Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:So where did the $400 million come from? I don't know the whole 79' deal.


1.3 Billion in interest is surely our money and tax payer dollars.

Supposedly, Iran paid 400 million for military equipment that was not delivered. The deal was struck with the Shah who was overthrown before the equip. was delivered.

Quote:I believe it has been pretty rational discussion....

LOL - It would have been if not for your drunken ramblings.


For entertainment value alone, please go back and read your posts objectively. You had a theory; case closed.

Quote:THANK YOU FOR CAPITALIZING. AND YELLING.


I do see via online that there doesn't seem to be exceptions. Seems odd though we pay something we owe them, but can't pay with our own money so we just use a loop hole and pay with our own money. Anyways, I digress.


Felonoius Monk, can you tell me why they didn't wire the funds which would have been more secure instead of dropping $400 million and planning an operation which I'm sure was pretty expensive? That's a serious question because maybe they have a great explanation for that, the secret mission they didn't want anyone knowing about, why they didn't want anyone knowing about it and how the other 1.3 billion was paid.


I figured you had all the answers, but I do prefer the answers all capitalized so I actually understand what you are saying.


So I found the video. An analyst said she talked to one of the hostages (no name mentioned), but it is only found on YouTube and no mention on Fox News. It should be pretty big news. Either it's complete [BAD WORD REMOVED] or something else is going on.

 

By the way, the interview that I heard was on Fox Business Network.  Here is a link to the interview video (I heard it on satellite radio while driving home from work).

 

Iran claims that it was ransom.

Quote:Conceded? Yes, if you read what I wrote that would be clear. That still leaves questions unanswered.


You state it as fact when we don't have answers. It doesn't just look bad, it smells funny. Very rarely are things just a coincidence. I think you would concede that. We still don't know why they kept it a secret. You typically keep things a secret for a reason and no reasons have been given.


1.3 Billion is interest. Have we not sent the 1.3 Billion in interest or is that coming later? Honestly I don't know which is why I'm asking. If 1.3 Billion has already been sent, we don't know how it was done. Based on what I've read they have refused to disclose how any of it was paid. We know how the $400 million was paid now, but that is only after journalist investigation was done.


Question for you. Do we have the right to know those answers? If there is nothing to hide and nothing fishy then why did they not disclose how Iran was paid or the secret mission? I think those are legitimate questions.

First, there is no interest---from what I understand. This deal was to just give back the principle, with no further penalty or interest. That's part of the reason the deal was so favorably rooted for by Obama. Iran was taking this issue to the international tribunals where the cost would have been 10 billion, from what I understand. Again, this was money that they paid us for military equipment that we rebuffed them on because of the Islamic revolution.


We obviously have a right to know. But, my point is that the information you're asking answers for have been addressed... at least, from my understanding that have been.


We've had no real diplomatic relationship with Iran since their revolution. All of a sudden an opening arose--- this caused multiple negotiations to occur between the two parties to address multiple issues.


It would be naive to think that Obama and the negotiators were not on communication with each other, and I would also not doubt that the timing of all the negotiations were orchestrated.


But this was not a ransom delivered for the freeing of hostages. It was clearly much more complicated than that.


To think this is fishy, is lazy thinking and something a fool would say---which is why I respect your questions that you are asking.


The timing, the amounts paid, and the questions you have are valid. But I think when it comes to negotiating multiple issues with an adversary that you have 3 decades of beef with, things are probably gonna be interwoven. But that does not mean anything nefarious occurred, just by definition of how things transpired.


Is there something illegal that you specifically think occurred?

Much worse than "Iran Contra"

Quote:Supposedly, Iran paid 400 million for military equipment that was not delivered. The deal was struck with the Shah who was overthrown before the equip. was delivered.

Gotcha.

Quote:Much worse than "Iran Contra"

Yeah, giving weapons to Iran so that we could pay for a proxy war in Latin America is nothing to giving Iran their own money back that we had been holding on to WITH NO INTEREST!

Quote:First, there is no interest---from what I understand. This deal was to just give back the principle, with no further penalty or interest. That's part of the reason the deal was so favorably rooted for by Obama. Iran was taking this issue to the international tribunals where the cost would have been 10 billion, from what I understand. Again, this was money that they paid us for military equipment that we rebuffed them on because of the Islamic revolution.


We obviously have a right to know. But, my point is that the information you're asking answers for have been addressed... at least, from my understanding that have been.


We've had no real diplomatic relationship with Iran since their revolution. All of a sudden an opening arose--- this caused multiple negotiations to occur between the two parties to address multiple issues.


It would be naive to think that Obama and the negotiators were not on communication with each other, and I would also not doubt that the timing of all the negotiations were orchestrated.


But this was not a ransom delivered for the freeing of hostages. It was clearly much more complicated than that.


To think this is fishy, is lazy thinking and something a fool would say---which is why I respect your questions that you are asking.


The timing, the amounts paid, and the questions you have are valid. But I think when it comes to negotiating multiple issues with an adversary that you have 3 decades of beef with, things are probably gonna be interwoven. But that does not mean anything nefarious occurred, just by definition of how things transpired.


Is there something illegal that you specifically think occurred?

Hold on, what? They've stated 1.7 Billion. $400 million plus interest. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Feel free to tell me why they never informed the American people of the mission and kept it secret? If they answered that question then I missed it.


Also, what happened to the other 1.3 Billion? How was it paid?


To think this is fishy is lazy? We still don't have answers to simple questions unless of course I missed it. I asked the questions above earlier and you still haven't provided an answer for it. Lazy is not caring or wanting to know.


I don't know what occurred. I'm stating rarely are thing coincidental and I've already given my theory in this thread on what I think may have happened based on the fact that rarely are things coincidental. The Secretary of State basically said this was a combo deal. He said it without saying it. I broke all that down. Feel free to reply to that.


The WhiteHouse seems to be annoyed that people are asking questions. I think that irritates me more than anything and outside of foreign policy is probably the thing I despise most about Obama's Presidency. He isn't transparent when he said he would be.

What's fishy? What exactly is fishy?


Dude, I just did a Google search on this....


You know what's fishy, how this is all of a sudden an issue when this all went down 8 months ago.


Lol.


Seriously, what is it that you find odd? I've provided answers as I am aware of them, and you seem to still not understand.


Can you please give me since specific concerns, so I can try to address them?

The first red flag comes from the article in the OP.

Quote: 

 

The Obama administration has refused to disclose how it paid any of the $1.7 billion, despite congressional queries
, outside of saying that it wasn’t paid in dollars
. Lawmakers have expressed concern that the cash would be used by Iran to fund regional allies, including the Assad regime in Syria and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization.

 

That is a FACT.  What is the justification for that?

Quote:What's fishy? What exactly is fishy?


Dude, I just did a Google search on this....


You know what's fishy, how this is all of a sudden an issue when this all went down 8 months ago.


Lol.


Seriously, what is it that you find odd? I've provided answers as I am aware of them, and you seem to still not understand.


Can you please give me since specific concerns, so I can try to address them?

I can only assume you are joking. I asked the questions and you didn't answer them. You keep asking me to ask the questiona and I keep asking ones you haven't answered. Clinton tactic?

Quote:The first red flag comes from the article in the OP.


That is a FACT. What is the justification for that?

Hold on wait! Yep that just so happened to be a question I asked Anchorman. Maybe I should type them in red? I honestly believe you don't read what I'm writing which makes are discussions a waste of time.

Quote:Hold on wait! Yep that just so happened to be a question I asked Anchorman. Maybe I should type them in red? I honestly believe you don't read what I'm writing which makes are discussions a waste of time.

 

I figured that we need to present one odd fact at a time to see how the libs justify spin it.

Quote:Hold on wait! Yep that just so happened to be a question I asked Anchorman. Maybe I should type them in red? I honestly believe you don't read what I'm writing which makes are discussions a waste of time.

That would require him going off script, and you know that kind of thing is not allowed!!

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ran...00-million

 

Here's the easiest way to understand it...

 

In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.


<div> 
</div>
In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.

Crucially for the present issue, it also halted a delivery of fighter jets that Iran’s pre-revolution government had already paid $400 million for. Normally the US would return the money if it wasn’t going to deliver the planes — countries don’t just break formal agreements like that. But it had frozen Iranian assets in the US as punishment for the hostage-taking — and that included the $400 million.

The hostage crisis was eventually resolved in 1981, at a conference in Algiers. But the Algiers Accords didn’t resolve every outstanding issue — including the legal status of the $400 million.

Instead, it set up an international court, based in the Hague, to deal with any legal claims that the governments of Iran and the United States had against each other, or that individual citizens of the two countries had against the other country.

This court, called the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. In any case, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.

This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama’s second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, the Associated Press’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.

"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.

So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.

By January 2016, the countries had struck a deal — the US would pay Iran $1.7 billion, which amounts to about $300 million in interest on top of the originally frozen assets (accounting for inflation).

The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.

The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.

So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues.

Quote:http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ran...00-million

 

Here's the easiest way to understand it...

 

In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.

<div>
<div> 
</div>
In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.

Crucially for the present issue, it also halted a delivery of fighter jets that Iran’s pre-revolution government had already paid $400 million for. Normally the US would return the money if it wasn’t going to deliver the planes — countries don’t just break formal agreements like that. But it had frozen Iranian assets in the US as punishment for the hostage-taking — and that included the $400 million.

The hostage crisis was eventually resolved in 1981, at a conference in Algiers. But the Algiers Accords didn’t resolve every outstanding issue — including the legal status of the $400 million.

Instead, it set up an international court, based in the Hague, to deal with any legal claims that the governments of Iran and the United States had against each other, or that individual citizens of the two countries had against the other country.

This court, called the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. In any case, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.

This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama’s second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, the Associated Press’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.

"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.

So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.

By January 2016, the countries had struck a deal — the US would pay Iran $1.7 billion, which amounts to about $300 million in interest on top of the originally frozen assets (accounting for inflation).

The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.

The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.

So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues.

</div>

.... that by mere coincidence occurred on the same night, same tarmac, same time as the hostage release. Yeah totally legit.

 

After all those years. To legit to quit.

Now again, I ask...  What's so fishy?  I've just posted ^^above^^ the explanation as provided by the Wall Street Journal, the Obama response, and this particular journalist's reporting of the transaction.

 

There are your answer's JT$.

 

Now what's so fishy?  What has you so concerned?  Why is this negotiation over money that is we owed them, unless you are of the trump mindset that we shouldn't pay our debts so confusing.

 

TL;DR the my above post:  The 400 Million was the first installment based on the nuclear deal agreement.  The 1.7 Billion accounts for a slight amount of interest (so I was wrong with my original post this morning) and adjusted for inflation.  The amounts were paid in foreign currency (not dollars) because we do not have normalized relationships with Iran.  

Quote:That would require him going off script, and you know that kind of thing is not allowed!!

. I can see how the Clinton's confuse you.


So Hillary, Comer said you lied about this, this and that. Hillary: That's not what I heard. Huh? What kind of ninja skills is that? You can't even rebuttal that. But Hillary, he says it right here that you used multiple devices and you said you didn't. Hillary: Well you heard something different than me.


Sorry, little off topic, but it was the way I felt when Anchorman asked me 3 times. I had to re-read what I wrote just to make sure. You Dems and your Jedi tricks.

^^. Thanks dude. That does make sense.


Still - I hate paying Iran = those jerks anything for anything.

 

Quote:Now again, I ask...  What's so fishy?  I've just posted ^^above^^ the explanation as provided by the Wall Street Journal, the Obama response, and this particular journalist's reporting of the transaction.
 
There are your answer's JT$.
 
Now what's so fishy?  What has you so concerned?  Why is this negotiation over money that is we owed them, unless you are of the trump mindset that we shouldn't pay our debts so confusing.
 
TL;DR the my above post:  The 400 Million was the first installment based on the nuclear deal agreement.  The 1.7 Billion accounts for a slight amount of interest (so I was wrong with my original post this morning) and adjusted for inflation.  The amounts were paid in foreign currency (not dollars) because we do not have normalized relationships with Iran.

 

Quote:The Obama administration has refused to disclose how it paid any of the $1.7 billion, despite congressional queries
, outside of saying that it wasn’t paid in dollars
. Lawmakers have expressed concern that the cash would be used by Iran to fund regional allies, including the Assad regime in Syria and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization.