$150 BILLION to Iran

[hokie]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

[HokieFanDC]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

[USN_Hokie]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

Do you disagree with freezing foreign assets of our enemies?

[HokieFanDC]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

Do you disagree with freezing foreign assets of our enemies?

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

[USN_Hokie]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

Do you disagree with freezing foreign assets of our enemies?

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

[RiverguyVT]

"Part of negotiations" would imply that we got something in the deal. Other than green lighting our own nuclear destruction, what else did we get in the deal?

[HokieFanDC]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

Do you disagree with freezing foreign assets of our enemies?

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

[HokieJoe]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

Do you disagree with freezing foreign assets of our enemies?

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

Who said we needed a deal with Iran? Airbus? The Obama Legacy Tour?

[HokieFanDC]

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

Who said we needed a deal with Iran? Airbus? The Obama Legacy Tour?

Pretty much every foreign policy and national security person in the Western Hemisphere, since 2002??

[HokieJoe]

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

Who said we needed a deal with Iran? Airbus? The Obama Legacy Tour?

Pretty much every foreign policy and national security person in the Western Hemisphere, since 2002??

They said we needed the deal Obama agreed to?

[HokieFanDC]

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

Who said we needed a deal with Iran? Airbus? The Obama Legacy Tour?

Pretty much every foreign policy and national security person in the Western Hemisphere, since 2002??

They said we needed the deal Obama agreed to?

That's a different question, but there are parts of the deal that lots of people like, and parts that people don't like. But overwhelmingly people agree that we needed to have a deal. There's a reason we've tried to negotiate a deal several times in the last 15 years or so.

[RiverguyVT]

I keep hearing "deal". Still have no idea what benefitted the US in the "deal"

[awesome guy]

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

Who said we needed a deal with Iran? Airbus? The Obama Legacy Tour?

Pretty much every foreign policy and national security person in the Western Hemisphere, since 2002??

They said we needed the deal Obama agreed to?

That's a different question, but there are parts of the deal that lots of people like, and parts that people don't like. But overwhelmingly people agree that we needed to have a deal. There's a reason we've tried to negotiate a deal several times in the last 15 years or so.

Which parts does anyone like?

[UpstateSCHokie]

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

Who said we needed a deal with Iran? Airbus? The Obama Legacy Tour?

Pretty much every foreign policy and national security person in the Western Hemisphere, since 2002??

[HokieFanDC]

I keep hearing "deal". Still have no idea what benefitted the US in the "deal"

Here are two examples, from sources general not friendly to Obama. There are literally thousands more, if you care to look.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ar-success


https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/p ... liferation

[USN_Hokie]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

What do you mean by giving?

Do you disagree with freezing foreign assets of our enemies?

No. But, as part of negotiations, unfreezing them, is not "giving'. A large portion of that is coming from assets frozen by European countries, and they were going to unfreeze them regardless of whether the US did, or not.
Also, another huge chunk of that money will go to China to pay off debt they've accumulated since their assets were frozen.

Simply put, we are not giving them money. You can disagree with unfreezing, but calling it giving is done to make people upset, who don't understand what is really happening.

We are giving it back. I didn't need your regurgitation of Politifact - just pointing out that you're playing word games. By the way - they're using the money to buy arms, not pay off debts (but yes, it will come from China).

I'm sure if you're bank froze your accounts for 30 years, and then unfroze them, you'd say they were giving back your money. Whether frozen or not, the assets always belonged to Iran.

And of course Iran is going to use some money on arms. So what?
The whole purpose of levying sanctions was to use it as the main lever in negotiations. A deal wasn't going to be done, ever, without unfreezing their assets.

You're doing a good job of pointing out how silly your original quip was.

[VisorBoy]

Can anyone on this board justify giving Iran $150 BILLION?

The Iran deal was a good step in slowly thawing the relationship.

That doesn't mean we're buddy-buddy with them. And it doesn't mean that now Iran will nuke us. Those are extremist conclusions.

But the Kerry intervention in calming the sailor-capture occurrence is a clear example of how our thawing relationship has the potential to be a benefit to the US.