Mass of an ass going critical

[Gry]

That money should have been used to settle the awards against Iran for their sponsorship of terrorism. They owe $920 million to the soldiers and family members involved in the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, and $6 billion as a result of 9/11.

I can't help but notice you seem to be enjoying your own particular version of revisionist history with respect to the past administration.

Can't help but chuckle at the penalties and judgments.
Enjoy the day.

 

[Badfishy1]

please try and remember that the money belonged to Iran, you might not like them but that doesn't justify stealing other nations money on false pretext. ie they paid for weapons and were scammed, money was accepted, but no weapons were delivered. this money amassed interest and was finally returned to Iran as part of the nuclear deal. so really, Obama didnt give away a penny. i'm no fan of Obama, but this giving back of stolen money seems the honorable thing to do and he didnt do it for free, Iran had to agree to a lot of inspections and limitations on their nuclear research and facilities.

Pretty positive he sent money to a sanctioned government w/o congressional approval. Guess honorable is subjective

 

[Badfishy1]

btw while we all been distracted with the bread and games, Trump admin has announced a third world infrastructure investment of 60 billion. i thought it was gonna be American infrastructure to be fixed? at the same time they announced 38 million extra for Israels. security. all that money he saved on cutting funding for various UN programs is gone and a lot more with this 60 billion, lmao. another flip flop.

Israel and SA should have been cut off decades ago

 

[gaiusmarius]

That money should have been used to settle the awards against Iran for their sponsorship of terrorism. They owe $920 million to the soldiers and family members involved in the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, and $6 billion as a result of 9/11.

oh right, i forgot, first it was Osama, then it was Iraq, then we have the 19 Saudis, but really, it was Iranians all along. lmao. i'm honestly shocked someone of your knowledge would believe that nonsense. Iran had nothing to do with 911, they are the classic scape goat in this situation those judges who ruled it was Iran, should be dissbarred for perverting the course of justice. they had no case, they only won due to the extreme hate for Iran in the US ever since they kicked the cia out.

imo. Americans have gotten so used to being the empire and bullying the world, that you don't even realize what a level international playing field would look like anymore. from the petro dollar to the 1000 military bases spread across the planet, America has become the kind of friend you never do business with cause you always end up getting screwed. but you don't even see it, you think you have a devine right to rule the planet and tell other nations how to live. this is breeding resentment, with Turmp even European allies are starting to get sick of it.

its ironic that the US is out of the ICC, but still expects to enforce it's laws on other nations. really it's become a big bully and when bullying is't working then it's time for sanctions and blockades and dropping bombs from far away. instead of diplomacy and give and take it's my way or the bombs will fly. don't expect this to end well, it never has in the history of our planet. no empire rules for ever.

how many times has the US engaged in terrorism in the middle east since 911? maybe if they accept the Malaysian verdict Iran will accept the US verdict.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Pretty positive he sent money to a sanctioned government w/o congressional approval. Guess honorable is subjective

the money was paid to the US, the US should pay it back if not willing to deliver the goods it recieved the money for. thats how the free market capitalism works. in business you are in dishonor if you do that.

the rest is just politics. Obamas negotiators felt they got something worthwhile and in return all they did was return what was honestly owed. now maybe Obama didnt get a good deal, but giving back something you stole isn't a high price either. any other country would have had to pay up 30 years ago.

 

[rives]

oh right, i forgot, first it was Osama, then it was Iraq, then we have the 19 Saudis, but really, it was Iranians all along. lmao. i'm honestly shocked someone of your knowledge would believe that nonsense. Iran had nothing to do with 911, they are the classic scape goat in this situation those judges who ruled it was Iran, should be dissbarred for perverting the course of justice. they had no case, they only won due to the extreme hate for Iran in the US ever since they kicked the cia out.

imo. Americans have gotten so used to being the empire and bullying the world, that you don't even realize what a level international playing field would look like anymore. from the petro dollar to the 1000 military bases spread across the planet, America has become the kind of friend you never do business with cause you always end up getting screwed. but you don't even see it, you think you have a devine right to rule the planet and tell other nations how to live. this is breeding resentment, with Turmp even European allies are starting to get sick of it.

its ironic that the US is out of the ICC, but still expects to enforce it's laws on other nations. really it's become a big bully and when bullying is't working then it's time for sanctions and blockades and dropping bombs from far away. instead of diplomacy and give and take it's my way or the bombs will fly. don't expect this to end well, it never has in the history of our planet. no empire rules for ever.

how many times has the US engaged in terrorism in the middle east since 911? maybe if they accept the Malaysian verdict Iran will accept the US verdict.

This has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You were saying that Iran had a legal right to the money. They also have legal awards against them for a great deal more money. If they are not justified, they have the same recourse that everyone else does - appeal. You don't get to pick and choose concerning what you think is legally justified. Try and get your tax return money if the government thinks you have an outstanding debt owed to them.

 

[Shalako]

...

 

[gaiusmarius]

This has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You were saying that Iran had a legal right to the money. They also have legal awards against them for a great deal more money. If they are not justified, they have the same recourse that everyone else does - appeal. You don't get to pick and choose concerning what you think is legally justified. Try and get your tax return money if the government thinks you have an outstanding debt owed to them.

so the truth of the case has nothing to do with it? the whole world looked on in astonishment as your justice system was perverted to blame Iran for 911. to annul a 30 year old business debt with a perverted court case seems a bit rich, but i guess we non Americans have to understand, might is right. like i said, is the US gonna respect the Malaysian war crimes trial they did about the Iraq war? no you won't, so why should Iran respect your courts biased decision.

furthermore, this isn't the same things at all on a moral or ethical level, if you want to call both debts legal, it only shows what a mockery of justice the US justice system has become. whether it's the case against Trump, or Victor Bot, or the Chick who liked guns, justice is not being served, instead biased judgments are being extracted from a system thats so stacked against the accused that calling it a justice system is a mockery of the word justice. so yes, i don't think the judgment against Iran for 911 is worth spit and i think you will find most non Americans have the same view. Iran surely has faults and committed terrorist attacks in the past, but 911 is not on their heads, that should matter. in fact recently they are only supporting defensive groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hothis in Yemen, non of which commit terrorism, they defend their lands against invaders. supporting these groups isn't the same as supporting real terrorists, like al qaida, isis and the Haqqani network or the mek who do attack civilians.

 

[Badfishy1]

No sir. Hussein pulled some fuckery skirting congress... any way you twist it as ‘hur durr was durr monies’ does not negate the fact it was NOT his decision alone. But that truly is the LEAST of his problems...

 

[rives]

so the truth of the case has nothing to do with it? the whole world looked on in astonishment as your justice system was perverted to blame Iran for 911. to annul a 30 year old business debt with a perverted court case seems a bit rich, but i guess we non Americans have to understand, might is right. like i said, is the US gonna respect the Malaysian war crimes trial they did about the Iraq war? no you won't, so why should Iran respect your courts biased decision.

furthermore, this isn't the same things at all on a moral or ethical level, if you want to call both debts legal, it only shows what a mockery of justice the US justice system has become. whether it's the case against Trump, or Victor Bot, or the Chick who liked guns, justice is not being served, instead biased judgments are being extracted from a system thats so stacked against the accused that calling it a justice system is a mockery of the word justice. so yes, i don't think the judgment against Iran for 911 is worth spit and i think you will find most non Americans have the same view. Iran surely has faults and committed terrorist attacks in the past, but 911 is not on their heads, that should matter. in fact recently they are only supporting defensive groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hothis in Yemen, non of which commit terrorism, they defend their lands against invaders. supporting these groups isn't the same as supporting real terrorists, like al qaida, isis and the Haqqani network or the mek who do attack civilians.

First, this was not a "business deal". It was a deal between two governments to purchase military equipment. The money was paid to the Pentagon. As in all things with the government, they WILL take your money for any debt to them that they consider outstanding. It doesn't matter if it is your tax return or if it is taking over your estate to settle your debt for care at the end of your life.

Second, the Beirut bombing and associated court cases and settlements stem from the same time period, so "annulling a 30-year old debt" is erroneous - the events were nearly contemporaneous.

Third, the so-called "business deal" wasn't with the current government. It was done under the Shah, who was a US ally and was deposed. This would be like England expecting the US to make good on monies deposited with the CSA.

Fourth, as I said before, if you are going to stand on legality, you don't get to pick which things you agree with. There are mechanisms in place to rectify any issues. Iran blew the whole thing off because they knew that they weren't going to settle anyhow, yet they somehow feel entitled to earnest money from a previous government. Now, if we had paid the money to the Shah's descendants, you might have a point.

 

[St. Phatty]

America is so upside down over 9-11.

Israel did 9-11 with assistance from Israel supporters in the US gov. & other members of the Crime/Petroleum cartel, i.e. Saudi Arabia.

And now idiots like Bolton & Trump are threatening to use US might against Iran, the company whose leader the US over-threw in the mid-50's.

In other words, Israel, the hyper-hostile hyper-racist state, is using the US to attack Israel's enemies.

This is not your father's Oldsmobile/America.

 

[gaiusmarius]

No sir. Hussein pulled some fuckery skirting congress... any way you twist it as ‘hur durr was durr monies’ does not negate the fact it was NOT his decision alone. But that truly is the LEAST of his problems...

i'm no fan of Obama, no idea of he had the right to do the deal or not, don't even want to claim whether it was a good deal or not.

but the business principle remains the same. lets say you wanted some weed, you pay half in advance, then i come and say sorry weed is illegal can't be dealing that to you. but im keeping your money for the next 35 years. do you see the problem? my point being that giving that money back should be a moral obligation, but they didnt get it for free. they did have to accept some conditions that no other country has to accept. but lets say they didnt concede enough, the money is still their money in a strictly ethical sense, in fact keeping it away from them for 35years was a theft in a way, just like it be theft if i keep your down payment for 35 years without delivering the agreed product. of course country to country stuff is more complicated, but when it comes right down to it, it was right to give them theirmoney back, just like it would be right to give you your down payment back instead of keeping it for 35 years.

LOL

 

[Badfishy1]

Understand the ‘business’ part of the deal however that is a moot point. Can muh drumpf take 6 gorillion dollars of US money and hand it over to Cuba without gov approval and fall back on saying well it was a business deal? Absolutely not

 

[rives]

i'm no fan of Obama, no idea of he had the right to do the deal or not, don't even want to claim whether it was a good deal or not.

but the business principle remains the same. lets say you wanted some weed, you pay half in advance, then i come and say sorry weed is illegal can't be dealing that to you. but im keeping your money for the next 35 years. do you see the problem? my point being that giving that money back should be a moral obligation, but they didnt get it for free. they did have to accept some conditions that no other country has to accept. but lets say they didnt concede enough, the money is still their money in a strictly ethical sense, in fact keeping it away from them for 35years was a theft in a way, just like it be theft if i keep your down payment for 35 years without delivering the agreed product. of course country to country stuff is more complicated, but when it comes right down to it, it was right to give them theirmoney back, just like it would be right to give you your down payment back instead of keeping it for 35 years.

LOL

No, it's more like having a deal to sell some weed and taking a 50% deposit from someone. While you are waiting for the shipment, there is a hostile takeover of your customer. The person that took over the original party's territory gets mad at you and decides to burn down your house. The court then awards you a sum in excess of what was deposited. You think that you should repay him the deposit and sit around with your thumb in your ass for the next 50 years or so while he decides whether or not to pay your award?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Understand the ‘business’ part of the deal however that is a moot point.

Moot point how?

IT WASN'T US MONEY.

 

[Badfishy1]

i'm no fan of Obama, no idea of he had the right to do the deal or not, don't even want to claim whether it was a good deal or not.

but the business principle remains the same. lets say you wanted some weed, you pay half in advance, then i come and say sorry weed is illegal can't be dealing that to you. but im keeping your money for the next 35 years. do you see the problem? my point being that giving that money back should be a moral obligation, but they didnt get it for free. they did have to accept some conditions that no other country has to accept. but lets say they didnt concede enough, the money is still their money in a strictly ethical sense, in fact keeping it away from them for 35years was a theft in a way, just like it be theft if i keep your down payment for 35 years without delivering the agreed product. of course country to country stuff is more complicated, but when it comes right down to it, it was right to give them theirmoney back, just like it would be right to give you your down payment back instead of keeping it for 35 years.

LOL

Thank you for admitting you have no idea whether he had the right to do the deal or not. HE DIDN’T and there is the issue. And to other people in this thread who I have not responded to, take it as a hint. You have below average intelligence and I have absolutely no desire to conversate with low level intelligence. Take it as a hint and jog on Maxine

 

[mean mr.mustard]

You may be surprised at my IQ.

Can we still play nice?

 

[gaiusmarius]

No, it's more like having a deal to sell some weed and taking a 50% deposit from someone. While you are waiting for the shipment, there is a hostile takeover of your customer. The person that took over the original party's territory gets mad at you and decides to burn down your house. The court then awards you a sum in excess of what was deposited. You think that you should repay him the deposit and sit around with your thumb in your ass for the next 50 years or so while he decides whether or not to pay your award?

oh my, re writing history now are we? tell me, why did the customer in this case suddenly get mad at the seller? it just suddenly happened did it?

do you understand sovereign immunity? it's totally bogus to use your own nations court to declare another nations guilt and then use that to justify stealing actual money that was paid.

you can't have it both ways, the US don't allow Vietnam to sue you for agent orange, you don't allow Iraq to sue you for depleted uranium, invasion without UN mandate and torture of prisoners. until you allow all those cases to come forward any cases against Iran can be ignored as biased and one sided.

if it's me and my customer gets mad suddenly, ill offer the money back or produce the goods agreed on. i don't just rip them off using some bogus excuse which has nothing to do with the business deal. the US is still angry that they nationalized their oil and dared to reverse the cia coupe.

 

[White Beard]

Thank you for admitting you have no idea whether he had the right to do the deal or not. HE DIDN’T and there is the issue. And to other people in this thread who I have not responded to, take it as a hint. You have below average intelligence and I have absolutely no desire to conversate with low level intelligence. Take it as a hint and jog on Maxine

Man, I would LOVE IT if you would even attempt to *prove* ANY of your constant fiat declarations. Back them up, or back up on the insulting diatribes, please.

 

[White Beard]

No, it's more like having a deal to sell some weed and taking a 50% deposit from someone. While you are waiting for the shipment, there is a hostile takeover of your customer. The person that took over the original party's territory gets mad at you and decides to burn down your house. The court then awards you a sum in excess of what was deposited. You think that you should repay him the deposit and sit around with your thumb in your ass for the next 50 years or so while he decides whether or not to pay your award?

This is ridiculous, you’re so busy trying to stuff this with insults that it makes no sense. Really bad analogy, misapplied AND strained to the breaking point.

I would say, “try again”, but I won’t.