Iran releases 4 US prisoners as the sanction-lifting seems finalized.

[Merkava]

Oh you were talking about terrorist regimes .... that's where my comment was addressed.

Oh so you were referring to the United States as a terrorist regime on par with Iran? How clever.

[Independent voter]

Iran releases American news reporters and Iranian Americans who went to Iran to visit family?

Thanks Iran!

[Skroe]

So I said this yesterday...

(We don't need is) Another Obama "It's a good day" Bowie Bergdahl moment where the Administration starts patting itself on the back over what really is a fiasco.

The most nauseating part of this entire affair is how certain quarters are spewing the nonsense of "diplomacy works!". Well of course it does, darling. Diplomacy is not a new thing and good diplomacy is never at the expense of coercion through hard and soft power, but rather is another tool in the tool box. They all work together. This is by the way how the extremely professional US foreign policy and security establishment actually has always worked and will always work. International Relations, Saturday Morning Cartoon Style, where America has a binary choice between "diplomacy" and "bombing", you know, doesn't actually exist.

And what does Barack Obama do?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...diplomacy.html

President Obama gave his administration a pat on the back on Sunday, describing the deal with Iran as a vindication of his strategy to pursue diplomacy rather than jump to military action. “This is a good day, because, once again, we’re seeing what’s possible with strong American diplomacy,” he said from the White House. "When Americans are freed and returned to their families, that's something we can all celebrate."

Obama spoke after the United States and the European Union agreed to lift the harshest sanctions against Iran related to its nuclear program. In a coordinated move, Iran also released five Americans, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

The president was not shy about praising his administration, characterizing the deal as a vindication of his strategy to pursue diplomacy in the face of many who were demanding military action. Obama said that failing to communicate with the country’s adversaries was never a good strategy:

This. Motherfucker. Does. Not. Learn.

He can't do it. It's amazing. It's like a magic trick.

First he jumped the gun... again. Secondly he set himself up... again. Thirdly because he built the "everyone wanted war but me!" strawman that isn't actually true... again. Fourthly because he is doing his fanciful "diplomacy works" schitkt which isn't the binary matter in which how the world actually operates... again.

Between repeating the same old screw ups all over again, patting himself on the back endlessly and building then tearing down imaginary straw men, this slick son of a bitch may not have had a big aircraft carrier-level "Mission Accomplished" moment of infamy, but he certainly is no stranger to Rose Garden analogs of it.


Christ at least Bush embarrassed himself on only one Aircraft carrier.

You know, I'm not even opposed to the Iran deal. I'm not at all. It was necessary. I'm not remotely in agreement with the republicans spewing their nonsense about the release of Iran's prisoners and our release of sanctions breakers (not "terrorists" as Ted Cruz just lied about again).

It's simply that the Obama Administration's behavior during the Iran negotiations has been nauseating to say the least and it's position, basically as Iran's lawyer, being a mediator between "America-minus the Obama Administration" and "Iran" has been bizarre and deeply cynical. Obama's personal conduct with moments like this is certainly at fault. Yikes.

12 months, 3 days and he's gone. We can do 12 months 3 days. Democrat or Republican, we'll be done with this administration and it's bizarre foreign policy approach.

[Deleted]

So I said this yesterday...


And what does Barack Obama do?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...diplomacy.html


This. Motherfucker. Does. Not. Learn.

He can't do it. It's amazing. It's like a magic trick.

First he jumped the gun... again. Secondly he set himself up... again. Thirdly because he built the "everyone wanted war but me!" strawman that isn't actually true... again. Fourthly because he is doing his fanciful "diplomacy works" schitkt which isn't the binary matter in which how the world actually operates... again.

Between repeating the same old screw ups all over again, patting himself on the back endlessly and building then tearing down imaginary straw men, this slick son of a bitch may not have had a big aircraft carrier-level "Mission Accomplished" moment of infamy, but he certainly is no stranger to Rose Garden analogs of it.


Christ at least Bush embarrassed himself on only one Aircraft carrier.

You know, I'm not even opposed to the Iran deal. I'm not at all. It was necessary. I'm not remotely in agreement with the republicans spewing their nonsense about the release of Iran's prisoners and our release of sanctions breakers (not "terrorists" as Ted Cruz just lied about again).

It's simply that the Obama Administration's behavior during the Iran negotiations has been nauseating to say the least and it's position, basically as Iran's lawyer, being a mediator between "America-minus the Obama Administration" and "Iran" has been bizarre and deeply cynical. Obama's personal conduct with moments like this is certainly at fault. Yikes.

12 months, 3 days and he's gone. We can do 12 months 3 days. Democrat or Republican, we'll be done with this administration and it's bizarre foreign policy approach.

Do you think there will be changes in your foreign policies next administration?

[Skroe]

Do you think there will be changes in your foreign policies next administration?

Yes. 100%. It is happening.

First, let's be clear, Bernie Sanders will not be President. That is not happening. Don't worry what the "Feel the Bern" kids say. They're going to come down, hard, in about a month. And they're going to be very bitter about it. Bernie Sanders can maybe win Iowa, probably New Hampshire, and it gets darker from there. And even if he can get past Clinton, somehow, some way, fact is, there aren't enough of them to out number the people who would vote for the devil himself (Trump) just as to not vote for a self-professed Democratic Socialist.

The only two people to the LEFT of Barack Obama on foreign policy are Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul.

The entire Republican field minus Rand Paul is well to the RIGHT of Obama. Far, far, far to the right. So far to the right, mostly because their uninformed, ignorant, or mostly talking out of their ass. But far to the right nonetheless. For the record, none of their foreign policy really is something I'd want. It is well to the right of the US Foreign Policy establishment, which is bipartisan. But it would still constitute a fundamental change in direction.

Which leads us to Hillary Clinton, who will probably be President.

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she ran a very effective foreign policy in Obama's first term that was described as being "a center-right Republican", essentially, the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. And it should have been no surprise: the foreign policy and defense policy team were giants. True experts. And that was needed to extricate the US from Iraq.

Within Obama's first term team, there was two factions. There was the Bob Gates/Hillary Clinton/Leon Panetta/David Patraeus/Tom Donilon faction. They were the realists. The institutionalists. The experienced hands. And then there was the Susan Rice/Joe Biden/Denis McDonough/Tony Blinkin faction, which was very, very liberal.

The important thing to note is that the Gates-Clinton faction represents the US Foreign Policy Establishment that has served in both Democratic and Republican Administrations, for decades. The Rice-BIden-McDonough faction represents mostly the Obama election team. The true believers. They're nobodies. Susan Rice, pre-Obama, was a nobody. It's just that she is the most promiment African American Woman not named Condeleeza Rice in the Foreign Policy community.

If you read Robert Gates and Clinton's books, what emerges is that essentially, Obama is a terrible manager and although intellectually curious and always listening, was pretty easy to convince him to do things because he wants to keep the people around him happy. The division in factions in the first term represents on one half the Federal Departments (like the Department of State, Defense, etc) on the Clinton/Gates side and the White House National Security Staff, based in the West Wing, on the Rice/Biden side.

The West Wing NSC staff has been growing in size and power for three administrations now, and it's reached it's absolute apex under Obama's poor management. The thing is that to be a Secretary of a Department, you have to be confirmed by the Senate, which means non-polarizing figures usually get nominated. That isn't true of the "White House Advisors" that make up most of the NSC staff. And as a result the NSC staff can be more controversial and aggressive. Susan Rice, famously, became National Security Advisor, when it became clear the Senate would reject her as Secretary of State, forcing Obama to nominate John Kerry in her place.

The story of the first term was the story of the conflict between these two wings of Obama's Administration. The experienced hands at the departments would try to execute the President's policy, but the NSC staff would try to run a parallel policy. Bob Gates threaten to quit, at least twice, if Obama didn't reign Susan Rice and the NSC staff in. He mouthed off to her on one occasion. Gate's successor, Chuck Hagel, had an even worse relationship with Susan Rice and the NSC staff.

THe problem is that the Departments work at federal buildings across Washington, while the NSC staff works down the hall from Obama. Obama sees them every day. Gates on the other hand, only saw Obama when he was summoned for a meeting or requested one. This basically meant that the NSC staff ran foreign and security policy except where the Gates/Clinton faction fought for control. And Obama would often agree with the Gates/Clinton faction, then do an about face as soon as they left the room because the NSC staff twisted his arm.

This is all the hallmarks of a terrible and inexperienced manager in general. But it should illustrate how far from the norm Obama's second term foreign policy is. Why do I say second term? Because at the end of the first term, the entire Gates/Clinton faction was gone and the NSC-Staff had won and they've run the show since. It's notably that John Kerry is barely in country, as Susan Rice runs the policy side of US foreign policy here while John Kerry is essentially our negotiator-at-large. Ash Carter, the Secretary of Defense, is extremely competent and very sharp, but he's mostly doing his old job at the Pentagon, which is revamping defense procurement to be cost effective, efficient and quick (which is sorely needed and he's perfect from the job) and isn't doing as Gates and Rumsfeld did, which is manage US Defense Policy (again, Rice is doing that).

The thing is, this isn't just a bad case of Susan Rice being power hungry or anything. It's legitimately bad for the country because the Pentagon and State Department employ tens of thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of people to work problems the world over, while the NSC staff is tiny in comparison- a few hundred. Many experts field a big problem with US Foreign Policy since 2012 is that the NSC staff is far too small to deal with the challenges the US faces and the power needs to be returned to the Departments.

This is going to happen under Hillary Clinton (or a Republican) because she lived this under Obama, and if you read her (dry as hell) book, you can tell, it was not a good experience for her.

Furthermore these specific people? Samantha Power? John Kerry? Susan Rice? James MacDonough... the Obama True Believers. They're gone in exactly 1 year 3 days. They're deeply resented in the US Foreign Policy Establishment that holds them personally responsible for Syria, Ukraine, ISIS, Iraq and Afghanistan. They'll never make a return. Clinton will not make Susan Rice her Secretary of State, for example. Hell given Susan Rice's terrible international reputation (for unprofessionalism... apparently she has public tantrums and uses profanity to foreign ministers to try and get their way), she won't have a government job again. The Obama White House refuses to put her on Sunday Morning Interview Shows because the last time she was on one, it was a disaster.

So yes, US Foreign Policy will emphatically change under the next President, whoever it is, because the people running it since January 2013 have been an aberration and are outside the Establishment that will be returning to power. This doesn't mean the US will suddenly start bombing Iran or anything like that. It'll be at the very least, somewhere between Obama's first term and Bush's second term (which has been widely praised as a strong course correction after a disastrous Bush first term). So you'll see far fewer things like the Administration weirdly almost arguing on Iran's behalf, a more assertive stance versus Russia and China (the latter is brewing so hard in the establishment it is hard to understate... things are getting heated versus China, to say the least).

[Kellhound]

Do you think there will be changes in your foreign policies next administration?

How could there not be? All the people running will either take the US to the right or so far left as to make us even less effective.

[ringpriest]

"Plane with freed Americans leaves Iran; U.S. imposes new sanctions"

Once the Americans had left Iran aboard a Swiss aircraft, the Obama administration announced new sanctions related to participation in Iran’s ballistic missile program. The sanctions, which applied to 11 persons and companies, were issued under U.S. restrictions that remain in place despite the lifting Saturday of international sanctions tied to Iran’s nuclear program.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the new sanctions are legal (probably), they're pointless - no other nation is going to join in on them, and they're comparatively minor; they're not going to accomplish anything, save to give Democrats a fig leaf to point to and say, "See, we're still tough on Iran!" (Unless they're used as a casus belli for a future war with Iran, which would be its own special sort of clusterfuck.) <shakes head>

[Mormolyce]

I'm pleased to see diplomacy bearing fruit.

When we have foes who are straight up death cults and foes who are just rival nation-states with rational aims of their own its easy to lump them together. While I disagree with the Obama administration a lot of foreign policy I'm happy that they've been able to tell the difference.

I wouldn't call the aims of Iran rational but sure, they're probably down the list of America's self-inflicted enemies for now.

[ringpriest]

Yes. 100%. It is happening.

First, let's be clear, Bernie Sanders will not be President. That is not happening. Don't worry what the "Feel the Bern" kids say. They're going to come down, hard, in about a month. And they're going to be very bitter about it. Bernie Sanders can maybe win Iowa, probably New Hampshire, and it gets darker from there. And even if he can get past Clinton, somehow, some way, fact is, there aren't enough of them to out number the people who would vote for the devil himself (Trump) just as to not vote for a self-professed Democratic Socialist.

The only two people to the LEFT of Barack Obama on foreign policy are Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul.

The entire Republican field minus Rand Paul is well to the RIGHT of Obama. Far, far, far to the right. So far to the right, mostly because their uninformed, ignorant, or mostly talking out of their ass. But far to the right nonetheless. For the record, none of their foreign policy really is something I'd want. It is well to the right of the US Foreign Policy establishment, which is bipartisan. But it would still constitute a fundamental change in direction.

Which leads us to Hillary Clinton, who will probably be President.

<analysis of the Obama Administrations internal foreign policy split snipped for space>

I wouldn't get too ahead of yourself when counting the eggs in the second President Clinton's administration just yet, Skroe. Clio is doing her rhyming thing, and 2016 is starting to sound a lot like 2008 when it comes to the US economy, "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble" and all that kind of thing; a major financial collapse will basically give a free ride to any outsider candidate, including <shudder>, Trump.

If the economy tanks/blows up in the next month or two (rather unlikely), Bernie may well end up with the Democratic nomination - and I'm pretty confident "socialist" Senator Sanders defeats "my wife works for my sugar daddy Goldman Sachs" Senator Cruz in such a scenario, for example. (Or if Hillary simply continues to stumble in new and creative ways - I thought she and her handlers had learned from 2008, but I'm starting to wonder if all they learned was how to fail in new and interesting ways.) If it tanks later than that, but before the actual election, then whoever has the less establishment ticket will win - and that's not going go be Clinton under any circumstances I can see (plus there's always the outside chance that her health fails, naturally or artificially).

[Hooked]

If they all had dual citizenship and the reporter chose to live in iran with his wife, how come they are considered americans?. I can guarantee you this, if they didn't choose to put themselves in iran, they would have never been imprisoned in iran.

[Kallisto]

If they all had dual citizenship and the reporter chose to live in iran with his wife, how come they are considered americans?. I can guarantee you this, if they didn't choose to put themselves in iran, they would have never been imprisoned in iran.

Because either way he's still an american.

[Kellhound]

Because either way he's still an american.

So? That doesnt make the US responsible for saving his butt from his own stupidity.

[Skroe]

I wouldn't get too ahead of yourself when counting the eggs in the second President Clinton's administration just yet, Skroe. Clio is doing her rhyming thing, and 2016 is starting to sound a lot like 2008 when it comes to the US economy, "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble" and all that kind of thing; a major financial collapse will basically give a free ride to any outsider candidate, including <shudder>, Trump.

If the economy tanks/blows up in the next month or two (rather unlikely), Bernie may well end up with the Democratic nomination - and I'm pretty confident "socialist" Senator Sanders defeats "my wife works for my sugar daddy Goldman Sachs" Senator Cruz in such a scenario, for example. (Or if Hillary simply continues to stumble in new and creative ways - I thought she and her handlers had learned from 2008, but I'm starting to wonder if all they learned was how to fail in new and interesting ways.) If it tanks later than that, but before the actual election, then whoever has the less establishment ticket will win - and that's not going go be Clinton under any circumstances I can see (plus there's always the outside chance that her health fails, naturally or artificially).

I wouldn't jump the gun with parallels between 2008 and 2016 when it comes to the economy. You forget that unlike 2008, which was the height of the commodities boom, oil sub $30 means an invisible multi-hundred billion dollar stimulus in Americans hands. I mean I hate throwing in personal stories here because they're usually worthless, but I've gone from paying $3.40 for a gallon of oil for home heating in our cold, New England winters, to $1.65 a gallon (and dropping). To put it bluntly, this is a joke. It used to be about $450 per delivery. It's now about $204. It costs thousands of dollars a year to heat my home and I'm going to pay, in part due to the mild winter so far, maybe a third of a few years ago. It could be about $1200 total. Thats thousands of spending dollars.

But besides my little story there, the global economy is in a different spot. There is no big US debt bubble (there is a huge Chinese one, but US exposure is limited). The dollar is strong and interest rates are being raised. They'll be raised in June again I bet. The US economy is pretty much the only engine in the world at the moment.

So everbody's 401ks lost 2-5% last week. Big deal.


Again, I'm only going to speak personally here. I have my reservation about "the Clintons", but I'd be fine with her as President. I'd vote for her. I believe she'll be competent and surround herself with competent, centrist people. The thing about Massachusetts Republicans like myself is the way we win here is because we're highly technocratic. Big Government versus Small Government? Stupid philosophical argument nobody really cares about. What Americans really want is effective, efficient government. Not too big, not too small, providing the services they want and a good price and well run. Lean and mean. This is a vision of moderation, which is why Massachusetts is one of the best run states in the union. The large Democratic presence here is progressive while highly technocratic republican governors act as a moderating and efficiency force.

I can't vote for any of these Republicans. They're unqualified (Carson). They're serial liars and absurd self promoters(Cruz). They'd be unacceptable to our allies and global image leading to our isolation (Trump). The believe fundamentally stupid things (Rand Paul). They haven't learned from recent history of the past 15 years (Bush). Or they know everything they say is bullshit, but they say it any way because they're in to deep (Rubio... see his performance on The Daily Show last year... very insightful).

But neither can I vote for Bernie Sanders. His ideas are offensive to me. His foreign and security policies, such as they are, is unbelievably uninformed and naive. His taxation plans would directly impact my family and I plainly will not vote against my economic interests. Even on health care... I DO WANT Single Payer Health Care because it DOES work in nearly every other developed country. But Bernie Sander's vision for it is more of the same overpaying bullshit wrapped up in a new stupid box. He would expand Medicare and entitlements without targeting the core problem which is cost of services because market forces have failed and will continue to fail to control costs. He does not say, my preferred path, which is to emulate Japan, and bring insurance companies and providers into a room every 2 years, and tell them in what range services will cost.

Bernie Sanders is all feel good fluff that born since 1992 morons on Facebook and Twitter share quotes of, and then start calling themselves "Democratic Socialists" without ever knowing what that means. It doesn't remind me of Obama 2008. it reminds me of Ron Paul 2008, when lots of weed smokers who wanted their hobby legitimized decided to throw in their lot with "Doctor Paul" and his "We are all Austrians Now" economics, overlooking his decades of anti-abortion/anti-women's rights extremism and long history racism. Anything to get their weed legalized though!

Bernie Sanders? To these folks, he's the Ron Paul but of deliverance from Student Loans and Health Care costs. You just have to look at his statements on Defense Spending to see he's a politician like any other: "we should look for some judicious cuts" however "except the F-35 program". Why? A Vermont base is one of the first in the nation with F-35s and it's been very popular there.

Bernie Sanders is not a terrible person like Ted Cruz. Far from it. He is an ideal Senator and the kind of person that this country needs to act as a check against forces pulling in the other direction. But his beliefs and positons disqualify him as President, which is a job far bigger than the progressive cause crusader he has promised to be. That was Obama's failure. He only ever cared about using the Presidency to focus on the causes he found important, that the ones he didn't suffered to a degree that hadn't in prior administrations. It wasn't incompetence. It was attention.

Were Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz to be nominated... I mean Ted Cruz can never be President. Ever. He must never be. He is a dangerous person, and not in the way I like. But I live in Massachusetts and my electoral votes are going to the Democrat anyway. So were it to be Bernie versus Cruz, I'd probably just do what I did in my college elections: Vote for Optimus Prime.*




*and by the way Optimus Prime usually won at my university, but due to fighting the war against the Decepticons on Cybertron, the first human, who was usually in 3rd place, became President. This is the kind of things that happen when you go to a Computer Science / Engineering school

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I guarantee if Obama had chosen not to do the prisoner swap the republican talking point would be "Obama leaves Americans to die in Iran."

[Hooked]

I guarantee if Obama had chosen not to do the prisoner swap the republican talking point would be "Obama leaves Americans to die in Iran."

No we don't ever bow down to terrorists, we kick their asses.

[Skroe]

No we don't ever bow down to terrorists, we kick their asses.

Actually considering they've successfully baited us into fighting two counter-insurgency wars on the other side of the planet that cost us a round of military upgrades and well north of a trillion dollars, in a particular way, they've kicked our ass.

We never should have attempted to rebuild Afghanistan and tried to remake their society. And it was doubly foolish to do the same in Iraq.

People who want to go "kick ass" in Syria haven't learned this lesson yet. Sure we'll flatten Raqqa and kill tens of thousands of ISIS morons. And then because we'll once again be bound by Colin Powell's Pottery Barn Rules, we'll have inherited another trillion dollar problem.

Tell me Hooked. Are you ready for this country to spend another trillion dollars on another Muslim country? Because that is what jumping without thinking into Syria will cost us. Because when we send the 3rd and 4th infantry divisions in, the world will look to us to put together what's been broken, regardless of our responsibility at breaking it.

And since you said you love the military, here is what it will also cost us: half the F-35 fleet, F-15 and F-16 modernization, one destroyer and one attack sub per year for ten years, delaying carrier production by a year Army and Marine readiness, and probably the Long Range Strike Bomber program.

You can call that a scare tactic but it's not. Because if you substitute "F-22" for "F-35" and "Next Generation Bomber" for "Long Range Strike Bomber" every thing I mentioned there is something that happened so the Military could pay for the immediate needs of the Iraq War. They needed "MRAPs" to protect soldiers from Explosively Formed Perpetrators. That Rush order cost $20 billion. And there went the R&D budget of Next Generation Bomber. It's 2016 and Destroyer production is just now, in the FY2016, going back to the pre-Iraq war production plan. It took 13 years to get back on track.

There is no such thing as a free lunch and that's something that people who want to "kick terrorists asses" like yourself have to learn. Military power is something to carefully build and maintain, and judiciously expend it. What you're proposing is being reckless. Reckless superheroics.

So let's keep doing what we're doing, which is spending a billion dollars per year keeping a lid on ISIS from bases Turkey is letting us use. Let us not do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and break all the pots in the store, and end up spending $1.5 billion per week.

The single stupidest thing the United States can do before 2030 is get involved in another massive ground war that requires spending tens of billions of dollars per year. We do that just once, and sorely needed modernization vanishes. That is how razor thin the margin in. It is the only way the United States modernizes it's military beyond the vintage 1980s/1990 stuff it has, and grows its force and power, at a time Baby Boomers retire en-mass and Medicare / Social Security grow and grow and grow. We get in a ground war, and our 15 year lead on China, which was 25 years before the Iraq War, will turn into a zero year lead by 2030. Is Syria really worth giving up being the world's only military superpower?

You want the US to be militarily relevant in 2030? Make smart decisions about how we spend our cash in 2016. Bad decisions made in 2006 are being felt in 2016. Bad decisions made in 2016 will be felt in 2026. So think carefully. This is a time to build power for the big fights to come, not expend it on 30,000 idiots in the Syrian desert, capable only of limited mayhem at best. This is a crucial and sensitive time for investment and rebuilding of our military power.

[Cybran]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/po...n-1-7-billion/

The U.S. State Department announced the government had agreed to pay Iran $1.7 billion to settle a case related to the sale of military equipment prior to the Iranian revolution, according to a statement issued on Sunday.

Iran had set up a $400 million trust fund for such purchases, which was frozen along with diplomatic relations in 1979. In settling the claim, which had been tied up at the Hague Tribunal since 1981, the U.S. is returning the money in the fund along with "a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest," the statement said.

Heh. Imagine how many school shootings could be prevented or community centers for ghetto kids could be build.

[Skroe]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/po...n-1-7-billion/


Heh. Imagine how many school shootings could be prevented or community centers for ghetto kids could be build.

Oh this old one.

The US Federal Budget is $4 trillion.

The average DAILY operating cost of the US Federal Government is $10-12 billion.

US Tax Payers spend more on education per year than defense ($950 billion versus $852 billion). Why? Because education is mostly through STATE AND LOCAL TAXES and STATE AND LOCAL Government. That's over $6 trillion in taxes per year.

$1.7 billion is a lot to a little country like Bulgaria. But it's pennies to the United States. Which shouldn't be surprising considering we're a country of 320 million people that pays trillions in annual taxes.

I wouldn't want that $1.7 billion in FEDERAL Tax dollars building schools. I'd want it going to NIH to cure Cancer or Alzheimer. Or hell, increase NSF's budget!

[LoLcano]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/po...n-1-7-billion/


Heh. Imagine how many school shootings could be prevented or community centers for ghetto kids could be build.

you know it was IRAN's money that was frozen in U.S ...U.S can freeze it do to sanction but can never use it..sry to burst your bubble but world wont work like that...u cant just use another country money

[Skroe]

you know it was IRAN's money that was frozen in U.S ...U.S can freeze it do to sanction but can never use it..sry to burst your bubble but world wont work like that...u cant just use another country money

If this is referring to what I THINK it is referring to, in 1978 the Shah's regime paid for a contract for 4 Spruance Class Destroyers. This is no minor sale: the Spruance class was the backbone of the US Navy in the 1970s and 1980s and they would have been by far the most powerful ships in the Persian Gulf. Because they were late-build Spruances, this "Kidd" subclass was the most advanced of the family, and equipped for hot climates. Their weapon systems were advanced for Spruance's as well.

When the Shah was overthrown the following year, the Navy kept the 4 ships (still being built) and put them in the fleet. And because they were the latest Spruances and optimzied for warm climates, modernized the hell out of them and had them serve exclusively in hot regions. But until the first Burkes arrived in the 1990s, they were among the most advanced Surface Combatants and ASW ships in the fleet.

As the Navy started to procure more and more Burke's in the 1990s and 2000s, it sought to rapidly remove the Spruances from the fleet in order to protect Burke production and cut operating costs. Spruances could have served until 2020 easily, but all were retired early. Not just early. In order to avoid a repeat of Reagan reactivating mothballed ships, the Navy rapidly sunk every Spruance it in target exercises. How fast? It sunk them all within a couple years of decommissioning.

These 4 Spruances lived on though. Instead of being sunk, they were sold to Taiwan, where they'll serve for decades.

This is the largest military contract, at least that I know of, that occurred just before the Sha was overthrown, so my guess is this represents the bulk of the suit.