still this is an issue? We owed Iran more than a billion dollars. There was not defense for not paying. We agreed we owed the money. We actually used their money to pay them to do something we wanted them to do. Bravo for the President. He could have just followed the law and sent them the money and not received the hostages. But he found a way to follow the law and get something in exchange that we really wanted. this isn’t ransom…it’s sheer genius.
A: Why did we only just now pay this? Why did it come down to Obama? To save a few hostages?
That brings me to B:
I doubt the hostages actually had much to do with it. I’m going to be the first conservative here to say that.
But if you are implying that they did and it was genius to save those few hostages, at a cost of $400 million, you would be wrong. That would be horrible decision making skills, and horrible deals with regards to what it took to save 4 hostages.
Actually Bob, as the story unfolded, it was $33 Billion paid. Oops! By the way Saudi Arabia owes us $53 Billion for harboring and supporting Terrorists responsible for 9/11. Obummer will veto this and never give up his Muslim buddies.
My question is, what took so long? Where were the Republicans when they had control of all 3 branches from 2003-07? Oh yeah, they were the ones, according to Agent, fighting terrorism.
Per the article, it is not just the administration that is questioning this, “In April, (Speaker) Ryan said of the bill, “We need to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies.”
Perhaps it only just now got far enough in government Ron. So you can’t blame the republicans for something being fought for years. This is how government works. If they actually rejected this, show me. If they have not themselves rejected this in the past, then you cannot blame 2003-2007 republicans simply because they were there and this didn’t get done. They would have to have been involved.
So does this mean if a US citizen commits a crime in another country, oh say Iraq, having been brought over there as a government contractor, oh say providing security for US officials and important visitors, employed by oh say Blackrock, that the citizens of Iraq can then sue the United States of America and all governmental officials involved in bringing that individual into the country for civil damages? What would be the punitive damages assessed for raping their children, shooting up their homes and towns.
What happens if US citizens somehow connected to oh say the CIA are involved in a coup d’état that causes death and destruction in the target country. Should those citizens be allowed to sue the US government and seize US government property to pay off their claims?
Because these are the kinds of things this bill opens up. Sue some Saudis? Yeah, that sounds like fun. But who will be laughing when Air Force One or a US government airplane, ship or vehicle shows up in a country where a judgment can be collected and the US government property is seized to satisfy the judgment. Then will Representative King be laughing?
I’m sorry for the families. But this bill is one of the more idiotic proposals to come from a clueless Congress in many years. It will not foster justice or fairness, but it will open the doors for years of vexation for the US.
The polar opposite would be countries that are not held responsible for any sort of attacks.
I would like to think a middle ground makes more sense. For acts of terrorism that are blatantly with intent to harm another country (not incidental or accidental) which the country of origin fostered or did nothing regarding, suits should be allowed.
We don’t see terrorists from America attacking other nations and openly stating it is an assault on other nations.
There should be some degree of responsibility from nations as opposed to absolving all responsibility.
You’re being to logical Tim. So many Americans are led by their emotions and not logic. Conservatives feed off of peoples emotions…they just love it. Perfect example, Trump. This often makes them short sighted. They want to react to their emotions now regardless of what might happen later. In this case, they only see anger towards the Saudis and the desire to punish at all costs. They do not see (or care about) the havoc this bill could reek down the line. It would create a great deal of exposure for the U.S. As you are, I am sorry for what these familes went through, but the greater good for the U.S. would be to stop this bill in its tracks.
No. People tend to feed off of emotions, but by and by the democrats do this far more than republicans.
Republicans only get emotional on issues with regards to military vets and military families.
Democrats tend to get emotional in regards to blacks, gays, women, children, elderly, Asians, trans folks, and many others in order to sway public policy in terms of many aspects of laws.
I can give specific examples on this at request. One party is guilty of this more than the other.
Bart, I believe you have the parties “confused”. Progressive Democrats are the ones who are operating on their “feelings” and getting all emotional, especially when their fragile feelings are hurt because their agenda is in tatters.
The administration opposes this, but didn’t have any problem paying Iran $1.7 Billion ransom money for our hostages. Pallet loads of foreign currency.
still this is an issue? We owed Iran more than a billion dollars. There was not defense for not paying. We agreed we owed the money. We actually used their money to pay them to do something we wanted them to do. Bravo for the President. He could have just followed the law and sent them the money and not received the hostages. But he found a way to follow the law and get something in exchange that we really wanted. this isn’t ransom…it’s sheer genius.
Some conservatives do not understand 3 dimensional chess, Tim. They’re still asking you to king them on the checkers board.
I’m sure UW will call me an extreme republican any moment now as I just defended Obama on this one…
A: Why did we only just now pay this? Why did it come down to Obama? To save a few hostages?
That brings me to B:
I doubt the hostages actually had much to do with it. I’m going to be the first conservative here to say that.
But if you are implying that they did and it was genius to save those few hostages, at a cost of $400 million, you would be wrong. That would be horrible decision making skills, and horrible deals with regards to what it took to save 4 hostages.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/03/iran-takes-another-american-hostage-obamas-400-million-side-deal/
And then they took more hostages since then.
So how exactly is saving 4 people by spending $400,000,000 dollars a genius move when then we have more taken not long after?
By what measure?
Actually Bob, as the story unfolded, it was $33 Billion paid. Oops! By the way Saudi Arabia owes us $53 Billion for harboring and supporting Terrorists responsible for 9/11. Obummer will veto this and never give up his Muslim buddies.
My question is, what took so long? Where were the Republicans when they had control of all 3 branches from 2003-07? Oh yeah, they were the ones, according to Agent, fighting terrorism.
Per the article, it is not just the administration that is questioning this, “In April, (Speaker) Ryan said of the bill, “We need to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies.”
Perhaps it only just now got far enough in government Ron. So you can’t blame the republicans for something being fought for years. This is how government works. If they actually rejected this, show me. If they have not themselves rejected this in the past, then you cannot blame 2003-2007 republicans simply because they were there and this didn’t get done. They would have to have been involved.
Bob,
This is just another example proving Republicans have no interest in governing.
Or maybe the Republican were not aware that they needed to pass a new bill to allow these victims to sue Saudia Arabia.
Meaning, they were either indifferent to the victims or incompetent. I’ll let you decide.
So does this mean if a US citizen commits a crime in another country, oh say Iraq, having been brought over there as a government contractor, oh say providing security for US officials and important visitors, employed by oh say Blackrock, that the citizens of Iraq can then sue the United States of America and all governmental officials involved in bringing that individual into the country for civil damages? What would be the punitive damages assessed for raping their children, shooting up their homes and towns.
What happens if US citizens somehow connected to oh say the CIA are involved in a coup d’état that causes death and destruction in the target country. Should those citizens be allowed to sue the US government and seize US government property to pay off their claims?
Because these are the kinds of things this bill opens up. Sue some Saudis? Yeah, that sounds like fun. But who will be laughing when Air Force One or a US government airplane, ship or vehicle shows up in a country where a judgment can be collected and the US government property is seized to satisfy the judgment. Then will Representative King be laughing?
I’m sorry for the families. But this bill is one of the more idiotic proposals to come from a clueless Congress in many years. It will not foster justice or fairness, but it will open the doors for years of vexation for the US.
The polar opposite would be countries that are not held responsible for any sort of attacks.
I would like to think a middle ground makes more sense. For acts of terrorism that are blatantly with intent to harm another country (not incidental or accidental) which the country of origin fostered or did nothing regarding, suits should be allowed.
We don’t see terrorists from America attacking other nations and openly stating it is an assault on other nations.
There should be some degree of responsibility from nations as opposed to absolving all responsibility.
You’re being to logical Tim. So many Americans are led by their emotions and not logic. Conservatives feed off of peoples emotions…they just love it. Perfect example, Trump. This often makes them short sighted. They want to react to their emotions now regardless of what might happen later. In this case, they only see anger towards the Saudis and the desire to punish at all costs. They do not see (or care about) the havoc this bill could reek down the line. It would create a great deal of exposure for the U.S. As you are, I am sorry for what these familes went through, but the greater good for the U.S. would be to stop this bill in its tracks.
No. People tend to feed off of emotions, but by and by the democrats do this far more than republicans.
Republicans only get emotional on issues with regards to military vets and military families.
Democrats tend to get emotional in regards to blacks, gays, women, children, elderly, Asians, trans folks, and many others in order to sway public policy in terms of many aspects of laws.
I can give specific examples on this at request. One party is guilty of this more than the other.
Bart, I believe you have the parties “confused”. Progressive Democrats are the ones who are operating on their “feelings” and getting all emotional, especially when their fragile feelings are hurt because their agenda is in tatters.
Well, I should say *primarily*