login
Money to Iran
-
No new posts
 2016-08-25 6:59 PM |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: Money to IranOK, what the bleep is up with Obama giving so much money to Iran? I'm aware that there was an apparent $1.7B legal settlement with Iran, but who made this settlement and where did the money come from? The President cannot unilaterally spend money without congressional approval, right? They are a country that wants to kill us all and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. We've had sanctions against them forever. WTF are we doing sending them billions of dollars, much of which is in untraceable cash? I'd expect less from the mafia. |
| 2016-08-25 9:35 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Money to Iran we sold them something. They paid us, and then we didn't deliver it. International courts determined that we would pay them back the money they sent us. the $400 million was supposed to be sent to them, but we said no, we aren't sending it until you release these hostages. get over it
|
| 2016-08-25 9:59 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by dmiller5 Who authorized the money and under what constitutional authority? we sold them something. They paid us, and then we didn't deliver it. International courts determined that we would pay them back the money they sent us. the $400 million was supposed to be sent to them, but we said no, we aren't sending it until you release these hostages. get over it
Are you also aware as to why we didn't deliver "something". As a side note, I served on the USS Chandler for 5 years which was one of those "somethings". Edited by tuwood 2016-08-25 10:01 PM |
| 2016-08-26 7:12 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Who authorized the money and under what constitutional authority? we sold them something. They paid us, and then we didn't deliver it. International courts determined that we would pay them back the money they sent us. the $400 million was supposed to be sent to them, but we said no, we aren't sending it until you release these hostages. get over it
Are you also aware as to why we didn't deliver "something". As a side note, I served on the USS Chandler for 5 years which was one of those "somethings". It was for airplanes, I believe, when the Shah was still in power in like 1978. When he was overthrown, we obviously didn't deliver the planes, hence the dispute. |
| 2016-08-26 10:04 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Money to Iran It's all good. They've given us free reign in the Persian Gulf and are all about assisting the US Navy with their mission. Plus they gave us some hostages that they really didn't take, but were merely being held because they were not hostages. Everything is above board here and no need to worry because the most transparent administration in history tells us so. I believe everything I hear on CNN and from WH press releases. Thank goodness Hilarry will be in charge next cuz she really really is like totally transparent and will continue the legacy of transparency from the previous administration. Koolaid anyone? Edited by mdg2003 2016-08-26 10:05 AM |
| 2016-08-26 6:20 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by ejshowers Where did the President get the money from? Last I checked the Congress had to authorize spending, so what bill authorized the president to legally send money to them?Originally posted by tuwood It was for airplanes, I believe, when the Shah was still in power in like 1978. When he was overthrown, we obviously didn't deliver the planes, hence the dispute. Originally posted by dmiller5 Who authorized the money and under what constitutional authority? we sold them something. They paid us, and then we didn't deliver it. International courts determined that we would pay them back the money they sent us. the $400 million was supposed to be sent to them, but we said no, we aren't sending it until you release these hostages. get over it
Are you also aware as to why we didn't deliver "something". As a side note, I served on the USS Chandler for 5 years which was one of those "somethings". |
| 2016-08-29 10:35 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers Where did the President get the money from? Last I checked the Congress had to authorize spending, so what bill authorized the president to legally send money to them? Originally posted by tuwood It was for airplanes, I believe, when the Shah was still in power in like 1978. When he was overthrown, we obviously didn't deliver the planes, hence the dispute. Originally posted by dmiller5 Who authorized the money and under what constitutional authority? we sold them something. They paid us, and then we didn't deliver it. International courts determined that we would pay them back the money they sent us. the $400 million was supposed to be sent to them, but we said no, we aren't sending it until you release these hostages. get over it
Are you also aware as to why we didn't deliver "something". As a side note, I served on the USS Chandler for 5 years which was one of those "somethings". From the Judgement Fund, a "permanent and indefinite appropriation" created by Congress for paying off lawsuits against the government. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/jdgFund/judgementFund_home.htm Basically in the 50's, Congress got tired of writing individual appropriations for every settlement that went against the government, so they created one big pot to pay out of, with Congressional oversight and a $100k limit per payment. Then in the 70's when they got tired of writing additional appropriations for every settlement over $100k, Congress removed the cap. Finally in the 90's, they decided even oversight was just too much of a hassle and they passed that responsibility off to the Treasury Dept. Now they're mad that they don't have any say when the fund is used. |
| 2016-08-29 10:42 AM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers Where did the President get the money from? Last I checked the Congress had to authorize spending, so what bill authorized the president to legally send money to them? Originally posted by tuwood It was for airplanes, I believe, when the Shah was still in power in like 1978. When he was overthrown, we obviously didn't deliver the planes, hence the dispute. Originally posted by dmiller5 Who authorized the money and under what constitutional authority? we sold them something. They paid us, and then we didn't deliver it. International courts determined that we would pay them back the money they sent us. the $400 million was supposed to be sent to them, but we said no, we aren't sending it until you release these hostages. get over it
Are you also aware as to why we didn't deliver "something". As a side note, I served on the USS Chandler for 5 years which was one of those "somethings". From the Judgement Fund, a "permanent and indefinite appropriation" created by Congress for paying off lawsuits against the government. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/jdgFund/judgementFund_home.htm Basically in the 50's, Congress got tired of writing individual appropriations for every settlement that went against the government, so they created one big pot to pay out of, with Congressional oversight and a $100k limit per payment. Then in the 70's when they got tired of writing additional appropriations for every settlement over $100k, Congress removed the cap. Finally in the 90's, they decided even oversight was just too much of a hassle and they passed that responsibility off to the Treasury Dept. Now they're mad that they don't have any say when the fund is used. Thanks for that, it at least answers the question of how he could do it and where the money comes from. |
| 2016-09-19 10:44 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Obama caught in another blatant lie. He's been hanging out with Hillary too much. U.S. wire payments to Iran undercut Obama
|
| 2016-09-19 12:38 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by tuwood
Now the additional question of why on earth any sane person would think this is a good idea is yet another question. It all depends on one's goal. If your goal is to disenfranchise Iran from the international community, hold them up as a pariah, an enemy of freedom loving people around the world, and deem them 'evil' for political gain- then we shouldn't ever work with them and continue to let them develop nuclear weapons. Then go to war with them and kill a lot of innocent civilians. However- if you believe that there is a chance at bringing them into the fold of nations, supporting their moderate, westernized population and having a chance at peacefully curtailing their nuclear program- this is what you do. You make peace. Which includes unfreezing Iran's assets and giving them their money back. We've had it frozen for a few decades as punishment. It's natural for our species to be wary, as deep down, we harbor a militant, tribal value system. It takes a lot to overcome our base, warlike reptilian ancestry. From my perspective, Rouhani was elected by a slim margin as a reformer. He promised his people that he would bring Iran into the western world, get rid of the crippling sanctions, and bring economic prosperity to his country. If we prevent this from happening, the militant right will take over Iran again. So- how we treat Iran has a direct effect on what Iran will become. Does that help you understand? |
| 2016-09-19 12:53 PM in reply to: morey000 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Money to Iran Originally posted by morey000 That's by far the best explanation i've heard and I honestly think it would sell well to the American people if that's the true intent. However, the cloak and dagger cash payments and lies undermine the effort completely IMHO.I truly am trying to understand this and have expended some of my own blood, sweat, and tears with Iran and know that there are a lot of good people in that country.Originally posted by tuwood
Now the additional question of why on earth any sane person would think this is a good idea is yet another question. It all depends on one's goal. If your goal is to disenfranchise Iran from the international community, hold them up as a pariah, an enemy of freedom loving people around the world, and deem them 'evil' for political gain- then we shouldn't ever work with them and continue to let them develop nuclear weapons. Then go to war with them and kill a lot of innocent civilians. However- if you believe that there is a chance at bringing them into the fold of nations, supporting their moderate, westernized population and having a chance at peacefully curtailing their nuclear program- this is what you do. You make peace. Which includes unfreezing Iran's assets and giving them their money back. We've had it frozen for a few decades as punishment. It's natural for our species to be wary, as deep down, we harbor a militant, tribal value system. It takes a lot to overcome our base, warlike reptilian ancestry. From my perspective, Rouhani was elected by a slim margin as a reformer. He promised his people that he would bring Iran into the western world, get rid of the crippling sanctions, and bring economic prosperity to his country. If we prevent this from happening, the militant right will take over Iran again. So- how we treat Iran has a direct effect on what Iran will become. Does that help you understand? |
|
|
|
| Iran nuclear agreement Pages: 1 2 3 |
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK