>  EC> And that came as a heck of a surprise to a number of families who had
>  EC> legal claims against Iran, who were paid for their damages in
2000, and
>  EC> who were told by the Clinton administration that the same $400 million
>  EC> was being used to pay them. It was only 16 years later, when the Obama
>  EC> payments to Iran became public, that the families found out they
got US
>  EC> taxpayers money and not money from the frozen Iranian assets. Not
>  EC> Clinton's first lie. Not his last one, either.
 
> Here's a little history on said events.  Please carefully read the last
> paragraph as it explains the $400 million in depth.
> 
>
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/10...
> -billion-sorting-out-the-details/

Congratulations. You googled up a website that tells me what I already
knew, and says what I already said. The 2000 payouts were from taxpayer
money, not frozen Iranian assets.

>  >  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
>  EC> agree with
>  > the Carter administration?
> 
>  EC> The pre-1979 sale, yes. The 1979 sanctions, yes. The 1981 lifting of
>  EC> the sanctions to get the hostages back, no.
 
> Really? Did it not belong to the Iranians?

If, by "Iranians," you mean the Ayatollah and his followers, I think I
already addressed that.

> Do you actually think Reagan would
> have succeeded without paying? Do you feel his reply should have been
to start
> a war to get the hostages back? Let's see, first sign of aggression, the
> Iranians would have killed the hostages.

What a strange, disconnected-from-reality imagination. The Iranian
military was falling apart after the revolution. Executions. Desertions.
Iraq sees an opportunity, and attacks in September 1980. There is a
full-scale war going on. Iran has a bunch of US hostages who have no
value other than as a bargaining chip. Carter in September is willing to
give billions of dollars to get them released, knowing that success may
sway the election in November. But the deal is not finalized until after
the election. Carter goes ahead with the deal, wanting the ego-boost of
saying that he, not Reagan, got the hostages released. Now, imagine that
the deal does not get finalized on January 19 and Reagan takes the money
off the table. Do you really, seriously believe that the Ayatollah would
kill the hostages, knowing that we could decimate his ground forces and
eliminate his entire airforce, including the Tomcats that were whipping
Iranian MIGs, overnight? Do you really, seriously think he wanted to kill
the hostages so badly that he would lose the war with Iraq and be
executed by Saddam to do it?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)