hillery can't stop - Page 22

@Noitsyou. You asked me, what did I want you to say? 

And then you further explained your own reasons for an entrenched view to me, with complaints that I think, pertained more to other posters' comments than my own.

 

My point attempted to explain that the historical timeline makes each USA presidents actions and reactions to a similar dilemma not equal. I feel my point is either being ignored or disregarded because you then appear to claim to want some kind of board unity, first, to declare any disagreement with Obama must be because of a blind distaste for all Democrats or their platform.

 

All I can say, again, is no, that is not how I decide any of my views on current events. And since I don't try or have the power to control what others might post, whether they agree on anything I post or not, I only want you to reply specifically to me, if you decide to reply back to me, at all. FYI, if conversation doesn't make that personal turn, I usually enjoy a well thought out but differing POV. I sometimes learn new things that way. Really!  

 

If a point in time means that you can't judge similar actions equally you still have to judge the other action. You can't dismiss what Reagan did because it was a different time but specify why it was OK or not OK for him to do it. Take paying ransom money; was it OK back then but not OK now? Was it always wrong? Why is it wrong? These discussions are not as simple as some would make them. Maybe there are times when paying ransom is the right thing. I had the misfortune of watching a video of a beheading. I wouldn't have a problem with the government paying a billion dollars to spare someone that.


So in order to try and come to a well-informed opinion of what Obama did you have to take into account the present circumstances as well as the historical precedents. You have the general philosophical questions of paying ransom and the value of a life vs other considerations.

If Regan did pay ransom for release of hostages in 1981, it was before Iran was declared state sponsor of terrorism. If you don't know how that changes the dynamics of that hostage release, and what the current regime in the wh did, then look it up. I've already posted this information and posted links. Educate yourself.

STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM
Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are three countries designated under these authorities: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

If a scroll bar appears below the following table, swipe the table to move left/right of the dashed line.
Country Designation Date
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979

That is right, Regan paid the ransom before Iran was declared a sponsor of terrorism but they just overthrew the Shaw and kidnapped not just a couple people but a whole lot of people. SMH.

@noitsyou. Sophistry! Here we go again,.... as Ronny would say.:). "Reagan did it too argument" is fallacy. You just can not help your self and need to use this one all the time. Christians did it too. It is in old testament too ( like in Quaran) and so on. That is no excuse nor logical argument yet you use it all the time and then when I point it out you call me a liar and you call other liars and even racists. Remember it is not excuse for doing something wrong just because others have done it too. Logic 101. Quite trivial yet you never learn such simple rule.

For governments to pay ransom is stupid and wrong. Regardless who have done it.

noitsyou:"If a prisoner exchange became part of the deal so what? That isn't ransom. We were working out a nuclear deal. The money, Iran's money, was part of it. They wanted a lot more because of interest but didn't get it. Why don't people see a prisoner exchange as simply a sign of good faith? None of this was secret so why all of the conspiracy theories? Had we entered into a nuclear deal and returned their money but left out the hostages then the crybaby hypocrites would have something else to cry about. "

Prager: well except that Iranians said it was ransom and so did the hostages who were told by their captors that the plane will not leave until all the money is payed. That looks like ransom to me. It you do not want it to be ransom then you do not even start to negotiate until ALL hostages are released. That would be what you call "simply sign of good faith. But the way it was done it was "simply" RANSOM.
You and Obama is calling black white. Yet any idiot and whole world with them can see that the payment was ransom. Of course Obama thinks that people are truly stupid. Well Obamaoids obviously are.

@Prager, first off let me repeat that you are a liar. I know you like to think you are capable of thinking at a high level but you aren't. This is why you accuse others of sophistry when that's all you do.

I challenge you to find anywhere on this thread where I said Christians did this or that so it's OK for Muslims to do it too. You won't, because you can't, because you are a liar who makes things up in order to win an argument.

I never said Reagan did it so it's OK for Obama to do it.

This is just you betraying the simplistic nature of how you think.

What I did say, or ask, was why people like you give one guy a pass but when it comes to Obama or Hillery suddenly the same action or behavior, or even a worse one, is wrong or evil. This is why I say you are thinking on a lower level than I. You think I'm giving Obama a pass when it's people like you I'm not giving the pass to. But you won't answer this because it would require taking an honest look at yourself in order to understand your motives.

For example, you would say we shouldn't trust the Iranians yet you take their word for it when they say it was ransom. Why? Is it because it is the easy way out for you cognitively? It fits the narrative, the pattern, you base your existence on? This is why you don't care about the truth. There is no comfort in knowing the truth, since it doesn't exist to comfort us, whereas when it comes to belief you get the nice feeling of that dopamine rush.

You say governments shouldn't pay ransom. If your head was on the ISIS chopping block you wouldn't argue if the US paid a nickel to free you, would you? But how much would be too much? What monetary valued do you put on your life?

And if it's so wrong to pay ransom to free hostages and prisoners (if were to assume that is what happened) why do you only vilify Obama and not Reagan? Why the bias when it comes to a similar action (although Reagan's was worse)?

On more thing, I never heard of ransom that was paid in installments. Kidnappers give credit now?

@Joan, educate yourself, one reason behind Iran-Contra was to get American hostages released. This is not the same event as the hostages that were taken during Carter's administration.

The problem for you is to chew on the fact your boy Reagan sold weapons to Iran and used that money, American taxpayer money, to fund the Contras as well as allowed drug dealers to bring cocaine into America which was a big reason for the crack epidemic.

No, it's you. You are a baffoon.

'The problem for you is to chew on the fact your boy Reagan sold weapons to Iran and used that money, American taxpayer money, to fund the Contras as well as allowed drug dealers to bring cocaine into America which was a big reason for the crack epidemic.'

The problem for you, is you brought up Regan, trying to excuse the traitor in cheif 's treasonous actions.
I never voted for Regan, you little twit, because I was on the road, working so didn't vote. The more you post, the stupider you act. Go to your safe place and suck your thumb. Regan is dead, and hilery is a criminal, a cop hater, and anti-American. Only sympathisers would vote for and support her.... That makes you  anti-American. Now STFU. You're an embarrasment.

@Joan, you are clearly unstable and a very angry and miserable person. You are probably depressed. Little bitch? Really? So you think you can kick my ass or something? You are braver than I? You're what, a big bitch?

Anyway, I didn't excuse anyone, you did.

I'm anti-American? Sorry, but no. My family has been in this country from the beginning. I, as did others in my family, served in the military.

As far as me being a little bitch. You're wrong there too. If I were I wouldn't take into account that you are elderly and a woman, as well as mentally unstable, and beat you until you crapped your diaper just to show you I wasn't a little bitch.