>  EC> Bill had it partly correct. Carter had been negotiating the payment of
>  EC> billions in ransom for the hostages. Reagan's position was "no
ransom."
>  EC> On Inauguration Day Iran took what it could get, while they could get
>  EC> it.
 
> And was it not the 'billions' that were subject to the sanctions that
were put
> on Iran when the crisis began? The money wasn't property of the US to begin
> with and then, as now with the nonsense saying the previous administration
> 'gave away' money is rediculous. The money was payment by the Iranians and
> sanctioned for the purchase of aircraft which was trashed. Unless you
consider
> we gave away money that never belonged to us to begin with a travesty? 

The aircraft money was only $400 million, not the billions that Carter
paid. And, funny thing about that, the aircraft money was not paid back
by the Carter deal. Courtesy of a 2016 story in Time: "But still at issue
as Obama began his second term was $400 million that Iran in the late
1970s had paid for U.S. fighter jets, while Tehran was still a U.S. ally.
After it turned into an enemy in 1979, Washington was not about to
deliver the jets. But, all these years later, Iran wanted its money
back and with interest." By the way, the money was not taken, as your
line "wasn't property of the US" suggests. It was frozen in an escrow
account.

Some people may think that it is not a very good idea to give military
equipment to a country that committed an act of war against us. Some
others, maybe including you, may think it is a fine thing to do.

And some people may think that, when thousands of people die in a violent
revolution, every asset that belonged to the deposed government now
rightly belongs to the revolutionaries. Maybe that also includes you. But
not everyone.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)