CDZ Iran's Prisoner Release/Swap: What Was the Real Deal?

[ogibillm]

The sailors were arrested, so technically they were prisoners. But not for long. Just as the actual 5 hostages were released. Iran made the better deal as usual. They got 7 of the Iranian prisoners we were holding. 5 against 7, and add to that, 14 Iranians responsible for the bombing of a Jewish Community center in Argentina that killed 85, off the wanted list, Interpol's red list.

As usual, we got the least from them for they got 21 to return to Iran and we got 6. Or was it 5?

What made Iran make the deal at all? $150 B was going to be released by the US to them. They didn't want to jeopardize that! Great job, Obama! Not.

you're somehow under the impression that all frozen assets that are being released were under the control of the united states.

of course, you're also under the impression that iran was holding hostages. you need to correct these erroneous impressions.

They were hostages.

That's right wing propaganda based on emotional appeal, not fact.

nobody called them hostages until after the announcement of the nuclear agreement

 

[jwoodie]

As far as I am concerned, a hostage is someone who is temporarily held against his will for the purpose of obtaining some benefit from a third party, whether it be a ransom payment, propaganda value or even an apology. Thus, the U.S. sailors were clearly taken as hostages; the motives behind the detention of the individuals involved in the "prisoner swap" are less clear.
Given this Administration's record of duplicity, how will we ever know?

 

[320 Years of History]

As far as I am concerned, a hostage is someone who is temporarily held against his will for the purpose of obtaining some benefit from a third party, whether it be a ransom payment, propaganda value or even an apology. Thus, the U.S. sailors were clearly taken as hostages; the motives behind the detention of the individuals involved in the "prisoner swap" are less clear.
Given this Administration's record of duplicity, how will we ever know?

That definition makes nearly every person apprehended as a suspect in a crime a hostage.

 

[dani67]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

 

[eagle1462010]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

 

[dani67]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

 

[eagle1462010]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

 

[dani67]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

 

[Moonglow]

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

True, since we may never really know all the facts, what follows is mere speculation and opinion...

 

[eagle1462010]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

what put on ICBM hit Israel. what uses ICBM

 

[Moonglow]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

Maybe Iran is not such a bad-ass as they think, and their chest puffed beating behavior is to hide the fact that they don't use deodorant??

 

[Moonglow]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

what put on ICBM hit Israel. what uses ICBM

Offer them bangles and beads...

 

[eagle1462010]

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

what put on ICBM hit Israel. what uses ICBM

Offer them bangles and beads...

Oh. Iran offer Madri gras beads as Peace offering with ICBM.

put Moon pie too.

 

[dani67]

iranian crime=selling electronic ...... to iran.

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

what put on ICBM hit Israel. what uses ICBM

other thing.
you can put other fuel on icbm .
you think iran did test icbm with ?

 

[eagle1462010]

Under sanctions that is a crime, especially when the electronics are used for military hardware, like ICBM tech including GPS guidance systems................

Just saying..........Now your Gov't, If you really live there, can get all they want to improve those techs.

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

iran balistic missle havnt
nuclear warhead

Then why IRAN buildt it.

why not.it can be usefull without nuclear
maybe its not good for sout america.but its good for middle east like israel.

what put on ICBM hit Israel. what uses ICBM

other thing.
you can put other fuel on icbm .
you think iran did test icbm with ?

You tell me.......It's your country that is trying to get it.

 

[jwoodie]

Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

The silence of the Obama apologists (except for poor Dani) is deafening...

 

[320 Years of History]

......

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

The silence of the Obama apologists (except for poor Dani) is deafening...

Red:
I realize that nuclear warheads are what have historically been installed in ICBM, but the fact is that anything, including conventional weapons, can be mounted in them; they are, after all, just vehicles, means of transportation, for a given payload or "passenger." When we sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, we did so basically by sitting them on top of an ICBM. Additionally, placing a satellite into Earth orbit for all intents and purposes calls for launching an ICBM, the main difference being the destination/trajectory and velocity needed. For example, American Titan and Minuteman ICBMs, and Russian SS-9 Cyclone ICBMs, have been converted into space rockets.

If a nation isn't able to purchase an ICBM for launching satellites, one option is for them to build, test and deploy their own.

Blue:
I'm not willing to aver to being an "Obama apologist," but I can posit several reasons why those who are have refrained from responding:

• they don't know that satellite launch vehicles and ICBMs are substantively the same things
• they were unwilling to answer a question that eagle1462010 should have been able to answer for him-/herself merely by Goggling for the answer
• they haven't seen the question
• they've in the past determined they don't find the inquirer's remarks or questions intellectually meritorious and thus don't bother reading his/her posts (I know stupidity, puerility, and intransigence in the face reason are the three main reasons I put folks on "ignore." My now grown kids haven't had kids yet, so I won't put up with Internet personages who act, think or write like kids. Maybe when I become a grandfather I will again be willing to tolerate that sort of thing.)

eagle1462010's question strikes me as a relatively straightforward one that is best answered objectively and without regard to one's political ideology. In light of that, I think it equally telling in a "deafening" way, that none of the non-Obama apologists have hitherto answered the question either. I can only wonder if the one's here and participating in this thread's discussion are just too damn stupid/ignorant to have realized that there might actually be an objective and perfectly reasonable answer to eagle1462010's question, and not knowing what it might be, bothered to look for that answer?

 

[eagle1462010]

......

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

The silence of the Obama apologists (except for poor Dani) is deafening...

Red:
I realize that nuclear warheads are what have historically been installed in ICBM, but the fact is that anything, including conventional weapons, can be mounted in them; they are, after all, just vehicles, means of transportation, for a given payload or "passenger." When we sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, we did so basically by sitting them on top of an ICBM. Additionally, placing a satellite into Earth orbit for all intents and purposes calls for launching an ICBM, the main difference being the destination/trajectory and velocity needed. For example, American Titan and Minuteman ICBMs, and Russian SS-9 Cyclone ICBMs, have been converted into space rockets.

If a nation isn't able to purchase an ICBM for launching satellites, one option is for them to build, test and deploy their own.

Blue:
I'm not willing to aver to being an "Obama apologist," but I can posit several reasons why those who are have refrained from responding:

• they don't know that satellite launch vehicles and ICBMs are substantively the same things
• they were unwilling to answer a question that eagle1462010 should have been able to answer for him-/herself merely by Goggling for the answer
• they haven't seen the question
• they've in the past determined they don't find the inquirer's remarks or questions intellectually meritorious and thus don't bother reading his/her posts (I know stupidity, puerility, and intransigence in the face reason are the three main reasons I put folks on "ignore." My now grown kids haven't had kids yet, so I won't put up with Internet personages who act, think or write like kids. Maybe when I become a grandfather I will again be willing to tolerate that sort of thing.)

The question strikes me as a relatively straightforward one that is best answered objectively and without regard to one's political ideology. In light of that, I think it equally telling in a "deafening" way, that none of the non-Obama apologists have hitherto answered the question either. I can only wonder if the one's here and participating in this thread's discussion are just too damn stupid/ignorant to have realized that there might actually be an objective and perfectly reasonable answer to eagle1462010's question, and not knowing what it might be, bothered to look for that answer?

BALONEY.

Everyone with any common sense knows why. Nice try at a different angle of deflection.

 

[320 Years of History]

......

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

The silence of the Obama apologists (except for poor Dani) is deafening...

Red:
I realize that nuclear warheads are what have historically been installed in ICBM, but the fact is that anything, including conventional weapons, can be mounted in them; they are, after all, just vehicles, means of transportation, for a given payload or "passenger." When we sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, we did so basically by sitting them on top of an ICBM. Additionally, placing a satellite into Earth orbit for all intents and purposes calls for launching an ICBM, the main difference being the destination/trajectory and velocity needed. For example, American Titan and Minuteman ICBMs, and Russian SS-9 Cyclone ICBMs, have been converted into space rockets.

If a nation isn't able to purchase an ICBM for launching satellites, one option is for them to build, test and deploy their own.

Blue:
I'm not willing to aver to being an "Obama apologist," but I can posit several reasons why those who are have refrained from responding:

• they don't know that satellite launch vehicles and ICBMs are substantively the same things
• they were unwilling to answer a question that eagle1462010 should have been able to answer for him-/herself merely by Goggling for the answer
• they haven't seen the question
• they've in the past determined they don't find the inquirer's remarks or questions intellectually meritorious and thus don't bother reading his/her posts (I know stupidity, puerility, and intransigence in the face reason are the three main reasons I put folks on "ignore." My now grown kids haven't had kids yet, so I won't put up with Internet personages who act, think or write like kids. Maybe when I become a grandfather I will again be willing to tolerate that sort of thing.)

The question strikes me as a relatively straightforward one that is best answered objectively and without regard to one's political ideology. In light of that, I think it equally telling in a "deafening" way, that none of the non-Obama apologists have hitherto answered the question either. I can only wonder if the one's here and participating in this thread's discussion are just too damn stupid/ignorant to have realized that there might actually be an objective and perfectly reasonable answer to eagle1462010's question, and not knowing what it might be, bothered to look for that answer?

BALONEY.

Everyone with any common sense knows why. Nice try at a different angle of deflection.

That's not any sort of deflection. That is what one would need to test an ICBM for if launching a military warhead of some sort -- conventional or otherwise -- isn't the purpose.

Now I suspect the fourth idea I posed may well be why no "Obama apologists" have answered you. I had posed that idea as something of a smug joke, not suspecting that it might actually be true.

You asked a question, got a perfectly valid, direct, and objective answer, one that I supported with factual evidence, from NASA no less, and you, in reply, respond as though the reason I stated doesn't exist.

 

[eagle1462010]

......

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

The silence of the Obama apologists (except for poor Dani) is deafening...

Red:
I realize that nuclear warheads are what have historically been installed in ICBM, but the fact is that anything, including conventional weapons, can be mounted in them; they are, after all, just vehicles, means of transportation, for a given payload or "passenger." When we sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, we did so basically by sitting them on top of an ICBM. Additionally, placing a satellite into Earth orbit for all intents and purposes calls for launching an ICBM, the main difference being the destination/trajectory and velocity needed. For example, American Titan and Minuteman ICBMs, and Russian SS-9 Cyclone ICBMs, have been converted into space rockets.

If a nation isn't able to purchase an ICBM for launching satellites, one option is for them to build, test and deploy their own.

Blue:
I'm not willing to aver to being an "Obama apologist," but I can posit several reasons why those who are have refrained from responding:

• they don't know that satellite launch vehicles and ICBMs are substantively the same things
• they were unwilling to answer a question that eagle1462010 should have been able to answer for him-/herself merely by Goggling for the answer
• they haven't seen the question
• they've in the past determined they don't find the inquirer's remarks or questions intellectually meritorious and thus don't bother reading his/her posts (I know stupidity, puerility, and intransigence in the face reason are the three main reasons I put folks on "ignore." My now grown kids haven't had kids yet, so I won't put up with Internet personages who act, think or write like kids. Maybe when I become a grandfather I will again be willing to tolerate that sort of thing.)

The question strikes me as a relatively straightforward one that is best answered objectively and without regard to one's political ideology. In light of that, I think it equally telling in a "deafening" way, that none of the non-Obama apologists have hitherto answered the question either. I can only wonder if the one's here and participating in this thread's discussion are just too damn stupid/ignorant to have realized that there might actually be an objective and perfectly reasonable answer to eagle1462010's question, and not knowing what it might be, bothered to look for that answer?

BALONEY.

Everyone with any common sense knows why. Nice try at a different angle of deflection.

That's not any sort of deflection. That is what one would need to test an ICBM for if launching a military warhead of some sort -- conventional or otherwise -- isn't the purpose.

Now I suspect the fourth idea I posed may well be why no "Obama apologists" have answered you. I had posed that idea as something of a smug joke, not suspecting that

You asked a question, got a perfectly valid and objective answer, one that I supported with factual evidence, from NASA no less, and you, in reply, respond as though the reason I stated doesn't exist.

My apologies then.