The Nuclear Summit

[PanzerJaeger]

So your "abject failure" argument boils down to the fact that there were agreements, but not in writing. And there were steps taken toward non-proliferation, but not big enough for your taste. That's a rather different take than "failure President does nothing but bow," yes?

Is that a serious question? Tell me what an agreement, especially concerning geopolitics, is worth that isn't in writing. Those in writing are already flimsy enough.

Further, could you describe a situation, in Lemur's world, in which this summit could have been a failure?

What's the biggest barrier between us and meaningful action against Iran and NK? Would that be China and Russia? Or did you have something else in mind? And if we are having improved relations with, say, Russia, and they are increasingly siding with us when we speak out against Iran, does that qualify as ... well how does that factor into your Republican playbook? A non-narrative fact which must be discarded? Or would you care to describe how we're going to deal with Iran without Russia's help (or at least acquiescence)? That I'd really like to hear.

I appreciate your willingness to give lessons on information everyone is already readily aware of, but I'm wondering what any of that has to do with the summit. Russia has been nominally on our page for a while now. And what of China?

So fact-free, I can consume as much as I like without gaining weight! Your arguments are like the olestra of debate!

And your insults are increasingly desperate.

Any metric I like? Okay, how about a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia,

Now you are reaching to try to tie in events having nothing to do with the summit to bolster your position.

plutonium disposal agreement with same,

Good stuff. One wonders if it took a world summit to update an existing treaty between the US and Russia.

increase in help from Russia with Iran,

You keep linking to an article about a speech Medvedev gave at the Brookings Institution restating a position Russia had before the summit as if it is some sort of grand alliance forged at the summit. What meaningful, real steps were taken toward sanctions from either Russia or China?

and an agreement to remove Ukraine's enriched uranium. There, facts win, rhetoric loses. That was shockingly easy.

Yay. So essentially what we've got is an update to an already existing treaty and a deal with Ukraine for its uranium. For a conference of this magnitude, I'd call that shockingly little in real gains.

I'm sorry, I believe your OP implied that nothing was done ("what was actually accomplished?").

No, those are words you're putting in my mouth. You'll note that the only position I staked out was a general agreement with Kyl.

The summit's purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communique that largely restates current policy and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran's nuclear weapons program.

And now you are going to proceed to argue against the position you've created for me in your head...

Now you've shifted to "very little"? And how shall we quantify "very little"? That's a slippery little phrase if ever I saw one. "Very little" can mean whatever you like; it's hard to think of a more subjective choice of verbiage. I can declare that "very little" was done in the industrial revolution. Arguing against that sort of vagueness would be like attempting to hold a boxing match with a cloud.

I see what you did there.

So, in Lemur's world, would this conference be considered a complete and unmitigated success? I'm not as good as you at reading other people's minds, so I'll let you answer that before I just ascribe a position to you.

And to reiterate my earlier question, in your opinion, were there any possible outcomes to this summit in which you would be prepared to declare it a failure, or are you in agreement with the far left talkers that the very existence of the summit is a success?