America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,707 comments
- 1,592,375 views
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
You got credible sources for such a seemingly far-fetched claim?
--
Jesus 🤬 Christ. You and I have done this before.
It was Iran's own money. We would have been in violation of an international treaty had we not returned it. And returning it voluntarily when we did likely saved us from having to give them billions more.
For once, just one measly time, have a direct, reasoned response to something. WHY do you think we should have violated a treaty and likely cost ourselves significantly more money down the road?
You always whine about being treated like an empty, unthinking parrot for Fox News, here's your chance to show us that you aren't. But if you just ignore this, yet again, only to bring it up six months later, well, then I don't know why you'd ever expect anybody to think any differently of you.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
This is commonplaces on campuses all across the land. Here are but two examples.
https://www.lifezette.com/2019/05/m...y-be-removed-because-it-traumatizes-students/
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12043
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 20,569
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Whitewashing history unfortunately is the desire of many groups and it does not know any religion, gender or political ideology. Trying to make George Washington "politically correct" by removing his likeness means that we will slowly be dismantling what the country was founded for. It can be compared to the destruction of the sacred sites in Syria by ISIS. Sure, Americans and ISIS are not the same but in this case, the end goal is the same: to eradicate the memory of individuals/places/artifacts that "they" don't like.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Lifezette
So in the case of the Washington mural, what people actually want removed is not, as you claimed, images of the founding fathers themselves, but rather images of slavery and native genocide?
The Jefferson statue case is silly, I'll grant, but I'm still not convinced it's "commonplace across the land."
--
You did, but not in a way that at all addressed any of the points I raised. You think they're going to "misappropriate" the money. Great. Do you think that's a good reason to violate international treaty? Do you think that any country who feels that the US "misappropriates" their money ought to be able to just keep our money too? If not, then what justifies such a blatant double-standard? Do you think we should have waited for the claims tribunal to force us to pay significantly more money down the road? Why?
It's not that I don't want to hear it, it's that you're not actually answering the questions I've raised. You're not making even the slightest attempt to incorporate important context into your viewpoint.
It's not. An angry American internetter thinking they're "misappropriating" their money is utterly irrelevant to the question of violating international treaties.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
If I was running around threatening said company yes.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
All good. My prediction was correct.
- 29,444
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I'm glad you find it so funny I was correct. I don't care why the money was held. I find it stupid how an American can be like hey give them their money! So what if they want to attack us!
Must be my hood mentality...
The whole thing screams gun deal gone wrong if you know what I mean.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
As I explained to you already, the deal fell apart when the Iran Hostage Crisis happened.
The situation was resolved by the two countries signing the Algiers Accords. One of the provisions of that treaty, (a treaty that, it’s very much worth noting, is viewed as having been very favorable to the US, despite your insistence that we must have been “screwed” somehow) was the establishment of an independent claims tribunal to resolve financial disputes between the US and Iran.
Not adhering to the decisions of this tribunal would thus be in violation of the treaty. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that it’s not good practice for countries to run around violating treaties they‘ve agreed to.
Before the tribunal made a final decision on the deal for the fighter jets, the two countries negotiated a settlement of the matter. We would pay Iran $1.7 billion instead of the $10 billion they were asking the tribunal to award them, and they would drop the claim.
So, we did what we’d said we’d do (good), and we potentially saved $8.3 billion in the process (good).
So, once again, would you care to provide an answer as to why you think we should have violated a treaty that was, on the whole, advantageous to us? Why should we have broken our word, and harmed our ability to negotiate with other counties in the future, countries that now have very good reason to not trust us? Why should we have waited for the tribunal to decide how much we had to pay to settle the claim for the jets, which would very likely have been an even larger amount?
From where I stand, there is nothing that makes that a good decision. So, convince me. Give an answer that actually acknowledges and accommodates these facts, and still concluded that keeping their money was the smart decision.
EDIT: I just checked what percentage of Iran’s GDP $1.7 billion is: 0.3%. Doesn’t seem like a number that’s likely have much of an impact at all on their ability to do whatever nefarious things you think they’re going to do. So make sure to factor that into your answer as well. Tell me why we should have trashed our reputation over such a relatively insignificant amount of money.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I tried to read the mueller report objectively and I still cant believe how Republicans are still protecting Trump? Even with rightwing bias the evidence of at least misconduct is undeniable.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
After a little reading I definitely think we should've kept the money. Screw them.
If the tribunal thinks they deserved 10 billion after holding 52 Americans for 444 days screw them too. I hope they are stupid enough to attack.
If the tribunal thinks they deserved 10 billion after holding 52 Americans for 444 days screw them too. I hope they are stupid enough to attack.
Last edited:
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
There is NO excuse for what happened to those hostages. But to really put this into perspective, I think you need to go back to 1953 and see how the UK and the US essentially orchestrated a coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran in an oil grab and pretty much held the entire country hostage for 25+ years. There's a reason they hated us. In his own way, the Shah was not much better than Sadam Hussein. He tortured and murdered his own people for more than two decades while we sat smugly, eating our burgers. There's more to the story than the part you're choosing to see.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
In what way & where do you think they are going to "attack"? The US is the 800 pound gorilla on the global stage. It is a behemoth in terms of its military, political & economic dominance. North Vietnam never attacked America, nor did the Iranians, Iraqis or Syrians. In fact, no other nation has attacked the US homeland in the last 200 years, with the exception of extra-national Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia on 911.
On the other hand, the US, in pursuing its economic interests around the world has repeatedly attacked other nations & constantly interfered in the internal politics of countries thousands of miles distant from the US homeland. US interference in Iran, as explained by Huske in a previous post, led to the events that culminated in the Iranian hostage crisis.
You can't do "a little reading". The situation in the Middle East is VERY complicated ... the Shia - Sunni confrontation & national territorial & strategic clashes ... as well as the perennial confrontation with Israel. It's fair to say that there are no "good guys" there - only a tangled web of conflicting interests. Netanyahu was a cheerleader for the war against Saddam Hussein. As that war destabilized & weakened Iraq, Iran's traditional enemy, he is now prodding Trump to turn on Iran also, to correct the resulting imbalance.
The US has been blundering around in the Middle East for decades - following decades of blundering around by European powers. It's not at all clear that singling out Iran for punitive measures has been effective for US interests, let alone for the stability of the region itself. The Iran Deal was an attempt by the Obama administration, supported by all its European allies to try & improve relations with Iran & put a halt to its nuclear weapons program. The "pallets of cash" are small potatoes in the general scheme of things. The financial cost of the Iraq war to the US has been estimated to run as high as 3 trillion dollars.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
"Deserve" somehow suggests that Iran has to earn the right to its own money. It really doesn't, other than through its own agreements to sanction accords. Hostages taken by either side aren't really relevant to that. The behaviour of the US-instigated regime in Iran is often quite abhorrent but the US has known that all along.
