permafrost Loc: Minnesota

At times it seems Israel is our only choice..

dave is not right..

The money was not forfeit due to sanction violations or anything else..

It was held for decades, down payment for arms purchase.. We followed the international agreement arbitrator/court which we agreed to accept.. we got a favorable decison and paid back the money as directed..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You seem to be unable to understand the Iran agreement or any international situation..

I get tired of showing the same information again and again..

Try and remember the real story this time..

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/two-years-later-the-iran-deal-is-a-success/

Philip Gordon and Richard Nephew have written a very thorough and cogent defense of the nuclear deal with Iran:

In fact, the deal is doing exactly what is was supposed to do: prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, demonstrate to the Iranian public the benefits of cooperation with the international community, and buy time for potential changes in Iranian politics and foreign policy.

Anyone who thought a deal would immediately change Iran’s regional agenda or who maintains that, if only America and its partners had insisted on such changes in the talks they would have materialized, has a misguided sense of what sanctions and diplomatic pressure can accomplish.

Two years later, the Iran deal is a success. The U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 advanced the cause of nonproliferation and greatly reduced the risk of war with Iran over its nuclear program, and Iran has been and continues to be in compliance with the terms of the deal. It is instructive to look back at the debate over the nuclear deal in order to remember how shoddy the arguments against it were (and still are). Even before the deal was completed, some hard-liners in the U.S. were already likening it to appeasement at Munich, and at least one denounced the interim agreement leading to the JCPOA as “worse than Munich.” These alarmist claims had nothing to do with the substance of the deal, and simply reflected the knee-jerk hostility of Iran hawks to any diplomatic engagement with Tehran regardless of the outcome.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

In November 1979, Iran’s revolutionary government took 52 Americans hostages at the U.S. embassy, and the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with Tehran. In retaliation, Washington froze $12 billion in Iranian assets held on our shores. The hostage crisis was resolved in 1981 at a conference in Algiers, and the U.S. returned $3 billion to Iran, with more funds going either to pay creditors, or into escrow. The two nations also established a tribunal in the Hague called the Iran United States Claims Tribunal to settle claims both leveled by each government against the other, U.S. citizens versus Iran, and vice versa.

The major issue between the two governments was a $400 million payment for military equipment made by the government of the Shah of Iran, prior to the 1979 uprising that topped him. The U.S. banned delivery of the jets and other weapons amid the hostage crisis, but froze the $400 million advance payment. “The Pentagon handled arms purchases from foreign countries,” says Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official who served as the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. “Defense took care of the details. So the $400 million scheduled purchase was a government-to-government transaction. The U.S. government was holding the money. That’s why it was so difficult to resolve.”

By 2015, the issue stood before a panel of nine judges, including three independent jurists, who were reportedly near a decision on binding arbitration. According to Obama administration officials, the U.S. was concerned that the tribunal would mandate an award in the multiple billions of dollars. “The Iranians wanted $10 billion,” says Sick.”I estimate that the tribunal would have awarded them $4 billion. That’s what the lawyers were saying. It’s not as much as they wanted, but a lot more than we paid.”

So instead, the U.S. negotiators convinced Iran to move the dispute from arbitration to a private settlement. The two sides reached an agreement in mid-2015, at the same time as the U.S. and Iran reached a comprehensive pact on curtailing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The financial deal called for the U.S. to refund $1.7 billion to Tehran, consisting of the original $400 million contract for military equipment, plus $1.3 billion in interest.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Obama was ordered by who again? Which foreign body that the American people did not elect was directing American foreign policy?

America is sovereign country, and as such, POTUS is not legally bound to be the bitch of any international court or judge. If an international court ordered Trump to do something you didn't like, I'll bet the farm you wouldn't give Trump a pass if Trump was stupid enough to be their bitch.

Obama chose to be a bitch, because he wanted to fund terrorism more than he wanted to protect the victims of terrorism (That you on occasion pretend to care about.).

He funded terrorism with the cash payment, and he funded terrorism again with the historically-stupid Iran deal. You can't do shit that stupid without a lot of planning and premeditation.

All sanctions are aggressive impositions on other countries rights and therefore could be seen as an act of war. The money was taken as an informal sanction with the purpose of reimbursing the victims of Iran's terrorism (Again, that you on occasion pretend to care about.) and has been held by every POTUS before Obama, because no POTUS before Obama was that anti-American and/or stupid.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You have no wish to believe, you have no understanding of international cooperation, you have no ability to put facts together..

I have given you the details more then once..

Yet you can not understand.

I recommend you go outside and enjoy nature while we still have a safe environment.. it may help, but I hold little hope for you..

If you can think of any real question, other then repeating what has already been a topic.. ask away..

Also have to say, I do not think your remarks are in anyway your belief, no one can be so uninformed or subject to accept such foolish remarks as you seem to be.. I think you play a game..

No hope for you at all.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

We have no such thing as an "informal sanction" it requires both congress s and a President to impose sanctions. an EO will impose temporary sanctions if congress reuses to act..

sanctions are an act of war? So now you contend that President Obama had us in a war with Russia??

No wonder Putin did not want Lady Hillary in office under any circumstances..

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Was it cooperation, or was it was capitulation?

Make up your mind.

1st you said an international court ordered Obama to fund terrorist.

Now you've just said Obama cooperated with some unnamed international body that for some unknown reason wanted Obama to fund terrorists.

Well, which is it?

Pick a lie and stick to it.

If you pick the 2nd lie, please tell us who was iin that international group, other than Iran, Syria and Russia, that Obama cooperated with

Mike Easterday

We don't need to support musrats.

JoyV

Your idea of who is a young man is certainly NOT what the rest of America considers a young man. I'll give you some help. The pictures you posted were of children!

Young man: a male youth; especially : one in early manhood
Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

As for the Syrian refugees. in 2015 and 2016 more Syrian men were accepted into the US as refugees than were women. In 2016 more than a thousand more men than women. In 2017 there were more women than men. Why?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/742559/syrian-refugee-arrivals-us-by-gender/

JoyV

Trump removed the weak ineffective Obama sanctions on Russia to put tough sanctions instead.

If by, "the world leaves us behind" you mean they are no longer coming to us hat in hand, that would be a good thing. But of course the world still thinks we are the cash cow but are crying because we are unfairly NOT giving all that the world demands anymore. And yes, I said demands, not asks.

JoyV

Iran cancelled the order in 1979. The arms, planes, etc. were contracted and breach of contract by Iran did not absolve our government from needing to pay the contractors for the arms. (A good portion of which had already been delivered, and others which were geared to Iran's specific requirements such as the destroyers made to their specifications.) Some of the arms were able to be sold elsewhere to offset Iran's debt to us. Some money we took out of what was being held for payment by Iran. Most the taxpayers ate. After the hostage crisis, Carter froze Iran's assets. Iran demanded all funds be returned AND all weapons ordered be sent as well. Carter secretly negotiated giving in to them. They received more of the weapons. After the hostages were released, Hezbollah took hostages (for Iran) which Iran guaranteed they could get released if they were given the rest of the arms. Reagan negotiated including unfreezing much of the assets and agreed to provide the arms but was stymied by international sanctions. So the Iran/Contra affair was initiated to get them the arms in a round about fashion. Much arms were delivered, and some of the hostages were released, before the news broke of the deal. Some of the hostages were killed, some disappeared, and Hezbollah took more hostages but from European countries.

Here is the law under which the arms contract was made,
************
"The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2762) permits
foreign governments to purchase Defense articles and services
provided that they agree to pay the full amount of all
contracts entered into on their behalf. Further, foreign
governments must agree to make funds available to meet progress
payments required by the contractor and to cover any
damages and costs arising from the cancellation of any contract
entered into for them. The law also requires that
foreign customer funds be available in advance of when such
payments, damages, and costs are due. The Department of Defense
standard contract for foreign military sales requires
foreign governments to deposit funds with the United States
90 days in advance of when such amounts are needed to make
payments. "
*************
Then Iran had the gall to claim WE owed THEM!

https://www.iranwatch.org/sites/default/files/gao-irancancelledarmssales-072579.pdf

Oh. The rest of the money in question was a personal $500 million loan made by Rockefeller to the Shah. When he died, our government froze his bank account with Chase Manhattan Bank. It still had more than half the loan money in the account.

As for the international court, who was the "we" who agreed to abide by their decision? Certainly not the American people. The law was clearly on our side per the signed contract. The international court was suppose to be unbiased, but ignored the contract, the details on what had already been deliverd, that some of the largest most expensive items were not simply things which could be put on a shelf for a future buyer, that much of the assets had been unfrozen, AND the duress in agreeing to certain demands due to hostage taking. They were political, not unbiased.

JoyV

"$12 billion in Iranian assets held on our shores"

But about $6 billion of that was for arms already delivered! The rest was in accordance with the contract Iran had signed. Iran felt they shouldn't have to abide by a contract made by Shah Pahlavi, yet that we should give them back their money AND provide the arms contracted for which had yet to be delivered.

Obama had no authority to make such a deal for the US. Someone at some point in his presidency should have given him a copy of the US Constitution to read. According to the constitution, congress must approve and vote for any deals involving taxpayers money. Congress controls the purse strings Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. So the deal Obama made was unconstitutional.

"Two years later, the Iran deal is a success. The U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 advanced the cause of nonproliferation and greatly reduced the risk of war with Iran over its nuclear program, and Iran has been and continues to be in compliance with the terms of the deal."

When Iran can not only demand a three week advance notice, AND where and IF inspectors can inspect; how can anyone know whether they are in compliance? Here is a left wing media article regarding Iran's compliance with the treaty.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768.html

JoyV

International cooperation does not supersede the US Constitution for Americans or America. No matter if every other nation in the world agrees to abide by something counter to our constitution, our president CANNOT agree!!!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

No, that is not what I said... stop making my post match you wishes and dreams.. they are not even close..

pay attention and stay awake..

the finding of a court... do you see it as an order, an obligation, or an agree upon solution?? Stop twisting words to try and cover you own inability to understand the obvious..

If you look back at my posts, you will see the name, the date formed, the favorable decision that we were given and the full description of event covering the money..

with even a small effort you can very easily also find the full terms of both the cash turnover and the agreement on arms.. No problem finding this information..

As a reminder, who are those that maintain the agreement was working? All the other 6 countries in the agreement, the US State Department, the CIA, the full Intelligent community of the US and most of the orange fools
advisers...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Your inability to understand satire is awesome...

Those photos of children had nothing to do with the united states.. this thread is about a UN refugee camp in the ME..

In response to the civil war in Syria that began in 2011 and has resulted in the displacement of more than 11 million people within and beyond the country’s borders, the United States in 2015 began to accept for

resettlement significantly more Syrian refugees than ever before. The Obama administration surpassed its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrians via the refugee resettlement program in fiscal year (FY) 2016, up from just 36 in

FY 2013 (see Figure 1). In total, 18,007 Syrian refugees were resettled in the United States between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The world tells you what a fool and idiot trump is. he proves it nearly every day. Yet you and those of your kind keep bowing down and kissing his feet..

trump first removed sanctions put on by President Obama. then fought congress tooth and nail to avoid the sanctions congress called for..

he simply hate offending his owner Putin..

dont skip the chance to read this top secret media release..


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/02/22/trumps-claim-that-hes-been-much-tougher-on-russia-than-obama/?utm_term=.f53a5654c32e

ut Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and swift annexation of Crimea in 2014 stunned the Obama administration and led to a much tougher stance. Within months, the administration announced the European Reassurance Initiative, designed to bolster forces in Europe and enhance deterrence. The administration also imposed sanctions on Russia over the incursion, building on the Magnitsky Act.

During the 2016 election campaign, the Obama administration raised alarms over possible interference by Moscow. Just weeks before the election, the administration announced that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. On Dec. 29, 2016, Obama imposed sanctions, including the expulsion of some three dozen Russian diplomats and intelligence officials and the closure of diplomatic compounds.

So under Obama, U.S.-Russian relations started with optimism and went into a downward spiral. What about under Trump?

Trump, for unexplained reasons, personally has been weak in responding to the actions attributed to Russia during the election. Congress, with veto-proof majorities, in 2017 passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on Russia. Trump only grudgingly signed it, calling it “seriously flawed” because he said it limited his flexibility. “This bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people,” he said in a statement.


Moreover, the administration then refused to implement the sanctions as scheduled, on the grounds that the mere passage of the law had already served as a deterrent. Trump has also highlighted Putin’s denial of any involvement, even though intelligence officials say such an operation could only have been undertaken with Putin’s approval.

Even after special prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III announced the indictment of 13 Russians for seeking to influence the election, Trump has yet to criticize or fault Russia — or Putin — for the election-year activities.

The Pinocchio Test
One often has a sense that Trump operates independently of the vast government he oversees. The administration certainly has taken steps that represent a toughening of the Obama administration’s policies, such as the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine. But Trump himself has continued with rhetoric and tone that suggests he still wants to be Putin’s friend. He cannot bring himself to fault Russia for its actions, instead accusing Obama of not doing enough to thwart Russia.


It certainly took Obama many years to become a Russia skeptic. But when it comes to being tough on Russia for its election activities, Trump falls short of the actions taken by Obama, especially when he frames it as: “I have been much tougher.” We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but Trump’s use of the personal pronoun tips us to Three.

Three Pinocchios