| Zerohedge.com ^ | 2 August, 2016 | Tyler Durden Posted on 8/3/2016, 2:59:22 AM by ScaniaBoy What Donald Trump has proclaimed the worst deal ever made, may just have become worst-er. The shocking truth behind the US-Iran nuclear deal, as WSJ reports, is that John Kerry and the Obama Administration airlifted $1.7bn of cash in 'compromise' payments (read - bribe) to Tehran to ensure the release of 4 captured sailors coincidentally the same weekend as the signing of the nuclear deal. < - SNIP -> Of course, senior U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner exchange. They say the way the various strands came together simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo. 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. <-SNIP-> And now comes the big test of the mainstream media in America - can they stop discussing Trump and Khizr Kahn for long enough to question the deliberate obfuscation of facts in yet another foreign policy snafu by the administration? (Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ... |
400 bucks?!?!?!
Seriously just kidding.
Sounds a lot like Iran Contra... except it was only money instead of arms.
Obama lied about this as well.
I know his cult of a-hole apologists wont care, but its cool.
Remember - this is not only arms for hostages - O-fag also gave them nukes and 150 billion in sanction relief.
Serious question... Do you think they wouldn't have developed nukes on their own? The alternative would have been to wipe the country out with the military.
Would that have been the way to handle this entire situation? I don't know if I had a better answer to be honest. Sanctions weren't really doing much, they were still developing.
At this point, what would you have done?
So they are still developing , but 150 billion richer now cause of obama
Awesome deal for them right?
I would have kept the sanctions and told them to go fuck themselves.
They dont need nukes for energy - they want it for war. Why would we help them in that unless you are someone so committed to islamic supremacy as Imam Obama is?
In not disagreeing. Really.
I'm asking if they would have developed the nuclear capabilities anyway.
I have read, perhaps incorrectly, that they were not far from developing that ability anyway.
So what do we do? Keep blowing their country up? Get involved in another war?
"The White House has been forced to come out today and publicly deny reports that they paid a $400 million “ransom” to the Iranian government for the release of five American prisoners, as part of a prisoner swap in January, noting that the payment was coincidental and unrelated to the prisoner releases.
The Wall Street Journal made the allegations today, claiming the US had “secretly airlifted” the money, a fact which sparked furious condemnations form a number of Republican leaders, who insisted it proved that the prisoner exchange was unacceptable.
In reality the $400 million was a payment related to the rulings of the Hague Tribunal related to the US breaking contracts with the Iranian military after the Iranian Revolution, and never refunding them some $400 million they’d paid for military equipment a generation ago, which America never sent.
Though it’s been presented as “taxpayers’ money” in several reports, and even the State Department statement presented it as a savings that they made a deal to avoid paying interest, the $400 million itself never belonged to the American taxpayers, and was rather a payment for services never rendered.
The White House did confirm the money was airlifted to Iran to pay the Tribunal ruling, because the US has no banking ties with Iran and thus no other way to make such a payment, but that appears to be the only part of the Journal story that was accurate. The transfer wasn’t secret, either, with the State Department issuing a press statement that day affirming the transfer and the reason for it.
The fact that it happened at roughly the same time as the prisoner exchange reflects that both happened amid improving US relations with Iran after the P5+1 nuclear deal, though it appears likely this will remain a campaign issue, despite the facts not supporting the “ransom” theory, since so many in Congress are eager to present any deal with Iran under any circumstances as untoward and part of some broader plot."
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/03/white-house-payment-to-iran-unrelated-to-prisoner-release-not-a-ransom/ (http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/03/white-house-payment-to-iran-unrelated-to-prisoner-release-not-a-ransom/)
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/400m-payment-iran-americans-freed-not-ransom-white-house-n622196 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/400m-payment-iran-americans-freed-not-ransom-white-house-n622196)
"The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately."
http://m.state.gov/md251338.htm (http://m.state.gov/md251338.htm)
"State Department spokesman John Kirby joined Bill Hemmer on "America's Newsroom" to defend a $400 million cash transfer to Iran during the release of four Iranian-held U.S. hostages.
Kirby said the money had been frozen in a trust fund in the U.S. for decades and it was "their money.""
"While the timing could appear to have been a suspiciously coordinated quid pro quo, the evidence points to a paper trail of years of exhaustive hearings and highly sensitive negotiations that were completely separate from the January 2016 prisoner exchange. While the timing could appear to have been a suspiciously coordinated quid pro quo, the evidence points to a paper trail of years of exhaustive hearings and highly sensitive negotiations that were completely separate from the January 2016 prisoner exchange."
http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/ (http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/)
"State Department spokesman John Kirby joined Bill Hemmer on "America's Newsroom" to defend a $400 million cash transfer to Iran during the release of four Iranian-held U.S. hostages.
Kirby said the money had been frozen in a trust fund in the U.S. for decades and it was "their money.""
"While the timing could appear to have been a suspiciously coordinated quid pro quo, the evidence points to a paper trail of years of exhaustive hearings and highly sensitive negotiations that were completely separate from the January 2016 prisoner exchange. While the timing could appear to have been a suspiciously coordinated quid pro quo, the evidence points to a paper trail of years of exhaustive hearings and highly sensitive negotiations that were completely separate from the January 2016 prisoner exchange."
http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/ (http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/)
"Snopes"
Left bias Soros funded. Automatically discredited
I see. So it was just a coincidence that the hostages were released at almost the exact time the payment was made.
....You address the snope post but seemed to ignore this.
It was their money. Is it even possible to pay a ransom with money that was theirs in the first place?
Well let me see, take over the US embassy and destroy it, then take American citizens captive for 444 days. I would say we don't own then a fucking thing.
Overthrow their democratically elected government in 1953 and install an oppressive military dictator. I`d say you owe them a lot.
Nope, fuck Iran
30 years of oppressive dictatorship is much worse than 52 hostages for 444 days, none of whom died. Thousands were killed under the Shah. It`s pretty understandable that the Iranians would be a pissed about it too.
Cry me a river, don't care, fuck them - You have mistaken me for someone who is PC, I'm not. Give 400 mil to the largest state sponsor of terrorism, this could only make sense to a retard.
It`s their money, and the US created the environment for the 1979 revolution.
Way off topic anyway.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/white-house-admits-400-million-payment-may-have-funded-terrorism
>:(
Yes, because once again the release at the same time had nothing to do with it ::)
of course it had something to do with it. I started a thread about it on poli long before you did so on gossip board.
but is it ransom $, or is it an outstanding debt whose repayment was part of the bigger deal package that came in place with getting our spies back?
a grownup knows shit like this happens. we got caught, we want our people back, and if you want to suddenly give a shit about funding terrorism, maybe it's time to reconsider your 2008 presidential vote, coach ;)
The US supports a lot more terrorism than Iran does.
You mean Iran is not the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world?
Pretty sure it is.
Heard Congressman Lieu speak about this over the weekend. One of few Democrats with the stones to take a tough stand. The most disturbing things:
1. This deal allows the no. 1 state sponsor of terror with immediate access to billions of dollars.
2. Beginning in year 8 and continuing to year 15, Iran gets to all have everything back they are giving up, which will allow them to develop ballistic nuclear weapons that can reach the U.S. in year 15.
3. Before year 15, Iran will be able use the billions in revenue to develop their infrastructure, military, etc., making disarming them after year 15 impossible without substantial ground forces.
4. The likelihood of Israel taking preemptive action in Iran before year 15 is very high.
You can find his comprehensive written objection to the deal here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/10/blue-state-blues-l-a-media-silent-as-ted-lieu-rejects-iran-deal/
of course it had something to do with it. I started a thread about it on poli long before you did so on gossip board.
but is it ransom $, or is it an outstanding debt whose repayment was part of the bigger deal package that came in place with getting our spies back?
a grownup knows shit like this happens. we got caught, we want our people back, and if you want to suddenly give a shit about funding terrorism, maybe it's time to reconsider your 2008 presidential vote, coach ;)
Coach voted voted for Obama ? GTFO
Your delusional lies are getting deeper and deeper. I called for Obama's execution on the basis of treason and you suggest that I voted for him. Fuck you... A DEAD seriously fuck you, you liberal liar. The gloves are off. You're proof positive that you never trust a liberal.
Go ahead liar, prove it.
if you want to suddenly give a shit about funding terrorism, maybe it's time to reconsider your 2008 presidential vote, coach ;)
LOL! You thought I was saying you voted for obama? No, that's silly. Re-read what I wrote:
Did you miss James' thread, coach, which mentions Mccain in a less-than-flattering light? ;) Mccain was your 2008 vote, Coach...
Coach voted voted for Obama ? GTFO
LOL! You thought I was saying you voted for obama? No, that's silly. Re-read what I wrote:
;) I know very well you voted mccain in 2008, coach.
You mean Iran is not the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world?
Reminded me of this:
Iran: $400 Million in Cash Was Part of ‘Expensive Price’ to Free U.S. Hostages
But it was a previous debt. Part of the deal wasn't "pay this ransom". It was "Pay this debt you've owed for decades".
Sure it was. The hostages just happened to be waiting on the Tarmac for plane to arrive.
one of the conditions of the return of our spies was that we paid a decades-old debt.
So yes, they weren't getting on the plane until we paid off a debt that another president promised.
it isn't ideal, but neither is our spies getting caught. The only 'ransom' is that we made good on a promise we made decades ago?
Stop just stop. You know it I know it, it's bullshit. With the lies this administration has told it amazes me that even the left can make excuses for them. "They said they said they said"
one of the conditions of the return of our spies was that we paid a decades-old debt.Debt my ass, fuck the Iranians, we don't owe them a fucking thing accept the wrong end of a hell fire missile. the "promise" was made to the shah, when you over throw your government there are consequences. So fuck you and your politically correct horse shit. All this fair play nonsense, give an Islamic state and bunch of money, makes perfect sense in the mind of the insane............
So yes, they weren't getting on the plane until we paid off a debt that another president promised.
it isn't ideal, but neither is our spies getting caught. The only 'ransom' is that we made good on a promise we made decades ago?
Are you saying a completely new ransom, made up because of our spies caught, would be equally as bad as "look, pay the money you ALREADY owe us, and you can have your spies back?"
I don't like the idea of our spies getting dealt, but it's what countries do. We sure as shit woudln't just hand back iranian spies we caught, would we?
Are you saying a completely new ransom, made up because of our spies caught, would be equally as bad as "look, pay the money you ALREADY owe us, and you can have your spies back?"
I don't like the idea of our spies getting dealt, but it's what countries do. We sure as shit woudln't just hand back iranian spies we caught, would we?
I see, so money that was owed four decades ago is all of the sudden payed the exact same time hostages are released?
I see, so money that was owed four decades ago is all of the sudden payed the exact same time hostages are released?
Debt my ass, fuck the Iranians, we don't owe them a fucking thing
yes. Like when your friend wants to borrow your car, but you say "i'll lend it to you if you return my rake".
The rake isn't rent. It's just some shit you want back. Only in our case, we wanted our 4 spies back, so they said "Hey, you can have them back, but we want that money you promised us decades ago".
It's actually their own money, isn't it? Reagan froze 12 billion in 1981 and promised to repay it, I think?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/iran-hostage-deal-how-it-works-what-it-means
Who gives a F! These POS have killed american soldiers and aided terrorists in Iraq fighting us. F these perverts.
"The White House has been forced to come out today and publicly deny reports that they paid a $400 million “ransom” to the Iranian government for the release of five American prisoners, as part of a prisoner swap in January, noting that the payment was coincidental and unrelated to the prisoner releases.
The Wall Street Journal made the allegations today, claiming the US had “secretly airlifted” the money, a fact which sparked furious condemnations form a number of Republican leaders, who insisted it proved that the prisoner exchange was unacceptable.
In reality the $400 million was a payment related to the rulings of the Hague Tribunal related to the US breaking contracts with the Iranian military after the Iranian Revolution, and never refunding them some $400 million they’d paid for military equipment a generation ago, which America never sent.
Though it’s been presented as “taxpayers’ money” in several reports, and even the State Department statement presented it as a savings that they made a deal to avoid paying interest, the $400 million itself never belonged to the American taxpayers, and was rather a payment for services never rendered.
The White House did confirm the money was airlifted to Iran to pay the Tribunal ruling, because the US has no banking ties with Iran and thus no other way to make such a payment, but that appears to be the only part of the Journal story that was accurate. The transfer wasn’t secret, either, with the State Department issuing a press statement that day affirming the transfer and the reason for it.
The fact that it happened at roughly the same time as the prisoner exchange reflects that both happened amid improving US relations with Iran after the P5+1 nuclear deal, though it appears likely this will remain a campaign issue, despite the facts not supporting the “ransom” theory, since so many in Congress are eager to present any deal with Iran under any circumstances as untoward and part of some broader plot."
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/03/white-house-payment-to-iran-unrelated-to-prisoner-release-not-a-ransom/ (http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/03/white-house-payment-to-iran-unrelated-to-prisoner-release-not-a-ransom/)
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/400m-payment-iran-americans-freed-not-ransom-white-house-n622196 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/400m-payment-iran-americans-freed-not-ransom-white-house-n622196)
"The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately."
http://m.state.gov/md251338.htm (http://m.state.gov/md251338.htm)
Cry me a river, don't care, fuck them - You have mistaken me for someone who is PC, I'm not. Give 400 mil to the largest state sponsor of terrorism, this could only make sense to a retard.
well that kind of explains that huh soul... facts kind of thrashed your little argument.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/04/freed-iranian-hostage-iranians-told-me-they-were-waiting-for-another-plane-to-arrive-before-letting-us-go
::)
Right a generation ago - and only now - when they take 4 hostages - and weont release them till this is paid. . . . .
Good job guzzling Obama's jizz - figures you buy into whatever he and his pedo Islamic Imams in Tehran tell you.
I'm down for impeaching obama for being born elsewhere. and prosecution for fast & furious.
But repaying reagan's promised debt to get 4 spies back? It's not something I'd get as upset over. Our spies are important, and it was reagan's word. If obama paid them a billion bucks for used posing shorts, yes, that's outrageous. But it's hard for either country to claim the high road here. We sent in spies, we promised that money.
Reminds me of when our boatload "accidentally" drifted into Iranian waters. In these days of technology and GPS, that shit doesn't happen accidentally ;) If a boatload of iranian sailors with guns "accidentally" drifted 8 miles from NYC, we'd have their asses in GITMO before anyone could blink.
It wasn't a repayment. It was ransom. Try to keep up.
I thought it was money owed for a 1980s debt, and that they're release our spies if we paid the debt back.
What isn't accurate there? You want to call it ransom... but it was money owed and they were fcking spies. Your patriotism is getting in the way of common fcking sense. If we catch 4 iranian spies in the USA, I damn sure hope we charge them an arm and a leg for their return.
I'm sure you already read my recently posted thread where the State Dept admitted it was ransom...
http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://nypost.com/2016/08/18/state-department-400m-cash-to-iran-was-contingent-on-us-prisoners-release/&s=1&f=1&ts=1471559268&sig=AKOVD65Gem3I8esHOPrSOhYCnnt3qJXaAw
That makes it sound like the hostages were the ransom. Not money.