Originally posted by whodeyNo. The USA had already agreed to pay them back their money with the nuclear inspection deal. However, nothing was going to be done until the hostages were released. I find it funny that the far-right was screaming about these hostages being released and blaming Obama for them not being released; and then when they are released, they turn it into more lies and false witness against him. Go figure...
The Iranians will simply have to round up more US hostages to collect the rest of the $800 billion I reckon.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou have an unusual interest in wanting to debate semantics of words, yet seem to not care about gaining any other understanding from a conversation.
A ransom is when you take something from someone, and then demand money in order to return it.
When you owe someone money, and then refuse to give it back to them unless some condition is met, it's called fraud or dishonesty, not "paying a ransom."
Iran's claim may have had merit. But "settling" because you find yourself dealing with an uncomfortable hostage situation encourages others to take hostages. Hey, I predict other countries will have financial disputes with the US in the future. Some with merit, some without. But look what happens when they have hostages. The US is a lot quicker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Originally posted by techsouthTechnically they were not hostages. They were prisoners held in their prisons for breaking their laws. No matter how insane those laws are or how trumped up the charges were, it is still their country and their laws. We owed them that money; however, we told them we were not going to pay them back until our Americans were released from their prisons. It is you that is debating the semantics of words. It was not a ransom paid. It was paying them back money we owed them. End of story.
You have an unusual interest in wanting to debate semantics of words, yet seem to not care about gaining any other understanding from a conversation.
Iran's claim may have had merit. But "settling" because you find yourself dealing with an uncomfortable hostage situation encourages others to take hostages. Hey, I predict other countries will have fina ...[text shortened]... quicker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Ironic that you accuse me of focusing on word semantics when that is exactly what you're doing. But still, there is nothing in my post that hinges on the definition of "ransom" nor "hostage".
But fair enough, the 52 hostages in Iran from 1979-1980 were actually "guests".
A headline in an Islamic Republican newspaper on November 5, 1979, read "Revolutionary occupation of U.S. embassy".
Iranian propaganda stated that the hostages were "guests" treated with respect. Asgharzadeh, the student leader, described the original plan as a nonviolent and symbolic action in which the "gentle and respectful treatment" of the hostages would dramatize to the world the offended sovereignty and dignity of Iran.] In America, an Iranian chargé d'affaires, Ali Agha, stormed out of a meeting with an American official, exclaiming: "We are not mistreating the hostages. They are being very well taken care of in Tehran. They are our guests."
And let me reword my previous post so no one is hung up over terminology...
Iran's claim may have had merit. But "settling" because you find yourself dealing with an uncomfortable prisoner held on trumped up charges situation encourages others to take prisoners held on trumped up charges. Hey, I predict other countries will have financial disputes with the US in the future. Some with merit, some without. But look what happens when they have prisoners held on trumped up charges. The US is a lot quicker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Originally posted by techsouthWhat the hell does this have to do with 1979. And those people held then were hostages. Much different story. Let's take Pastor Saeed. He was an Iranian to begin with who moved to the USA and ended up getting dual citizenship. He would travel home and preach Christianity in Iran which is against their law. They warned him several times to stop; however, he continued to do so and was arrested. He broke their laws and ended up in prison. This is not a hostage, this is someone who broke their laws and ended up in jail. Lesson learned, don't go to Iran and preach Christianity unless God physically comes to you and tells you to do so. Even then you can expect to go to jail for breaking their laws. This was not a trumped up charge, this was him knowingly breaking
Ironic that you accuse me of focusing on word semantics when that is exactly what you're doing. But still, there is nothing in my post that hinges on the definition of "ransom" nor "hostage".
But fair enough, the 52 hostages in Iran from 1979-1980 were actually "guests".
A headline in an Islamic Republican newspaper on November 5, 1979, read "R ...[text shortened]... icker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
their laws even after he was warned several times to stop. I do not know much about the other two prisoners; however, the Iranian government felt that they broke their laws or were spy's and that is why they were put in jail. This has nothing to do with hostage taking and surly has nothing to do with what happened 40 years ago. You mixing around with truth and fiction is a joke and does not fool anyone. What happened is what I and most other stated happened. We payed them back the money we owed them after they released the Americans held in their prisons. This was all part of the nuclear inspection deal. End of story.
Originally posted by KingDavid403Did you completely miss the point of why I brought up the hostage situation in 1979?
What the hell does this have to do with 1979. And those people held then were hostages. Much different story. Let's take Pastor Saeed. He was an Iranian to begin with who moved to the USA and ended up getting dual citizenship. He would travel home and preach Christianity in Iran which is against their law. They warned him several times to stop; ho ...[text shortened]... cans held in their prisons. This is was all part of the nuclear inspection deal. End of story.
I thought it was obvious. Would any other readers like to chime in and tell me if they too missed the point?
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by whodeythen they would break US-Iranian relations and they wold lose the other items from the agreement. economic sanctions will be imposed again.
The Iranians will simply have to round up more US hostages to collect the rest of the $800 billion I reckon.
also, i am not even going to ask where did you pull 800 billion from. i can only take your stupidity in short doses.
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by techsouthI kind of doubt that anyone will take into account that when they make a deal with the United States and the deal goes sour, they might be able to capture some citizens a few decades later and get what they were owed.
You have an unusual interest in wanting to debate semantics of words, yet seem to not care about gaining any other understanding from a conversation.
Iran's claim may have had merit. But "settling" because you find yourself dealing with an uncomfortable hostage situation encourages others to take hostages. Hey, I predict other countries will have fina ...[text shortened]... quicker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Originally posted by techsouthFrom my post on p. 2 quoting an article in Vox:
You have an unusual interest in wanting to debate semantics of words, yet seem to not care about gaining any other understanding from a conversation.
Iran's claim may have had merit. But "settling" because you find yourself dealing with an uncomfortable hostage situation encourages others to take hostages. Hey, I predict other countries will have fina ...[text shortened]... quicker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.
Do you have any logical retort to that?
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe legal definition of ransom has it as...
The money paid to secure the release of a person held captive, whether as a result of having been kidnapped or captured in some other way; the release of a captured person in exchange for money or other consideration.
In the case of these hostages, the US (previously withholding the money of the other country without any promise or compelling reason otherwise to return the same) negotiated the exchange of a release of the hostages for the return of the money being held illegally.
So maybe it's the other country which paid us a ransom.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou don't consider the agreement the US and Iran made in 1980 to be "a compelling reason to return the same"? It's true the arbitration panel hadn't yet ruled but all indications are that in was going to soon make a ruling far worse for the US then the eventual compromise reached. That the US was able to get the hostages out is icing on the cake.
The legal definition of ransom has it as...
The money paid to secure the release of a person held captive, whether as a result of having been kidnapped or captured in some other way; the release of a captured person in exchange for money or other consideration.
In the case of these hostages, the US (previously withholding the money of the othe ...[text shortened]... n of the money being held illegally.
So maybe it's the other country which paid us a ransom.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'd say that is about as disconnected as one can get from the facts, honestly.
You don't consider the agreement the US and Iran made in 1980 to be "a compelling reason to return the same"? It's true the arbitration panel hadn't yet ruled but all indications are that in was going to soon make a ruling far worse for the US then the eventual compromise reached. That the US was able to get the hostages out is icing on the cake.
I hadn't graduated from high school when that agreement was made.
Thirty-six years later, we suddenly and with no other impetus whatsoever decide NOW is the time to make good on that debt.
Oh, what's that?
You're willing to free some hostages?
What a fortuitous turn of events!
Some things are, inexplicably, coincidental and wholly unrelated.
This is not one of those things.
20 Aug 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease read my post on p. 2, it explains the details in a lucid manner.
I'd say that is about as disconnected as one can get from the facts, honestly.
I hadn't graduated from high school when that agreement was made.
Thirty-six years later, we suddenly and with no other impetus whatsoever decide NOW is the time to make good on that debt.
Oh, what's that?
You're willing to free some hostages?
What a fortuitous turn ...[text shortened]... e things are, inexplicably, coincidental and wholly unrelated.
This is not one of those things.
20 Aug 16
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedTough titty. Pakistan was perfectly aware that US law made sanctions mandatory against that nation if it acquired nuclear weapons ("Pressler Amendment"😉 and the contract was signed after it came into effect in 1985. The military dictatorship in charge of Pakistan decided to go ahead with its nuclear plans, anyway. So they got what they deserved and they were fortunate that the US ever reimbursed anything; in fact, they got over $524 million in cash and goods (not a "credit"😉.
As Christine Fair concludes:
While Pakistanis prefer to characterize the F-16 fiasco as inherently unfair, the simple fact is that Pakistan’s leadership made a strategic choice to develop nuclear weapons at the expense of taking ownership of the fleet of F-16s. Pakistan’s leadership understood the U.S. law and its likely consequences. Pakistanis need to hold their leadership to account rather than blithely blaming Washington.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/02/03/the-u-s-pakistan-f-16-fiasco/
Of course it is true that the Reagan administration had falsely certified to Congress that Pakistan had no nuclear weapons in order to avoid the mandatory sanctions, but lying to Congress about such matters was SOP in that administration. That Bush I finally acted as required by law should be commended.
EDIT: FP seems to restrict access to its articles; here's another link to the same Cristina Fair piece: http://marshallarmyrotc.org/documents/TheUSPakistanF16FiascoTheHalfYouDontHearAboutTheU.S.PakistanF16Fiasco.pdf