Obama - Iran Cash

[Gilligan]

I guess you can choose to believe a story found no where besides conspiracy theory websites if you want.

Is this hard for you? To have a legitimate conversation based on facts? Why else make things up....like....all the time? Seriously, what do you gain from making outlandish claims like that?

. I'm not the one sympathetic to a rogue regime of rabid dogs. That would be you and your pal Barry.

 

[Hijinx]

It does in the progbot mind.

They are all so ####ing virtuous, don'cha know!

Lynch-Kerry for some reason that sounds reasonable to me. He should be lynched.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Um, that would mean Lynch and Kerry, right? That doesn't really bolster the case you're making.

$400M was. The rest was negotiated interest.

I'm not making a case. I'm stating facts. I don't know that's so frowned upon here.

I understand the interest (and it wasn't negotiated) and even stated how weird the methods they were using were.

. I'm not the one sympathetic to a rogue regime of rabid dogs. That would be you and your pal Barry.

Neither am I, which brings me back to the question...

 

[Gilligan]

Neither am I, ..

Good one.

 

[This_person]

I'm not making a case. I'm stating facts. I don't know that's so frowned upon here.

I was not challenging your facts. I was merely putting them in context. You know I go for facts long before innuendo and interpretation, so don't play that with me.

I understand the interest (and it wasn't negotiated) and even stated how weird the methods they were using were.

Here's what your linked 3/17/16 document says: "Pursuant to this settlement, Iran received the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund as well as roughly $1.3 billion representing a compromise on the interest."

Now, when I read "representing a compromise", I read "as negotiated." That may be interpretation, but I'll stand on it as a fact, because I see no way to compromise without negotiation.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I was not challenging your facts. I was merely putting them in context. You know I go for facts long before innuendo and interpretation, so don't play that with me.

Here's what your linked 3/17/16 document says: "Pursuant to this settlement, Iran received the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund as well as roughly $1.3 billion representing a compromise on the interest."

Now, when I read "representing a compromise", I read "as negotiated." That may be interpretation, but I'll stand on it as a fact, because I see no way to compromise without negotiation.

It's compromise because the Hague tribunal's was likely going to be larger. This was explained in the subsequent paragraph after "representing a compromise".

 

[This_person]

It's compromise because the Hague tribunal's was likely going to be larger. This was explained in the subsequent paragraph after "representing a compromise".

"Of course, given the nature of litigation risk it is not possible to give a precise figure because we can never know how the Tribunal would have decided the matter. But we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer."

Again, this is Kerry's State Department saying Kerry's State Department did a good job. We can take that for what it is worth, knowing what we know about the Obama Administration's ability to self-evaluate.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

"Of course, given the nature of litigation risk it is not possible to give a precise figure because we can never know how the Tribunal would have decided the matter. But we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer."

Again, this is Kerry's State Department saying Kerry's State Department did a good job. We can take that for what it is worth, knowing what we know about the Obama Administration's ability to self-evaluate.

Yes, no one knows what the Hague Tribunal would have ruled on in terms of interest payments, however, based on another cases, the $1.3 billion the US sent is comparable to previous cases (in terms of interest rates/calculations).

The Congressional Research Service revealed that the Tribunal has never awarded compound interest similar to what Iran was seeking, but has implemented a ten percent interest rate to prevent compensation disproportionate to the loss. Under this calculation, the U.S. would have owed Iran around $1.8 billion, a mere
$100 million more than the $1.7 billion settlement amount.

https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=arbitrationlawreview

The Tribunal finds that the Claimants are entitled to interest on the amounts of compensation at a reasonable annual rate (ie simple interest) of 8.5 per cent as from the date of nationalization, 25 June 1979 (4 Iran-U.S. C.T.R 110). Mosk, concurring, favoured a higher rate of interest “based on prevailing interest rates” and was of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded in Dames & Moore should also have been awarded in this case. (4 Iran-U.S. C.T.R 120).

https://www.biicl.org/files/3089_aig_synopsis.doc

After 37 years, that would be $1.28 billion, give or take.

Lack of self-critique is certainly not limited to Obama's term, but I'm not basing my stance on that.

EDIT: I stated earlier that "the Hague tribunal's was likely going to be larger", but I should have added "Officials believed..." prior to that.

 

[Hijinx]

Up the Hague's ass. What makes those self appointed a-holes in charge of the world.?

A couple of treaties since before time began.

They vastly overstep their bounds IMO.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Up the Hague's ass. What makes those self appointed a-holes in charge of the world.?

They aren't in charge of the world. They are a specific tribunal established by both Iran and the United States in accordance with the Algiers Declarations and have waded through almost 4,000 cases. 3 members are appointed by the US, 3 by Iran, and 3 appointed by the 6 other members.

Feel free to read more about it if you choose.
http://www.iusct.net/Default.aspx