France's Macron visits Trump as Iran nuclear deal hangs in balance

DT is not amused...

Priority number 1 for Macron should be to keep an eye on his wife.

The only reason that Trump doesn't like the Iran deal is because he didn't sign it. I'm sure he hasn't a clue what's actually in it.

The only reason that Trump doesn't like the Iran deal is because he didn't sign it. I'm sure he hasn't a clue what's actually in it.

According to him, he's read it and looked into it 'more than anyone'.

Yeah, right. For some reason I'm skeptical of that claim...

Trump is trying desperately to get in bed with Russians while at the same time kicking the Iranians.

The Iranians have been more trustworthy than the Russians when it comes to holding up on an agreement like this nuclear deal. They're both still pretty bad, but the Iranians have been better at keeping their word than the Russians. Yet Trump's gaga about Putin?

oh that was Russia who had all the people in the streets chanting “death to America” since the late 1970s?

They got a plane load of cash. Of course they are going to pretend to be cooperative in hopes of getting even more concessions.

They got a plane load of cash.

Their own cash that the US stole from them, and was going to be forced to pay back regardless.

Let's try to keep this at least semi-intellectually honest mmkay.

Of course they are going to pretend to be cooperative in hopes of getting even more concessions.

They got concessions for being cooperative. That's how these things work. At the moment, they aren't able to start a weapons program. If Trump scraps their deal, they'll be able to start up a weapons program immediately.

And yet, that's what the right is pushing for. Most of them without even realizing it.

So are there any US citizens being held hostage in Iran right now? So what did this payment accomplish as far as encouraging behaviors?

The USA didn’t steal any money from Iran. That money was for weapons we never delivered before they took our citizens hostage in 1979. That money was then later given to the hostages for their ordeal per US court decision.

So to recap, “Iran’s Money” was given to the people who Iran held hostage for 444 days. Should have been given to the families of our military who died trying to rescue them if it wasn’t. So screw “Iran’s money” it’s forfeited for what they did.,

Also btw who was going to “force” the US to give that money back and how was that going to happen? Or was Iran just going to keep taking our people hostage like they have continued since we gave back the money?

what did this payment accomplish as far as encouraging behaviors?

It encourages the US to not steal money anymore, or they'll have to pay it back at inconvenient times.

You don't think the rules only work one-way do you?

The USA didn’t steal any money from Iran. That money was for weapons we never delivered before they took our citizens hostage in 1979.

The USA took their money in agreement for some goods, and didn't provide the goods or return the money. That my friend is exactly what stealing is.

As to the story behind the money:

the $400 million dollar transfer was actually an openly announced one, paid in settlement of a nearly 40-year dispute between Iran and the United States — a settlement that likely saved the United States several billion dollars.Back in late 1979, after Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America. Among those frozen assets was a $400 million delivery of fighter jets from the U.S. that Iran’s previous government had already paid for.

Although the American hostages were finally released a year later, issues such as the frozen Iranian assets (including that $400 million) were not settled at that time. Instead, an international court based in the Hague, the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal was established to deal with such legal claims. The tribunal process dragged on for years and years without a ruling on the $400 million being issued, and finally, when arbitration process was apparently about to wind up (quite possibly not in American’s favor), the U.S. agreed to pay Iran back the $400 million principal along with $1.3 billion in interest. If the issue had gone to the tribunal for a decision, as was expected, the U.S. could have been on the hook for the full $10 billion in compensation Iran was seeking.

So do you think it would be better to pay $10 billion, or return $400 million? Remember now, you guys are pretending you're the party of fiscal responsibility. So let's see the spin.

btw who was going to “force” the US to give that money back and how was that going to happen?

The Hague.

If you think the US can suddenly go around defaulting on verdicts and the like, without collapsing the dollar through lack of confidence in the US paying their debts, you're being foolish. I know you guys try to boil issues down into black and white, as it makes your arguments easier, but the fact is the world is not black and white, and countries don't simply go around not paying their debts without facing serious consequences - even the US. You guys are not immune no matter how much you would like to be.

Oops, forgot the link to the quote I posted: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/

Snopes? No wonder that read like a bunch of liberal nonsense.

So you have to return money after another countries military takes over your embassy and holds your people hostage for over a year or YOU are called out for “stealing”?

Iran refuses to pay our citizens for what they did. So YES you can take that money and give it to your people who were held hostage at gunpoint and say screw that other country. Which is what we did until the Apologizer in Chief started his Works Apology and Bowing Tour.

Same country that still chanting Death to America in the streets. You get nothing.

Snopes? No wonder that read like a bunch of liberal nonsense.

Backed up with references. It's an entirely fine source. You don't seem to realize that you can't counter referenced material with a political label. We all live in the real world that contains facts. If you want to challenge the references and/or the facts, with your own references and facts, then that is a healthy debate. Casting a label upon the article and expecting that to be a healthy counter-argument shows an inability to support ones claims, and therefore shows everything you've said on this matter until now entirely irrelevant.

Iran refuses to pay our citizens for what they did. So YES you can take that money and give it to your people who were held hostage at gunpoint and say screw that other country.

And again, you do that at the risk of collapsing your economy due to the resulting lack of confidence in ALL American deals on anything. If your country is going to change it's mind on a whim, and refuse to abide by legal rulings that they have agreed to abide by, other countries in the world have to look at every agreement with your country under that spotlight, either not having any deal with the US, or increasing the benefit to themselves to cover the increased risk. This in turn will drive up costs in the US, and deflate the dollar, through a lack of confidence in the US dollar.

The world isn't black and white. You guys try to say 'we can just do this', without any clue whatsoever as to the consequences of such an action.

Yes, the US can technically refuse to pay anything they want. But you're clueless if you think that will happen consequence-free.

cool story, bro. But its Snopes, come on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#46b6715c227f

Plus, I think "the world" would have understood if the USA kept Iran's money, knowing they were just going to use it to fund terrorism and build nukes. The legal ruling had not been made yet, the last guy panicked, showed loser mentality that it was going to go against him and just paid.

Nobody changed their mind on a "whim" except the last President, who desperately needed a foreign policy win, so much that he decided to "pay off" Iran to stop something he had no negotiation skills to get stopped.

2 leaders with about 30% support of their nations, discussing the possibility of WW3?

For whatever reason Macron is one of the very ppl out there (including other world leaders, his own advisors etc) Trump genuinely listens to.