The Treaty of 1955

Closing Thought–17Dec18

Our Dear Leader and his minions are making goddamn sure that the US must stand alone against most of the world….the games they are playing internationally benefits no one but the M-IC….the latest game being played by the “God Squad”…….

Three years ago, as Americans debated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran—popularly known as “the Iran deal”—I highlighted a troubling media trend on FAIR.org (8/20/15): “For nearly all commentators, regardless of their position, war is the only alternative to that position.”

In the months since US President Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement, his administration has been trying to make good on corporate media’s collective prediction. Last week, John Bolton (BBC, 9/26/18), Trump’s national security advisor and chief warmonger, told Iran’s leaders and the world that there would be “hell to pay” if they dare to “cross us.”

https://fair.org/home/trump-admin-follows-corporate-media-playbook-for-war-with-iran/

Keep in mind how many countries we have taken to deciding who could lead…Iran, Guatemala and Chile come quickly to mind….these countries were chosen because corporate America wanted them to change.

In response to a UN court order that the US lift sanctions on Iran, the Trump administration said Wednesday it was terminating a decades-old treaty affirming friendly relations between the two countries. The move is a largely symbolic gesture that highlights deteriorating relations between Washington and Tehran, the AP reports. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said withdrawing from the 1955 Treaty of Amity was long overdue and followed Iran “groundlessly” bringing a complaint with the International Court of Justice challenging US sanctions on the basis that they were a violation of the pact. Meanwhile, national security adviser John Bolton said the administration also was pulling out of an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Iran or others, notably the Palestinians, could use to sue the US at The Hague-based tribunal. Bolton told reporters at the White House that the provision violates US sovereignty.

“The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us,” Bolton said. He cited a case brought to the court by the “so-called state of Palestine” challenging the move of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as the main reason for withdrawing. Bolton, who last month unleashed a torrent of criticism against the International Criminal Court, noted that previous Republican administrations had pulled out of various international agreements and bodies over “politicized cases.” He said the administration would review all accords that might subject the US to prosecution by international courts or panels. Earlier, Pompeo denounced the Iranian case before the UN court as “meritless” and said the Treaty of Amity was meaningless and absurd. “The Iranians have been ignoring it for an awfully long time, we ought to have pulled out of it decades ago,” he told reporters at the State Department. Click for more on the little-known treaty and the UN ruling.

This is just yet another game being played by Trump’s Neocon butt boys….this will cost American lives in the long run.

But why?  For what purpose?

We had a treaty with Iran…Our Dear Leader decided he would drop out of it and then decided to push for a nuke treaty….

The United States is seeking to negotiate a treaty with Iran to include Tehran’s ballistic missile programme and regional activity, the US special envoy for Iran said on Wednesday, ahead of UN meetings in New York next week.

Iran has rejected US attempts to hold high-level talks since President Donald Trump tore up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers earlier this year.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed a dozen demands in May that he said could make up a new agreement, although envoy Brian Hook’s reference to a treaty, which would have to be approved by the US Senate, appears to be a new focus.

https://theantimedia.com/washington-new-nuclear-deal-iran/

Seriously?  Iran will probably tell the US and Trumpy to go crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills first.

This is just another pathetic game being played by a pathetic leader.

This is what we get for an uninformed electorate that turn over foreign policy to warmongering toads.

A closing thought——

Americans are right to want more prudent, realistic foreign policy. Such a policy would not sacrifice U.S. blood and treasure on wars intended to spread democracy and reorder societies rather than focus on defending Americans. It would not attempt to impose an external military solution on the internal political problems of other nations. It would not burden America’s military with tasks for which it is not designed and to which it is not suited.

But not happening as long as we have this batch of neocon zombies in control…..

Let me reiterate……Corporate America calling the shots….some things never change…they called the shots in Guatemala and Iran in the 50’s and Chile in the 70’s…..and they are still making decisions that involve our troops that will face death in their behalf.  Time for that to change….permanently!

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Treaty of 1955

  1. You don’t like what Trump is doing? What should we be doing? Exactly what is the point of having meaningless treaties with a terrorist regime. Think about that expression: terrorist regime. Iran is actively instigating terrorist acts, arming terrorists. Do you have any idea what they will do if they get their hands on some nukes?

    1. He should have stuck with the treaty by all accounts by experts they were living with the terms……they will threaten the world just as the US, Russia, China, India, pakistan and NK have done in the past…..keep in mind that the US is going to give the Saudis access…..add another bad actor to the equation. chuq

      1. @chuq

        Do these “experts” actually have the information they need?

        Iran is actively promoting terrorism. They are even arming them with missiles with guidance systems that enable them to hit their targets. We cannot ignore that. Treaties that ignore the facts on the ground are just another type of window dressing.

      2. Are we talking about nukes or missiles? If nukes then I do believe they had the info needed. If missiles I cannot say out right I would have to do so research….chuq

      3. You may wish to research both. Even if they abide by the treaty, Iran will eventually get nukes. Moreover, Obama gave well over a hundred billion dollars to the crazies running Iran.

        At best all that stupid treaty did was slow down Iran. Meanwhile, it tied our hands while they practice asymmetric warfare.

      4. The money was theirs that Carter had frozen…..I will do the research but most times no one wants tom hear what I find…..how has it tied our hands? chuq

      5. They are still a menace because we pulled out of the agreement…..like you said no treaty is a 100% but this one was a pretty good one….I posted several posts on the agreement as it was inked including a word for word…..that money was theirs from 1979….we kept the interest….chuq

      6. @chuq

        Actually, it was not approved by the Senate. It was not popular enough. The conniving involved to get that “treaty” “approved” so the Senate would not have to approve was enough to justify ditching it.

      7. Nothing I say will make you look at the results not the who of this agreement….besides if this deal would have been made by Trump then it would be acceptable not liked but acceptable……plus the Senate has not done anything for a couple of decades……chuq

      8. @chuq

        Nothing I say will make you look at the results not the who of this agreement….besides if this deal would have been made by Trump then it would be acceptable not liked but acceptable……plus the Senate has not done anything for a couple of decades……chuq

        You said it first. So you must be right?
        😆

        “Who” does make a difference. I can’t think of anything Obama did right except look and sound the part. He paid lip service, at best, to the Constitution. Then, when it suited him, he made his own rules. Instead of trying to salvage what is left of our republic, he furthered its quiet demise.

        Why did Obama want the Iran deal? Since it did not do any good, just tied our hands and ended the embargo, I can only guess. For people who worship “treaties”, whether they do any good or not, I suppose it was great, but substance does matter. Ask Woodrow Wilson about the League of Nations.

      9. And this president is no better or maybe worse…..again read the agreement……or continue to crap on it without knowing what it was intended to do….so far all i have are talking points that neocons have been peeling off for decades….chuq

      10. Of course no one wants to know what the treaty intended it is far easier to find hooks to oppose….the treaty was doing well with the enrichment centers they had closed about half according to IAE….plus it was crapped on both it had time to accomplish anything……but the treaty had done more than the NK “treaty” that Trump championed….but that is okay….chuq

      11. Round and round and round…. Don’t think this is going anywhere.

        At best Obama kicked the nuke can down the road, and he sacrificed our ability to apply pressure on other issues. Not worth the price.

      12. Funny I see it differently but then I never liked the way this country has been going……and it has gotten totally dysfunctional and that will be a failing we need to rectify which is funny for that is damn near impossible today. Have a good evening chuq

  2. I think you have upset Citizen Tom!
    I just cannot keep up with all these broken treaties. I wonder why they ever bother with them in the first place, when they are going to break them eventually. By the way, what has Iran actually done? Obviously something else I am in the dark about. Silly me.
    I thought it was America that armed terrorists. Like Al-Qaeda against the Russians in Afghanistan, ISIS in Syria and Libya, and the Saudis who attacked the WTC on 9/11. Age is obviously confusing me. Sorry.
    Best wishes, Pete.

  3. I myself think its not a new, its the old known game between states. Who of them is the more powerful state, and who is – as long as possible – able covering up their expansive will against their citizens. The military industry is on stage, and wants to sell their products. Lets hope the best. Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.