Trump Triumphs

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Thracian said:

I've not responded to your Iran question because I've been replying to your other questions and because I've not had chance to properly consider that situation. 

 

Does the Trump administration even have a declared or definable relationship with Iran?

 

Be more specific on the subject by all means, but with IS being a Sunni group and Iran being Shia I'd be interested in what you'd expect me to say.

 

Muslims have fought for expansion since they came on the scene over 1200 years ago and when they're not fighting non-Muslims they fight against those who interpret Islam differently. They have never stopped fighting which is strange for a so-called peaceful faith.

 

But it's not going to change wherever Trump sits on the subject.         

Trump's talked about blowing Iranian ships out of the water, he's accused Iran of funding terrorism, put them 'on notice' and declared there will be no nuclear deal.  If he has a plan for peaceful de-escalation of Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions then great but I'm sceptical, the whole thing reminds me of a certain deceptive politician who eventually took us to war over false pretences.

 

I didn't know you had a preference between Muslim groups, or indeed that it was necessarily a choice between the two.  I guess then that you'd prefer to bolster a relationship with Iran which would help in dealing with ISIS?  But what about upsetting Netanyahu?  I suppose the beauty of being in Putin's pocket is that it leaves the option of allying with Russia in both taking out ISIS and going to war with Iran.

 

12 minutes ago, Thracian said:

I hope you're not asking me to debate the merits of state secrecy against state openness. It's nothing like as easy a debate as you might imagine. Indeed I'd ask if there's any such thing as truly open government.

 

There are always hidden agendas and if they're not hidden they become opposed - for better or worse. Again, it's another potential flaw in democracy. If most people vote for a bad idea it doesn't mean the voters are right, just that they have the right and that can be dangerous to the point of catastrophic. Blair or Trump come immediately to mind.    

Actually I'm expressing concern about something you claim to be worried about too and that is a consistency of approach.  The man openly advocated to have a foreign power interfere in his nation's politics in the name of justice but now his administration's performing a full 180 on the merits of information being made public because people are discovering illegal activities by members of the administration (again, in complete contrast to Trump's approach to Hillary).  Also yes it concerns me that the response to the discovery of said illegal activities is to start a manhunt for the whistleblower(s) instead of showing deference to the laws of the land.  And yes I believe that a government should be open with its people and not forcefully spread disinformation like a wartime propaganda machine (obviously with exceptions where national security is a legitimate concern).

 

That line in bold is beautiful though.  Imagine the response I'd receive if I piped up in the Brexit thread with that.