There was only ONE instance when the US paid "ransom" to Iran...

[nat4900]

nsom. Face it. When Iran is saying you give us the money or we won't release the hostages

Just bear in mind one little factor in your subjective and somewhat ignorant statement above......

Iran arrested Americans for [supposedly] breaking Iranian laws....We may not like it or even understand it, but those were Americans in Iranian soil.....

Conversely,we help 4 (or 6) Iranians in US prisons for breaking OUR laws and we exchanged "prisoners".

Now, why do we call our American prisoners in Iran's soil..... "hostages", but we choose to call Iranians captives in our jails, as "prisoners"?

 

[TooTall]

I am a PROUD American.....but I'm also an objective American, and I've often wondered why when Iran backs Palestinians in their struggle, we label Iran as funding terrorists (which, no doubt they may well be)... but when under Reagan we backed death squads who also murdered and raped, we sanitized the term and called them "Contras" and "freedom fighters".....???

The Contras were fighting the Sandinistas who were receiving help and arms from Communist Cuba and the USSR. No further explanation is necessary unless you are a Communist.

 

[TooTall]

nsom. Face it. When Iran is saying you give us the money or we won't release the hostages

Just bear in mind one little factor in your subjective and somewhat ignorant statement above......

Iran arrested Americans for [supposedly] breaking Iranian laws....We may not like it or even understand it, but those were Americans in Iranian soil.....

Conversely,we help 4 (or 6) Iranians in US prisons for breaking OUR laws and we exchanged "prisoners".

Now, why do we call our American prisoners in Iran's soil..... "hostages", but we choose to call Iranians captives in our jails, as "prisoners"?

The Iranians did not offer any ransom money to get their people out of jail. That makes them prisoners. The Iranians have a history of holding Americans hostage. What Iranian laws did the Americans break that were held after they invaded the US Embassy under Carter?

 

[nat4900]

The Contras were fighting the Sandinistas who were receiving help and arms from Communist Cuba and the USSR. No further explanation is necessary unless you are a Communist.

Simplistic "answer" from a simple mind....Thanks.

 

[nat4900]

What Iranian laws did the Americans break that were held after they invaded the US Embassy under Carter?

Moron, instead of reading comic books, pick up a history one and read about Iran's Mossadegh overthrow by the CIA because he wanted to charge more to BP for drilling Iranian oil.

 

[TooTall]

The Contras were fighting the Sandinistas who were receiving help and arms from Communist Cuba and the USSR. No further explanation is necessary unless you are a Communist.

Simplistic "answer" from a simple mind....Thanks.

Why don't you tell me it is incorrect?

 

[Clementine]

nsom. Face it. When Iran is saying you give us the money or we won't release the hostages

Just bear in mind one little factor in your subjective and somewhat ignorant statement above......

Iran arrested Americans for [supposedly] breaking Iranian laws....We may not like it or even understand it, but those were Americans in Iranian soil.....

Conversely,we help 4 (or 6) Iranians in US prisons for breaking OUR laws and we exchanged "prisoners".

Now, why do we call our American prisoners in Iran's soil..... "hostages", but we choose to call Iranians captives in our jails, as "prisoners"?

Our laws tend to be fair. Iran sees anything they don't agree with as a crime. So, any reason will do to arrest Americans.

Getting back to the real issue, this was a ransom for the release of the hostages/prisoners. Call them what you want, but when people break laws and the country is justified in putting them in prison, payments from other countries don't get them released. When you are only willing to release someone for money, that is kidnapping.

Bottom line is that they agreed not to make any nuclear weapons as a condition for getting their money back. The problem with that was they had no intention of ever showing good faith by proving they were going to keep that promise. In fact, they did the opposite by declaring that we would not be allowed to do any inspections. They have done nothing to show that their word is good. I think they arrested the Americans because they know that it doesn't take much for Obama to make a deal. They now have the money and the capability to make nuclear weapons. We got nothing but an increased threat.

And how did Obama collect all that money? He isn't supposed to pay anyone a penny without approval from congress. And the money was in many different currencies.

I want to know how he got his hands on that much money and was able to deliver it all together. And why did Iran force the Americans to sit and wait until the money arrived?

Too many suspicious moves and I don't trust the Obama administration to ever be honest with us.

Like every other thing he's done, this empowers the radical Muslims and increases the threat to our national security.

 

[westwall]

.....and it is NOT on Obama's watch.....

The money received by Iran is NOT US or European or anyone else's money...It is IRANIAN money frozen in various banks.

The ONLY instance that we paid ransom for hostages occurred under Reagan's watch.....Check out the Iran-Contra affair, Ollie North's involvement, and Reagan's "I can't recall" statement during the investigation of the fraudulent affair..

Really? What was that 400 million all about then?

 

[Clementine]

Really? What was that 400 million all about then?

Exactly. We have some Iranian criminals in our jails and no amount of money from Iran should get them released. Do the crime, do the time. Iran clearly didn't arrest the people for legitimate reasons or they would not have been willing to release them for money.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past Obama to release terrorist suspects if the price was right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

.....and it is NOT on Obama's watch.....

The money received by Iran is NOT US or European or anyone else's money...It is IRANIAN money frozen in various banks.

The ONLY instance that we paid ransom for hostages occurred under Reagan's watch.....Check out the Iran-Contra affair, Ollie North's involvement, and Reagan's "I can't recall" statement during the investigation of the fraudulent affair..

Interesting and typical that you revert to Reagan and the contras. You won't even acknowledge that despite all of this, Obama still gave money to Iran. What it was/is for is irrelevant. Why did he give money to them to begin with if it weren't a ransom?

 

[ogibillm]

It was actually part of a 3 billion dollar award that the international court awarded to American victims of Iranian terrorism.

nope.

 

[Clementine]

Let's try a [probably futile] example.......

Somehow you have $20 of mine, but I have a book of yours and I say to you, "I'll return your book once you pay me back that $20 you owe me:.......Now, if you do return that $20, did you just pay me RANSOM money to get your book back?

Without intending to do it, you've just supported the fact that it was a ransom for hostages.

The Americans held by Iran are not our property that must be returned to us. If they had been arrested for legitimate reasons, they would be required to do their time in jail before being released. Governments who operate legally don't allow prisoners to be released for money. That wasn't the case here, was it?

That means they were being held until Obama paid the money.

 

[nat4900]

Really? What was that 400 million all about then?

If after 70 plus posts on this thread you're still asking that moronic question, its too late...Just stay as dumb as you are now.

 

[nat4900]

Without intending to do it, you've just supported the fact that it was a ransom for hostages.

The Americans held by Iran are not our property that must be returned to us. If they had been arrested for legitimate reasons, they would be required to do their time in jail before being released. Governments who operate legally don't allow prisoners to be released for money. That wasn't the case here, was it?

That means they were being held until Obama paid the money.

Hey moron.........somewhere in your half brain you might have heard of the spy-exchanges we did on an almost monthly basis with the Soviet Union in the 1950-1970s.

 

[IsaacNewton]

.....and it is NOT on Obama's watch.....

The money received by Iran is NOT US or European or anyone else's money...It is IRANIAN money frozen in various banks.

The ONLY instance that we paid ransom for hostages occurred under Reagan's watch.....Check out the Iran-Contra affair, Ollie North's involvement, and Reagan's "I can't recall" statement during the investigation of the fraudulent affair..

Yeah Reagan's whole defense was "I can't recall". Really? A president commits high crimes by usurping the Constitution and going against what Congess told him not to do with taxpayer money, which they have the power to do, and his entire defense is "I can't recall".

That should have been heard in a jail cell for the rest of his life. "Hey Ronny, how long you been in for?" "I can't recall".
"Hey Ronny, when was the last time your wife visitied?" "I can't recall." "Hey Ronny, was there anyone in your administration that wasn't convicted of a crime?" "I can't recall".

 

[Clementine]

Without intending to do it, you've just supported the fact that it was a ransom for hostages.

The Americans held by Iran are not our property that must be returned to us. If they had been arrested for legitimate reasons, they would be required to do their time in jail before being released. Governments who operate legally don't allow prisoners to be released for money. That wasn't the case here, was it?

That means they were being held until Obama paid the money.

Hey moron.........somewhere in your half brain you might have heard of the spy-exchanges we did on an almost monthly basis with the Soviet Union in the 1950-1970s.

Stop trying to change the subject. You claim it wasn't ransom money.

First, you say Iran has a right to arrest them and they weren't hostages. Then you claim it was just a trade, one country's property for another. Now it's just part of an old program that has been reinstituted.

You're all over the board trying to defend this. Give it up, already.

Obama deals with terrorists. Period.

 

[nat4900]

Yeah Reagan's whole defense was "I can't recall". Really? A president commits high crimes by usurping the Constitution and going against what Congess told him not to do with taxpayer money, which they have the power to do, and his entire defense is "I can't recall".

That should have been heard in a jail cell for the rest of his life. "Hey Ronny, how long you been in for?" "I can't recall".
"Hey Ronny, when was the last time your wife visitied?" "I can't recall." "Hey Ronny, was there anyone in your administration that wasn't convicted of a crime?" "I can't recall".

From various books and articles that I've read throughout the years about the Iran hostage taking, a bit of high irony comes through....

The Iranians actually "feared" retaliation from the U.S. much MORE from Carter than they did from Reagan.

Why???....Well, a second-term president (no longer fearful of re-election) who had been "ridiculed" by the failed rescue attempt, would have been much more prone to launch an all out attack against Iran (with Iraq as an ally)......So, they held on to the hostages a bit longer to help ensure a Reagan victory.

 

[nat4900]

Stop trying to change the subject. You claim it wasn't ransom money.

First, you say Iran has a right to arrest them and they weren't hostages. Then you claim it was just a trade, one country's property for another. Now it's just part of an old program that has been reinstituted.

You're all over the board trying to defend this. Give it up, already.

Obama deals with terrorists. Period.

Hey, this forum is NOT the venue to fix stupidity of your caliber.....I don't give a crap if you stay just as ignorant as you are now.

Fine, have it your way, Obama..the Kenyan Muslim deals with terrorists and steals your guns....
Happy now?

 

[whitehall]

Didn't it happen? Did liberals erase it from their small minds? What about the 400 million that the Hussean administration sent to Iran? Was it a freaking gift? Did anybody count the freaking money before they dumped it in Iran? If the DNC was willing to cheat Bernie out of delegates who can you trust in the freaking administration? Maybe Hussein's FBI has become co corrupt that they won't bother to monitor what happened to the freaking 400 million.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.....and it is NOT on Obama's watch.....

The money received by Iran is NOT US or European or anyone else's money...It is IRANIAN money frozen in various banks.

The ONLY instance that we paid ransom for hostages occurred under Reagan's watch.....Check out the Iran-Contra affair, Ollie North's involvement, and Reagan's "I can't recall" statement during the investigation of the fraudulent affair..

I don't have to check it out.

I remember it. I watched the hearings. I followed the scandal.

It's the reason why the republicans lost control of the Senate in 1986.

What reagan did was treason. He was a traitor to our nation and our people. Not only that he put all Americans who traveled in that region at that time in jeopardy of being taken as hostages. And many more were taken throughout his presidency.

reagan taught the terrorists in Iran and the middle east that it does in fact pay to take our citizens as hostages but only if our president is a republican.

What O did was treason.