US says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners

[Chicog]

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course he's right. When the mullahs deposed the Shah and declared war on the US by invading US territory ( the embassy ) they lost any right to the money.

Anyway, as it concerned the Shah, it was probably US money in the first place.

 

 

That was probably a separate claim.

They've been exchanging cash for a while.

This $400 million was for fighter jets that (happily) never got delivered.

It's THEIR money.

You can whinge and conflate as much as you like, but the bottom line is, the deal was done with money owed to the Iranians, and the US used the payment to leverage the hostage release, not the other way round.

 

Otherwise the money would have arrived before the hostages did, or don't you actually know how "ransom" works?

 

[iReason]

^^^

 

In a nutshell Chigog.

Edited August 19, 2016 by iReason

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course he's right. When the mullahs deposed the Shah and declared war on the US by invading US territory ( the embassy ) they lost any right to the money.

Anyway, as it concerned the Shah, it was probably US money in the first place.

Really, is that the way international law works?  This sounds about as valid as the health report allegedly composed by Donald Trump's doctor.

[Neurath]

What? Arms for Hostages? Hostages in Iran? No! Say it isn't so! I am outraged. Outraged. What? That was Reagan? Ok. We got money for the weapons? Cool. We used the money from the weapons to buy arms and give em to the Contras in direct violation of laws passed by congress? Very very cool. Money for hostages, or money paid held back as leverage to ensure the release of hostages? Very uncool. Probably a lynching offense. Get me by bucket and rope.

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Chicog said:

 

 

That was probably a separate claim.

They've been exchanging cash for a while.

This $400 million was for fighter jets that (happily) never got delivered.

It's THEIR money.

You can whinge and conflate as much as you like, but the bottom line is, the deal was done with money owed to the Iranians, and the US used the payment to leverage the hostage release, not the other way round.

 

Otherwise the money would have arrived before the hostages did, or don't you actually know how "ransom" works?

 

 

As I undersand it, according to the article, it was never contigent on arriving first but rather contingent on the money departing Zurich on a neutral aircraft FIRST and which did actually depart US possession before the hostages were released from Iranian custody.

 

The money changed hands first, which is how ransoms work, right? We handed the money to a courier, the Swiss Air Force, who then confirmed posession of funds with Iran and only then did Iran release the hostages.

 

Which would appear to keep with The practices of ransoms.

 

 

[Buzzz]

Trump insisted the Obama Iran nuclear deal was lousy & the prisoners release would have been part of the Iran nuclear deal if he had been the negotiator. Why do the Trump low info fan boys have their panties in a bunch when Trump admitted he would do the same?

[metisdead]

A post containing personal insults has been removed:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

 

 

Another nonsense post containing off topic deflection comments has been removed as well as a reply.  

Edited August 19, 2016 by metisdead

[55Jay]

12 hours ago, Buzzz said:

 

Sad how misinformed the right wing conspiracy types are. 

 

You do know that last February, Trump bragged that "as part of 'his' deal, I would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran."

 

Now you know, it was Trump willing to negotiate with terrorists.

I remember seeing a video clip of him talking about this.  To my recollection, Trump said he would of required the Iranians to release the prisoners/hostages BEFORE any negotiating.  Release them, then we can talk. 

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, Emster23 said: The fact is Reagan made a deal with them before the election: parts for hostages, as long as Iran didn't release them before election. It is not coincidence they released them as Reagan was being sworn in. 

 

PROVE IT... and please use a credible source.

[Buzzz]

 

[Buzzz]

38 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I remember seeing a video clip of him talking about this.  To my recollection, Trump said he would of required the Iranians to release the prisoners/hostages BEFORE any negotiating.  Release them, then we can talk. 

 

Yes Jay,

Trump thinks the nuclear treaty  negociators from France, Germany, European Union, Iran, United Kingdom, Chinese and Russians will pull out of nuclear treaty while  the USA makes pompous threats about 4 lousy prisoners. LOL

 

 

"Bomb the hell out of them" would have only taken out 5,000 centrifuges and set them back only 6 months with zero supervision. 

The current treaty removed 14,000 centrifuges and inspectors are monitoring them. 

They cannot build a bomb. 

And the prisoners are home. 

 

Colin Powell says it's a good agreement.   

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

7 minutes ago, Buzzz said:

 

They cannot build a bomb. 

 

That shows how much you know. They CAN... and in very short order. We got almost nothing out of this stupid deal. Iran made out like bandits.

[Andaman Al]

I am amazed how many people on here are so opinionated and seem to be able to pluck from thin air their own convenient version of history.

 

This WAS NOT a ransom. Three separate negotiation teams. One team having gone through arbitration with the Iranians at the Hague over the disputed money from decades ago were persuaded with the Iranians to go out of court and settle in a private deal.

 

Another team is negotiating the nuclear deal. Another team had been long term negotiating the release of the hostages -  discussion essentially is 'we want our hostages back', ok say Iran (who now have a lot on the table). When the cash was due to be returned which was part of frozen Iranian assets held in US banks, the hostages still had not been released. The US said, "you said you would release our hostages and you didn't, we said we were going to give you all this money and now we won't until you do what you said - otherwise you are trying to scam us'. The Iranians knowing it has taken 40 years to get their money back with another 1.3 Billion owed said, 'sure thing' and released said hostages the same day. It was separate. The money BELONGED to Iran.

 

To help the accuracy of the historical account of some on here please read the following.

 

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

[Scotwight]

Obama said last week that he didn't pay the money for the hostages now this story says he did.  Hair splitting aside I think that means he lied.  Anyone with half a brain would have used some of the arguments presented by some of the usual anti Republican posters here on TV.  They sound a lot better than a flat out bald (another hair reference) face lie.  I think all you anti Trump and Republican posters are better even then the apologists I watch on CNN you all should apply for a job after Hillary moves back into the White House.  

 

Clarification for the liberal impaired persons.  We had the money.  We got the hostages and then we gave the money to Iran.  That is a ransom.  

Edited August 19, 2016 by Scotwight
Clarification for liberals

[Andaman Al]

34 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That shows how much you know. They CAN... and in very short order. We got almost nothing out of this stupid deal. Iran made out like bandits.

 

You really are a wasted talent. There are specialist US Nuclear Weapons teams and specialist UN Nuclear Weapons inspections teams that need you to go and tell them all they are ALL wrong and that you are right because Iran CAN build a nuclear bomb 'in very short order'. Instead of sitting on your couch all day with your laptop you could be out leading the worlds most experienced and specialist Nuke teams. Clearly they know nothing until they have met you.

 

Now as regards credibility and the 'ransom' business', I think you would dispute the fact that the Trump said that he would have arranged to have the hostages released as part of the deal. You want credible sources. Is Trump himself credible enough? Will this video of him saying it be credible enough for you? Here is your messiah in Jul 2015 saying he would have made the release of hostages part of the deal - a ransom no less! Good job Obama did it differently!

 

Trump on Iran Deal- Obama couldn't even get Hostages freed -Jul 2015.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

As I undersand it, according to the article, it was never contigent on arriving first but rather contingent on the money departing Zurich on a neutral aircraft FIRST and which did actually depart US possession before the hostages were released from Iranian custody.

 

The money changed hands first, which is how ransoms work, right? We handed the money to a courier, the Swiss Air Force, who then confirmed posession of funds with Iran and only then did Iran release the hostages.

 

Which would appear to keep with The practices of ransoms.

 

 

 

As I understand it, a Swiss Air Force plane left with the hostages before an Iranian cargo plane left Geneva with the cash.

 

Do you have a link to your version of events?

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-held-cash-until-iran-freed-prisoners-1471469256

 

 

 

[Trouble]

9 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Reading all of this I am left wondering what the alternatives would have been:

 

1. Keep the Iranian money, pass on the nuke deal and tell the Iranian's to get stuffed (thereby weakening the US position in the ME).
2. Give the Iranians back their money as part of the nuke deal ... and tell the US hostages/prisoners to get stuffed.
3. Sign the nuke deal, give the Iranian's back their money as an act of good faith and toss in the hostages/prisoners as part of the deal.

I tend to lean toward #3 just because it seems the most practical of the three options (ie "the better deal".  Seems to me that there is never a black and white (we never this or we never that) as in all things it depends on the circumstances.

The point is not that a deal was made. The point is that when the press related the circumstances, the Administration was quick to deny there was any connection between the hostages and the money.  In fact there was a connection which the OP clearly states.  The problem, like so many in government, is not being truthful to the American public and lying about the circumstances.  Kirby did an about face on this proving the original news reports were correct.  It's the ability of the Administration to lie that is so upsetting, not the deal itself.

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

Now as regards credibility and the 'ransom' business', I think you would dispute the fact that the Trump said that he would have arranged to have the hostages released as part of the deal.

 

As usual, you are badly distorting the truth. Trump said that he would have written a completely different deal and he would not have given the Iranians any money. In other words, NO RANSOM and NO NUKES EVER. 

[Scotwight]

19 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

As I understand it, a Swiss Air Force plane left with the hostages before an Iranian cargo plane left Geneva with the cash.

 

Do you have a link to your version of events?

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-held-cash-until-iran-freed-prisoners-1471469256

"We could't leave until the second plane arrived"http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/hostage-we-waited-for-2nd-plane-to-land-in-iran-before-leaving/g/

 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Scotwight

[Neurath]

5 hours ago, Scotwight said:

Clarification for the liberal impaired persons.  We had the money.  We got the hostages and then we gave the money to Iran.  That is a ransom.  

That's also a purchase at a supermarket. 

[Ulysses G.]

15 minutes ago, Neurath said:

That's also a purchase at a supermarket.

 

 It was a purchase alright. That is for sure.

[Neurath]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 It was a purchase alright. That is for sure.

Genius - using Iran's own money to purchase something from them. I owe you $10,000, but if you give me your car I'll return your money. Love it.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, Neurath said:

Genius - using Iran's own money to purchase something from them. I owe you $10,000, but if you give me your car I'll return your money. Love it.

 

Only we didn't owe them anything. They violated the terms of the sale and stole a bunch of our property. Obama being Obama once again: WEAK.

[Chicog]

56 minutes ago, Neurath said:

That's also a purchase at a supermarket. 

 

Except normally you give the supermarket *your* money.

 

[Chicog]

5 hours ago, Scotwight said:

 

 

 

That link doesn't work.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Chicog said:

 

Except normally you give the supermarket *your* money.

 

 

That's what we did - lots of CASH - only it was delivered in a big 747.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Ulysses G.