withholding the money since then. The court case drug on for years but the money, was paid in 2016. The money was paid in installments over several days. I have not found out what time of day the payments were made.

Rella! Did you not read the Vox article you referenced? They were refuting your wild tale of a conspiracy.




 
« Last Edit: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 19:43:03 by Norton »

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #77 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 19:40:15 »
Trump is trying to get fair trade with China. I think he will achieve it.

And yes Wahabiism is definitely a huge problem. I don’t believe it is a state sponsored terrorism like with Iran.

We don’t need to “conquer” Arabs or Persians. We would like for them to live in peace. We would have been perfectly happy to leave Afghanis to their poppy fields and such but when they became Al Queda’s training base, that’s a no go. Same with Iran. I am in total favor of letting them live peaceably IF they would. We don’t need them as a punching bag.

I do agree with something you said a few days ago about the problems in the Middle East began with the random map drawing of the British Empire. And of course oil has muddied the water. Between haves and have nots in the region.

I do believe we can have peace with the Iranians, but it will always be from a position of strength, or an imposed peace. From a position of weakness, the Arabs and Persians would have long ago wiped each other out.

And we learned that secular strong men like Saddam are not all bad in controlling their radical religious factions.

When we were separated by vast oceans in a world of telegraphs etc who would cate what went on in these countries. Now with ease travel and missile technology, it matters where ever in the world the trouble spot is. I would assume the best we could hope for is a slow boil in these countries. As long as we are strong, we will try to affect behavior. When we are weak, bad behavior will overtake the world.

The disaster of WWII was largely because of isolationist and appeasers. Millions of lives later, things were righted, but a lot could have been prevented by not falling back on appeasement. It NEVER works.

The Arabs and Persians have been at each others throat for centuries, far before Islam even.

You somehow seem to insinuate that if the US would not have stepped in, we would have an Arab/Persian-free society because the two groups would have wiped each other out.
The reality is of course that nations and people have been going at each other for as long as the world exist, and no ruler has ever succeeded to "make" Arabs and Persians live in peace.
And guess what...the Arabs and Persians are still here.

The Saud family would be a good example of how a strong leader can control (religious) factions.
But lets not have any misunderstanding here, the only reason why the Saud family runs the show is because they killed anyone who opposed them.

Now Saddam Hussein also was a strong leader who killed anyone who opposed him. Nothing different from the Saudi's.
Yet we find fault in Saddam...and praise the Saudi's.

Once again, lets come to the core reason why the US plants its foot down in the region and rolls its muscles continuously: oil!
This is not about human rights or whether the Arabs kill the Persians, nobody cares.
Do you really think that if there was no oil in the region, the US would have its presence there protecting people from each other?

The USA and UK made a massive miscalculation a few decades ago by trying to assimilate the Middle East.
Do you know that even Nixon actually had plans to invade the Middle East and take it by force?
All this is about oil and oil only.

But now that you have plenty of it yourself at home, you feel the urge to make sure the oil fields in the Middle East do not come under the influence of Russia and China.
And that's why you wish to enforce your rule on the nations there.

Anyone who thinks the deserts and people in the Middle East enjoy but a shred of interest from the international community besides for the presence of oil, is sorely mistaken.

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #78 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 20:09:02 »
Rella
The 1.3 billion was a settlement the US and Iran reached in an international court of arbitration involving $400 million worth of arms that Iran had paid for but the US had not delivered. The sale of the arms took place shortly before the hostage crisis of 1979 and the US had been withholding the money since then. The court case drug on for years but the money, was paid in 2016. The money was paid in installments over several days. I have not found out what time of day the payments were made.

Rella! Did you not read the Vox article you referenced? They were refuting your wild tale of a conspiracy.

Not MY wild tale of conspiracy... part of the money went this way

The United States airlifted $400 million in foreign currencies to Iran in January to partially settle a decades-old dispute over an aborted arms deal. On the same day, Tehran released four American hostages, but Washington is denying the exchange amounted to a ransom payment.

The U.S. stacked the cash — in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies — on wooden pallets and flew it into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane. It was the first installment on a $1.7 billion settlement stemming from the failed U.S. weapons pact with Iran in 1979 just before its last monarch, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was toppled. The U.S. dispatched the cash in foreign currencies because any transaction with Iran in dollars is illegal under U.S. law.

No conspiracy son, just facts.

I know why things were converted to foreign currency.... as is the last sentence above, BUT WHY was it flown on an unmarked cargo plane.... This should bother you and make you querry why also.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-paid-iran-400m-tehran-freed-4-american-hostages

We did not pay for the hostages to be released..... timing is sure suspect as is the secretive manner of what they now claim was the proper thing to do.


AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #79 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 20:46:49 »
It truly does not matter about the $150,000,000,000.

Did you ever once stop to ask yourself why it was done in secret, in the middle of the night?

First, it is not the $150,000,000,000 that is of key importance it is what one of your preferred news agencies CNBC has to say on the subject. Surly you will believe them........



The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access to the US financial system

KEY POINTS
The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal.

The administration did so despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

“The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html

No, it is not the $ $150,000,000,000   it is the fact

The US paid Iran $1.3 billion in secret.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12830688/us-iran-cash-payment-ransom

And had they not been discovered we would never have known.

This is "Your" Obama.... not exactly an upstanding citizen and not a politician to be proud of.

The problem with the media in the USA is that it is hopelessly divided for political reasons.
Whilst the US proclaims freedom of press, you actually know very little of it. It is very unfortunate for the American people that there is very little independent press left.
And this is not a reflection of the media only, it is a reflection of American society in general.

Whilst there are many intelligent and informed people in the USA who can see through the politicization of the press, there are a whole lot more who can't and who won't.
Most, because of the sharp lines drawn within US society, will stick to their side of the story by any means, and absorb anything their side proclaims as being the truth.
And almost none will actually invest some time to check out what the real facts are, which usually is right in the middle.

With exception, this is a typical American thing. Americans have not been raised with an outward view of the world.
You do not understand most of the foreign cultures because there never was a need for it. Instead foreign cultures were supposed to align with US policies.
And for a while most foreign cultures did to some extend align themselves with US interests for economic gain.

That position however is shifting. Where in the past the British Empire was the global economic power house, that has all but disappeared.
And now the position of the US is on the decline.
So what you have right now in the USA is exactly the same as what the British had a few generations ago: a generation that finds it increasingly difficult to accept that the world no longer is the playground of the west, and in particular the US.
And that's why American politics has become increasingly more populist and utterly divided.

And guess what, you can't really blame the average American for having a subjective view.
The lies coming from both sides are getting bigger and bigger and the media, equally divided, forwards the lies into society depending on which political camp they support.

So, lets address that 1.5Bn first.
As Norton already said, this was a settlement by arbitration. Nothing secretive about it.
See how easy that was? It was neither secretive, nor in the middle of the night.

The 150Bn is a detraction as well.
First and foremost, nobody "gave" Iran anything or dropped a gift in their lap. That money was Iran's to start with.
But here is the reality of the situation...

Even before the US released that 150Bn, Iran was already developing nuclear capabilities. They did not need that 150Bn to continue their nuclear program.
In fact the rest of the world was getting very nervous about Iran progressing their nuclear capability even though so much of their assets and funds were frozen.
Oh sure, the US could have kept that 150Bn in their pocket. Would that have stopped Iran? Not at all!
So the choice was made to release those funds in exchange of an agreement that allowed foreign access.

See how simple that was? Nothing shady about it.
But now that Trump has torn up the agreement, we are worse off than before.
Not only do the Iranians have the 150Bn, they are now completely free to continue nuclear development without foreign control.


And finally that "secretive" access to the US banking system.
In order to transfer funds from one currency to the other, you need to go through the so-called "swift" system, which happens to be an American system.
Every day millions of transactions are being made over that system, and numerous banks and financial establishments are granted access to the American financial system to complete their transfers.

The US has tried before to force pressure on foreign nations by threatening to cut them off from that payment system.
In case of Russia, the message came back that if the US dared all hell would brake loose. The US quickly backed off.

Also in this case, the US did not want any trouble with Oman.
Oman lies in the so-called sphere of influence of the US, it has significant gas reserves and is the largest non-OPEC oil producer with massive oil reserves.
And Oman needed to transfer funds to Iran. Hence Iran was given access to the American financial system in order for the transfer to succeed.

See how simple that was? It is all out there in the open.

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #80 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 21:00:47 »
Not MY wild tale of conspiracy... part of the money went this way

The United States airlifted $400 million in foreign currencies to Iran in January to partially settle a decades-old dispute over an aborted arms deal. On the same day, Tehran released four American hostages, but Washington is denying the exchange amounted to a ransom payment.

The U.S. stacked the cash — in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies — on wooden pallets and flew it into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane. It was the first installment on a $1.7 billion settlement stemming from the failed U.S. weapons pact with Iran in 1979 just before its last monarch, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was toppled. The U.S. dispatched the cash in foreign currencies because any transaction with Iran in dollars is illegal under U.S. law.

No conspiracy son, just facts.

I know why things were converted to foreign currency.... as is the last sentence above, BUT WHY was it flown on an unmarked cargo plane.... This should bother you and make you querry why also.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-paid-iran-400m-tehran-freed-4-american-hostages

We did not pay for the hostages to be released..... timing is sure suspect as is the secretive manner of what they now claim was the proper thing to do.

Lol. this is so funny.
You are aware that even AirForce 1 is an "unmarked" plane right?
The reason why they call those planes "unmarked" is that they cannot be tracked by conventional means, which in normal circumstances means they switch off the transponders.
I am however pretty sure that AirForce 1 also has a whole lot of other equipment on board that makes sure the plane cannot be traced.

You are of course also aware that if this was an "unmarked" plane...the US actually loaded the money in that plane, right?
Hence if there was some kind of secret conspiry going on, the US was part of it.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iran
« Reply #81 on: Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 23:41:10 »
Rella
I consider VOA and Vox reputable news outlets. Thanks for providing those links that seem to provide a full story. Both the Vox and the VOA articles said we owed Iran 1.7 billion. That we paid them 400 million, the hostages were released, then we paid them 1.3 billion. I guess one might say the 400 million was for ransom, but if we owed them 1.7 billion and paid them 1.7 billion, I don't see any scandal in that.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10469
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Iran
« Reply #82 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 05:26:21 »
I don't necessarily think that it constituted a scandal; however, knowing full well how they would use the money I think it was incredibly stupid.  And if they didn't know full well how they would use the money, that would be even worse.

The really stupid move was to enter into an agreement that didn't preclude research, development, manufacturing or procuring nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and one that didn't preclude support for terrorism by Iran or Iranian proxies.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #83 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 05:26:51 »
We should have only released the money with evidence of their behavior change. Yes us dropping this cash in the laps of a cash strapped terrorist state is totally stupid. Obama and Kerry’s deal was pure appeasement and financed their terrorism. Norton, THAT is the scandal. Appeasers ALWAYS presume appeasement will buy future good behavior. The fact that it was their money originally has nothing to do with it. We rewarded bad behavior.  It is possible to successfully reward good behavior (though never pre-emptively) especially in the case of money being withheld in the case of sanctions for bad behavior. Obama’s deal was a bulls eye for exactly the wrong wrong way to handle Iran. Kicking the Iranian nuke can down the road to the next President was    not enough in any scenario, especially for a cash strapped state sponsor of terrorism. There was no change of behavior, except on our part to give them a path to a nuke.

If Trump or any other future President does anything this stupid, I will happily condemn them. This made Neville Chamberlain look like a tough guy, and it was about as successful as Chamberlain’s non-sensical appeasement of Hitler with expectation of peace in their time.

I suspect and hope Trump is correct in his tough stand with Iran as Reagan was and was ridiculed for his tough stand on the Soviets. Peace through strength only, as the media gasped collectively at the words reviled by Reagan’s own State Dept, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Or even better walking away from the Rekyavik Summit caused a collective gasp from the handwringers. I remember well the media with their jaws on the floor. For the Trump haters, there is a LOT of parallels in Reagan and Trump.

This is all from a guy who said Trump had zero chance to be nominated and if he was nominated he would have zero chance against Hillary. He was a decisive victory because he is a winner and a fighter against tremendous odds.

« Last Edit: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:26:27 by Jaime »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Certified Resident Board Genius....The MAN, the MYTH, the LEGEND!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9938
  • Manna: 372
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Iran
« Reply #84 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 07:26:00 »
Just to put things in perspective.
- The Iranian government as it is today is the product of meddling with internal politics in Iran by Western powers (UK & US)
- The reason why people take to the streets in Iran is due to the sanctions, issued and now increased by the US

The whole reason for Trump to tear up the agreement was to exercise not only international pressure, but also national pressure on the Iranian Government.
Do you really think Trump did not expect, know and perhaps even hoped for demonstrations with violent results when he abandoned the agreement?

This whole mess we are facing today in the ME is due to western powers dividing up the region for their own interests.
The UK and France however seem to have been a hell of a lot smarter than the US. They packed up and left a long time ago already.

Why do you think there is so much hatred against the USA in the ME?
Because you are the last colonial power that is still there meddling in politics, and if necessary by force.

In an amazing display of wisdom however has Trump made the sacrifice of the protesters in Iran a sacrifice in vain.
By taking out a prominent member of the government has he united the people of Iran again.

And finally, nobody cares about 1500 people (if it was that many). It makes for good political rhetoric, but do you really think anyone in the US government cares about 1500 Iranians?
We read it in the newspaper, shake our heads and have forgotten about it the next day.
Any idea how many people died by the hands of Saddam Hussein who was put in place by the US? Did anyone care?

I tell you what the US cares about in the ME. Three words...oil, power, money
Everything else is just noise.


Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #85 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:15:02 »
Lol. this is so funny.
You are aware that even AirForce 1 is an "unmarked" plane right?
The reason why they call those planes "unmarked" is that they cannot be tracked by conventional means, which in normal circumstances means they switch off the transponders.
I am however pretty sure that AirForce 1 also has a whole lot of other equipment on board that makes sure the plane cannot be traced.

You are of course also aware that if this was an "unmarked" plane...the US actually loaded the money in that plane, right?
Hence if there was some kind of secret conspiry going on, the US was part of it.

AVZ

Middle initial indication middle name is vacant as in the inability to understand what is said.

You give a whole new meaning to the name "space cadet"  ::whistle::

It was an unmarked plane.... and it was done in the dead of night.

YES... THE US VIA OBUMA WAS INVOLVED. It WAS his plan.

This is quite a coup for the one who took this pic of air force one. Guess they used special invisible cameras to take pics of the "UNMARKED" plane   ::frustrated::

[/url]      [/img]

I have not yet figured out if you have communist leanings from your socialist beliefs, perhaps just a commie sympathizer. Perhaps mixed in with your love of all things Muslim. One thing certain... clueless needs added to that mix.

Your disdain and hatred of the US is very apparent.

No wonder you wont let anyone know where you live.

Now... once again, as English is not your first language or your preferred choice.

Money was moved at the orders of OBUMA... (That would be the USA son) ... during the night on pallets in an unmarked plane.

4 Hostages were released that night.

There was a witness who saw the action and reported it.

They have tried to keep it hush hush and articles about this from years ago are disappering from the internet.

Was the money their's? Irans?

I dont know and I dont care.....

It was the hidden way this particular transaction was carried out..... by Obuma... and the USA that makes it simply wrong.

Kenn'-nen ze ferstayen?


Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #86 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:20:59 »
Rella
I consider VOA and Vox reputable news outlets. Thanks for providing those links that seem to provide a full story. Both the Vox and the VOA articles said we owed Iran 1.7 billion. That we paid them 400 million, the hostages were released, then we paid them 1.3 billion. I guess one might say the 400 million was for ransom, but if we owed them 1.7 billion and paid them 1.7 billion, I don't see any scandal in that.

Are you and AVZ one in the same or do you just share a common brain?

The scandal part is ...........

Money was moved at the orders of OBUMA... (That would be the USA son) ... during the night on pallets in an unmarked plane.

4 Hostages were released that night.

There was a witness who saw the action and reported it.

They have tried to keep it hush hush and articles about this from years ago are disappearing from the internet.

If it was all above board, then this part would not have needed to be done so covertly.

If it was their money due them... even by exchanging into foreign currency ( legal necessity) why this particular amount
done in secret?

This smells like a week old fish.

If other money was returned to them, why not this amount also?

Something is wrong and you are an American.... you speak the language... it should bother you .

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #87 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:26:50 »
I don't necessarily think that it constituted a scandal; however, knowing full well how they would use the money I think it was incredibly stupid.  And if they didn't know full well how they would use the money, that would be even worse.

The really stupid move was to enter into an agreement that didn't preclude research, development, manufacturing or procuring nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and one that didn't preclude support for terrorism by Iran or Iranian proxies.

Part of it was scandal.

But the apologizer in chief was quite happy to "fund" some weapons in secret.
 
Remember... neither he or his wife had any love for the US any more then Ilhan  Omar (Remember her laughing through the talk of dead Americans 3 days ago?) orRashida Tlaib.

It was a way to help Iran.... and done quietly not one need answer what the expected use of the money would be for.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #88 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:44:17 »
Any idiot or most, would get the punch line of us dropping much money in the laps of a cash strapped regime that exports terrorism. It was money they didn’t have access to to fund their terrorism.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:04:37 by Jaime »

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #89 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:56:28 »
AVZ

Middle initial indication middle name is vacant as in the inability to understand what is said.

You give a whole new meaning to the name "space cadet"  ::whistle::

It was an unmarked plane.... and it was done in the dead of night.

YES... THE US VIA OBUMA WAS INVOLVED. It WAS his plan.

This is quite a coup for the one who took this pic of air force one. Guess they used special invisible cameras to take pics of the "UNMARKED" plane   ::frustrated::

[/url]      [/img]


FYI,

The term "unmarked plane" does not refer to a plane having no markings, letter, text, colors, call sign or identifications painted on it.
The term is used for planes that are not on a specific flight plan, or schedule, or do not have a flight number or responder.

You really think that is your President wants to fly in secret from one location to the other, they have to paint the plane white first?

You seem to insinuate that the transport is done in the middle of the night, and that is somehow suspect.
Why? Many flights leave in the middle of the night, especially if they depart for intercontinental flights.
And besides that, at some point during the flight the plane will be flying at day time.

The plane now departed at night and arrived in the day...would it have been better for the plane to have departed during the day and arrive at night?
Whats the difference?
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:13:17 by AVZ »

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iran
« Reply #90 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:18:55 »
I suppose we could as a nation repudiate the agreements we signed with the World Trade Organization and go back on other international agreements we have made. With our military might we could conquer the world and do everything on our terms, not being bothered with any of that kind of stuff.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #91 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:25:49 »
Obama’s Iran deal was by all definitions a treaty that should have come before the Senate to be ratified by the Senate as all treaties are, except when Obama didn’t have the support necessary in the senate.

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #92 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:35:07 »

Remember... neither he or his wife had any love for the US any more then Ilhan  Omar (Remember her laughing through the talk of dead Americans 3 days ago?) orRashida Tlaib.

So let me get this correctly.

You have a guy who does not love the USA, entering the political arena for many years, sat in the Illinois Senate and then move on to the US Senate and was finally voted President of the United States.

Doesn't that say everything about the total inadequacy of the US political system, and would that not make the voters in the USA incredibly dense?
A guy that does not love his country can actually be elected President of that country?

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #93 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:41:41 »
Obama’s Iran deal was by all definitions a treaty that should have come before the Senate to be ratified by the Senate as all treaties are, except when Obama didn’t have the support necessary in the senate.

Was the Iran deal a treaty?

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #94 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:51:22 »
FYI,

The term "unmarked plane" does not refer to a plane having no markings, letter, text, colors, call sign or identifications painted on it.
The term is used for planes that are not on a specific flight plan, or schedule, or do not have a flight number or responder.

You seem to insinuate that the transport is done in the middle of the night, and that is somehow suspect.
Why? Many flights leave in the middle of the night, especially if they depart for intercontinental flights.
And besides that, at some point during the flight the plane will be flying at day time.

The plane now departed at night and arrived in the day...would it have been better for the plane to have departed during the day and arrive at night?
Whats the difference?

Then all planes are unmarked as even UPS and Fed Ex only have their names on them.

"Whats the difference?"

It was loaded at night, in the dark.  So no one would see.  It is a huge issue cause.........

I am not subscribed to the Wall Street Journal so they will not permit me full access to articles, but surly you can see this is highly suspect. No matter the reason... it was an odd timing to send money to a terrorist nation.

U.S. Transferred $1.3 Billion More in Cash to Iran After Initial Payment
First $400 million coincided with Iran’s release of American prisoners and was used as leverage, officials have acknowledged

officials have acknowledged
By Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee
Updated Sept. 6, 2016 9:38 pm ET

The Obama administration followed up a planeload of $400 million in cash sent to Iran in January with two more such shipments in the next 19 days, totaling another $1.3 billion, according to congressional officials briefed by the U.S. State, Treasury and Justice departments.

The cash payments—made in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies—settled a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal dating back to

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of-cash-to-iran-after-initial-payment-1473208256

If It Walks Like a Duck…
The Iranian press and military enthusiastically spun the payment as ransom, and more proof of how Tehran had rolled the U.S. in the nuclear talks.

Most of all, the tale of cash going one way and prisoners the other, all on the same day, just doesn’t look right. The suspicion is that the teams working on the financial, hostage and weapons negotiations did indeed collaborate, and that the hostage release was the essential sweetener needed to clinch the highly controversial nuclear agreement that’s a pillar of Obama’s legacy.

The “sweetener” view may have some validity. Sick concedes that the deal did “let the Iranian hardliners say they got something in the nuclear deal. Iran was happy to get the cash back. Perhaps that made it easier for them to give up the prisoners, I don’t know.” He doesn’t believe the three teams of negotiators were working together. “The negotiations for the hostages were totally separate channels, and handled by the Swiss,” he says.

“The optics do look bad, and the timing was awkward,” says Slavin, a supporter of the nuclear agreement. “But it wasn’t a package deal.”

Slavin still insists that the U.S. did the right thing settling a financial issue that was festering for over three decades.

https://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Now dont go spinning this into what you see as proof it was the right thing to do.

HISTORY will show, but we will all be dead before it does.

But from CNN

US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time. The details of the how the transaction occurred were first reported by The Wall Street Journal. CNN reported in January that the transfer of funds had been arrangement.

Critics on Wednesday were further incensed by Iranian claims that the cash amounted to a ransom payment for the four prisoners.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #95 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 10:00:05 »
Then all planes are unmarked as even UPS and Fed Ex only have their names on them.

"Whats the difference?"

It was loaded at night, in the dark.  So no one would see.  It is a huge issue cause.........

I am not subscribed to the Wall Street Journal so they will not permit me full access to articles, but surly you can see this is highly suspect. No matter the reason... it was an odd timing to send money to a terrorist nation.

Any idea how many times AirForce 1 departs at night?

You see, if the plane departs at daytime and arrives at night...you will complain it arrived in secrecy.
And if the plane departs at night and arrives during the day...you will complain it departed in secrecy.
And if the plane leaves midday and arrives midday...you will complain it traveled in secrecy.

You are on a ghost hunt. Whatever time the plane would have departed...you would have found something suspect with it.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #96 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:29:10 »
Seems to me an electronic transfer woulda sufficed, especially in this day and and time. Swap the parties around trump sends Kim Jung Un a pallet of 100 dollar bills on a plane at some hour of the night to not test anymore missiles. Whatever the reason, Trump would have been drawn and quartered.

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #97 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:50:46 »
Seems to me an electronic transfer woulda sufficed, especially in this day and and time.

You are absolutely right, if not for the US Congress having banned electronic transfers to Iran or Iranian owned accounts.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10469
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Iran
« Reply #98 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:59:43 »
Was the Iran deal a treaty?
No. 

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).

Two thirds of the Senators did not concur.  Obama knew that he could not get concurrence and therefore did not even present it to the Senate.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10469
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Iran
« Reply #99 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:06:58 »
A guy that does not love his country can actually be elected President of that country?
I think that anyone that proposes Socialism as the  economic-political system for the United States does not love this country.  But that is just my opinion; and hopefully the opinion of most.  I would bet that most people who voted for Obama had no idea about what he believed.

Quote
.....would that not make the voters in the USA incredibly dense?
Perhaps, but intellectual prowess is not a requirement to vote. Whether you think that is good or bad, it is the way it is. 

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Iran
« Reply #100 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:08:28 »
Obama’s Iran deal was by all definitions a treaty that should have come before the Senate to be ratified by the Senate as all treaties are, except when Obama didn’t have the support necessary in the senate.
Yes, I would say that was an overreach of executive power. That was worse than Trump unilaterally moving funds out of the military to build the border wall. Congress did pass a law that mandated that the Senate could review, debate, and add restraints to the treaty, that Obama said was not a treaty. And restraints were added to the treaty.

I assume you were talking about the agreement where Obama gave the Iranians 150 billion, not the one where Hilliary gave the Iranians 400 million for the hostages.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:22:56 by Norton »

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #101 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:14:10 »
Seems to me an electronic transfer woulda sufficed, especially in this day and and time. Swap the parties around trump sends Kim Jung Un a pallet of 100 dollar bills on a plane at some hour of the night to not test anymore missiles. Whatever the reason, Trump would have been drawn and quartered.

US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time.

The details of the how the transaction occurred were first reported by The Wall Street Journal. CNN reported in January that the transfer of funds had been arrangement.

The money was procured from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, official said, and an unmarked cargo plane loaded with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies were flown to Iran.

"They were totally cut off from global banks and there was no other way to get them the money," one senior official with knowledge of the transaction said.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #102 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:20:33 »
Any idea how many times AirForce 1 departs at night?



You see, if the plane departs at daytime and arrives at night...you will complain it arrived in secrecy.
And if the plane departs at night and arrives during the day...you will complain it departed in secrecy.
And if the plane leaves midday and arrives midday...you will complain it traveled in secrecy.

You are on a ghost hunt. Whatever time the plane would have departed...you would have found something suspect with it.

Weekly or more.  ::nodding::

But do you call Air Force One a cargo plane?

The money was procured from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, official said, and an unmarked cargo plane loaded with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies were flown to Iran.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

I would love to learn it was Air Force One cause his supporters would be named traitors in my mind if that was the case.

PLEASE  ::bowing:: see if you ccan prove it... You would make my day

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #103 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:25:15 »


Doesn't that say everything about the total inadequacy of the US political system, and would that not make the voters in the USA incredibly dense?


Yep, and getting more so every day.....

Those who rely on a lot of the illicit drug smuggling from your part of the world for their daily uses.

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #104 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 19:37:50 »
Yes, I would say that was an overreach of executive power. That was worse than Trump unilaterally moving funds out of the military to build the border wall. Congress did pass a law that mandated that the Senate could review, debate, and add restraints to the treaty, that Obama said was not a treaty. And restraints were added to the treaty.

I assume you were talking about the agreement where Obama gave the Iranians 150 billion, not the one where Hilliary gave the Iranians 400 million for the hostages.

The Iran deal was not a treaty, it was an executive agreement.

 

     
anything