Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote

[Bfgrn]

The problem is that the far left religious radicals have taken control. Remove them and the problem is solved.

 

[Bfgrn]

diplomacy only works if you negotiate from a position of strength and refuse to compromise on your basic principles. Obozo and kerry broke every rule of negotiating. they are incompetent. Put someone like Trump at the negotiation table and you would get a good deal that both sides could live with. Kerry and obama did not negotiate, they surrendered.

The U.S. delegation, led by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns...

 

[Bfgrn]

You do realize the difference between debt and deficit? Your response seems to indicate to me that you do not. I don't mean that as an insult many people do not understand the difference or mix the two. Yes, since all of the big Banks and car companies have been bailed out the deficit (amount spent over the amount taken in) has decreased. But the debt (how much you own) is still increasing.

I completely understand the difference...

Now, there are two ways to attack the "debt" in you graph...can you name them?

Do you know the difference between Automatic expenditure and Discretionary spending?

 

[Bfgrn]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

 

[Freewill]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

 

[occupied]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

Difference: The proposed deal with Iran explicitly addresses all pathways to the bomb.

The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK’s plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK’s broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked.

Difference: A comprehensive agreement with Iran will be extensively detailed.

The Agreed Framework was only four pages long and omitted many important details. It specified three steps that the two sides would take to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” and was relatively vague in describing them. For example, it declared that “within three months of the date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.” Little was done by either side on this score.

The parties negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Iran envision a much more focused and detailed document that does not call for full normalization. These details will address not only the parameters of activities that Iran may and may not undertake but also verification, dispute handling, and consequences of nonperformance. This should bolster all parties’ confidence that everyone knows what is required of them, that failures to fulfill terms will be detected quickly, that ambiguous behavior will be addressed through agreed procedures, and that nonfulfillment of terms will have consequences. All of this creates incentives for all parties not to renege.

Monitoring and Verification


Difference: The verification that is envisioned with Iran would be extensive in its scope and intensity.
The Agreed Framework contained no specific verification procedures beyond saying that the DPRK would “provide full cooperation” in allowing the IAEA “to monitor” the freeze on activities related to the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactor, and that “before delivery of key nuclear components” of the replacement light-water reactors, the DPRK would “come into full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.”

The proposed arrangement with Iran would allow international monitoring of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities from cradle to grave, as it were. The IAEA would verify activities at uranium mines and mills, all facilities involved in producing and storing centrifuge rotors, and all centrifuge assembly facilities. The proposed arrangement affirms that the IAEA would monitor the only site where enrichment will be permitted—Natanz—and also the research and development site at Fordo. Verification of activities at such an early stage in the fuel cycle would create an important precedent for other non-nuclear-weapons states that might wish to undertake enrichment in the future.

The United States has also said that Iran would establish and allow the monitoring of a dedicated procurement channel for “the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology.” Much will depend on the details, but if Iran agrees to limit the procurement of sensitive items to a declared and monitored channel, this would mean that any attempts to procure such items by other means would violate the agreement. Such a mechanism would significantly reduce the risk that Iran would conduct undeclared nuclear activities, because the danger of being detected doing so would be greater than ever.

Read more at: Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal

 

[Freewill]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

So why are we settling for the "best" deal that Obama says we can get? It certainly seems as if, what you say is true, they are ready to negotiate and we, the world, should be dictating to THEM the terms. And getting those Americans they have in prison released, at the very least.

 

[Freewill]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

Difference: The proposed deal with Iran explicitly addresses all pathways to the bomb.

The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK’s plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK’s broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked.

Difference: A comprehensive agreement with Iran will be extensively detailed.

The Agreed Framework was only four pages long and omitted many important details. It specified three steps that the two sides would take to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” and was relatively vague in describing them. For example, it declared that “within three months of the date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.” Little was done by either side on this score.

The parties negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Iran envision a much more focused and detailed document that does not call for full normalization. These details will address not only the parameters of activities that Iran may and may not undertake but also verification, dispute handling, and consequences of nonperformance. This should bolster all parties’ confidence that everyone knows what is required of them, that failures to fulfill terms will be detected quickly, that ambiguous behavior will be addressed through agreed procedures, and that nonfulfillment of terms will have consequences. All of this creates incentives for all parties not to renege.

Monitoring and Verification


Difference: The verification that is envisioned with Iran would be extensive in its scope and intensity.
The Agreed Framework contained no specific verification procedures beyond saying that the DPRK would “provide full cooperation” in allowing the IAEA “to monitor” the freeze on activities related to the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactor, and that “before delivery of key nuclear components” of the replacement light-water reactors, the DPRK would “come into full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.”

The proposed arrangement with Iran would allow international monitoring of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities from cradle to grave, as it were. The IAEA would verify activities at uranium mines and mills, all facilities involved in producing and storing centrifuge rotors, and all centrifuge assembly facilities. The proposed arrangement affirms that the IAEA would monitor the only site where enrichment will be permitted—Natanz—and also the research and development site at Fordo. Verification of activities at such an early stage in the fuel cycle would create an important precedent for other non-nuclear-weapons states that might wish to undertake enrichment in the future.

The United States has also said that Iran would establish and allow the monitoring of a dedicated procurement channel for “the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology.” Much will depend on the details, but if Iran agrees to limit the procurement of sensitive items to a declared and monitored channel, this would mean that any attempts to procure such items by other means would violate the agreement. Such a mechanism would significantly reduce the risk that Iran would conduct undeclared nuclear activities, because the danger of being detected doing so would be greater than ever.

Read more at: Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal

The point is that we trusted democrats to make the NK deal and they lied. Now we are suppose to trust Kerry and Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

So why are we settling for the "best" deal that Obama says we can get? It certainly seems as if, what you say is true, they are ready to negotiate and we, the world, should be dictating to THEM the terms. And getting those Americans they have in prison release, at the very least.

Don't you always settle for the best deal you can get?

What do we gain from walking away? What is your alternate reality?

 

[Freewill]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

So why are we settling for the "best" deal that Obama says we can get? It certainly seems as if, what you say is true, they are ready to negotiate and we, the world, should be dictating to THEM the terms. And getting those Americans they have in prison release, at the very least.

Don't you always settle for the best deal you can get?

What do we gain from walking away? What is your alternate reality?

No, you don't always settle for the best deal you can get. The deal can still be a crappy deal.

 

[Redfish]

The left's surreal euphoria over allowing Iran's Holcaust-denying, "death to Israel" mullahs a path to nuclear weapons reminds me of the British doves' euphoria when Neville Chamberlain cut his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler and the Nazis.

No rational, sane person can read the Obama-Kerry Iran "deal" and not see how absurdly flawed and dangerous it is. We have gone from Obama's "iron-clad" promise that Iran would be forced to shut down its nuke weapons program, including its infrastructure, and that we would have "anytime, anywhere" inspection verification--we've gone from that to allowing Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--to keep their nuke infrastructure intact and to settling for supposedly expanding the breakout time to nuclear weapons! Surreal.

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

So why are we settling for the "best" deal that Obama says we can get? It certainly seems as if, what you say is true, they are ready to negotiate and we, the world, should be dictating to THEM the terms. And getting those Americans they have in prison release, at the very least.

Don't you always settle for the best deal you can get?

What do we gain from walking away? What is your alternate reality?

NO, you do not settle for the best deal you can get. Sometimes you just walk away. Its called negotiations, there can be no deal if one party refuses to compromise. The Iranians refused to compromise on anything. They kicked Kerry's sorry ass.

Send Trump or Fiorino into the negotiation, then you would get deal that was good for the USA and the Iranians.

The deal that Kerry made was a surrender agreement.

 

[Redfish]

The problem is that the far left religious radicals have taken control. Remove them and the problem is solved.

Ok, I won't feed you

 

[Redfish]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

Difference: The proposed deal with Iran explicitly addresses all pathways to the bomb.

The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK’s plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK’s broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked.

Difference: A comprehensive agreement with Iran will be extensively detailed.

The Agreed Framework was only four pages long and omitted many important details. It specified three steps that the two sides would take to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” and was relatively vague in describing them. For example, it declared that “within three months of the date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.” Little was done by either side on this score.

The parties negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Iran envision a much more focused and detailed document that does not call for full normalization. These details will address not only the parameters of activities that Iran may and may not undertake but also verification, dispute handling, and consequences of nonperformance. This should bolster all parties’ confidence that everyone knows what is required of them, that failures to fulfill terms will be detected quickly, that ambiguous behavior will be addressed through agreed procedures, and that nonfulfillment of terms will have consequences. All of this creates incentives for all parties not to renege.

Monitoring and Verification


Difference: The verification that is envisioned with Iran would be extensive in its scope and intensity.
The Agreed Framework contained no specific verification procedures beyond saying that the DPRK would “provide full cooperation” in allowing the IAEA “to monitor” the freeze on activities related to the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactor, and that “before delivery of key nuclear components” of the replacement light-water reactors, the DPRK would “come into full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.”

The proposed arrangement with Iran would allow international monitoring of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities from cradle to grave, as it were. The IAEA would verify activities at uranium mines and mills, all facilities involved in producing and storing centrifuge rotors, and all centrifuge assembly facilities. The proposed arrangement affirms that the IAEA would monitor the only site where enrichment will be permitted—Natanz—and also the research and development site at Fordo. Verification of activities at such an early stage in the fuel cycle would create an important precedent for other non-nuclear-weapons states that might wish to undertake enrichment in the future.

The United States has also said that Iran would establish and allow the monitoring of a dedicated procurement channel for “the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology.” Much will depend on the details, but if Iran agrees to limit the procurement of sensitive items to a declared and monitored channel, this would mean that any attempts to procure such items by other means would violate the agreement. Such a mechanism would significantly reduce the risk that Iran would conduct undeclared nuclear activities, because the danger of being detected doing so would be greater than ever.

Read more at: Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal

Please post the terms of the secret UN deal that overrides the published deal.

Oh, didn't know about that one? Check it out, fool.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

Difference: The proposed deal with Iran explicitly addresses all pathways to the bomb.

The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK’s plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK’s broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked.

Difference: A comprehensive agreement with Iran will be extensively detailed.

The Agreed Framework was only four pages long and omitted many important details. It specified three steps that the two sides would take to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” and was relatively vague in describing them. For example, it declared that “within three months of the date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.” Little was done by either side on this score.

The parties negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Iran envision a much more focused and detailed document that does not call for full normalization. These details will address not only the parameters of activities that Iran may and may not undertake but also verification, dispute handling, and consequences of nonperformance. This should bolster all parties’ confidence that everyone knows what is required of them, that failures to fulfill terms will be detected quickly, that ambiguous behavior will be addressed through agreed procedures, and that nonfulfillment of terms will have consequences. All of this creates incentives for all parties not to renege.

Monitoring and Verification


Difference: The verification that is envisioned with Iran would be extensive in its scope and intensity.
The Agreed Framework contained no specific verification procedures beyond saying that the DPRK would “provide full cooperation” in allowing the IAEA “to monitor” the freeze on activities related to the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactor, and that “before delivery of key nuclear components” of the replacement light-water reactors, the DPRK would “come into full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.”

The proposed arrangement with Iran would allow international monitoring of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities from cradle to grave, as it were. The IAEA would verify activities at uranium mines and mills, all facilities involved in producing and storing centrifuge rotors, and all centrifuge assembly facilities. The proposed arrangement affirms that the IAEA would monitor the only site where enrichment will be permitted—Natanz—and also the research and development site at Fordo. Verification of activities at such an early stage in the fuel cycle would create an important precedent for other non-nuclear-weapons states that might wish to undertake enrichment in the future.

The United States has also said that Iran would establish and allow the monitoring of a dedicated procurement channel for “the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology.” Much will depend on the details, but if Iran agrees to limit the procurement of sensitive items to a declared and monitored channel, this would mean that any attempts to procure such items by other means would violate the agreement. Such a mechanism would significantly reduce the risk that Iran would conduct undeclared nuclear activities, because the danger of being detected doing so would be greater than ever.

Read more at: Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal

The point is that we trusted democrats to make the NK deal and they lied. Now we are suppose to trust Kerry and Obama.

No, the point is the black robes selected a moron name Bush to be supreme mullah...

Fact Checker
Cotton’s misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy.

Then intelligence agencies determined that North Korea was cheating on the agreement by trying to develop nuclear material through another method — highly-enriched uranium. The Bush administration sent an envoy who confronted North Korea — and the regime was said to have belligerently confirmed it.

In response, the Bush administration terminated a supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement — and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it.

The failure of the Agreed Framework, not the deal itself, led to North Korea building and testing nuclear weapons.

Washington Post

 

[Redfish]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

Difference: The proposed deal with Iran explicitly addresses all pathways to the bomb.

The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK’s plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK’s broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked.

Difference: A comprehensive agreement with Iran will be extensively detailed.

The Agreed Framework was only four pages long and omitted many important details. It specified three steps that the two sides would take to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” and was relatively vague in describing them. For example, it declared that “within three months of the date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.” Little was done by either side on this score.

The parties negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Iran envision a much more focused and detailed document that does not call for full normalization. These details will address not only the parameters of activities that Iran may and may not undertake but also verification, dispute handling, and consequences of nonperformance. This should bolster all parties’ confidence that everyone knows what is required of them, that failures to fulfill terms will be detected quickly, that ambiguous behavior will be addressed through agreed procedures, and that nonfulfillment of terms will have consequences. All of this creates incentives for all parties not to renege.

Monitoring and Verification


Difference: The verification that is envisioned with Iran would be extensive in its scope and intensity.
The Agreed Framework contained no specific verification procedures beyond saying that the DPRK would “provide full cooperation” in allowing the IAEA “to monitor” the freeze on activities related to the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactor, and that “before delivery of key nuclear components” of the replacement light-water reactors, the DPRK would “come into full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.”

The proposed arrangement with Iran would allow international monitoring of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities from cradle to grave, as it were. The IAEA would verify activities at uranium mines and mills, all facilities involved in producing and storing centrifuge rotors, and all centrifuge assembly facilities. The proposed arrangement affirms that the IAEA would monitor the only site where enrichment will be permitted—Natanz—and also the research and development site at Fordo. Verification of activities at such an early stage in the fuel cycle would create an important precedent for other non-nuclear-weapons states that might wish to undertake enrichment in the future.

The United States has also said that Iran would establish and allow the monitoring of a dedicated procurement channel for “the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology.” Much will depend on the details, but if Iran agrees to limit the procurement of sensitive items to a declared and monitored channel, this would mean that any attempts to procure such items by other means would violate the agreement. Such a mechanism would significantly reduce the risk that Iran would conduct undeclared nuclear activities, because the danger of being detected doing so would be greater than ever.

Read more at: Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal

The point is that we trusted democrats to make the NK deal and they lied. Now we are suppose to trust Kerry and Obama.

No, the point is the black robes selected a moron name Bush to be supreme mullah...

Fact Checker
Cotton’s misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy.

Then intelligence agencies determined that North Korea was cheating on the agreement by trying to develop nuclear material through another method — highly-enriched uranium. The Bush administration sent an envoy who confronted North Korea — and the regime was said to have belligerently confirmed it.

In response, the Bush administration terminated a supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement — and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it.

The failure of the Agreed Framework, not the deal itself, led to North Korea building and testing nuclear weapons.

Washington Post

yes, we already know that you are indoctrinated by the far left wing media and their lies. But you can continue to confirm it if it somehow makes you feel good.

 

[Freewill]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

Difference: The proposed deal with Iran explicitly addresses all pathways to the bomb.

The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK’s plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK’s broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked.

Difference: A comprehensive agreement with Iran will be extensively detailed.

The Agreed Framework was only four pages long and omitted many important details. It specified three steps that the two sides would take to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” and was relatively vague in describing them. For example, it declared that “within three months of the date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.” Little was done by either side on this score.

The parties negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Iran envision a much more focused and detailed document that does not call for full normalization. These details will address not only the parameters of activities that Iran may and may not undertake but also verification, dispute handling, and consequences of nonperformance. This should bolster all parties’ confidence that everyone knows what is required of them, that failures to fulfill terms will be detected quickly, that ambiguous behavior will be addressed through agreed procedures, and that nonfulfillment of terms will have consequences. All of this creates incentives for all parties not to renege.

Monitoring and Verification


Difference: The verification that is envisioned with Iran would be extensive in its scope and intensity.
The Agreed Framework contained no specific verification procedures beyond saying that the DPRK would “provide full cooperation” in allowing the IAEA “to monitor” the freeze on activities related to the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactor, and that “before delivery of key nuclear components” of the replacement light-water reactors, the DPRK would “come into full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.”

The proposed arrangement with Iran would allow international monitoring of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities from cradle to grave, as it were. The IAEA would verify activities at uranium mines and mills, all facilities involved in producing and storing centrifuge rotors, and all centrifuge assembly facilities. The proposed arrangement affirms that the IAEA would monitor the only site where enrichment will be permitted—Natanz—and also the research and development site at Fordo. Verification of activities at such an early stage in the fuel cycle would create an important precedent for other non-nuclear-weapons states that might wish to undertake enrichment in the future.

The United States has also said that Iran would establish and allow the monitoring of a dedicated procurement channel for “the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology.” Much will depend on the details, but if Iran agrees to limit the procurement of sensitive items to a declared and monitored channel, this would mean that any attempts to procure such items by other means would violate the agreement. Such a mechanism would significantly reduce the risk that Iran would conduct undeclared nuclear activities, because the danger of being detected doing so would be greater than ever.

Read more at: Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal

The point is that we trusted democrats to make the NK deal and they lied. Now we are suppose to trust Kerry and Obama.

No, the point is the black robes selected a moron name Bush to be supreme mullah...

Fact Checker
Cotton’s misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy.

Then intelligence agencies determined that North Korea was cheating on the agreement by trying to develop nuclear material through another method — highly-enriched uranium. The Bush administration sent an envoy who confronted North Korea — and the regime was said to have belligerently confirmed it.

In response, the Bush administration terminated a supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement — and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it.

The failure of the Agreed Framework, not the deal itself, led to North Korea building and testing nuclear weapons.

Washington Post

So you do agree, that the best deal we could get with NK was a piece of crap not worth the paper it was written on. Then when Bush at least tries to enforce it you are going to blame him, really. Wow, just wow.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Awesome... Obama signs up for a deal whereby Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism gets billions more AND nukes.

Genius I say.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL...we heard this before from you right wing turds...

Conservative opposition to Obama’s expected deal with Iran is based on a critique of Obama’s peculiar failings. He is naive in the face of evil, desperate for agreement, more willing to help his enemies than his friends. The problem is that conservatives have made this same diagnosis of every American president for 70 years. They do not merely oppose this deal, they oppose all of them, because they believe evil regimes cannot be negotiated with. Their analysis of the Iran negotiations is not an analysis at all, but an impulse.

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

So why are we settling for the "best" deal that Obama says we can get? It certainly seems as if, what you say is true, they are ready to negotiate and we, the world, should be dictating to THEM the terms. And getting those Americans they have in prison release, at the very least.

Don't you always settle for the best deal you can get?

What do we gain from walking away? What is your alternate reality?

NO, you do not settle for the best deal you can get. Sometimes you just walk away. Its called negotiations, there can be no deal if one party refuses to compromise. The Iranians refused to compromise on anything. They kicked Kerry's sorry ass.

Send Trump or Fiorino into the negotiation, then you would get deal that was good for the USA and the Iranians.

The deal that Kerry made was a surrender agreement.

OK

Explain your alternate reality if we walk away. How does walking away keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

 

[Freewill]

Yep, and I remember the Democrat appeasers telling us how a treaty with North Korea would make us safer.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Media flashback: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea - Hot Air

This whole agreement collapsed in 2002, when the CIA discovered that North Korea was secretly enriching uranium for further weapons production. The country, which also carried the title of virtually being the world’s largest prison, not only kept the nuclear weapons it already had at the time–which estimates said was to be just one–but they built more (shocker) and the geopolitical situation in Asia hasn’t changed.

As I explained earlier, N Korea has a unique situation where they can actually starve their people to death just to defy sanctions. Iran is a different story, they came to negotiation table precisely because their citizens were getting impatient over the continued economic hardships they are experiencing over sanctions. They are now in a very difficult spot since they blamed everything on the sanctions, the ball will be in their court now and they will have no excuse.

So why are we settling for the "best" deal that Obama says we can get? It certainly seems as if, what you say is true, they are ready to negotiate and we, the world, should be dictating to THEM the terms. And getting those Americans they have in prison release, at the very least.

Don't you always settle for the best deal you can get?

What do we gain from walking away? What is your alternate reality?

NO, you do not settle for the best deal you can get. Sometimes you just walk away. Its called negotiations, there can be no deal if one party refuses to compromise. The Iranians refused to compromise on anything. They kicked Kerry's sorry ass.

Send Trump or Fiorino into the negotiation, then you would get deal that was good for the USA and the Iranians.

The deal that Kerry made was a surrender agreement.

OK

Explain your alternate reality if we walk away. How does walking away keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

We deal with those who would supply the technology to Iran, convince them not doing so is in their best interest.