|
Hooter
|
 |
« on: August 03, 2016, 02:17:48 PM » |
|
It is reported that the U.S.A. gave Iran a ton of money for the release of 4 prisoners. The White House says it wasn't a ransom. What was it then, paying for their airplane ride home. I'm all for bringing our people home but why is the White House lying about it? It's supposed to be against some type of policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You are never lost if you don't care where you are!
|
|
|
|
sleepngbear
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2016, 02:21:07 PM » |
|
If that jackass says it wasn't a ransom, you can bet your sweet patootie it was a ransom.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hubcapsc
Member
Posts: 16801
upstate
South Carolina
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2016, 02:36:04 PM » |
|
It's a simple coincidence that they happened at the
same time.
-Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Member
Posts: 15433
VRCC 4474
Largo Florida
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2016, 02:40:59 PM » |
|
It seems to me they completely denied it back in Jan when the rumor hit.
Now that it was found they have lied once again about something and stepped hard on their short arm, what else are they do do. They'll just continue to try and spin it in their favor and some will sop it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sleepngbear
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2016, 02:45:46 PM » |
|
 They'll skate on this just like they skate on everything else. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Daddie O
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2016, 02:56:59 PM » |
|
From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979. When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons. Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Light moves faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2016, 03:08:57 PM » |
|
From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979. When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons. Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.
...and you don't find the timing of the return just a teensy weensy bit suspicious? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away...  IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ |
|
|
Valkorado
Member
Posts: 10514
VRCC DS 0242
Gunnison, Colorado (7,703') Here there be twisties.
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2016, 03:12:02 PM » |
|
From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979. When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons. Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.
Well, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Now that relations are improving with Iran and all.  Maybe we should give them a big pile of weapons to cover that interest. Seems they don't currently have a cash problem. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 03:14:48 PM by Valkorado »
|
Logged
|
Have you ever noticed when you're feeling really good, there's always a pigeon that'll come sh!t on your hood? - John Prine 97 Tourer "Silver Bullet" 01 Interstate "Ruby"  |
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2016, 03:57:10 PM » |
|
From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979. When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons. Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.
...and you don't find the timing of the return just a teensy weensy bit suspicious? I do. But it was their money to begin with. But yes it's suspicious. Almost as suspicious as when Reagan traded weapons for hostages. As Reagan said afterward, I can explain the illegality but I can't explain leaving the hostages. (I'm paraphrasing) I suspect Obama felt the same. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MP
Member
Posts: 5532
1997 Std Valkyrie and 2001 red/blk I/S w/sidecar
North Dakota
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2016, 07:18:05 PM » |
|
From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979. When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons. Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.
IF that is true, why the need to lie about it before, saying it had not happened? Why not just come and, and say they were paying Iran back monies they had gotten earlier? But no. They had to lie, once again, to the American people. The only reason it came out now, is proof was leaking out, so they had to admit it. Maybe it was not ransom, per se. But, I will not swallow their statement that it had NOTHING to do with the hostages. Give me a break. It was part of the deal. Otherwise, it could have been done years earlier, or later. But, it occurred just when the hostages were released. How many other people in this world will be injured or die, with all the havoc $400 million in terrorists hands can wreak? A lot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "Ridin' with Cycho" |
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2016, 09:48:39 PM » |
|
From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979. When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons. Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.
IF that is true, why the need to lie about it before, saying it had not happened? Why not just come and, and say they were paying Iran back monies they had gotten earlier? But no. They had to lie, once again, to the American people. The only reason it came out now, is proof was leaking out, so they had to admit it. Maybe it was not ransom, per se. But, I will not swallow their statement that it had NOTHING to do with the hostages. Give me a break. It was part of the deal. Otherwise, it could have been done years earlier, or later. But, it occurred just when the hostages were released. How many other people in this world will be injured or die, with all the havoc $400 million in terrorists hands can wreak? A lot. MP, you've got to start getting your news from reputable sources. They didn't lie about anything . Did you want them to advertise HEY WEVE GOT A PLANE FULL OF MONEY GOING TO IRAN ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE. COME AND HELP YOURSELF.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hooter
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2016, 04:17:48 AM » |
|
Their money and we reneged on the the weapons. How long did we have the money and them no weapons? Since 79 or something? So to me this so called weapons deal was made when Iran was transitioning into a trust worthy country..  Who was the brainiac behind that idea? Then we are just giving THEIR money back? It looks like it and smells like it to me here. Im all for bringing our people home but for the speaker of the house to stand there and lie about this whole thing and the way it was done is crap. Didn't the timing and the denial look hinky to these people making a febal attempt to run this country? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 04:20:20 AM by Hooter »
|
Logged
|
You are never lost if you don't care where you are!
|
|
|
|
