I disagree that being provocative is not conducive to healthy conversation. It all depends on the intent. I'm not intending to offend anyone and the money I'm referring to would the interest. It looks like you are involved in a discussion about that in the previous posts. On reflection, I did passive/aggressively single you out in a previous post and that IS NOT conducive to a healthy conversation. I do know better and it's was hypocritical of me to do that. And apologize because I do know better and you appear to want to have healthy conversations. The firm I work for and my previous firm both had training based on a book called 'Crucial Conversations'. It's a really good book. The training was not necessary as long as the book was read, IMO. The whole premise is to have healthy conversations by finding a middle ground and not arguing from an emotional state or putting someone in defensive position. And when you recognize that's where the conversation has gone, bring back the conversation to a neutral or safe point. From there it can be constructive because you really want to have everyone comfortable speaking. I'm not saying I'm a saint or perfect at it. And I often ignore that when it suits me but I'm typically aware when I do it. Not always. Sometimes I have to catch myself in reflection. Also, the D&D can bring out some pretty emotional responses. I'm always impressed with @JuanValdez responses. He's able to police himself and I don't feel like he ever attacks or responds from an emotional position. End of my Soapbox.
Well it has been a week since all this went down? We don't know all the consequences good or bad yet. Also tell that to the nearly 200 innocent people that died in a plane crash as a result of the consequences of assassinating another countries commander outside the USA. I doubt those people's family feel so great about it.
He is right....... there were no US casualties, but nearly 200 innocent people were killed as a result of his decision to assassinate someone.
Remember at the beginning of all of this, when the Iranians attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad, and the Democrat left, especially their hacks in the mass media, were crowing about how this was going to be 'Trump's Benghazi'? LOL. So much for that. It was obviously just wishful thinking on their part, and most of their TDS inspired rhetoric turned out to be just more 'Fake News'. This was pretty much the polar opposite of the Obama/Hillary/Susan Rice led disaster at Benghazi, where American diplomats were murdered by terrorists and the Obama regime enabled that by their breathtaking incompetence. In fact, this was Trump schooling the Democrat left in how these matters should be handled. President Trump's leadership of this entire episode has been truly masterful. This has been a case study on how future presidents should ideally handle these situations from now on. If you are on of those people, consider yourself schooled.
It is money owed to Iran with interest if we are following international contract law then yes it is thier money. To try and imply they gave money to Iran to buy them off that’s wrong. This is the same kind of disinformation campaign Russia uses. Now Trump and gop uses the same. They conflate part truths to push a narrative which is not true.
it is money owed to Iran with interest if we are following international contract law then yes it is thier money. To try and imply they gave money to Iran to buy them off that’s wrong. This is the same kind of disinformation campaign Russia uses. Now Trump and gop uses the same. They conflate part truths to push a narrative which is not true
Make sure you add the 63 dead Canadians and nearly 200 dead people total to your list. The seem like nice people to me.
Got it. I'm taking a position that technically it was not paid by American taxpayer since the US gov owed the interest on a "loan". If the US didn't have this $400M, it would have borrowed $400M elsewhere and would have paid interest on that. Thus, the American tax payers didn't pay anything extra to Iran. This is assuming: 1- $400M was owed to Iran by the US gov 2- US gov has been borrowing money for decades 3- US gov has been using this $400M (as it wasn't parked in some interest-bearing account and not allowed to be used by the US gov)
Funny they only show the good looking people. Where is the rest of the regular people that died. Media never fails
I haven't been following news... why are you tying this to the US / Iran military confrontation? EDIT: Just saw @HTM post. Wow.
@tallanvor keeps on bringing up WW3. Other than him, did anyone here think that Trump's action regarding Iran was going to lead to that?
I can understand giving them the inflated value but paying them interest is like awarding them on their money investment. Like I said, give them some old F-4's and sidewinder missiles that would've equated to the original 400m. I just don't like the idea of making up the difference out of our pocket. It's not like the international community or the Swiss Bank generated the difference to add interest and inflation. Maybe I'm wrong about that and the account has grown from 400m to 1.3b and there isn't any U.S. money involved. I haven't seen anything that leads me to draw that conclusion. So I ask where did the difference come from? Not the math, but the actual money. Who paid?
When was the weapons bought what 1979? So yes that’s 40 years of interest. International law and contract law is important and should be followed.
