Giving it to a sexual abuse charity would be a nice gesture.

Maybe, of course the large part of the defeat of IS in Iraq, which was necessary, to ensure they could push on into Raqqa, was under Obama.

Of note, probably one of the most significant changes in the fate of IS in Syria, has been advances by the Government loyalist factions, and successes of the Kurdish peshmerga forces.

North Korea, if it works, then its the right thing. The problem that each of the US governments has its that realistically, a military solution to North Korea is fraught with risks and problems (especially for South Korea, China and Japan).

Plus the US would either need to show its hand, by deploying on mass in South Korea - which very likely would trigger a war, with the North.

Thing is the Trump reaction seems to have been some bluster, to match their bluster, then moving on to a different topic. North Korea is still nuclear capable, and has tested its missiles as it wanted to, so the question is, what was achieved?

Similarly, Iran - The only person who objects to the deal is Trump (the US and almost all other participating states, including Iran signed up to a deal - Iran also haven't tested a nuclear weapon either - and includes IAEG monitoring - which includes clauses about enrichment of uranium (limiting enrichment).

Notably, there is no evidence that Iran has broken the agreement, and that's not even an issue to the US president, its just a tubthumping popularist stance of his (I doubt he even read a summary of the agreement by his own comments). It undermines the reliability of agreements the US has signed up to (currently that's Environmental, International Security, Nuclear proliferation agreements, all undermined world wide on the basis of 'personal opinion').

You can't just back out of agreements, because a new president has been elected - that's an absurdly short term view, that massively undermines the US foreign diplomacy.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

So Raqqa is largely re-captured. I say 'largely', because there are no doubt quite a few booby-traps.
And what exactly is re-captured ? obviously civilians are liberated, but from the photos I've seen the place is mullered.
would they not be better levelling everything and building from scratch ?
As for the fleeing members of IS, the only decision is whether to give them instant death, or a prolonged and tortuous one. I think the media have massively swerved the issue of what is happening to captured Jihadi's, because from limited news items I have seen, they are executed in a barbaric manner, fitting of the IS philolsophy

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (23 Oct 2017 5.40pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

A lot of them will just come back here,tesco,or uber.
They reckon over 800 travelled to syria/Iraqi..and over half have returned,why are they not locked up.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

I'm pretty critical of the point of the agreement with Iran....When you look at it....well it's pointless...very full of wish fulfillment.

But aside from that thought I agree with pretty much most of your observations.

Trump is what he is.....It's not the usual approach....Whether the end result is any more effective we shall see....but Obama's foreign policy....while full of chin scratching calculation didn't result in any positives.

If people know you are a bluffer....well...once Obama spoke of red lines and then nothing...Well, to be fair Obama was always transparent on foreign policy.

I actually believe that Trump would like a winnable war and it's more a case of his generals holding him back.

I think his enemies think that too....if they don't I'll be surprised.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The President of the United States is also the Commander in Chief of its military forces. It's an official military title because - as a country - we prefer to have civilian leadership of the military. This is so that elected officials are responsible for the actions of the military.

Obama is a cautious man, you can tell this from his often infuriating speech patterns as he pauses in search of the exact right phrasing. It is natural that he would be this way in decision-making over the use in action of armed forces; lives are at stake. I have no doubt that it frustrated military commanders, but it is set up this way on purpose, not by accident.

Obama was chosen by the country to be President and therefore run the military. That's who we wanted in charge. Now it's Trump. That's how democracy works.

As to whether Obama or Trump deserves credit, as I said in my original post, the generals and the troops deserve the credit. Bush gave up (very quickly) looking for bin Laden, but he was found anyway and Obama gave the order to have him taken out. It was the intelligence services and the Seals that got him, but Obama "pulled the trigger" on the mission.

ISIS was already in full retreat under Obama's leadership. They were already mostly out of Mosul and Raqqa was already next on the docket as their last stronghold. You can think what you like, but facts are facts.

Edited by Ray in Houston (24 Oct 2017 5.36pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.