Do you feel we should send 1.7 billion dollars to Iran?

1. 92

   iggy7117posted 8 years ago

   Do you feel we should send 1.7 billion dollars to Iran?
   
   Another Obama screw up that is costing the taxpayers money.

   replyreport
2. 83

   HSchneiderposted 8 years ago

   The 1.7 billion dollars is money we have frozen in Iranian assets, not taxpayer money.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      iggy7117posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Does it matter if they will use it to hurt americans

      replyreport
   2. 84

      ronbergeronposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      One could also argue that NOT releasing their own money to them could be a contributing factor into why they might want to hurt Americans. I think it's generally more complicated than what can fit in headlines.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      HSchneiderposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      We made a the only deal we could short of war. Releasing their own money was part of the deal. A war would be devastating for everyone including us.

      replyreport
3. 0

   LoliHeyposted 8 years ago

   Not good.  Yeah, let's send money to a bunch of idiots who scream "Death to America."  Real smart.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      dashingscorpioposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It's their money. This is not foreign aid.

      replyreport
4. 80

   dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

   To be honest with you it's (their) money.
   If lifting the sanctions and giving them back their money was part of the negotiation for them to cease their nuclear program then it is the right thing to do.  Naturally some folks feel there should never have been a deal to begin with and they are waiting or even hoping Iran breaks it.
   Nevertheless since we do have a deal it makes sense for the U.S. to honor our part. We always have the option to jump into another war if it fails. To our knowledge so far Iran has upheld it's end of the deal.

   replyreport
5. 87

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   No. We should have threatened to put the sanctions back unless they returned our people unharmed.

   replyreport
6. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   Financial settlement between Washington and Tehran was largely lost amid U.S. elation over the release of the Americans and global interest in the latest benchmark in Iran's nuclear transformation. With the United Nations' confirmation that Iran satisfied the terms of last summer's nuclear agreement, it immediately recouped tens of billions in frozen assets and earned the chance to gain significantly more from suspended oil, trade and financial sanctions.
   
   The much smaller U.S.-Iranian agreement concerned more than $400 million in Iranian money, dating back to before the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the end of diplomatic ties, which the U.S.-backed shah's government used to buy American military equipment. The Iranians got that money back last weekend and some $1.3 billion in interest.
   
   The administration said the settlement was decided on its merits, with officials arguing that Iran demanded more than $3 billion and, at some points during the talks, much more for an agreement.
   
   
   Mohammad Reza Naghdi, head of the Basij paramilitary wing of the powerful Revolutionary Guards, said the wiring of the funds was a payoff for letting the Americans go.
   
   U.S. officials insist that's not true.
   "There was no bribe, there was no ransom, there was nothing paid to secure the return of these Americans who were, by the way, not spies," State Department spokesman Mark Toner responded, referring to the charges that held each of the Americans in Iranian prison for years.
   
   Sounds like Jimmy Carter revisited.

   replyreport