not just that it was a payment, but it was cash, non us dollars. Let's guess what this will used for...At best, this is a bad optic with the US appearing on the surface to prostrate itself to Iran in order to secure the release of Americans. And Iran has arrested three more dual-citizens since the payments were made.
That said, these payments were coming eventually anyway, either as settlement or as loss of the Hague case. In the strictest sense, this was not a ransom, but the payment was constructed and construed by Iran as ransom, which is a foolish thing for State and the Administration to let happen.
That was a US legal requirement. We have laws forbidding payment to Iran in USD, regardless of reason. Had we lost the Hague case, we would've paid $10B in foreign currency.not just that it was a payment, but it was cash, non us dollars. Let's guess what this will used for...
I'm sorry but that's a joke. These buffoons have no claim to Pahlavi's deals. We don't owe the ayatollah a god damn penny. This is what happens when we have tit heads in leadership positions. If I were Trump I would talk about this endlessly in the debate.That was a US legal requirement. We have laws forbidding payment to Iran in USD, regardless of reason. Had we lost the Hague case, we would've paid $10B in foreign currency.
The Hague disagrees with you.I'm sorry but that's a joke. These buffoons have no claim to Pahlavi's deals. We don't owe the ayatollah a god damn penny. This is what happens when we have tit heads in leadership positions. If I were Trump I would talk about this endlessly in the debate.
I'm sorry but that's a joke. These buffoons have no claim to Pahlavi's deals. We don't owe the ayatollah a god damn penny. This is what happens when we have tit heads in leadership positions. If I were Trump I would talk about this endlessly in the debate.
"The Hague" has no authority and no power of enforcement...I'd think a South China Sea expert would know that?The Hague disagrees with you.
Whose law? Why aren't we in Crimea protecting the Ukraine? Kicking China out of the SCS? WHAT A JOKE you globalists are.Ah, yes, Rule of Law... except when I disagree...
You're right. The UN is the enforcement arm/authority. So I guess we should just start disregarding Hague judgments and give the finger to the UN when they wonder why, just like Russia and China do."The Hague" has no authority and no power of enforcement...I'd think a South China Sea expert would know that?![]()
I just ignore and stop replying to him, it's not worth the time.You're right. The UN is the enforcement arm/authority. So I guess we should just start disregarding Hague judgments and give the finger to the UN when they wonder why, just like Russia and China do.
Ultimately it comes down to military action in enforcement. The US is enforcing (albeit relatively weakly right now) ILOS down in the South China Sea, and China itself is unable/unwilling at this point to enforce its false claim to EEZ rights in the SCS other than harassment by its fishing fleet or the occasional frigate's aggressive driving. No one really gives a shit that they're building stuff on sandbars. It's about the economic implications they're trying to force people to recognize, and right now they can't/won't enforce those. The next step for them, if they really want to disregard international law, is to declare an Air Defense Zone over the SCS as they did with some other small islands west of Japan, but they recognize that if they do that in the SCS, the US is going to willingly and openly violate it, which would force them to (1) shoot down US aircraft contrary to international law (an act of war); or (2) capitulate to the fact that they can't actually legally make that claim. In ten years, when they feel like they can win the shooting war, maybe they'll do that. But they're not in a position to do so right now, and they know it.
So your cute little attempt at humor is once again factually incorrect, and you're just ignorant and should stop referring to anything with respect to the SCS because I'm really getting tired of wasting my energy publicly embarrassing you about it.
Now, I hope you aren't espousing that the US start summarily disregarding international law as it sees fit as Russia, China, and North Korea tend to, are you?
You really think we should ever give any amount of money to a terror state? I don't.You're right. The UN is the enforcement arm/authority. So I guess we should just start disregarding Hague judgments and give the finger to the UN when they wonder why, just like Russia and China do.
Ultimately it comes down to military action in enforcement. The US is enforcing (albeit relatively weakly right now) ILOS down in the South China Sea, and China itself is unable/unwilling at this point to enforce its false claim to EEZ rights in the SCS other than harassment by its fishing fleet or the occasional frigate's aggressive driving. No one really gives a shit that they're building stuff on sandbars. It's about the economic implications they're trying to force people to recognize, and right now they can't/won't enforce those. The next step for them, if they really want to disregard international law, is to declare an Air Defense Zone over the SCS as they did with some other small islands west of Japan, but they recognize that if they do that in the SCS, the US is going to willingly and openly violate it, which would force them to (1) shoot down US aircraft contrary to international law (an act of war); or (2) capitulate to the fact that they can't actually legally make that claim. In ten years, when they feel like they can win the shooting war, maybe they'll do that. But they're not in a position to do so right now, and they know it.
So your cute little attempt at humor is once again factually incorrect, and you're just ignorant and should stop referring to anything with respect to the SCS because I'm really getting tired of wasting my energy publicly embarrassing you about it.
Now, I hope you aren't espousing that the US start summarily disregarding international law as it sees fit as Russia, China, and North Korea tend to, are you?
it was their money.You really think we should ever give any amount of money to a terror state? I don't.
It was their money back in the 70s. Now that they're a terror state, they should forfeit every dime of it.it was their money.
We gave it back to them as part of the nuke deal that so far has not resulted in them making any more progress in getting a nuke.
If international law dictates that we repay a debt, then yes. We cannot enforce standards we choose not to live up to ourselves. That would be called "hypocrisy".You really think we should ever give any amount of money to a terror state? I don't.
It was their money back in the 70s. Now that they're a terror state, they should forfeit every dime of it.
And if the UN wants Iran to be paid, they can take it out of the billions we send them every year.
So in your mind, there's nothing a nation-state can do to void their legal standing? No matter how many terrorists are harbored? No matter how many American hostages are taken? They have taken 3 more since the ransom was paid, by the way. Go figure. Wonder how much we'll pay for them...If international law dictates that we repay a debt, then yes. We cannot enforce standards we choose not to live up to ourselves. That would be called "hypocrisy".
At best, this is a bad optic with the US appearing on the surface to prostrate itself to Iran in order to secure the release of Americans. And Iran has arrested three more dual-citizens since the payments were made.
That said, these payments were coming eventually anyway, either as settlement or as loss of the Hague case. In the strictest sense, this was not a ransom, but the payment was constructed and construed by Iran as ransom, which is a foolish thing for State and the Administration to let happen.
It was their money back in the 70s. Now that they're a terror state, they should forfeit every dime of it.
And if the UN wants Iran to be paid, they can take it out of the billions we send them every year.
WHAT WHAT WHAT? What was factually incorrect? I want you to quote what was factually incorrect. China has ignored the hague ruling. Do you want the link? Here! Get educated! https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165478-phl-prc-china-note-verbale.htmlYou're right. The UN is the enforcement arm/authority. So I guess we should just start disregarding Hague judgments and give the finger to the UN when they wonder why, just like Russia and China do.
Ultimately it comes down to military action in enforcement. The US is enforcing (albeit relatively weakly right now) ILOS down in the South China Sea, and China itself is unable/unwilling at this point to enforce its false claim to EEZ rights in the SCS other than harassment by its fishing fleet or the occasional frigate's aggressive driving. No one really gives a shit that they're building stuff on sandbars. It's about the economic implications they're trying to force people to recognize, and right now they can't/won't enforce those. The next step for them, if they really want to disregard international law, is to declare an Air Defense Zone over the SCS as they did with some other small islands west of Japan, but they recognize that if they do that in the SCS, the US is going to willingly and openly violate it, which would force them to (1) shoot down US aircraft contrary to international law (an act of war); or (2) capitulate to the fact that they can't actually legally make that claim. In ten years, when they feel like they can win the shooting war, maybe they'll do that. But they're not in a position to do so right now, and they know it.
So your cute little attempt at humor is once again factually incorrect, and you're just ignorant and should stop referring to anything with respect to the SCS because I'm really getting tired of wasting my energy publicly embarrassing you about it.
Now, I hope you aren't espousing that the US start summarily disregarding international law as it sees fit as Russia, China, and North Korea tend to, are you?
Carrot and stick approach sometimes requires a carrot.You know, even though I tend to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a lot of these things, this makes a lot of sense.
If actions have consequences, why wouldn't the US be able to say, "There is hard evidence that Iran has supported terrorism, therefore we are going to withhold these funds - or, better, give them to the victims of terrorism?"
I know right, next thing you know we are going to give Iran arms for Contras or something!Ransom is Ransom! And promotes more arrests/kidnappings, etc. it's unbelievable how far our country has fallen.
No kidding. And the US is also ignoring the Chinese declaration, as is Australia. China also can't back up its illegal claim. Perhaps read the paragraph where I already explained this.WHAT WHAT WHAT? What was factually incorrect? I want you to quote what was factually incorrect. China has ignored the hague ruling. Do you want the link? Here! Get educated! https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165478-phl-prc-china-note-verbale.html
Otherwise you're just a douchebag.
The Hague made the ruling based on Iran's international standing, so if the US wishes the world to go by rule of international law, it must also do so, rather than acting as a rogue nation and just doing what we see fit as China does.So in your mind, there's nothing a nation-state can do to void their legal standing? No matter how many terrorists are harbored? No matter how many American hostages are taken? They have taken 3 more since the ransom was paid, by the way. Go figure. Wonder how much we'll pay for them...
if The Hague thinks the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism should have legal standing, its rulings SHOULD be ignored.The Hague made the ruling based on Iran's international standing, so if the US wishes the world to go by rule of international law, it must also do so, rather than acting as a rogue nation and just doing what we see fit as China does.
OK so nothing I posted was "factually incorrect". Thanks.No kidding. And the US is also ignoring the Chinese declaration, as is Australia. China also can't back up its illegal claim. Perhaps read the paragraph where I already explained this.
Iran? Not Saudi Arabia? Our ally? That we give billions in weapons to? That we buy oil from?if The Hague thinks the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism should have legal standing, its rulings SHOULD be ignored.
Seriously?Iran? Not Saudi Arabia? Our ally? That we give billions in weapons to? That we buy oil from?
Interesting take.
So you don't think Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism?
So are Obama and Kerry lying or are they just incompetent? Or both?So you don't think Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism?
(Cuz they ain't on the list).
I think this country has a blind spot for what Saudi Arabia does and has had said blind spot for about 30 years. A blind spot that spans Presidents and politicians of both parties.So are Obama and Kerry lying or are they just incompetent? Or both?
And even if they are lying and/or incompetent, and Iran is the worlds #2 state sponsor of terrorism, you think we should hand over billions of dollars to them because some European dufus says we should?
I think this country has a blind spot for what Saudi Arabia does and has had said blind spot for about 30 years. A blind spot that spans Presidents and politicians of both parties.
And yes that includes Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Bush, etc etc.
You didn't actually say anything other than China ignored the Hague ruling on the SCS. And yes, the US can also do that, if it chooses to act like China and essentially abdicate any position of authority/responsibility in the world order. You wanna make that trade?OK so nothing I posted was "factually incorrect". Thanks.
Then the US should also pull out of the UN for its continued recognition of Iran.if The Hague thinks the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism should have legal standing, its rulings SHOULD be ignored.
My POINT was that globalist ruling doesn't work. I brought up the SCS because it's DIRECTLY related to the hague globalist rulings that are basically completely non binding and only as relevant as an army makes them. Now you're the punk who said I was factually incorrect and won't apologize or show me where I was so wrong so bark up that tree skipper. You wanna throw bullshit around, especially at me personally, be prepared to be called on it.You didn't actually say anything other than China ignored the Hague ruling on the SCS. And yes, the US can also do that, if it chooses to act like China and essentially abdicate any position of authority/responsibility in the world order. You wanna make that trade?
But keep barking up these trees where you're in over your head. No one said zippointshit about the SCS until you brought it up, sport.