Iran prisoner swap puts Republicans in a tough spot

The word "capitulation" has been tossed about in the media (by GOP members) ever since the agreement was reached. POTUS is da** if he does, and d*** if he doesn't !

Vowing to isolate Tehran may only isolate the U.S. from many of its allies.

No sense talking common sense to the Republican candidates at this point. They are too far down that road already. "Might is right" is all their base wants to hear.

"Iran prisoner swap puts Republicans in a tough spot."

Not with their base. In their eyes, President Obama will never, ever receive credit for anything positive and will always receive only blame for anything negative.

Finally I can say Obama has done something good. After caving on REAL healthcare reform, letting the banksters off the hook and prosecuting a record number of whistle blowers, more than double those under all previous presidents combined; to name a few.

The republicans are still trapped in the bush era thinking that lead to the disastrous Iraq invasion. They live in the fox news propaganda bubble where reality never is found. That is why they are consistently wrong about every major political issue such as health care, huge success, economic policy, huge success, not starting another stupid war, huge success, climate change, huge success and on an on. It seems unfair that they are wrong all the time but they do not seem to care or learn anything from their constantly being wrong. It is amazing. Like being a smoker and denying to themselves that they will get lung cancer eventually.

"Its missile program has violated existing U.N. prohibitions, it supports terrorist groups..."

What's up with that?

This is all so strange. For Japan, Iran and Cuba are just two countries. And they are both rather popular tourist destinations.

But others, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Cruz, have put tearing up the deal on their Day 1 to-do list. What would happen on Day 2 is unclear.

They have no plan past Day 1. It's like the 50+ votes to repeal Obamacare with 0 votes to replace.

What would happen is that the US would likely go forward with sanctions while other countries do not, which would in effect place the US on the sidelines when dealing with Iran, and it would make our actions ineffective. GOP candidates have come out with fuzzy threats to our allies, saying we could damage their economy unless they obey us on our Iran demands, but we all know how stupid that would be.

The release of Americans — four of them negotiated as a prisoner swap alongside nuclear talks and one worked out separately — removed a key argument that the U.S. should not lift sanctions while Americans are being held.

Republicans demanded that the 4 people be part of the negotiations. Now that we're finding out they were, the GOP will simply change their position. They need to display outrage, even when they agree with something.

In addition, the deal drops charges against 7 Iranian-Americans who were charged with doing business with Iran despite the ban. I'm guessing that doesn't include Fiorina, the Republican candidate who made HP the dominant printer company in Iran while sanctions were talking place.

“While we celebrate their return,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said of the released Americans, “this deal serves as piece of propaganda for both Iran and the Obama administration.”

Oh, Ted. You have more in common with the Mullahs than Obama does. Just look at your position on homosexuals, gay marriage, etc. Two peas in a religious pod. You also speak of things like a leader praying to God every day. Sounds like Iranians saying leaders should pray to Allah every day.

this article is yet another typical example of Liberal media twisting of reality and truth. We in the US suffer from a massive brainwashing effort by the liberal elite tiny minority to fool us into their own fantasy ideas and ideals. Iran is a dangerous and insane country run by religious fanatics. The sane and wise people of all parties in the government know this and will try to clean up the mess created by the current fool who is insulting us every day from the White House. We will regain sanity eventually but it will take hard work. this sort of media brainwashing in this article does not help.

The Republican agenda is simple:

if Obama takes a position, take the exact opposite position.

Do not offer alternatives or help, just try to destroy the position, with rhetoric if reasoning will not work.

Last week it was the U.S. sailors who managed to get captured by Iran. Now that they are released, we hear nothing about it. What is it this week?? If nothing, go back to Obamacare (always a goody)? Or will they default back to Clinton's email server? Or a combination of both.

Vowing to isolate Tehran may only isolate the U.S. from many of its allies.

But not the Gulf dictatorships or Netanyahu.

Last week it was the U.S. sailors who managed to get captured by Iran. Now that they are released, we hear nothing about it. What is it this week?? If nothing, go back to Obamacare (always a goody)? Or will they default back to Clinton's email server? Or a combination of both.

It's almost time for another Benghazi isn't it? Can't be that far away.

@Crisgersa We in the US suffer from a massive brainwashing effort by the liberal elite tiny minority to fool us into their own fantasy ideas and ideals.

They put flouride in your water, too! Soon they'll be asking for your essence! Your house is bugged! And, sadly, reasoning like you are, you'll never get your sanity back.

The republicans are still trapped in the bush era thinking that lead to the disastrous Iraq invasion.

Seriously?? April is not even upon us and you're already out of the park with jokes? Liberals have been beating the Bush syndrome drum to a pulp with nothing else to attack the GOP over, they can only dump on Bush, in order downplay their in competencies.

They live in the fox news propaganda bubble where reality never is found.

As opposed to libs living through the Internet while munching on a bag of organic chips?

That is why they are consistently wrong about every major political issue such as health care,

If that's so, then why are over 57% (and rising) of the middle class want a better alternative to Obamacare?

huge success, economic policy,

Failed

huge success, not starting another stupid war,

So what do you call our special ops that were bogged down a few weeks ago in a firefight? Was that a political dispute? It's our troops in a war, a silent war, but nonetheless a war.

huge success, climate change, huge success and on an on.

Ok, so you have clean air. Obama gets a point.

It seems unfair that they are wrong all the time but they do not seem to care or learn anything from their constantly being wrong. It is amazing. Like being a smoker and denying to themselves that they will get lung cancer eventually

If they are wrong all the time, Trump should be in the swamp sinking in the polls, nice try.

Of course, Obama should have done all that was in his powers to get those hostages out of there, that's just common sense, but to get slapped around by the Iranians and the other day, these people put our soldiers on TV and paraded them like that is upsetting, disturbing and not to mention, humiliating! Our soldiers had nothing to apologize for! Obama thinks and swears up and down, the Iranians are just going to fall in line with the rest of the world and be a team player and we'll have wonderful relations with them, this president is nuttier than I gave him credit for. This will eventually bite us in the end, without a doubt.

According to Ted Cruz:

To bring back Americans wrongly imprisoned, we release seven terrorists who helped Iran with their nuclear program and agreed not to prosecute another 14 terrorists for doing the same thing.

Ha ha! The guy is either misinformed or mendacious, though I'd suspect both. None of the people being released have been charged with terrorism offenses or any violent crime by the U.S. government; most were charged with violating the very economic sanctions against Iran which have now been relaxed.

"Truth" is quite a malleable thing in the GOP sphere.

""To bring back Americans wrongly imprisoned, we release seven terrorists who helped Iran with their nuclear program and agreed not to prosecute another 14 terrorists for doing the same thing.""

None of the people being released have been charged with terrorism offenses or any violent crime by the U.S.

Because Obama said so? So they just happened to be imprisoned because we had nothing better to do?

government; most were charged with violating the very economic sanctions against Iran which have now been relaxed.

Which is good enough grounds to incarcerate these individuals because there was malice intent or we should just give them a pass because your president believes in capitulation? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these people are out and will soon to be with their families, I applaud that. But as usual, the president has to, he just can't help himself, he needs to constantly politicize literally every issue! But it doesn't matter, soon, we can all breath a sigh of relief once this joker is gone.

"Truth" is quite a malleable thing in the GOP sphere.

Then you must really frown upon the Democrats.

has anyone ever noticed how the American Democratic Party is far to the right of the Conservatives from any other nation? This is why we look so "fondly" on the Republicans

has anyone ever noticed how the American Democratic Party is far to the right of the Conservatives from any other nation? This is why we look so "fondly" on the Republicans.

I had NO idea Democrats believed in limited government and self-reliance.

Lol wow socialist authors do know how to talk themselves into their own fantasies. The fact is Obama let Iran take those hostages and did nothing. This fantasy somehow a nuclear bomb wielding Iran is a benevelolent and useful world power broker Obama set up for the next president is insanity. Republicans have nothing to worry about. Obama handing 150 billion to help Iran build nukes and Iran letting hostages go months later makes Democrats look bad.

Our soldiers had nothing to apologize for!

And this is precisely the mindset that terrifies many Americans and people around the world, this sense of -- dare I say it? -- entitlement. Conservatives walk around the streets of America with the most unsettlingly massive chip on their shoulder about anything and everything, fueled by a sincere belief that by virtue of being an American, they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want, whenever and wherever the hell they want, right or wrong, consequences be damned.

Our Naval sailors violated the territorial boundaries of a sovereign nation. It wasn't intentional, but it did indeed happen, something to which the Pentagon has readily admitted. These soldiers were caught, kept overnight, and released no worse for wear, with a full night's sleep and a full belly for the experience. What else would you expect?

Oh, and no one was slapped around. That's a narrative

You can be damned certain that if Iranian armed sailors -- or any other sailor from another nation's military corp -- had violated our territorial waters off the coast of, say, Coronado Island, and were captured, they'd find themselves front and center on the nightly news of every major news network in America.

In fact, this could happen at any moment if . . . Oh, wait. No , it couldn't. Because there are no armed militaries cruising the waters just off the coast of the United States.

Why? Because the U.S. wouldn't stand for it. So, why should Iran?

The smart person says, "Yup, our bad. They caught us with our pants down. Well, we've got our people back, we've still got a nuclear deal, and we still have the option of reinitiating crippling sanctions at a moment's notice. Let's chalk this up to a lesson learned, i.e., teach our sailors to navigate better."

Then we've got the not-so-smart reaction, which is just shy of an 8-year-old thing shrieking that his dad can beat up your dad. "It's upsetting, disturbing and humiliating! Oh, my!"

No, this pitiful whining and mewling that keeps coming from conservatives is what's truly humiliating, not to mention insulting. These are U.S. Navy sailors, not cub scout troops. I, for one, believe they are made of sterner stuff than what some conservatives seem to believe they are, and expect they'll recover from the experience far faster than some the delicate flowers that make up the conservative constituency.

Laguna: According to Ted Cruz:

Reminds me of Cruz's email he sent to his supporters saying, "Obama wants your guns." More fear mongering. He will most likely be successful with those tactics, especially with people who share his vision of Jesus. He was smart to go after those guys early since they will forgive a lot if they think their religion will be front and center.

Democrat Jared Huffman had the best summary, IMHO:

"In a perfect world, of course, we would not have to negotiate, we would not have to compromise over the release of these people that we believe are completely innocent. But this is not a perfect world. I think that the Republicans that are so predictably going to attack the administration over this deal are just so in denial about the complexity of our relationship with Iran and frankly the politics of the entire region."

LFR

Our Naval sailors violated the territorial boundaries of a sovereign nation.

I think you're getting your prisoners mixed up. The prisoners released under the deal have been held by Iran for awhile, and are not the soldiers.

Obamas bad deal with Iran is a debacle fore the world, and not for one particular US political party, as this partisan article falsely claims. And to tout the release of some US hostages as a "success".... good grief how gullible does one have to be to swallow that. If it easy, Teheran can and will gain negotiating capital again at any time by grabbing and imprisoning some Americans.

Why don't you go ahead and give us your vision for how the Middle East should be, WilliB. We're all ears.

Iran kept the US citizens from leaving Iran airspace, not until the exact time the US released the frozen Iran assets under the sanctions.

It seems Iran detained them, like the journalist charged with espionage but presented no evidence for over a year, specifically as an insurance.

And this is precisely the mindset that terrifies many Americans and people around the world, this sense of -- dare I say it? -- entitlement.

You and I always have pretty decent debates and I often agree with quite a few of your viewpoints, but on this, I have to vehemently disagree with you. I don't think that many Americans feel a sense of entitlement, at least, the vast majority of them.

Conservatives walk around the streets of America with the most unsettlingly massive chip on their shoulder about anything and everything, fueled by a sincere belief that by virtue of being an American, they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want, whenever and wherever the hell they want, right or wrong, consequences be damned.

I think that comes largely from us having to constantly take care of the world, whether it's a military conflict or humanitarian going back to the First World War. Now has the US been perfect, NO. Has the US made mistakes plenty, but overall, the intent and the money and the generosity that Americans have shown to other nations of financial need, even when many Americans didn't have much of their own is something not to take lightly and to further the point, when the US is drawn into conflicts where other leaders either request or because of national interests or security, bailing out countries or nation building, it would be safe to say, we do have a bit of say, NOT saying we should or even if it's always necessarily the right thing to do, but if the other nations don't want our involvement or money, they should NEVER call us or ask for anything and take care of themselves. All the time, every time.

Our Naval sailors violated the territorial boundaries of a sovereign nation.

Why is that? Look at the history of Iran and how deep it had its hands embedded as the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Given the past history of that, not to mention the hostage crisis in 1979 and this latest one, we have every right to patrol and watch what the Iranians are doing, my problem with that was, how is it they ran out of gas, that should have never happened, but the Iranians were on their best behavior because of what was at risk for them and that's billions of dollars now at their disposal, so a hostage exchange in all of this was in their best interest and to show goodwill.....at least for now.

It wasn't intentional, but it did indeed happen, something to which the Pentagon has readily admitted. These soldiers were caught, kept overnight, and released no worse for wear, with a full night's sleep and a full belly for the experience. What else would you expect?

I think there's a lot more then what we see or what we are led to possibly believe. And remember, the Pentagon still answers to the president and he can cast a shroud of silence over them and there's not much they can do, so I. Not buying it and one reason for that is when you look at some of the faces of those officers, a few of them had a looting and extreme hostile look in their faces, so I think there's more than meets the eye.

Oh, and no one was slapped around. That's a narrative

Do we really know? No, we don't.

You can be damned certain that if Iranian armed sailors -- or any other sailor from another nation's military corp -- had violated our territorial waters off the coast of, say, Coronado Island, and were captured, they'd find themselves front and center on the nightly news of every major news network in America.

But they wouldn't be mocked, chastised and humiliated and remember, there is no call for the ultimate destruction and annihilation of Iran, on the other hand, Iran wants to destroy us, Israel and all the Sunni nations. That's the big difference.

In fact, this could happen at any moment if . . . Oh, wait. No , it couldn't. Because there are no armed militaries cruising the waters just off the coast of the United States.

We had the Cubans and Russians doing it, the Russians were not too far from the coast of Catalina, so go figure....

Why? Because the U.S. wouldn't stand for it. So, why should Iran?

We wouldn't! You're right, but as long as we have this president in office, I think we will.

The smart person says, "Yup, our bad. They caught us with our pants down. Well, we've got our people back, we've still got a nuclear deal, and we still have the option of reinitiating crippling sanctions at a moment's notice. Let's chalk this up to a lesson learned, i.e., teach our sailors to navigate better."

Seriously???

Then we've got the not-so-smart reaction, which is just shy of an 8-year-old thing shrieking that his dad can beat up your dad. "It's upsetting, disturbing and humiliating! Oh, my!"

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. But given the history of how Iran did play a huge role in the murder of many of our soldiers, eyeing them through the lens of a microscope is not really a bad option and having certain plans ready.

No, this pitiful whining and mewling that keeps coming from conservatives is what's truly humiliating, not to mention insulting.

I think it's more insulting to have a president lying and thinking that Americans are going to believe his spoon fed crap and think he's right every time he speaks (if they're not falling asleep already) people are tired of the capitulation, tired of thinking we don't have a problem with radical Islam, tired of lies about the economy when we have half of the country on food stamps, the debt and spending that is out of control, trying his best to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens by targeting gun vendors, which is the fist step, but thanks to his actions, gun sales have been through the roof and the funny thing is, the more Obama talks and lies through his teeth, the more he pushes people towards Trump. Obama is his own enemy.

These are U.S. Navy sailors, not cub scout troops. I, for one, believe they are made of sterner stuff than what some conservatives seem to believe they are, and expect they'll recover from the experience far faster than some the delicate flowers that make up the conservative constituency.

We'll see. Hopefully, we can get the real truth as to what went on and not just follow "Josh Earnest's" Obama talking points

how is it they ran out of gas, that should have never happened, but the Iranians were on their best behavior because of what was at risk for them and that's billions of dollars now at their disposal, so a hostage exchange in all of this was in their best interest and to show goodwill....

Bass, read the news much? You should! - If you did, you might understand that Iran handed over the wayward American sailors after a single night gratis, with their equipment, and with no strings attached.

There was no hostage exchange in the case you're discussing, no quid pro quo - just a rare example of goodwill between the two countries. Wonder how that could have come about? No worries, thogh: Once the GOP retakes the White House, they'll tear up the nuclear agreement on Day One, and we'll be back to the old state of unrelenting hostility.

read the news much? You should! - If you did, you might understand that Iran handed over the wayward American sailors after a single night gratis, with their equipment, and with no strings attached.

You can believe that, but their faces convey something else, just saying..... There are many that believe there is a lot more going on then we are are led to believe and given this admin. History when it comes to transparency, accountability and honesty, it's not much to go on.

There was no hostage exchange in the case you're discussing, no quid pro quo - just a rare example of goodwill between the two countries.

That's a bunch of of horse****! Of course, they were hostages, all of them, there was absolutely NO reason to keep any of them, none. This was a ruse to give the impression (in the short run at least) that Iran is goodwill and has good intentions because of what's at stake and they had a heck of a lot to lose. So when the hostages were released on that, I wasn't really that surprised.

Wonder how that could have come about?

Yeah, I wonder....

No worries, thogh: Once the GOP retakes the White House, they'll tear up the nuclear agreement on Day One, and we'll be back to the old state of unrelenting hostility.

I think that comes largely from us having to constantly take care of the world, whether it's a military conflict or humanitarian going back to the First World War.

And what a lot of good that's done. All the US ever manages to do when it tries to "take care" of various problems is lay the groundwork for even bigger ones, the First World War being a perfect case in point.

Thanks a bunch.

Poor Republicans, they just don't get it. That must be the reason they are Republicans! Obama and the Dems are putting the GOP to shame.

President Obama Middle East policies have superficial "media success", but have sowed the seeds for major turmoil.

Iranian Sunnis are supporting forces like Al Qeada & even ISIS, and are in major conflict generally with Shittes of Arab nations. Arab nations have been major allies of the US in the Middle East. But since the Arab Spring revolutions, the Middle East stability and picture has changed dramatically. The US has tilted the balance to the Iranian Sunnis. This will be highly explosive with major implications.

Arab Shittes nations have been weakened by Arab Spring & the advancement of Sunnis via civil wars in Iraq & and instability in Afghanistan, etc. With the US & UN lifting economic sanctions on Iran, economic benefits will accrue to Iran at the expense of Arab nations.

The political fabrics & balance in Middle East may break. US Obama administration has not been wise.

Poor Republicans, they just don't get it. That must be the reason they are Republicans! Obama and the Dems are putting the GOP to shame.

You're right about that. Lacking of ethics, integrity and morals, Dems are definetly without a doubt putting the GOP to shame.

And what a lot of good that's done. All the US ever manages to do when it tries to "take care" of various problems is lay the groundwork for even bigger ones, the First World War being a perfect case in point.

What in blazes are you talking about??? From Wilson on, none of these presidents wanted anything to do with the war, even when they were asked by the Brits, Wilson refused, it was only after the "Zimmerman telegram" that changed Wilson's mind that dragged us into the war and with very good reason. But I guess you think our involvement paved the way for Hitler to invade the rest of Europe and Japan to attack us at Pearl Harbor and we were supposed to do just nothing? Good Lord!

Thanks a bunch.

Now that Germany and Japan are exceptionally and outstanding countries that rose up in the aftermath.

You are certainly most welcome.

And yet one more reason to vote Democrat!

And yet one more reason to vote Democrat!

If we want to become a 3rd world nation, I mean, why not?

Simon,

I'm going to have to agree with Bass4funk. The U.S. Had very little to do with the roots of World War One. That particulalrly ignominious honor belongs to Europeans and Europeans alone with a Byzantine assortment of treaties and mutual defense pacts that were part and parcel of their unending Balance of Power games.

The U.S. in the early 1900s was still very firmly in the camp of, "We want nothing to do with the power games of Europe" and resisted entering the war even after Germany sank the civilian cruiser Lusitania in 1915, killing nearly 2,000 passengers, including 128 Americans.

The U.S. got dragged into the war 2 years later after Germany went back on its pledge to stop unrestricted submarine warfare, arguably the terrorist bombing equivalent of the day.

The U.S. saved England's and France's bacon by any estimation. You don't have thank the Yanks. They would come back and do it again 20 years later.

I'm going to have to agree with Bass4funk. The U.S. Had very little to do with the roots of World War One.

Never mind the roots, what about the Treaty of Versailles? Woodrow Wilson didn't do a whole lot to make it any fairer or better, did he?

The U.S. saved England's and France's bacon by any estimation.

What do you think the Kaiser would have done if Germany had won? It would have been more like what happened in 1870, rather than what happened in 1940. And do you really suppose Britain was in any danger of invasion at any point between 1914 and 1918? The U.S. didn't really save anyone.

You don't have thank the Yanks.

Good. Not going to. They weren't really doing it for anyone else's benefit anyway. To quote U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. W.H. Page, declaring war on Germany was "the only way of maintaining our present pre-eminent trade status." Or U.S. Marine General Smedley Butler:

"Our boys were sent off to die with beautiful ideals painted in front of them. No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason they were marching off to kill and die."

They would come back and do it again 20 years later.

Having let WW2 come about, thereby dragging us all into the Cold War. Pardon me if I don't stand up and applaud.

Not sure where everyone is looking.

The scenario is NOT benefiting the USA or the rest of the world. It puts all nations in a state of stupor where they now tend to trust Iran and the President. It comes at a time when he needs credibility and justification for so far ineffective foreign policy relating to the Muslim world.

Wait a minute... the President is still releasing terrorists from Guantanamo that return to fight as terrorists against the USA and now the entire world. The world is targeting ISIS/ISIL that is being eliminated for some reason by the President for the first time after he allowed it to grow and forced massive exodus and penetration into Europe and Asia by massive Muslim population. All the while massive execution of Christian other racial groups are being conducted behind the scenes in the guise of fighting ISIS/ISIL.

Iran gets billions of dollars without any restrictions as well. Does this action justify the funding?

It is doubtful at best.

The question is WHY? Why NOW?

Who benefits? WHY?

Simon,

First you float this:

All the US ever manages to do when it tries to "take care" of various problems is lay the groundwork for even bigger ones, the First World War being a perfect case in point.

Then you follow up with this:

Never mind the roots, what about the Treaty of Versailles? Woodrow Wilson didn't do a whole lot to make it any fairer or better, did he?

One, you do nothing to support your original statement, namely that the United States laid the groundwork for bigger problems, i.e., laid the groundwork for WWI. It didn't. You're wrong.

Two, you've now switched gears from, "The U.S. causes problems whenever it tries to help" to "the U.S. didn't do enough to help a bad situation." So, which is it? The U.S. caused it or the U.S. didn't do enough to help fix it? Your argument is confusing.

Meanwhile, the Treaty of Versailles was negotiated by the League of Nations, with, yes, the U.S. taking part in determining many of its major provisions, but the U.S. worked alongside France and the U.K., something you seem to have overlooked.

The harshest measures in the the Treaty were the result of French influence. Full stop.

Woodrow Wilson was more interested in rebuilidng Europes economy in order to improve trade for the U.S. (the selfish bastard), and he vocally opposed the harshly vindictive nature of the treaty, but was shut out by Britain and France. The U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with the asshattish nature of the treaty. That particular poop-bomb belongs solely to Britain and the U.K., a colossal exercise in petulant, arguably infantile payback that would come back to haunt Europe and eventually the world some two decades later.

While I understand it's incredibly en vogue now to lay the blame for all the ills of the world at the doorstep of the U.S., the adult thing to do is to own your own mistakes. The U.S. was not responsible for WWI and only marginally so for WWII.

One, you do nothing to support your original statement, namely that the United States laid the groundwork for bigger problems, i.e., laid the groundwork for WWI. It didn't. You're wrong.

Where have you got the idea from anything I said that I think the USA was in any way involved in lead-up to World War One? I never said anything of the sort. Thinking such a thing, much less saying it, would be utterly preposterous, but perhaps you'd prefer to think that's my argument because it's easier to shoot down. But when it came to picking up the pieces afterwards and trying to stop anything of the sort from happening again, you've pretty much said yourself that the Americans were by and large ineffectual and motivated by self interest. I'll gladly go along with blaming Britain and France for anything you like in this case, but I'm still going to maintain that if the USA was "having to take care of the world" in 1919 it was doing a terrible job. Just like today.

Simon,

Pick up a history book or two, mate. The U.S. was not involved in European politics or even Asian politics to any appreciable degree leading up to WW1 of even immediately after.

And again, you're backpedalling on your initial argument.

Here it is:

Simon Foston JAN. 18, 2016 - 10:28PM JST

All the US ever manages to do when it tries to "take care" of various problems is lay the groundwork for even bigger ones, the First World War being a perfect case in point. Thanks a bunch.

You wrote this. Not me. And it's a perspective pulled from your nether-regions. The U.S. did not "take care" of the aftermath of World War I in any appreciable way. It never took a stance that could in any way remotely be construed as, "We're going to do things our way because we think our way is best" (Because that's the essential thrust of your argument, isn't it?) because the there was very little political will in the U.S. at the time for that sort of foreign policy.

Before WWI, the U.S. was perfectly content with building and bettering its engines of commerce and industry, free from the bafflingly self-destructive political intrigues of Europe. Before WWI, the U.S. had it's eyes on the Americas and East Asia, and those areas alone.

Until Europe almost burned down the world not once, but twice, and required American blood and gold to pull them out of a quagmire they created for themselves.

The U.S. was involved in negotiating the peace in the aftermath of WWI, but most certainly not as the bandleader, and most definitely not alone, a point you seem incapable of grasping.More to the point, the U.S. possessed but a fraction of the geopolitical influence it admittedly wields today. I know this particular nugget throws your entire argument askew, but it's the simple truth.

Another point you still seem unable to wrap your brain around is that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were punitive, vindictive affair orchestrated almost exclusively by France and Britain. The U.S. wanted to find a way to rebuild and improve, yes, it's own, but also everyone's economic fortunes. Yes, I understand the very mention of this compels you to raise an pointed finger and exclaim, "AHA! Selfish bastards!" But no, there's no smoking gun here. The point of international trade is that all of its participants have to have healthy economies to benefit from it. America's interest in .

Sure, you can now shift your argument to one of, "Oh, pooh! The U.S. didn't do enough!" But that flies in the face of your original argument that the pervasiveness of U.S. influence is to blame for the world's ills.

Again, which argument are you going with today, Simon? That the U.S. involves itself too much or that it doesn't get involved enough? If it's the former, then you're wrong, at least as far as the World Wars are concerned. If it's the latter, then you're just being silly trying to have the best of all possible arguments.

None of the released Iranians wanted to go back to Iran. They had a plane waiting for them to take them to Iran. They all decided to stay. lol