I also agree that TRUMP would have gotten back more prisoners, the best prisoners and the Iranians would have paid the US for it.
On what grounds are you making this assumption ?
This is a good move by Obama and supports both US interests and contributes to global peace.
Yep, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a narrative. A lot of posters really seem to hate Iran notwithstanding that we are allied with countries just as bad, if not worse. Some people just want to hate I guess.
“U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-payment-of-1-7-billion-to-iran-raises-questions-of-ransom-1453421778
maybe as a matter of good policy, the POTUS shouldn’t negotiate an all cash deal clearing up a decades old dispute while at the same time resolving a hostage situation, God forbid people are led to believe something happened behind the scenes.
in cfa terms, it’s similar to a keeping a firewall between ibanking and research. its just plain bad foreign policy and Obama is absolutely the one to blame.
^ what you are saying is much more clear and thoughtful than some rant some other posters go on without taking anything into account.
No, it’s bad optics, not bad foreign policy, learn the difference. Now you can get your panties in a knot about bad optics, nobody really cares.
How much military and other aid has the U.S. provided Saudi Barbaria over the last decades? How much cash did it provide the Salafis to not approve KeystoneXL? Iran isn’t your biggest enemy in the region. Iran is no threat to the U.S. The whole relationship is frought with revenge politics from the days of the Shah. Get over it.
i repeat. it was iran’s money. the $400M was a reimbursement and only a fraction of what was owed at that. if i was iran, i wouldn’t have released prisoners for anything less than the $1.7B owed as per the international tribunal’s conclusion.
also, this whole debacle was already discussed in january. this is clearly the GOP camp trying to dig up old news (that isn’t even controversial) to hopefully fool those not willing to read a single article throughout. probably one of trump’s genius ideas. problem is that only the most moronic 30% of the u.s. voting population is dumb enough to not look into the issue at all if this type of news matters to them, that most moronic 30% is already voting trump no matter what.
It would have been the classiest negotiations ever.
Brah, I don’t know how to break this to you but when you think the best comment has the word ‘hella’ in it coupled with elementary level English then something is very very wrong.
The Iranians were going to get the bomb whether you like it or not. Option A would be to forcefully stop them from getting it which would lead to massive escalation with little upside for the USA and considering Iran is smart enough not to make the first aggressive move it would lead to the USA being shunned by the broader world. Option B would be to let Iran get the bomb and continue with the sanctions. Keep the status quo so to speak. Option C would be what Obama did and provide incentives to delay the process in the hope that such a deal would prove a victory for the moderates and liberals and in turn strengthen their position in broader Iranian politics while normalizing relations with a country that will play a vital role in decades to come. While a case could be made for Option B , C has acceptable risk with far greater upside.
Also brah, as an American it is understandable that your worldview is warped and myopic but from where we international folk stand a ‘terrorist nation’ is not one which funds a resistance movt. to Israeli occupation, rather it is the nation that overthrows a democratically elected leader and installs a plutocrat like the Shah. It is hilarious how that bit you in the ass later on though.
Three comments in. All well constructed and written by a seemingly intelligent entity. But nothing of substance was said while obviously trolling “westerners.”
You’ll fit right in with the way the WC has been going recently.
I was certain criticizing a completely understandable move viz-a-viz unfolding of certain events in the Middle Eastern world with nothing more than copy-paste jingoistic reasoning like ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ and half baked reasoning like ‘subsidizing terrorist organizations’ coupled with quoting a third party who referred to Iran as a ‘terrorist nation’ while completely ignoring their own govt. role in that countries Islamic emergence was blatant trolling and responded as such.
Perspectives, eh?
Also, negotiating with ‘terrorists’ is not a bad thing despite what some sections of society insist on, The Brits were negotiating with the IRA after they went after the cabinet, the Spanish with the ETA after Madrid and so on and arguably the regions have emerged as safer and more stable places with cordial relations between opposing parties.
^Cool story bro
Thanks brah. Means a lot!!
Hey look, Audacious is back. Although I was hoping for another RR account, personally.
Audacious is Anti Iran/Shiite so he would despise such an agreement, with regards to RR I am more than happy to oblige in creating an off the topic rape oriented and Clueless Indian although I’ll be caught red handed .
Dude rolls in and thinks he’s original. Zero added, but welcome. There’s a place for you over in the corner.
Good point.
+1