The $400 Million was not Ransom

[louis c]

Why is it that people purposely try to misunderstand an easy to understand process.

Iran held 4 American hostages. The U.S. Government was working through backchannels to get them released, to no avail.

In separate negotiations, the United States was about to lose a case involving an old arms deal in which the U.S. held $400 Million of Iran's money. We had to return it, sooner or later.

We returned the money, which we would have been obliged to do, but made the hostages part of the deal. This was not our $400 Million, it was there's. This has nothing to do with a ransom. No one else is at risk, unless we are holding someone else's money.

Can you imagine if we lost the case and had to give back the money and didn't get the hostages back? Obama and Clinton would be roasted over a pit if it that happened.

Why doesn't everyone get it?

[radical noodle]

1. I don't know

but I was ready to throttle Tweety a little while ago over just that. He is either dumb as a rock or he purposely misrepresented it.

[blm]

6. Post it on his Twitter and FB.

.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

10. He's dumb. n/t

[kennetha]

2. they think we're dumb

is what it is.

[Mosby]

3. We didn't owe them anything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1253535

[forest444]

5. Keep in mind that link was a 'World Affairs' op-ed - a rag run by neocon James Denton.

Not that there isn't necessarily any merit to the op-ed; but only that a Jeanne Kirkpatrick's disciple isn't exactly the best source for opinions on matters of international relations (or anything really).

[pnwmom]

8. We absolutely did. The International Court of the Hague ruled that we owed them the money,

with interest. And we are one of the countries that accepts that courts rulings.

[uponit7771]

4. Cause it sounds like some fuck head from the SD said we were holding the money over Irans head

... and even if that was so that's different from Ransom IE give me money I'll give you hostages.

[MohRokTah]

7. We waited for the sailors to be on their way before sending the $400 million.

That was to ensure there would be no demand for some of the rest of the $1.7 billion in order to return the sailors since the other $1.3 billion is contingent upon compliance with the rest of the nuclear agreement. Payments will be made as milestones are reached.

[Tactical Peek]

9. "This was not our $400 Million"

Unlike those TOW anti-tank missiles and Hawk anti-aircraft missiles back in the '80s, which clearly were ours.

It was even our cake, too, to put the icing on the ransom.

[Takket]

11. everyone gets it, it just doen't fit their narrative.

[Skittles]

12. because the money THEY OWED was repaid ONLY IF the hostages were released

what part of that do you not get? Sure, the outcome was better than if the hostages were not released but IT IS WHAT IT IS. And who fucking cares what repukes think? They would condemn Obama NO MATTER WHAT HE DID.

[louis c]

13. Isn't that what I said? (NT)

[Skittles]

14. so how is that not ransom?

you don't get your money until we get _________ = RANSOM

[SunSeeker]

15. They would have gotten the money regardless.

Maybe we would have dragged our heels, but eventually we would have complied with the Order from the Hague.

[Skittles]

16. LOL

riiiiiiight, OK THEN - they gave up the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts

[SunSeeker]

17. No, reciprocating acts of good faith.

We gave up money we had no business holding, and gave up prisoners they had no business holding.

[karynnj]

18. No, they wanted all the other deals that were starting

The nuclear deal itself required them to do things like send most of their enriched uranium out of the country and to pour cement in to destroy a plutonium reactor. They had already done this prior to the implentation of the nuclear deal. Having done that some sanctions were to be removed as the deal was implemented.

That was the biggest thing done that day. Because deals were made, they also freed the Americans and got the $400 million back to comply with the court. At the last minute, the episode with our sailors happened and probably to not risk everything, they too were freed.

It seems the design of the deals showed the P5+1 had the greater leverage compared with Iran. They had to do not revokable things we wanted before we gave them what they wanted.

Short story - it was well negotiated.

[Skittles]

19. so it's all how you define RANSOM

over and out

[SunSeeker]

21. And whether you want to fall for Trump talking points. nt

[louis c]

22. Ransom is giving something that belongs to you to someone who doesn't deserve it

The United States was instructed by the Hague to return Iran's money being held for a pre-revolution arms deal. It was their money. It had to be delivered even if we didn't get the hostages back.

The Obama Administration made that return, which we were obligated to do, contingent on the return of the hostages.

What part of "it's not our money, it's theirs" don't you understand?

Can you imagine the outcry if we gave Iran back their the $400 million, as ordered by International Law, and they kept the hostages?

If it was our money, from our treasury, that would be ransom. It's Iran's money, therefore, it can't be considered ransom.

[spanone]

20. K&R...

[Vinca]

23. Iran was going to get the money back anyway. It was their money.

In fact, as I understand it, had the case progressed through the world court to its finale, the United States could have been on the hook for a whole lot more than the initial seizure plus interest. In my mind, if you pay ransom it is not with the kidnapper's own money.