Post the links. And, grow a pair. If you are addressing my post, then quote me. And, lying Tony liked the post. I guess he has me on fake ignore too.
The link mentioned a long list of offences and frozen funds. Why give back any of it until the Iranians comply? Money is fungible.
A famous American trial lawyer, Gerry Spence, had a very long career and unblemished record of success on both sides of criminal and civil cases since 1969. His success went well beyond the court room. He was exceedingly skillful at settling cases out of court. He never browbeat or threatened opponents. He said that it is impossible to get someone to agree to something that is against their best interests. In negotiating one has to find a way for both parties to benefit. What Spence said about negotiating settlements is highly applicable to diplomacy. The Iran deal could never happen without both parties getting what they wanted. We wanted the Iran nuclear weapons development program put on ice; the Iranians wanted sanctions lifted and their impounded money returned. Both parties got what they wanted. The Iran nuclear deal was a classic example of how diplomacy can work in favor of both parties. The Iranians have complied with the agreement. The idea that they haven't is another Trump fabrication. True, Iran's government is doing things we would prefer they didn't. These activities, however, are outside the bounds of our agreement with them. Let us bear in mind that Iran is fully capable of developing nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them; much more so than is, for example, North Korea. If we welsh, Trump style, on the deal we made with them, rest assured, we will be dealing with a nuclear armed Iran. That's not in our interest. Our interest lies in détente; not in fanning the fires of hostility, which is what Trump rhetoric is leading to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Spence
Iran got everything they wanted in the deal, including cash to fund future terrorist activities. We didn't even get all the people they were holding hostage. The only thing we got is a worthless deal with Iran, that merely allowed Obama to check off a box saying he had a deal. The terms of the deal were secondary to Obama. The Iranians will use any excuse to restart the program, when it is convenient for them.
1. I read Gerry spence. Piezoe you are no gerry spence. 2. no one said Obama. Jarrett and Kerry did not get what they wanted. It was a win win for Iran and Obama. Don't forget Hillary's top adviser lover is also connected to the Muslim brotherhood by family. its America, Isreal and much of the world who will have problems as iran becomes as worse north korea. Iran will be at zero breakout time to nukes in a about a decade and they got the billions to develop missile tech and export terrrorism while be protected by Obama's treaty". 3. Now lets move forward. Trump has Jared over there talking with the new Saudi leader. That leader promises to cease exporting extremism. Trump makes some tough speeches. shortly thereafter and a freedom movement breaks out in Iran. This looks like great diplomacy for freedom to me. Of course the lefties here will hate it. And yes... it could be very risky and turn out poorly... like Hillary's escapades in Libya and Syria. But, as far as I know Trump is not arming terrorists.
As far as we know there is only one fact ~ that the Iranian government embodies terrorism. Any reasonable person would know that if you are in a position of power, like the US was at the time of the deal, you would ask for a complete dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure, not a simple freeze, BEFORE they got the money or sanctions lifted. Trump is right when he says the deal was the worst deal the US ever entered in history.