BLAST FROM THE PAST: "THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY." PART 2.

So now we have Two or more Governments sitting at the Negotiation Table, each

One Probably Aware to a Certain Extent of Why the Others are there. Before going on

with Further Analysis, it is Important to remember the Following:

-  THIS IS AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP, AND THE HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS IS GOING TO SHAPE THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTED.

Each Side can CREATE AN IMMEDIATE TONE FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS, BY SIMPLY TREATING THE OPPOSING SIDE AS:

-  A PERENNIAL ENEMY WHO CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED.

                                            OR

-  AN OPPONENT ON THE WORLD STAGE, WHO MUST 

EARN TRUST BY SHOWING GOOD FAITH AND FLEXIBILITY.  ALSO,

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT,  

BUT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPEN

DIALOGUE.

                                             OR 

-   A POSSIBLE FUTURE ALLY OR FRIEND, GIVEN A CHANGE IN

CIRCUMSTANCES.  ALSO, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERSON OR 

PERSONS YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH NOW, MAY BE THOSE WHO

HOLD THE REIGNS OF POWER IN THE FUTURE.

WHILE MANY WILL NAIVELY CLAIM THAT COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN 

WILL NEVER BE A FRIEND OR ALLY FORGET THAT THE ART 

OF DIPLOMACY IS TO DO WHAT IS IN YOUR COUNTRIES BEST 

INTEREST, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.  THIS DOESN'T MEAN 

GIVING UP YOUR IDEALS, AND BECOMING WHAT YOU FEAR AND 

HATE.  IT'S ADAPTING TODAYS SITUATION, TO LESSONS FROM THE 

PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD.  

Just in the 20th Century, think of the COUNTRIES WHO WERE AT ONE TIME ALLIES OF THE U.S. WHO BECAME FOES, OR VICE- VERSA, FOES WHO LATER BECAME ALLIES.

2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DEMOCRATS CONFIDENT? ASK 2016 PENN. STATE DEMOCRATS.

IT HAPPENED IN A NUMBER OF STATES. BOGUS RETURNS THAT HANDED THE WHITE HOUSE TO FRAUD -IN- CHIEF DONALD TRUMP.*

HOWEVER, PENNSYLVANIA RESULTS WERE THE MOST BLATANT EXAMPLE OF VOTE TOTALS BEING RIGGED IN DONALD TRUMPS FAVOR. BELOW IS THE ARTICLE THAT HELPED DRIVE THAT POINT HOME.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


DEMOCRATS IN PENNSYLVANIA: DON'T BE SCAMMED AGAIN!!! DEMOCRATS CONFIDENT IN PENNSYLVANIA? REMEMBER 2016...

HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM 2012 AND 2016                       

ELECTION RESULTS FOR PRESIDENT.                                      

PENNSYLVANIA- 2012 ELECTION. TOTAL # OF DEMOCRAT\REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,670,708.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,990,274.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES- 2,680,434.

MARGIN OF DEMOCRATIC VICTORY- 309,840 VOTES.

PENNSYLVANIA- 2016 ELECTION.  TOTAL # OF DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,897,174.  UP +226,466 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,926,441 VOTES, LOSS OF 63,833 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES-  2,970,733 VOTES, GAIN OF +290,299 VOTES.

HERE IS A BREAKDOWN:

The TOTAL # OF  DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN VOTES INCREASED +226,466 votes from

2012-2016.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOST 63,833 VOTES BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016, OR ABOUT -2.1%. In itself, that's 

not a drastic decline. It would be considered a result that is well within normal expectations.

HOWEVER, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NUMBERS ARE ANOTHER MATTER. AN INCREASE OF +290,299 VOTES REPRESENTS ABOUT AN + 10.8% INCREASE.

This number, (+290,299), is more than 4 times the number 

of votes that the Democrats lost.

TO ACHIEVE THE TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDED A SCENARIO LIKE THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN:

EVERY SINGLE VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2012, HAD TO DO SO AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434 VOTES.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR EITHER THE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, HAD TO CHOOSE REPUBLICAN: +226,466 VOTES.

THAT TOTAL= 2,906,900 IS STILL SHORT OF THE "OFFICIAL" TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES.

HOW COULD THIS BE? THE REPUBLICANS WERE STILL 63,833 VOTES SHORT OF THE FINAL NUMBER. WELL, GO BACK A FEW PARAGRAPHS AND CHECK OUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES THE DEMOCRATS LOST FROM 2012-2016= -63,833.

TO ACHIEVE A TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, HERE IS RUNDOWN OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED TO HAPPEN:

EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTER FROM 2012, RETURNS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO SELECTS EITHER DEM.\REP. IN 2016, CHOOSES REP.: 226,466.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 63,833 VOTERS THE DEM. PARTY LOST BETWEEN 2012- 2016, RETURNS TO THE POLLS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN.

2,680,434 + 226,466 + 63,833 = 2,970,733.

THIS IS LUDICROUS. NO REASONABLE INDIVIDUAL WHO LOOKS AT THESE NUMBERS COULD TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. 

THIS ELECTION WAS A SHAM. 

DON'T TAKE MY WORD, GO OVER THE RESULTS CAREFULLY. 

DEMOCRATS IN PENNSYLVANIA: DON'T BE SCAMMED AGAIN!!!

*SEE MY ARTICLES TITLED- THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. PARTS 1-8.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: "THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY." PART 1.

(*IN THIS ARTICLE I USE THE WORD "TREATY" TO DESCRIBE

THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, TERMS SUCH

AS "DEAL" OR "AGREEMENT" COULD REPLACE "TREATY" WITH

NO LOSS IN MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING.

As the Debate over the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is still being Discussed in Congress, and the Media, we find that one thing Remains True:

SOME POLITICIANS STILL AVOID ANY REAL DEBATE THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.

WHY?  IT WOULD INVOLVE INSIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO THINK BEYOND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, RELYING ON MEANINGLESS RHETORIC THAT PLEASES YOUR SUPPORTERS, WHO MAY NOT UNDERSTAND, OR CARE,  ABOUT SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL CONCERNED PARTIES.

So, let us Step Back, Ignore everything that has been said, and look Beyond Bombastic One-Liners to see where the TRUTH MAY LIE.

First Question- WHAT IS A TREATY?

A TREATY IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES; USUALLY GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, OR POPULATION, THAT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE AND ENFORCE ANY POLICIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

A TREATY IS JUST LIKE A SIGNED BUSINESS DEAL. THE GOALS AND PARTIES TO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.

What can we Safely Infer if Two or More Parties are Entering into Diplomatic Talks,

with the Outcome Eventually being a SIGNED TREATY FOR ALL PARTIES?

#1-  EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.-  No One Enters into These Negotiations Insisting that the Opposing Side Give Up Something, but will get nothing in return. Turning it around, No Side enters such Talks with the Idea of Giving Into Certain Demands, and Anticipating No Concessions From the Opposition. 

That would be Unrealistic and Foolish.

#2-  WHILE THERE MAY BE MANY POINTS OF CONFLICT OR DISAGREEMENT, ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE ONE OR TWO MAIN GOALS THEY WANT THE TREATY TO ACHIEVE. These are Usually So Prominent that They are Generally Apparent at the Outset of the Talks, and are in some cases THE ONLY REASON(S) THAT BROUGHT THE OPPOSING SIDES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.
SEE PART 2. 

ESQUIRE: Trump's Very Normal Iran Speech Featured Slurred Words and Contradictory Messages

(I have highlighted a particular section, since it is an area of importance  that 

I have written about over the last few years.- DAVID MCDONALD, WWW.SEARCHINGFORREASON.NET

It remains incredible to watch the people on the teevee respond to a speech from the President of the United States, breathing heavily and frequently slurring his words, as if another basically normal thing just happened. We spend our days now trying to decipher whether a former game-show host with a perpetual goggle-tan and zero impulse-control has a strategy to solve one of the most persistent and complicated geopolitical crises of the last half-century. Historians will marvel at this phenomenon, assuming we make it that far.

That said, it appears Donald Trump hit the most important notes in his speech from the White House Wednesday morning, in that he signaled some openness to diplomacy and seemed to get the message from the Islamic Republic's Tuesday night missile strike on a U.S. military base in Iraq. Iran clearly felt it had to respond after the U.S. assassinated its second-most important figure in Qasem Suleimani, but the Iranians made it clear they were not seeking an immediate escalation. (Many observers point out that there's every chance the long-term Iranian response—the real response—has only just begun.) Trump essentially announced there would be no immediate military escalation, but he did provide further evidence that the "assassination" label is justified with respect to Suleimani's killing. He offered no proof of the "imminent attack(s)" his administration used to say Suleimani was orchestrating against Americans, and which therefore justified the strike.

Aaron Rupar

✔@atrupar

 · 6h

“Tolerited”

Aaron Rupar

✔@atrupar

Trump didn’t present a shred of evidence that Soleimani actually presented an “imminent threat” to America, which is a necessary condition for his killing to be justified under international law

2,757

11:46 AM - Jan 8, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,279 people are talking about this

Trump did say the U.S. will ratchet up sanctions on Iran, however, and that will not serve to defuse things. The start of the current disaster was Trump's decision—against the advice of his top military brass—to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That's the agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and a coalition of the U.S. and its European allies, where those Western powers lifted crushing sanctions on the Iranian economy in return for Iran's pledge to halt its development of a nuclear weapon. The Iran Deal was the result of years of work, and it included verification measures with which the world powers could monitor whether the Iranians were complying with the agreement. But it was also a signature achievement of Barack Obama, so Trump blew it up—despite the fact Iran was indeed complying—and reimposed sanctions without support from the Europeans. They all stayed in the deal.

Since the deal was blown up, the U.S. and Iran have been locked in a cycle wherein the U.S. imposes sanctions, Iran responds with (often indirect) aggression, and the U.S. responds by imposing more sanctions. The Iranians consider the sanctions economic war, as the cost of living—including the cost of food—has skyrocketed within the country. This has put the regime under domestic pressure, which is part of the point, but that pressure is likely to cause more conflict, not less. (Also, there's the ethical question of whether the U.S. should make the poorest Iranians suffer here, particularly when we torpedoed the previous agreement.) Meanwhile, Trump announced he will ask the Europeans to get out of the JCPOA, which the president once again railed against with a series of lies and distortions, and ask their and NATO's help in getting a new deal. Suddenly, the president likes NATO again. Not long ago, it was "obsolete." It's almost like we're flying by the seat of our pants here.

 Related Stories

Mike Pompeo Is a Dollar Store Kissinger

The Iraq War Cheerleaders Are Back on TV

It seems like the best-case scenario, then, might be a deal similar to the OG, but which Trump slaps a new name on to save face. Anyone with a genuine interest in avoiding another disastrous, un-winnable war should happily accept that outcome. It just seems strange to expect it from a man with no discernible ability to think strategically or plan for the future beyond dinnertime. A few years ago this guy was holed up in a fake boardroom issuing edicts on which washed-up celebrity should be booted off his reality show. Often, his decisions were so incongruous with what the contestants had actually done in the rest of the episode that the producers were forced to "reverse-engineer" everything that came before to justify his decision.

JACK HOLMES Politics EditorJack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce. 

 Related Stories