son of witless

Was it legal for Iran to seize American hostages ? The fact is, the US did seize the money. And under Jimmy Carter, no less, who was only marginally stronger than Barak Obama. What was gotten for the money ? Nothing lasting.

Through out history weak nations have paid ransoms, and this has only encourages predators. During the Viking Age French towns did that, and the following years the Vikings came back for more.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Of course it wasn't legal for Iran to seize hostages...

Nor was it legal for America to interfere in Iranian politics...

son of witless

We were an ally of the Shah.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

And how'd that work out?

son of witless

Pretty well for quite a while. After the Shah was o*******wn not so well. All of this is immaterial to the question of the money. The Islamic government of Iran was our enemy. There was no reason to ever give them that money.

At some point when that government is replaced, then the money could be returned to the Iranian People. Barak Obama was as fixated on getting a nuclear arms deal with Iran as Neville Chamberlin was fixated on getting a peace deal with Adolf Hitler in 1938. Neither agreement was worth the paper they were printed on.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Here's the thing, Iran has the right to determine its own government.... Without American interference...

son of witless

And America had the right to hold onto that money as long as the government there supports terrorism against us and Israel. America also has the right to support dissidents in Iran, as it did with the Warsaw Pact Nations until the Soviet Union's Evil Empire cracked and collapsed.

Well it would have that right to hold onto that money if Obama had not paid protection racket money to Iran. I do not know whether The US of A has any other Iranian Assets under it's control. I am sure Biden will reverse the Trump hard line against Iran and pursue Appeasement as per Obama, because that is all he knows. Uncle Joe is no original thinker on anything.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I understand what you're saying... But I maintain that the money was always Iran's...

And do you see the irony of saying it's fine for America to sponsor anti Iranian groups, but that they shouldn't be sponsoring anti American groups???

son of witless

I am as pro American as you are pro Canadian. We are not in a pillow fight with Iran. Their Government is openly anti American, which makes them my personal enemy. They support terror groups who have k**led Americans. They oppress any people in their own country who dare oppose them. They are autocrats, not Democratic. Their e******ns are a sham.

No, I see no irony at all. You can maintain any view you choose regarding the money Obama paid off Iran with. I maintain that from all vantage points it was foolish. First of all we did not owe it to their hostile government. Second of all it did the Iranian People no good at all. The government simply put that money into their nuclear programs, their military, or their terror campaigns.

Thirdly in the long run we got nothing for it. They were not going to stop their nuclear program no matter what state of mind Barak Obama rationalized himself into.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

My view is that America aided the enemies of the Iranian government so of course they saw you as enemies...

The cash was a gesture, in return for a gesture...

I don't see another way to break the ice... Good will is required on both sides... As well as a little trust...

I don't have a very high opinion if democracy..

son of witless

I like your honesty. However :

https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/

" ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ "

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

When the American Colonies gained their independence from Great Britain, they knew from bitter experience that power corrupts. They accepted that it was human nature to acquire power and use it to oppress one's political enemies. Being British Colonies they had experience with limited self government, which most other European Colonies did not.

The Confederation that had governed during the Revolutionary War had proven ineffective and the new country knew it had to construct a more power central government, but they feared that central power. They put in all kinds of checks and balances. They deliberately set up competing power centers. They knew that the best check on tyranny was envy between those power centers.

The other check on power they put in was protections for political minorities. At various times different factions will seize control of the government and seek to oppress small groups of powerless people. The Bill of Rights was put in as a limit to what the Federal Government could do to it's people. It was very useful curbing Obama, though not enough.

It is a pity nothing like that exists where you are.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I believe the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship...

I'm glad you enjoy your system... I view it as being dysfunctional.. Inevitably so...

People continuously seek to regain Eden... Yet one man's Eden is anothers Babylon

son of witless

" a benevolent dictatorship " is a difficult thing to maintain over an extended period. Democracies are messy, destructive critters, but they are self correcting organisms. If a leader fails to keep the support of his v**ers he is replaced. Sometimes by worse, but eventually by someone competent.

Dictatorships are very good during crisis times. However, there are no checks on them for their excesses. Troublesome minorities are persecuted, and there are no remedies for them. Also the ruler is generally in for life. He can only leave through natural death or violent o*******w. Even the best benevolent dictator will not be at his best during the last years of his natural life. I am thinking of many of the leaders of the Soviet Union in their last decades before collapse.

The last few years of his life Breznev was quite weak. During those few years his country rotted. No serious decisions could be made. Corruption reigned supreme until he finally died and was replaced.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Dictators need to be more than just figureheads... I agree

Dmocracy will always favor the weak...

son of witless

Again Democracies are self correcting systems. Some like Italy barely function, but then the Italian dictatorship of Benito Mussolini was not a good advertisement for dictatorships either.

I still go back to the English System. The Magna Carta was the first check on Central Authority in the history of one person governments. In competition with the other European powers England did well over the centuries. America compared with the former Spanish Colonies did pretty well self governing itself.

Are you saying it is okay for majorities to oppress weaker minorities within Dictatorships ? Are you saying those minorities should have no guarantees of freedom as exist within the US Constitution ?