Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Prodromos]

Shiite just got real:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...34525626609666

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Presumably in response to this:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...r-of-all-wars/

Iran's president has warned Donald Trump against provoking the country, telling the US leader that "war with Iran is the mother of all wars".

In a televised speech, Hassan Rouhani told the American president: "Do not play with the lion's tail, you will regret it forever."

Iran is facing increased US pressure and looming sanctions after Mr Trump's decision to pull out of the 2015 international deal meant to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

Washington has also been accused of posting propaganda on social media aimed at stirring up unrest in Iran.

A review of the US State Department's Farsi-language Twitter account and its ShareAmerica website reveals a number of posts critical of Tehran over the last month.

Addressing Iranian diplomats, Mr Rouhani said: "America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.

"You are not in a position to incite the Iranian nation against Iran's security and interests."

Mr Rouhani also scoffed at Mr Trump's threat to halt Iranian oil exports, saying: "Anyone who understands the rudiments of politics doesn't say 'we will stop Iran's oil exports'.

"We have been the guarantor of the regional waterway's security throughout history."

Mr Rouhani has suggested Iran may block Gulf oil exports if its own trade is disrupted, a proposal backed by the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran's oil exports could fall by as much as two-thirds by the end of the year because of new US sanctions, putting oil markets under huge strain amid supply outages elsewhere.

Washington initially planned to totally shut Iran out of global oil markets after Mr Trump abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, demanding all other countries to stop buying its crude by November.

But it has since eased its stance, saying it may grant sanction waivers to some allies that are particularly reliant on Iranian supplies.

Sounds pretty familiar...

Saddam told the people of Iraq: “The battle in which you are locked today is the mother of all battles…Our rendezvous with victory is very near, Allah willing.”

How did that work out?

[mishkin]

How did that work out?

A shattered country and Western leaders embarrassed for having attacked a country for false reasons?

--------------------

Behold, morality advice!

One tip that maybe we should all follow is to imagine that a member of a group we are talking about (immigrants, Muslims, transsexuals... ultraconservatives) may be reading our words about them. (Extremely simple advice, but apparently sometimes...).

[Abdülmecid I]

A shattered country and Western leaders embarrassed for having attacked a country for false reasons?

Notice the presence of the glorious French Army in the list of belligerents. It's the Gulf War, not the unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003. The result was also a shattered country, but mainly due to the blockade enforced on Iraq, similar to the sanctions currently imposed on Syria. That means that Dr. Legend's comparison is faulty, since his image refers to a defensive war, while Donald's aggression is undeniably offensive. From a moral perspective, if we take the Gulf War as an example for a future war between Tehran and its enemies in Washington, Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Manama, then the victory of the Iranian Republic is guaranteed, given the undeniable similarities between Saddam's annexation of Kuwait and the interventionism of the anti-Iranian coalition in Syria, Iraq and Iran herself.

A serious note: Maybe I am overly cynical, but I doubt that any Western leader attacked Iraq for false reasons, although it was certainly based on untrue pretexts, which were presented to the public as the necessary justification for overseas adventures.

[mishkin]

Hey, hey, hey! The glorious spanish army also had a presence there!

Enjoy

Hey all,

we're discussing the introduction of a regular award for excellent posts. The current draft can be found here.It is really a preliminary draft only, though, as I'd like to get more input from actual debaters before proceding with it. You can leave your thoughts in the Curia, in the Curial Commentary or in the specific thread in the Q&S set up for this.

Any participation is greatly appreciated, as it would make little sense introducing a D&D award without the input of the D&D denizens.

They are asking for volunteers to carry out this idea here (as far as I know)

[Prodromos]

Notice the presence of the glorious French Army in the list of belligerents. It's the Gulf War, not the unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003. The result was also a shattered country, but mainly due to the blockade enforced on Iraq, similar to the sanctions currently imposed on Syria. That means that Dr. Legend's comparison is faulty, since his image refers to a defensive war, while Donald's aggression is undeniably offensive. From a moral perspective, if we take the Gulf War as an example for a future war between Tehran and its enemies in Washington, Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Manama, then the victory of the Iranian Republic is guaranteed, given the undeniable similarities between Saddam's annexation of Kuwait and the interventionism of the anti-Iranian coalition in Syria, Iraq and Iran herself.

"Mr Rouhani has suggested Iran may block Gulf oil exports if its own trade is disrupted, a proposal backed by the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/...105325655.html

That is obviously aggression. Iran is basically holding the rest of the world hostage: trade with us or we'll stop anyone from trading with you. While understandable, it's still pretty aggressive, since this isn't a blockade on Iran, but simply sovereign countries choosing not to do business with them.

Anyway, I have a hard time believing it. They'll just get bombed to smithereens over nothing, seems pretty counterproductive.

[NorseThing]

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker agreed to work toward eliminating tariffs and barriers on trade, reducing tensions for now in a brewing trade war. It was essentially a deal to make a deal, announced in celebratory fashion during an previously unannounced appearance in the White House Rose Garden.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/polit...ade/index.html

Walking back versus doubling down. Was this all show for the Chinese?

Of course a deal to make a deal is not making any sort of deal. Glad to see some sense of respect for our allies in any case.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Something i was wondering if you guys had any thoughts on- But Trump, no matter if he's 1 or 2 terms or if you like or hate him, but in regards to his legacy in terms of how politics is 'communicated' or 'done' both domestically and internationally (thinking the use of twitter and loud speeches, unabashed U-turns that almost if you wanted to be supportive could be designed to sew unease and chaos among both domestic opponents and other foreign powers to create a more favorable playing field/reception to the US or indeed the 'no-filter' approach to traditionally politically sensitive topics etc)- Do you think it'll be an influential game-changer for successive would-be leaders in both the US and the western world on all sides of the political spectrum? Has he radically altered (through for instance his direct forms of communication and essentially projection of policy on twitter- unfettered by the civil service or advisers) the landscape going forward? Or is he more someone who's methods will be discarded...or indeed has he been unique at all in his style and political presentation as some commentators mention?

I say this, to give an example that's rather UK centric so probably irrelevant for most But in the way that Tony Blair radically altered how politics was done in the UK- from bringing in the 'sofa-style' policy-making, which bypassed cabinet and the civil service, to bringing in 'Spin' as an official arm of politics for parties in the UK and placing loyal special advisers in roles which superseded or overlapped with the traditional (Theoretically chosen on merit) career civil servants. Trump in some ways i see as a continuation of this tradition (Which i believe was started in the US anyway- Blair merely adopting it in the UK and upsetting things here ) in using things like his personal twitter to get around and be direct with both his domestic audience, but also actually foreign powers- its the ultimate direct representative democracy possibly. I know Obama 'tweeted' but it wasn't quite in the same way- more being i'd put forward the traditional 'spin' of trying to connect with voters and keep in touch for what's going on, as opposed to using it to radically alter the political field (Be it through as mentioned bypassing official channels that might 'tone down' what Trump wants to say, or indeed be sowing chaos intentionally or not with U-turns and volatile responses).

Can you see such a thing becoming the norm for 21st century politics after Trump? I guess it depends on if such a method is deemed to be an election winner or not, but i just find it interesting that Trump may end up being one of the most influential political figures of our own early era- not necessarily for his policy (I won't comment there!) but in how politics is performed.

Essentially can i look forward to Theresa May or Jeremey Corbyn (Or more likely Unifying Tory Candidate 1 and Left-wing/Blarite successor depending on who 'wins' being the follow-up act for Corbyn) suddenly blasting the EU as an enemy of the people on their twitter, or talking about grabbing opponents in the proverbials

[Papay]

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...inutes-earlier

AURORA, Colo. – Police confirmed Monday afternoon that the man they shot and killed early Monday morning is believed to have shot and killed another man who had broken into his home minutes earlier.The police shooting happened around 1:30 a.m. at a home near E. Montview Boulevard and Iola Street. Officers had been called the house on reports that a man had broken into the home.“Officers arrived to a very chaotic and violent scene,” Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz wrote in a news release issued Monday afternoon.Metz said officers who arrived at the scene heard gunshots inside the home and ran into an armed man. An officer shot the man, who died at an area hospital.After clearing the scene, according to Metz, officers found a juvenile injured inside and a man shot dead on the bathroom floor. The child was taken to a hospital for “serious, but non-life-threatening injuries” caused by the intruder, he said.Both men’s identities will be released by the Adams County Coroner’s Office, Metz said. The officer who shot the resident of the home is on standard paid administrative leave.The Aurora Police Major Crimes Unit, the Denver Police Department and the 17th Judicial District Attorney’s Office will conduct the investigation into the shooting. Police are also asking anyone who witnessed the shooting to call Detective Randy Hansen at 303-739-6710.“This is a very heartbreaking and tragic situation for everyone involved. We are providing assistance through our victim advocates to help the family of the deceased resident through this very difficult time,” Metz said in a statement.

So basically the homeowner used his gun for self defence but when the police saw him using his gun they shot him dead. Its a rear occurance but this makes me wonder: How can the police recognize that someone who shoots on the street does it for self-defence?

Merged with the D&D thread, due to insufficient basis for discussion. Feel free to suggest possible improvements for the OP through private message, if you want this thread to stand on its own. ~Abdülmecid I

[Phier]

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...inutes-earlier




So basically the homeowner used his gun for self defence but when the police saw him using his gun they shot him dead. Its a rear occurance but this makes me wonder: How can the police recognize that someone who shoots on the street does it for self-defence?

Life isn't perfect, accidents happen. How is this political?

[The spartan]

What is this thread about?

[Aexodus]

Something i was wondering if you guys had any thoughts on- But Trump, no matter if he's 1 or 2 terms or if you like or hate him, but in regards to his legacy in terms of how politics is 'communicated' or 'done' both domestically and internationally (thinking the use of twitter and loud speeches, unabashed U-turns that almost if you wanted to be supportive could be designed to sew unease and chaos among both domestic opponents and other foreign powers to create a more favorable playing field/reception to the US or indeed the 'no-filter' approach to traditionally politically sensitive topics etc)- Do you think it'll be an influential game-changer for successive would-be leaders in both the US and the western world on all sides of the political spectrum? Has he radically altered (through for instance his direct forms of communication and essentially projection of policy on twitter- unfettered by the civil service or advisers) the landscape going forward? Or is he more someone who's methods will be discarded...or indeed has he been unique at all in his style and political presentation as some commentators

Personally I just think his most long term cultural impact will be a much more intense scepticism and potentially a more politically engaged populace - both I think are good things.

He has however, scratched the surface on a white identity politics to counter black and hispanic etc identity politics of the other side, one that was already there. I don’t know how that will end

[NorseThing]

This might not be worth a thread, but LOL!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...an-nation.html

"Our campaign is not motivated by the shifting balance of political power in Washington," Marinelli said in an email. "We are motivated by the fact that California is a distinct society with the capability to govern itself independent of a country whose values are in direct conflict with ours, and a country whose government system (and its institutions) is broken and obsolete."
On July 4, Calexit staged a rally at the state capitol in Sacramento, calling on Trump supporters to “get out” of the state, and decrying the American “occupation” of California.
“The Fourth of July is no longer a day to celebrate in California,” the campaign said in an Independence Day statement.

I clipped this from the middle of the article. Read the link if you want the whole article.

I am not certain, but it seems the Calexit supporters are not dealing with a full deck.

[Aexodus]

I mean people joke about Cali sometimes, but this is nuts

[Aexodus]

And in other news, Tommy Robinson was freed on bail after winning his appeal against his contempt of court conviction, and will be re-trialed at a later date. Interesting stuff.

[Ferdiad]

UK government tried to make an example out of him but they really had no case, think they only pursed the whole thing due to the public backlash.

[mishkin]

You really love that guy Aexodus.

[Aexodus]

No he hasn’t got brilliant moral character honestly, he just happens to want Islamic reform, which is his main cause, and among others, one I sympathize with. Tell me, how did we reform Christianity from it’s medieval form? Treating it with kid gloves?

Apprently a US diplomat lobbied Britain on Robinson’s behalf.

[mishkin]

What do you mean with "Islamic reform"? Christianity has evolved very slowly over the centuries and continues to do so through dialogue and the influence of new ideas. Is there a movement to which you are ascribed that proposes the "reform" of all religions?

[Aexodus]

In short, liberalising and westernising it like Christianity has. People like him exist to kick up a fuss and draw attention to things that must change.

[mishkin]

I do not see these people fighting against the religion that, with its many backward and harmful influences in my opinion, reigns in Europe (christianity). So nice attempt to camouflage Islamophobia in something more generic like the fight against any religion.