Obama gave Iran billions after they paid the Taliban to kill Americans

[WildRose]

As if those were the only two alternatives.

Hint, they were not and are not.

[WildRose]

Horse hockey, most of their sites are off limits to inspectors.

Iran rejects U.S. demand for U.N. visit to military sites

[WildRose]

That it ever took place.

[WildRose]

No we didn’t, those planes were to be sold to the Shah’s gov’t, not the mullahs.

They overthrew the gov’t we had the deal with invalidating the deal.

[Bigjohn]

Oh sorry didn’t realize. So we had the right to keep other people’s money bit like a con artist

[Weedhopper]

@Bigjohn

Oh sorry didn’t realize. So we had the right to keep other people’s money bit like a con artist

People’s? You mean terrorists

[JayJay]

@WildRose

No we didn’t, those planes were to be sold to the Shah’s gov’t, not the mullahs.

They overthrew the gov’t we had the deal with invalidating the deal.

Under what rules of invalidating the deal are we allowed to keep the money that was paid as part of the deal?

[IndependentMindedJoe]

I don’t know why every criticism of Trump is met with a justification by comparison. There is too much value shifting by partisanship. Dems should ask if they would support the current democratic agenda 10 years ago, as should republican. I couldn’t imagine a classic republican being in support of tariffs and a 2 trillion dollar budget, nor a democrat being in favor of complete weapon bans or universal healthcare 10 years ago. In this case, we should never help a country putting bounties on our sons and daughters fighting…Period. End of story. I don’t care who is running. Presidents come and go, but I will never be loyal to anything but the constitution and my family. Partisanship is the cancer of this country and we can’t fix it unless we understand that.

[Weedhopper]

@JayJay

@WildRose

No we didn’t, those planes were to be sold to the Shah’s gov’t, not the mullahs.

They overthrew the gov’t we had the deal with invalidating the deal.

Under what rules of invalidating the deal are we allowed to keep the money that was paid as part of the deal?

We don’t negotiate with terrorists.

[JayJay]

@Weedhopper

@JayJay

@WildRose

No we didn’t, those planes were to be sold to the Shah’s gov’t, not the mullahs.

They overthrew the gov’t we had the deal with invalidating the deal.

Under what rules of invalidating the deal are we allowed to keep the money that was paid as part of the deal?

We don’t negotiate with terrorists.

It’s not a negotiation.

We don’t get to unilaterally decide to keep money that isn’t ours paid for services that were never rendered.

[SixFoot]

@WuWei

@SeaManatee

“catch”. The problem was the iran nuclear deal seemed fairly weak, not that they shouldn’t have done it because Iran did this.

You do know the Iranians were giving the Iraqis money and materials to kill US troops?

My favorites were the EFP and RKG-3.

[NuffSaid]

@NebraskaFootball

@Jezcoe

@NebraskaFootball

@Jezcoe

Maybe they could have but that would have been a great thing to build upon.

But hearing interviews and reading the words of those who hammered out the deal, their primary concern was restricting Iranian nuclear progress.

That was the ‘yes’ that they were working towards. Everything else was ancillary.

I know that was their intended goal. Which is fine. But it was not the only dangerous threat from Iran. And certainly was not even the most immediate threat. My point is they needed to have been addressing these other points as well. Trust needed to be two-way. No more supporting groups that kill allies. Sanction relief should have come at a heavier cost for them.

Giving up getting nukes which makes you invasion proof is a pretty big cost.

Fair. My position was then, and remains, that we could have gotten more concessions though on the financing of terrorism front. I understand the more unilateral approach that was taken. A non-nuclear Iran is best for the entire world. But eliminating the funding and their involvement as proxies across the ME would have also been a huge benefit for us and our allies.

Iran is a complex nation to deal with. One part is about hoping that enough young(er) Iranians will keep pushing the movement and eventually remove the current regime, and install a more pro-democratic government. But everyone keeps waiting. And waiting. On the other hand, there’s the network of terrorism. A weak Iraq allowed Iran to move in and grow their network.

Iran gaining nukes puts them at the same table as NK. We gotta recognize they have them, and need to tread lightly. And as much as we tried to dampen NK from gaining them, they eventually got them. I have a feeling that Iran will eventually get them. And we’ll have to use a different approach. The unilateral approach was working in a sense. Sadly, since everything is so political, Rs didn’t like that Obama was part of that agreement. And Trump, well.

[Weedhopper]

To give them anything is aiding terrorism, like what Obama did after they paid the Taliban to kill Americans.