Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Obama paid $400 million ransom to Iran
Comments
-
Ironic.HoustonHusky said:
For all the hypothetical discussion (i.e. Trump...let me guess, you are too dumb to understand the word hypothetical), this is something that actually happened. And yet all you do is scream Trump.2001400ex said:
You fucking brought up Trump. Here was your quote I was responding to.HoustonHusky said:
Speed limit IQ.2001400ex said:
You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.HoustonHusky said:
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.BearsWiin said:
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.HoustonHusky said:
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.OZONE said:Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You clearly got amnesia at what you posted.
-
Odd the whole Benghazi mess was about gun running and ISIS. Odd you didn't object.2001400ex said:
Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running.RaceBannon said:News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there
-
Odd I didn't throw a fit when Bush did it either.Sledog said:
Odd the whole Benghazi mess was about gun running and ISIS. Odd you didn't object.2001400ex said:
Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running.RaceBannon said:News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there
-
Which Al Queda people were we giving guns to? Seems we were just using the guns to kill them under Bush and Obama gives them guns to kill us.2001400ex said:
Odd I didn't throw a fit when Bush did it either.Sledog said:
Odd the whole Benghazi mess was about gun running and ISIS. Odd you didn't object.2001400ex said:
Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running.RaceBannon said:News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there
-
A piss-poor way to say "I know you are but what am I"...you know, the thing you whine about in other threads about other people doing.2001400ex said:
Ironic.HoustonHusky said:
For all the hypothetical discussion (i.e. Trump...let me guess, you are too dumb to understand the word hypothetical), this is something that actually happened. And yet all you do is scream Trump.2001400ex said:
You fucking brought up Trump. Here was your quote I was responding to.HoustonHusky said:
Speed limit IQ.2001400ex said:
You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.HoustonHusky said:
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.BearsWiin said:
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.HoustonHusky said:
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.OZONE said:Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You clearly got amnesia at what you posted.
#MoreBrillianceFromHondoFS -
Actually no. I'll type slow so you understand. See, you posted a short bus implying I'm handicapped, or retarded. In the same post you make a fucktarded argument.HoustonHusky said:
A piss-poor way to say "I know you are but what am I"...you know, the thing you whine about in other threads about other people doing.2001400ex said:
Ironic.HoustonHusky said:
For all the hypothetical discussion (i.e. Trump...let me guess, you are too dumb to understand the word hypothetical), this is something that actually happened. And yet all you do is scream Trump.2001400ex said:
You fucking brought up Trump. Here was your quote I was responding to.HoustonHusky said:
Speed limit IQ.2001400ex said:
You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.HoustonHusky said:
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.BearsWiin said:
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.HoustonHusky said:
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.OZONE said:Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You clearly got amnesia at what you posted.
#MoreBrillianceFromHondoFS -
So if you want to bring Reagan's rotting corpse into this we need Congressional Hearings
Probably will too -
I was curious, so I checked:HoustonHusky said:
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?BearsWiin said:
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.HoustonHusky said:
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.BearsWiin said:
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.HoustonHusky said:
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.OZONE said:Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
In case you are curious the answer is no...
Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
-
A Lannister always pays his debts.BearsWiin said:
I was curious, so I checked:HoustonHusky said:
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?BearsWiin said:
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.HoustonHusky said:
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.BearsWiin said:
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.HoustonHusky said:
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.OZONE said:Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
In case you are curious the answer is no...
Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this -
Agree. But given this episode's opportunity to expose @HoustonHusky as the blubbering imbecile that he is, once again, made it worthwhile.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
A Lannister always pays his debts.BearsWiin said:
I was curious, so I checked:HoustonHusky said:
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?BearsWiin said:
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.HoustonHusky said:
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.BearsWiin said:
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.HoustonHusky said:
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.OZONE said:Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
In case you are curious the answer is no...
Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
