> Regarding the aircraft, you are correct. That was the money the Obama
> administration repaid which was plastered all over the news as 'hush' money
> being transported by a private jet. 

And that came as a heck of a surprise to a number of families who had
legal claims against Iran, who were paid for their damages in 2000, and
who were told by the Clinton administration that the same $400 million
was being used to pay them. It was only 16 years later, when the Obama
payments to Iran became public, that the families found out they got US
taxpayers money and not money from the frozen Iranian assets. Not
Clinton's first lie. Not his last one, either.

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

> Pre-1979 Iran was a close ally. Do you have issue giving allies military
> equipment? When the embassy was overrun, sanctions were put on Iran which
> included the stopping of that very sale. At that time, did you not
agree with
> the Carter administration? 

The pre-1979 sale, yes. The 1979 sanctions, yes. The 1981 lifting of the
sanctions to get the hostages back, no.

> Iran is a country, no matter who's running it and under international
banking
> regulations the money was rightfully theirs or are you suggesting we
just pull
> out of the international financial institutions as well and steal the
monies? 

Nothing was stolen. And your reading of "international banking
regulations" as requiring us to turn over all the assets of a government
to revolutionaries who we had not given diplomatic recognition to as a
legitimate replacement government . . . well, it is a bit suspect. But it
is interesting that you consider Carter's 1979 action so deeply
illegitimate.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)