Only a man like Trump could call this a bad deal

Are the only arguments you guys can make, half truths and lies?

Great example.

Speaking of liars

So....... you're saying that he always tells the truth.

Not sure how that helps you.

Ahhh , the alt accusation , I knew that was coming .

Not at all. More like, deficient minds think alike.

. . . and the new Liberal tendency , being right for the wrong reason .

How bout we get back to the topic shall we?

I'll entertain any logical response you have that counters my own. So far you've done your best to stay away from facts.

363 Tons of cash, sent to Iraq under Bush.

Republican response to this?
“We are in a war against terrorists, to have a blame meeting isn’t, in my opinion, constructive,” said Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-usa-cash/u-s-sent-pallets-of-cash-to-baghdad-idUSN0631295120070207

I'm buying nothing. Stop listening to your talking heads and do a little research once and awhile. It might surprise you.

lies

Stop being ill-informed.

"—The debt was in international arbitration for years. As part of that, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses."

https://apnews.com/808252202a1c403f82fe16f9676dcdd8

So why didn't Iran just send 800 million backwards? and how does that /those amounts connect to the reports of U.S cash transfers of cash in amounts just under international transfer limits from 3rd party countries to Iran.
I'm understanding what your saying but cant understand what the other reported payments to Iran were about. Thanks

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/us-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324

Sending 800 million seems simpler yes. From what I read the funds to America were not sent to the American gov, they were sent to American citizens and companies for services that had been rendered prior to the freeze.

I think you're correct in the third party funds, it was done to not break the law.

It seems wrong to not wire transfer for sure. Either way, the same amount of debit/credit would occur, costing America the same. The purpose of the transfer was to come to an agreement and absolve debt on both sides. Not to monitor every dollar to be sure no corruption occurred. This is like the 4th time we've done this now and is standard practice for them. Those sheik's like funds they can load into their vehicles apparently.

My guess is that on the American side, the primary focus was on making the American companies and citizens whole.

To me, this is the only real argument that can be made here. I don't know what the solution is though when you're dealing with a country that has no intention of changing its form of government.

Hi, I know the above is a response to Pirate.
I have to say there must be more to the transaction than meets the eye. The reason I questioned you in the beginning is I have always heard one group saying how Obama paid money for hostages etc and the other group saying oh no nothing improper it was money held since 79 etc.

If it were a regular transaction without anything else attached to it they would have just settled the ledger and paid the U.S the $800 million balance. The method of return suggests something is amiss. There is more to the deal than just a return of funds from arbritration.

I'll come back to tell you when I find some more informations.

To pay the 800 million to the U.S., that would get the federal government involved in every transaction between Iran and the companies/individuals and cutting separate checks to everyone. It seems cleaner to keep them out of it and have Iran just pay them directly as originally planned.

I'm not even sure if that's how it went down though. I'm interested in what you find.

Yes How it went down, That's the key part to clarify. Keep you posted.