Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35300019

So basically yesterday a pair of American patrol boats were caught in what Iran claims are its waters. The boats and their crews were taken into Iranian custody, and then speedily released after America reached out to Iran.

Here's what basically happened:

Iran: we think these boats might have been spying on us
America: they weren't
Iran: you right fam

That sort of understanding would have never happened under Ahmadinejad.

It might not happen come our next administration either...

Iran testing Obama is all. He did what he normally does and ignore it.

They released the sailors almost immediately. What exactly should Obama have done?

Meanwhile, Turkey outright blows up a Russian jet and suffers zero consequences yet Putin is treated like a God on this retarded forum.

They caputred them yesterday, and released the today. They only did so because this Iran "deal" was in jeapordy.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They released the sailors almost immediately. What exactly should Obama have done?

Meanwhile, Turkey outright blows up a Russian jet and suffers zero consequences yet Putin is treated like a God on this retarded forum.

Anything short of declaring war on Iran for even daring to board US ships means Obama's a wuss.

Originally posted by Robtard
Anything short of declaring war on Iran for even daring to board US ships means Obama's a wuss.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They released the sailors almost immediately. What exactly should Obama have done?

Meanwhile, Turkey outright blows up a Russian jet and suffers zero consequences yet Putin is treated like a God on this retarded forum.

Putin is treated like a God? What about how Obama is treated here, Rob calls him God King.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35300019

So basically yesterday a pair of American patrol boats were caught in what Iran claims are its waters. The boats and their crews were taken into Iranian custody, and then speedily released after America reached out to Iran.

Here's what basically happened:

Iran: we think these boats might have been spying on us
America: they weren't
Iran: you right fam

That sort of understanding would have never happened under Ahmadinejad.

Glad no one was hurt.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Putin is treated like a God? What about how Obama is treated here, Rob calls him God King.

'Forever King' or 'God Emperor of Mankind', but that was in response to the "Obama's taking over!" concerns/threads that were prevalent the last couple of years, mocking really.

If Iran had beheaded them, what would Obama have done iyo?

Still appeal to the greater good of this deal and continue on?

But Iran didn't behead them, so what's the point going with "what ifs".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Iran testing Obama is all. He did what he normally does and ignore it.
He didn't ignore it, he had Kerry call up his Iranian counterpart and they solved the problem with diplomacy.

Let's compare this situation to the 2007 seizure of British sailors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

13 days they held them, and it was a huge diplomatic incident. Now that we have a working relationship with Iran, we can avoid these things.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That sort of understanding would have never happened under Ahmadinejad. Do you question the competence of the rightfully democratic elected former leader of Iran?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They caputred them yesterday, and released the today. They only did so because this Iran "deal" was in jeapordy.

How? Did Obama threatened to only give them 135 billion in stead of the 140?

OHHHHH! That big scary guy!~

And I heard that big APOLOGY Audio the Irateians have of some supposed American naval person all but crying about what evil they did to them.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/iran-hostage-crisis-that-wasnt-217729

Look at these warmongering ****s. Look at how ****ing detached from reality the Republicans are. Useless warmongering degenerates; wretched worthless sacks of shit. Republicans are unfit to govern, unfit to hold public office. They say nothing of value; they have no ideas of value; their existence and beliefs are a net negative for this country. On questions of economics, foreign policy, social policy, science, ecology, public education, Republicans have nothing but bad ideas. Their supporters are ignorant, stupid, bible thumping, gun toting, racist degenerates.

This is our future if one of these troglodytes takes office in 2017. War for no good reason, diplomacy abandoned, allies insulted, and enemies empowered.

Putin is treated like a meme, not a God.

Originally posted by Lucius
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/iran-hostage-crisis-that-wasnt-217729

Look at these warmongering ****s. Look at how ****ing detached from reality the Republicans are. Useless warmongering degenerates; wretched worthless sacks of shit. Republicans are unfit to govern, unfit to hold public office. They say nothing of value; they have no ideas of value; their existence and beliefs are a net negative for this country. On questions of economics, foreign policy, social policy, science, ecology, public education, Republicans have nothing but bad ideas. Their supporters are ignorant, stupid, bible thumping, gun toting, racist degenerates.

This is our future if one of these troglodytes takes office in 2017. War for no good reason, diplomacy abandoned, allies insulted, and enemies empowered. Did you just get your first period?

Originally posted by Lucius
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/iran-hostage-crisis-that-wasnt-217729

Look at these warmongering ****s. Look at how ****ing detached from reality the Republicans are. Useless warmongering degenerates; wretched worthless sacks of shit. Republicans are unfit to govern, unfit to hold public office. They say nothing of value; they have no ideas of value; their existence and beliefs are a net negative for this country. On questions of economics, foreign policy, social policy, science, ecology, public education, Republicans have nothing but bad ideas. Their supporters are ignorant, stupid, bible thumping, gun toting, racist degenerates.

This is our future if one of these troglodytes takes office in 2017. War for no good reason, diplomacy abandoned, allies insulted, and enemies empowered.

Meh, I'm okay with them embarrassing themselves.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They caputred them yesterday, and released the today. They only did so because this Iran "deal" was in jeapordy.


Yea, score one for dealing.


That's the benefit of dealing with enemies- it makes them less hostile.





Obama didn't have to threaten anything. They just, y'know, saw they had a deal in progress, and was like... "Hmm, hostages, existing deal... eh, existing deal matters way more. No hostages, go back home little sailors!"

Also, we aren't giving Iran any of *our* money.




See what happens when you don't treat enemies with proper bluster?

Why, if Obama threatened Iran more, those sailors would've never drifted into their territory to begin with, I'm sure!


Seriously, Time's more reasonable on this one than you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Meh, I'm okay with them embarrassing themselves.

I think what really sets me off is... this was a success. This event could have gone really ugly, but it didn't. No one got killed, no one was imprisoned... people from two very different countries, got together and spoke to each other. The problem was solved before it could even become one.

And somehow, that's a failure. Republicans have lost the ability to speak rationally about anything Obama does or has his name attached to.

Classic ODS.

So the deal is already paying off?

People will be really disappointed if World War III doesn't happen because of it now :'(

Originally posted by Lucius
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/iran-hostage-crisis-that-wasnt-217729

Look at these warmongering ****s. Look at how ****ing detached from reality the Republicans are. Useless warmongering degenerates; wretched worthless sacks of shit. Republicans are unfit to govern, unfit to hold public office. They say nothing of value; they have no ideas of value; their existence and beliefs are a net negative for this country. On questions of economics, foreign policy, social policy, science, ecology, public education, Republicans have nothing but bad ideas. Their supporters are ignorant, stupid, bible thumping, gun toting, racist degenerates.

This is our future if one of these troglodytes takes office in 2017. War for no good reason, diplomacy abandoned, allies insulted, and enemies empowered.

I don't get how you came to that conclusion from that link.

While the Republicans are stupid and idiotic, they have passed all of Obama's bills.

So I would be thanking them if I was you?

You Libs realize capturing foreign soldiers is an act of war. By international law they should have escorted/towed them to international waters and radio Washington for answers.

Entering restricted waters is also an act of war. Turns out clearer heads prevailed and didn't let some minor mistake escalate more than it needed to.

No it isn't. If you are going to make a post with a declarative statement atleast look into it.

Unless you think we have had a million Cuban American Wars.

Okay, I did; I was correct

Refugees/Asylum seekers are not the same as military personal on a military vessel

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
You Libs realize capturing foreign soldiers is an act of war. By international law they should have escorted/towed them to international waters and radio Washington for answers.
It is if we could prove that they were captured in international waters. And even then, are you really advocating going to war with Iran over this?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It is if we could prove that they were captured in international waters. And even then, are you really advocating going to war with Iran over this? What a nicely constructed Strawman.

I'd implement talks and I'd levy their money on an apology for using our sailors for their propaganda.

@Robtard

You do know we have a large Naval detachment in the area, and there is a difference between allied force (which we are as part of the Iran deal) and an invading fortress. Also per Geneva convention law, you can't make propaganda with prisoners of foreign nations.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
What a nicely constructed Strawman.

I'd implement talks and I'd levy their money on an apology for using our sailors for their propaganda.

Where can I vote for you?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
What a nicely constructed Strawman.

I'd implement talks and I'd levy their money on an apology for using our sailors for their propaganda.
Not really a strawman as I was asking if you wanted us to go to war, not saying you did.

For what though? Just to feel good about ourselves? It's not as if Iran made a big deal about this, so what you're suggesting just sounds insecure. If anything that's exactly the reaction the Revolutionary Guard wanted from the United States.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not a strawman if I'm asking you to state your position. Don't be so defensive.

For what though? Just to feel good about ourselves? It's not as if Iran made a big deal about this, so what you're suggesting just sounds insecure. If anything that's exactly the reaction the Revolutionary Guard wanted from the United States. You made an assertion on my position. Thus a strawman.

You punish people for breaking international law, you know what law means? They illegally captured Americans for use in propaganda pieces.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
You do know we have a large Naval detachment in the area, and there is a difference between allied force (which we are as part of the Iran deal) and an invading fortress. No, there isn't. Britain is one of our greatest allies - that doesn't mean that we have the right to unilaterally fly a B-52 over London with no consequences.

A sovereign nation has the right to confront any foreign entities that enter its territory. You can try to dance around this as much as you want, but facts are facts.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
You made an assertion on my position. Thus a strawman.

You punish people for breaking international law, you know what law means? They illegally captured Americans for use in propaganda pieces.

I believe entering a sovereign nations waters with military ships is against international law, no?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No, there isn't. Britain is one of our greatest allies - that doesn't mean that we have the right to unilaterally fly a B-52 over London with no consequences.

A sovereign nation has the right to confront any foreign entities that enter its territory. You can try to dance around this as much as you want, but facts are facts. The ship drifted into their waters. You are an idiot to compare that to flying a bomber over a city. Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe entering a sovereign nations waters with military ships is against international law, no? not a boat that isn't working.

Jesus Christ I literally explained the SOP for this exact situation in this thread.

Yes, Iran determined that it was done by mistake and released the sailors. Are you suggesting they should give everyone that enters their water the benefit of the doubt and let them carry on?

:face palm and beer opened:

Iran escorts them out of their waters and can even monitor them. If the Americans resisted they could of course fight them. Neither side has even hinted the Americans fought back.

I'm sure you'd be similarly inclined if an Iranian boat was in US waters...

Originally posted by Henry_Pym


@Robtard

You do know we have a large Naval detachment in the area, and there is a difference between allied force (which we are as part of the Iran deal) and an invading fortress. Also per Geneva convention law, you can't make propaganda with prisoners of foreign nations.

Was going to reply directly but I see my students have covered it and it would just be redundant

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm sure you'd be similarly inclined if an Iranian boat was in US waters... if Iran had a standing Navy with ships off the gulf I honestly wouldn't care. Nice strawman though.

lol, I'm sure you wouldn't, and I believe you cause you have "integrity".

Ok straw man again, you're just making yourself look foolish.

That wasn't a strawman either, B42 was calling you a liar

What happened to "my students got this?"

No faith in them. It's a strawman to assume because I'm not a pushover like you two I'm a crazed warmonger

Can we please stop stretching the definition of 'straw man' beyond reason (horribly abused term as it already is anyway) and keep to the point of the topic please.

What term do you prefer?

I'd rather you didn't waste time with that sort of remark at all. If you don't want to respond to Bardock's argument, don't post.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
What happened to "my students got this?"

No faith in them. It's a strawman to assume because I'm not a pushover like you two I'm a crazed warmonger

They got it on the last page; you were incorrect, really that simple. Iran has every right to respond to a boat entering its waters. Luckily clear heads prevailed, Iran saw it wasn't an intentional entry into their oceanic borders and quickly released the sailors unharmed.

It was a good day for both Iran and the US; that's how it should be seen.

He's attacking a stance, and claiming it's mine. That is 100% the definition of a strawman.

I'm just defending my stance that Iran broke international laws and should face some sanctions. I've been personally attacked by 3 separate posters and now you are telling me to leave it alone.

Bardock is doing nothing but attacking your position that the Iranians need to be held to higher account than they have. If multiple people seem to find his angle of attack credible, then you should perhaps consider your own credibility. Regardless, throwing around 'straw man' comments is never conductive to a debate and a post like "Ok straw man again, you're just making yourself look foolish." is actively useless. Like I say, if you feel like that, don't post.

Originally posted by Robtard
They got it on the last page; you were incorrect, really that simple. Iran has every right to respond to a boat entering its waters. Luckily clear heads prevailed, Iran saw it wasn't an intentional entry into their oceanic borders and quickly released the sailors unharmed.

It was a good day for both Iran and the US; that's how it should be seen. so if the police pulled you out of your car, and took pictures of you at gun point with your hands on your head and then made you apologize for driving over the speed limit; that's fine?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Bardock is doing nothing but attacking your position that the Iranians need to be held to higher account than they have. If multiple people seem to find his angle of attack credible, then you should perhaps consider your own credibility. Regardless, throwing around 'straw man' comments is never conductive to a debate and a post like "Ok straw man again, you're just making yourself look foolish." is actively useless. Like I say, if you feel like that, don't post. no he isn't. He claimed I'd find issue if roles were reversed.

My credibility is formed on the basis of international law, He is arguing from a stance of pseudo morality.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so if the police pulled you out of your car, and took pictures of you at gun point with your hands on your head and then made you apologize for driving over the speed limit; that's fine?

You're comparing US civil law with international foreign laws; that's silly.

The Iranians have a right to respond to a perceive threat, just like any other country. If taking pictures was the worst those sailors suffered while being held for about a day, I considering it a US win.

Originally posted by Robtard
Was going to reply directly but I see my students have covered it and it would just be redundant

What subject do you teach?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The ship drifted into their waters. You are an idiot to compare that to flying a bomber over a city. not a boat that isn't working. If you're too dumb to understand what an example is then you're beyond help.

Anyway, you admit that the boats went into Iranian waters. So unless you can find some statute that states that a nation doesn't have the right to detain foreign entities that enter their territory, why not just do the intelligent thing and concede that Iran had every right to detain the boats and personnel?

You are CLAIMING that basis and you are not believed. Bardock was simply attacking your credibility as part of attacking your position. You're mistaken if you think it is strawmanning. Regardless- like I told you, I don't want to see posts about meta-arguing. Engage or do not. If you don't think Bardock is being reasonable in the argument, ignore him.

That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you're too dumb to understand what an example is then you're beyond help.

Anyway, you admit that the boats went into Iranian waters. So unless you can find some statute that states that a nation doesn't have the right to detain foreign entities that enter their territory, why not just do the intelligent thing and concede that Iran had every right to detain the boats and personnel?

Are we sure they went in Iranian waters. From what I read, the Iranians jacked the GPS equipment from the boat, that would have told the true unbiased story.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you're too dumb to understand what an example is then you're beyond help.

Anyway, you admit that the boats went into Iranian waters. So unless you can find some statute that states that a nation doesn't have the right to detain foreign entities that enter their territory, why not just do the intelligent thing and concede that Iran had every right to detain the boats and personnel? no you made an exaggerated comparison... Ok, not the same thing unless you view a derelict ship and an active bomber as the same threat level.

Here is the link. I heard this on Fox yesterday as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-holds-us-navy-boats-crew.html?_r=0

They stole the GPS equipment, so they are going to hide the truth.

"The semiofficial Fars news agency in Iran said that the boats had illegally traveled more than a mile into Iranian waters near Farsi Island, the site of a major Iranian naval base. It said that members of the Revolutionary Guards Navy had confiscated GPS equipment, which would “prove that the American ships were ‘trespassing’ around in Iranian waters.”

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are CLAIMING that basis and you are not believed. Bardock was simply attacking your credibility as part of attacking your position. You're mistaken if you think it is strawmanning. Regardless- like I told you, I don't want to see posts about meta-arguing. Engage or do not. If you don't think Bardock is being reasonable in the argument, ignore him.

That's all there is to it. so you are advocating personal attacks?

http://www.thetower.org/2818-former-pow-john-mccain-irans-treatment-of-detained-sailors-violated-international-law/

There is John McCain explaining the violations.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
no you made an exaggerated comparison... Ok, not the same thing unless you view a derelict ship and an active bomber as the same threat level. They are the same thing for the purposes of the law- which is what you were attempting to cite in your point, and which I was disputing.

I think you need to re-think your attitude a little if you think that was a personal attack of any significance. It was a prosecutorial stance but it amounts to him saying he doesn't believe you- and that's fine.

I think you'll find using McCain as an authority won't convince anyone either.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Here is the link. I heard this on Fox yesterday as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-holds-us-navy-boats-crew.html?_r=0

They stole the GPS equipment, so they are going to hide the truth.

"The semiofficial Fars news agency in Iran said that the boats had illegally traveled more than a mile into Iranian waters near Farsi Island, the site of a major Iranian naval base. It said that members of the Revolutionary Guards Navy had confiscated GPS equipment, which would “prove that the American ships were ‘trespassing’ around in Iranian waters.”

Are people just going to ignore this? It can't be proven either way now..

They took the GPS..

Maybe they were lost and just needed to borrow some GPS equipment and then just forgot to give it back. These things happen.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you need to re-think your attitude a little if you think that was a personal attack of any significance. It was a prosecutorial stance but it amounts to him saying he doesn't believe you- and that's fine.

I think you'll find using McCain as an authority won't convince anyone either. lol ok, I'll just assume I can't change anyone's mind and we will just have a debate thread in name only.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol ok, I'll just assume I can't change anyone's mind and we will just have a debate thread in name only.


Now that's a misrepresentation of what Ushgarak said.

Someone not believing you does not mean no-one's mind can be changed. It means that statements need credibility to be convincing.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol ok, I'll just assume I can't change anyone's mind and we will just have a debate thread in name only.
Well you won't change anyone's mind by automatically crying "strawman" in every post.

Let me guess, that's a strawman too, isn't it?

Originally posted by Q99
Now that's a misrepresentation of what Ushgarak said.

Someone not believing you does not mean no-one's mind can be changed. It means that statements need credibility to be convincing. keyboard warriors thinking they hold more credibility than area experts is all I need to know.

Also don't take it off topic. Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well you won't change anyone's mind by automatically crying "strawman" in every post.

Let me guess, that's a strawman too, isn't it? no it's off topic bitching from a beta male

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Also don't take it off topic. no it's off topic bitching from a beta male
Beta uprising when?

Im confused how or why people here are taking the Iranian side, and not the sailors captured and put on their knees at gunpoint.

Because they are rabid anti-American which honestly is a legit stance but kinda an off topic stance; ie, we shouldn't be there.

How McCarthy-esque of you.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
keyboard warriors thinking they hold more credibility than area experts is all I need to know.

Also don't take it off topic. no it's off topic bitching from a beta male
Lol "Alpha male-beta male" talk. Are you fourteen years old?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im confused how or why people here are taking the Iranian side, and not the sailors captured and put on their knees at gunpoint.

It's not taking the side of Iran, it's simply not holding double-standards. If an Iranian military boat with Iranian military personal came into US waters, the US would have detained said personal until the situation had been clarified and rightfully so.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are people just going to ignore this? It can't be proven either way now..

They took the GPS..

Are the sailors claiming they were in international waters?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you'll find using McCain as an authority won't convince anyone either.

What does this even mean? Are you saying he is wrong about this possibly being in violation of international law?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not taking the side of Iran, it's simply not holding double-standards. If an Iranian military boat with Iranian military personal came into US waters, the US would have detained said personal until the situation had been clarified and rightfully so.

Bullshit. And Iran would never be over here.

This is just another example of you being anti American and anti military.

The only reason they returned our men was because Obama the idiot is about to give them 100 billion dollars.

No one here has any proof they were in Iranian waters.

Infact them stealing the gps equipment almost proves the Iranians are liars.

When trump gets in office this deal will be revoked and if not revoked.

Enforced..

Originally posted by Surtur
What does this even mean? Are you saying he is wrong about this possibly being in violation of international law?

I am saying no-one is really giving credence to the poster's claims. It wasn't complex. Feel free to try to make a more convincing argument yourself.

I'm not trying to make any kind of argument..I was just asking if you were saying McCain was right or wrong in his assertions. Since I have no clue about international law.

They stole all the gps equipment.

Yet this is overlooked like erroneous evidence.

Really, like really.

Have people lost it for this Rouge Terrorist Nation?

That's the thing with international law- it;s mostly convention.

For example, it is convention to escort intruding aeroplanes outside of your airspace (and leave them be entirely if the infraction is too short to react to). But Turkey was within its rights- assuming they were telling the truth, which is a whole other argument- to use lethal force for such a transgression. No-one was happy with it, but they had the right.

And the US backed that use of force- albeit reluctantly- and that puts them in a poor position for criticising Iran for something far more mild. Technically speaking, Iran could have filled those sailors full of bullets. That might have caused a conflict, but it's still something they technically had the right to do.

You don't mess around with the borders of nations. If you do, you expect consequences.

All these people going on about the Geneva Convention would be more convincing if they paid attention to what they were reading- the GC is for nations at war.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bullshit. And Iran would never be over here.

This is just another example of you being anti American and anti military.

The only reason they returned our men was because Obama the idiot is about to give them 100 billion dollars.

No one here has any proof they were in Iranian waters.

Infact them stealing the gps equipment almost proves the Iranians are liars.

When trump gets in office this deal will be revoked and if not revoked.

Enforced..

It's not bullshit, the US would react to a foreign military ship it thought entered US waters.

Stop with the nonsense accusations, I'm neither and it makes you look foolish making such claims.

Obama isn't "giving" Iran money, you're phrasing it like Chris Christie, it's a silly deception.

So what should have Obama done then concerning this situation, since our sailors being returned swiftly and without serious incident is apparently not good? What outcome would have been acceptable to you? <--- do hope you answer this

Imo this is the first example of a embolden Iran.

They know Obama is weak and won't do anything.

They swindled the US out of 150 billion dollars and now will have nukes in 10.2 years.

Obama already admitted the break out time was months.

Their only goal is to spread and fund terror.

Funny though, they can't even take out Isis.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not bullshit, the US would react to a foreign military ship it thought entered US waters.

Stop with the nonsense accusations, I'm neither and it makes you look foolish making such claims.

Obama isn't "giving" Iran money, you're phrasing it like Chris Christie, it's a silly deception.

So what should have Obama done then concerning this situation, since our sailors being returned swiftly and without serious incident is apparently not good? What outcome would have been acceptable to you? <--- do hope you answer this

And what proof do you have we would put them on their knees with their hands up, at gunpoint. Steal equipment and make the sailors apologize on camera?

I guess none, since I didn't claim that. I said the US would react to a military Iranian boat entering US waters. I can imagine the US military would approach an unknown and possibly dangerous situation with weapons ready, they're not stupid.

Care to answer my question now? What should have Obama done in this situation; what outcome would have been acceptable to you?

How about acknowledged it even happened.

The Obama administration has acknowledged it, they're the ones that told us it happened and that a peaceful solution was quickly agreed upon.

Complaining that the Obama administration hasn't done anything concerning the hostages Iran is holding and then chastising it again for quickly diffusing another situation which could have lead to more hostages. You people are silly.

You are silly

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are silly


You're the one who's stance is the Obama administration should acknowledge an event that the Obama administration acknowledged.




They had no problem taking hostages under Reagan, but don't take hostages vs Obama. Odd conclusion.



We've paid them zero dollars over the recent deal (the money in question was in Iranian accounts that the international community froze, and then with the deal, unfroze. It was never ours nor in our hands), and they could've gotten nukes in under half a year from the point they started before.

So, the first half of your statement is wrong, the second half is an improvement over what the situation was before. Heck, all that's saying is in case they try something, there's *three* presidential terms to act against it. Sounds pretty good.

Obama has a way of making executive orders like the one on guns and prequel it with "well this isn't going to do anything."

Obama has a long history or pre scuttling his deals.

This is no different.

Iran will never change. You should wise up and quit apologizing for them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama has a way of making executive orders like the one on guns and prequel it with "well this isn't going to do anything."

Obama has a long history or pre scuttling his deals.

This is no different.

Iran will never change. You should wise up and quit apologizing for them.

What does this have to do with anything that was said (ignoring how wrong it is in the first place)?

You're all over the place, never able to actually answer the question posed. Misdirection after misdirection. Incoherent statements that mean nothing and are unrelated to the subject at hand.

You don't debate, you don't argue, you just plug fingers into your ears and shout nonsense.

Im trying to have a conversation. What are you asking directly cause you or Q99 didn't ask me anything.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35333656

Looks like we're getting our prisoners back in a prisoner swap.

Awesome, awesome awesome.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35333656

Looks like we're getting our prisoners back in a prisoner swap.

We are getting back 4 innocent people and giving them 7-8 actual criminals.

Intersting swap.

These people should never have been imprisioned.

And there is still Robert Levisnon who is not being released.

On top of it, Iran had no right to detain these people.

Freedom of the press is something Iran refuses to accept.

We should not have to swap prisoners. Our citizens were taken illegally. They should have been released without condition..

Also there are still 14 others that need to be freed.

Interesting people thing this is another "good deal" by Obama.

Regarding the ship thingy, are the sailors claiming that they got captured on international waters?

The prisioner exchange is a different situation tha the one on the OP, I was actually lost there for a while (I obviously blame OV ahah).

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We are getting back 4 innocent people and giving them 7-8 actual criminals.

Intersting swap.

These people should never have been imprisioned.

And there is still Robert Levisnon who is not being released.
Ehh, it isn't that bad. Remember when Israel gave up 1000 Palestinian prisoners for one kind of useless Israeli soldier?

Also Robert Levinson might have actually been spying on Iran, unlike the others. Even if he wasn't Iran actually believes he was, whereas with the others they're basically just poker chips that Iran knows weren't doing anything wrong.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
On top of it, Iran had no right to detain these people.

Freedom of the press is something Iran refuses to accept.

We should not have to swap prisoners. Our citizens were taken illegally. They should have been released without condition..
I agree, but sometimes you have to deal with political realities, not principles.

You don't seem to understand that diplomacy is give and take, not "do what we say because we're America"

It kind of is or you get crushed economically, just ask Cuba or North Korea.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35333656

Looks like we're getting our prisoners back in a prisoner swap.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
It kind of is or you get crushed economically, just ask Cuba or North Korea.

Who still don't give a shit about what we want.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
It kind of is or you get crushed economically, just ask Cuba or North Korea.
I don't think the Cuban Embargo is an example of a successful US policy. In fact it's probably one of the best examples of the limits of American power, that with all our wealth and strength we can't really completely dominate a small island nation less than a hundred miles from our shores simply because of its government's tenacity.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We are getting back 4 innocent people and giving them 7-8 actual criminals.

Intersting swap.

Note how it also comes after them releasing a crew of sailors for no charge. That's the benefits of thawing relations.


I like how we made a deal for 4, and then they kicked in 5, to boot.

Remember, 30 years, the method to deal with Iranian hostages was to sell them weapons. Which.... I think I like this way better.






Heck, it didn't prevent them from outperforming our healthcare in some respects.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think the Cuban Embargo is an example of a successful US policy. In fact it's probably one of the best examples of the limits of American power, that with all our wealth and strength we can't really completely dominate a small island nation less than a hundred miles from our shores simply because of its government's tenacity. they are driving Cars from the 50's... I wouldn't consider them thriving.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
they are driving Cars from the 50's... I wouldn't consider them thriving.

They're out of date and fairly poor, but stable, not-suffering, with a solid infrastructure.


There's a heck of a lot worse countries to live in out there.

Unstable dictatorships don't really exist, atleast not very long.

Originally posted by Bentley
Regarding the ship thingy, are the sailors claiming that they got captured on international waters?

Bumping this in case someone knows.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Unstable dictatorships don't really exist, atleast not very long.

Stable dictatorships have external enemies. US personified that in Cuba, it gave them the perfect excuse to thrive for decades.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
they are driving Cars from the 50's... I wouldn't consider them thriving.
Did I say they were thriving? No. But they don't give a shit what we think, so clearly the embargo failed to accomplish its goals.

To be honest I always liked cars from the 50's. Maybe that is why some people want to visit Cuba, it's like going back in time.

So the Title of this thread should be changed, this was "Iranian hostage Situation", in which Obama negotiated with terrorists and paid a ransom.

Obama is so weak on Iran, instead of using foreign policy, the weak Iran deal, he paid $1.7 billion dollars to Iran. He broke the US policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Instead of letting "peace" prevail like many claimed here, looks like it was all money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/republicans-calling-for-inquiry-into-whether-obama-paid-ransom-to-free-american-prisoners/2016/01/22/ce45a1e6-a806-4134-9327-88657731e6c5_story.html

Iran is a country, not terrorists.

They are the largest state sponser of terrorism and in my opinion terrorists as well. Nice attempt though to ignore the story.

I'm not ignoring the story. I'm willing to wait for more details before I rush to any conclusions.