Does that make it ransom?
I understand we had a previous agreement/settlement to pay them 1.7 billion. And the 400 million was just the first installment.
I’m looking for a good argument as to why that first payment wasn’t ransom. Is it reasonable to call that first payment ransom?
It was not a ransom payment. It may look and smell just like a ransom payment, but they told us it wasn’t so it wasn’t.
You stop that now. :mad:
From Fortune Magazine:
Best bet is that the Iranians spinned that as ramson anyway and even the hostages were told that for propaganda purpouses.
I just checked the report of the hostage claiming what the OP reports, even the New York Post did note that it was not confirmed at all that the other plane that came in had the money. It looks like the report used weasel words just to keep the controversy going.
If the bill to Iran is now $1.3 billion, then it’s not ransom.
I guess you can make an argument that it doesn’t count as ransom because it’s Iranian money that was “frozen” back in the seventies. The American government just agreed to free up some money that belonged to the Iranian government.
“I won’t do A until you do B” doesn’t necessarily mean B is payment for A (or A for B).
Say your neighbor borrowed $100 from you last week, and now wants to borrow your truck. You say “not until you pay me back the $100.” Does that mean he’s paying $100 to borrow your truck? Of course not.
What is it if he hotwires your truck, parks it in his garage, and won’t give it back until you pay him money?
This is just lame. The money and the hostage release and the nukes are all part of the same deal. They are not separate. It doesn’t matter how many teams you have negotiating the deal.
Regards,
Shodan
Very possibly, but I don’t see how it matters. All of this was known, except that part of the payment was in the form of cash, months ago.
We gave them money and they released the prisoners. Whether or not we call it ransom doesn’t change that.
Right - we have known for months that we were going to pay ransom. We didn’t know Obama was going to lie about it.
[ul][li]The US does not pay ransom for hostages.[/li][li]If you like your coverage, you can keep it.[/li][li]The US did not lose the Viet Nam war.[/li][li]“Ah did not have sex with that woman”.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
If it’s his money that I was supposed to pay him back long ago, then I wouldn’t consider it a ransom. If I don’t owe him money, and he has stolen the truck to coerce money from me, then it’s ransom.
“The US doesn’t pay ransom for hostages” and “the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists” has always been one of those polite fictions that every administration says but none of them actually do. We’ve done both, in various forms, many, many times.
All I can think of is:
"It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane"
Right. And it was stupid to make it formal policy in the first place.
It was not ransom, it was the Iranians’ own money. They won their case in court and they were owed it for arms purchased and never delivered. It had to be done in cash because there are no banking ties between the US and Iran and the money could not be wired. This is just another feeble attempt by the radical right to make Obama, and by extension Hillary, look bad.
The US has been giving Iran back some of the seized 1979 assets for years - IIRC, we gave them $3 billion in 2014 as part of this agreement. Hell, Reagan gave back over $3 billion during his administration. So payments to Iran in regards to their seized asset claims have been going on for 30+ years.
Here’s the funny thing, though. This payment is to recompense Iran for $400 million of military equipment bought in 1979, and in recompense, they are getting… $400 million in 2016 dollars.
Adjusted for inflation, they really should be getting $1.3 billion. Thanks for the interest free loan, guys!
Of course, they were going to buy military equipment. Given inflation, $1 in 1979 buys as much as $3.32 now.
They are getting back their $400 million, which is really less than 1/3 of the inflation-adjusted amount they should be getting, to buy weapons which have increased in price by 3 times.
So, the timeline:
Iran buys $400 mill in weapons in 1978/79.
Gives US the money
Iran takes hostages
US seizes assets - I assume the US Treasury gets all revenue from these assets?
35 years later, US as part of a 30+ year process of unfreezing these assets, gives Iran back the $400 mill, not adjusted for inflation.
Iran, if they want to buy weapons with this money, now has to purchase weapons with this $400 mill, weapons that have also been subjected to inflation.
So… running the numbers and worst case scenarios (we’re being told all this $ is going to fund weapons/terrorists/etc, right?), when all is said and done, Iran gave the US $400 million dollars in 1978 to buy an inflation-adjusted $120 million in weapons in 2016.
#Winning!
The $400 million was only partial payment.
Correction: The $3 billion mentioned above “… in 2014” was a cite I found in a Business Insider article… which I can’t subsequently find a primary citation for.
Regardless, the numbers still hold: We seized $400 mil, reaped the benefits of that $400m for almost 40 years, then gave Iran back an inflation-ravaged $400m.
Shit, you’re right. :o
You know what? Fuck Business Insider. 
And fuck me too for reading their shit… and then citing them. :o
I am stunned the Obama Admin gave Iran 400 million in cash.
What ever phooey they are selling that Iran can not take a check is pretty far fetched to me. Of course I know many will buy it.