monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Hey, I agreed with you, simmer down. I mostly get my news in the internet, but it is possible I read something about and forgot or didn't read it all. Why get so hostile?

I do remember Kim letting Trump know he should not listen to his hardliner advisors.

Moreover, I was not the one offering opinions other than what was reported today in the NYT by Moon concerning NK need for assurances.

Bolton didn't exactly break character or say something he'd not already said hundreds of times before. This was common knowledge when Trump appointed him. It's Trump's fault.

Iran stuck to its part of the deal.

Fixed.

If I enter into a subject of discussion, ignorant of a major contributing cause of the effect I’m attempting to discuss, I am opening myself to criticism—it has happened, and I had no defense. If I’m interested in a subject that I don’t have much background information on, I ask questions and do some reading.

Sometimes, after reading, my opinion differs from most people here. Sometimes opposing comments send me to different sources, sometimes not.

The issue here is that you forward a strong opinion on a subject which you have very limited operating knowledge. You’re gonna have to suck it up.

I agree that Bolton is a well-known asshole.

There aren't many examples in history of hostile powers, with truly conflicting interests, that directly threaten each other in resolving these problems through negotiation. The objective facts regarding their conflict defy resolution through negotiation unless one of the conflicting states surrenders its interests to the other - usually because it is rendered unable to do otherwise. It doesn't take a lot of understanding of either history or life to recognize that fact - at least for a thinking person.

The available evidence suggests that Trump understands all this very well, and with Korea as with Iran, doesn't value agreements that don't resolve the basic conflicts involved.

The interesting questions here involve Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both of whom entered into such agreements and touted them as a final solution to the underlying problem, maintaining that position even in the face of continuing emerging facts clearly indicating otherwise. Hard to know whether cynicism and a desire for self-promotion or stupidity motivated them. Both are possible.

Ok, Lash.

Do you ignore evidence which clearly debunk your unsourced claims?

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/07/18/486151700/a-year-after-iran-nuclear-deal-what-has-changed

You sir, are simply a blowhard with nothing to back up your statements.

Please provide some of that evidence.

Are you suggesting that Clinton's agreement with Kin Jong Ill was successful? If so that will require some proof on your part.

As for the rest only some clear thinking is required . I can't help you there.

I generally try to avoid stooping to name-calling. It makes you look stupid.

The evidence was in the link concerning the Iran deal; if proves your statement is without merit. The NK deal with Clinton I know nothing about so I left it alone.



The irony.

The NPR link you posted regarding the Iran nuclear deal, is very detailed and informative.

At the risk of leaving a link concerning NK and perhaps leaving a comment, despite not reading Lash's assigned reading material... It appears US officials are holding summit talks about the meeting which may or may not take place.

US Officials Hold Summit in NK

It is expected to last Monday and Tuesday and focusing on the substance of any summit meeting. So I guess we will find out some of the sticking points through the week sometime,

Did you ever see that under Obama, Bush , or Clinton? No. Enough said.

So Trump really can't complain when Bolton starts behaving like an arsehole.

Well, given the obvious facts that the Clinton agreement with North Korea is obviously the most relevant - involving the same countries, the same hostile regime, and the same ambition for nuclear weapons ( and now intercontinental missiles with which to deliver them), your self-confessed ignorance of this matter is a bit breathtaking.

Do you think at all?

The issue with the Iran deal is that it accomplished nothing with regard to the Iranian regime's continuing hostility and its continuing efforts to disrupt the Middle East. Moreover it provided only ineffective means for us to monitor Iran's continuing weapons development and no constraints at all on its missile development. We saw a "successful" negotiation of an agreement that cost us substantially and offered nothing in return. In short a negotiation without a strategy.

Iran ran afoul of the US to the point of causing the treaty to be broken by moving to drop the use of US currency. But for that, the ones pushing to attack Iran would be less vocal and the treaty likely be in force today.

I'd thought that an US President has Constitutional executive powers?

Besides that, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka Iran Deal) is an agreement.
Regardless of terminology - other terms are e.g. treaty, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters - all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same. And that's why on 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.

Only (!) in United States constitutional law, the term "treaty" has a special meaning which is more restricted than its meaning in international law.

The point of the agreement was not to solve the middle east crises nor was it about regime change. The point was to slow down rate of Iran building nuclear weapons and allowing inspectors on site. Iran was complying with both.

I don't need to know about past agreements to keep up with the news about this current summit. I offered no particular insights other than what Moon said Kim's contention was which was more assurances from the US before they agree to denuclearize. There is a meeting between US officials today to discuss issues of substance and I assume Kim's concerns will be discussed. Otherwise what is the point of meeting with NK? If neither side gives until their own conditions are met, there is not much point in having any meetings. What would be the point?