This is Richardstevenhack's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Richardstevenhack's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I agree with everyone who has said that the comments are an important part of this side, due to the knowledge and experience of at least some, if not all, of the persons commenting. So I'm pleased to see them back. Thank you, Colonel, for your reconsideration.
Toggle Commented Apr 8, 2018 on By popular demand ----- at Sic Semper Tyrannis
Re: "his confrontation with NOKO (it is yielding changes in rocketman's positions" I think you are giving him and his blustering tweets against North Korea and Kim way too much credit for the emerging peace process. What I see is Kim making inroads with South Korea in an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US. And being highly successful at it. Which is not surprising as neither North or South Korea want a war, especially South Korea which has far more to lose in that war than the US does. As others have noted, the real test will come when Trump has a summit with Kim - if in fact that actually happens. Does Trump make a deal - or does he sabotage the meeting and come away blustering about war again? Or does he blow off the meeting altogether? Some people think Trump wants the meet solely for the purpose of forcing the US back into the negotiations and sabotaging the emerging peace between NK and SK. If Trump is as smart as some people think he is, he will take whatever deal he can get from Kim - or at least further negotiations - so he can kick the can down the road and avoid war for as long as possible. Otherwise, if he blows this opportunity off and resumes his war rhetoric, at some point soon he's going to have to fish or cut bait and either back down and negotiate or start the war. I don't think he can keep putting off making the decision for the next three years. But maybe he can since Obama managed to put off war with Iran for years until he got out. Off topic, but David Habakkuk might find this interesting: French “supercop” Paul Barril interviewed about anti-Russian false flag operations Barril's Wikipedia entry is included under the article. Barril lays out his opinion about who killed Litvinenko and believes it was part of a CIA/MI6 operation called "Beluga" which is aimed at slandering Putin and weakening Russian influence. He wants the appointment of a former Swiss prosecutor Carla Del Ponte to conduct an independent investigation. Here is a 2016 article from Russia Insider which lays out the story about Barril and Litvinenko and Operation Beluga: Operation Beluga: A US-UK Plot to Discredit Putin and Destabilize the Russian Federation
Off-topic, but perhaps not really since Brennan is one of those deeply involved in Russiagate, which has led to the Skripal case and the expulsion of Russian diplomats. Sy Hersh, in the infamous audio tape, specifically fingered Brennan as the man behind Russiagate. I can't wait for his "long form journalism" report on the issue that he's working on. Maria Zakharova, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, appears on Russian TV (with English subtitles) and points out that the US and the UK appear to have pressured the EU into supporting the UK over the Skripal case - while the UK is going to Brexit soon leaving the UK "stuck in their solidarity". She also all but lays the Skripal poisoning at the feet of the UK's chemical weapons facility at Porton Down as well as the US without actually saying so. Maria Zakharova: West is Launching an All-Out Anti-Russian Campaign The interviewer brings up an important point: How is Russia going to defend itself against these accusations when the UK is totally controlling all the evidence of what happened to Skripal and the US, EU and the media are all in lockstep? Zakharova didn't really have an answer. There's no way to prove a negative unless one somehow gets insider information and can reveal it without appearing to be a biased observer. Nothing Russia says will be believed.
Iran can not counter the Israeli nuclear threat and has said so. Israel has more nukes than Iran could ever make before being attacked by both Israel and the US. Since the US has some 5-6,000 nukes and will support Israel, Iran is also incapable of deterring the US. Israel very likely has a second strike capability via the submarine cruise missiles, and Iran will never have that capability as well before being attacked. Iran is under threat for NOT having a nuclear weapons program. They know full well what would happen if they actually developed a nuke. They rely on the probability that neither Israel nor the US would unilaterally conduct a nuclear first strike on Iran due to the geopolitical fallout from the rest of the world. Iran believes it could defeat both countries in a conventional war, however damaging that might become. They're almost certainly correct. Plus there is the fact that the Iranian leadership has made it clear that they believe weapons of mass destruction are forbidden under Islam. This is not a ploy - it was stated under Khomeini and restated under Khamenei. Khomeini took this stance when Iran was under threat by Saddam's chemical weapons and he refused to do the same. There may be hardliners in Iran who disagree and would like to develop nukes but it isn't going to happen.
The US won't act because they'd prefer to see Syria broken up. Iran doesn't have the standing to act and no capability to act militarily. Syria won't try to use military force because it can't compete with Turkey's military might. That leaves Russia, which is supposedly committed to insuring the sovereignty of Syria. Russia can bring the issue up in the UNSC, but the US is likely to veto anything they propose. Russia doesn't want a war with Turkey (and vice versa), so military action is likely to be very much a last resort. However, Putin has some leverage in Turkey, such as the S-400 sales as well as sanctions such as were taken after the shoot down of the Russian jet by Turkey. Whether this can be enough to force Turkey out of Syria is unclear, and perhaps unlikely. Iraq is in a different position. There, Iran might have some say, albeit again not militarily, unless Iran tries to use Iraq's military against the Turks, which I find unlikely. I suspect Iran doesn't really care if Turkey takes over northern Iraq and puts down the Kurds since Iran has its own conflicts with those Kurds, having shelled them in the past. Iraq will care because of the lost oil revenue if the Turks seize the northern oil fields and may try some military action, but that is likely to merely force Turkey to commit more troops. The US is likely to try to persuade Iraq not to turn this into full-scale war. The real issue with Syria is how things play out after ISIS and Al Qaeda have finally been reduced to a minor terrorist group status. The question is what moves can Russia and to a lesser degree Syria and Iran make to force Turkey out. While there are probably a number of harassing moves they can make (what I mean by harassing moves are things like Russian sanctions.), in the end there are only three possible outcomes: 1) Harassing moves become expensive for Turkey, so it retreats. 2) Turkey does not retreat and the Three Amigos forego military action and give up harassing moves. 3) The Three Amigos ramp up full-scale military action forcing Turkey either into retreat or full-scale regional war. In the latter case, I think Russia, Syria and Iran could make things hot enough for Turkey to retreat, if not actually defeat Turkey militarily. However, Turkey being a NATO member, this gives the US another shot at intervening on Turkey's side against Syria, which the US would be happy to do, depending on how much direct conflict with Russia that might entail. So in the end the question boils down to: what will Russia do? Putin has a tendency to make asymmetric moves before committing to military action, and these are by definition hard to predict. While he is also cautious, he is also firm - so if Turkey manages to annex large portions of Syria, he is likely to respond to the exact degree that he sees these acts damaging Russian interests, if not so much Syria's interests. So the question will be how much does Putin think Turkey annexing parts of Syria actually damages Russian interests?
Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons and wouldn't develop them regardless of what happens to North Korea. Iran knows they have no "use case" and have said so repeatedly. And North Korea won't be sending them any because nuclear powers don't share their nukes unless they have far more than they need - and North Korea won't have that until they at least match China's arsenal.
I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is. Yesterday in my Youtube recommended list was at least half a dozen channels with headlines expressing horror at the appointment of Bolton as National Security Adviser. Clearly there has been a backlash in quite a few quarters that this appointment is simply lunatic - of a lunatic. So naturally today we see people trying to play down the absolute stark insanity of Trump appointing this clown. The only thing we can hope for is that before Bolton does too much damage that Trump gets tired of him, as he has everyone else in his administration, and fires him. But given Trump's history, all we can expect then is that he appoints Nikki Haley to the same post. Russia, ever patient, issued a statement saying they're ready to work with Bolton. Privately they must be wondering why they didn't develop Novichok so they could use it on him. Meanwhile the Democrats are trotting out all the hot women they claim had affairs with Trump. Hello, Democrats! Anyone remember Bill Clinton? At least Trump has a wife good-looking enough to maybe keep him home at night.
I predicted Tillerson would be out by end of last year. So I was off by three months... Rumor has it that Trump is looking for an excuse to launch an attack on Syria which will be "bigger" than the last one, and apparently Ghouta and alleged "chlorine attacks" will be the excuse. U.S. warns it may act on Syria as onslaught against Ghouta grinds on Apparently the US also believes Syria violated a de-confliction zone which might be another excuse for a US attack: U.S. calls urgent meeting in Jordan after Syria strikes reports As I noted yesterday, some believe Putin explicitly mentioned attacks on Russia's allies as a reason to use nuclear weapons. Whether Putin considers Syria an "ally" justifying the use of nukes is unlikely in my opinion. North Korea and the implicit threat to China if China intervenes probably would qualify. So hopefully Trump will go to meet Kim. Yesterday's Crosstalk pointed out that there's a lot the Deep State could do to derail that, assuming Trump is even truthful about his intentions. Personally I suspect Kim is using the talks between NK and SK as a means to drive a wedge between SK and the US. This would be to the good. Yesterday's Crosstalk suggested the best outcome would be to get the US "out of the room" and let the two Koreas work it out. The problem with that is that Kim wants US forces out of SK and while SK might agree to that, they'll have to talk it over with the US which will be highly resistant since those forces are there not just for NK but for China. Mark Sleboda suggested Trump might well be going to Korea not to make things better but to reinsert the US into the SK/NK negotiatons to sabotage them. We'll see. But it seems Trump intends Syria to be the next target. So the question remains how far will he go to attack Syria and how far will Russia go to defend Syria. If I were Putin, I'd be on the phone with Trump today reminding him that Russia has cruise missiles that can sink the entire US Med fleet (not in those terms, of course, but you get the idea.) He might also remind Trump that half the previous cruise missiles never reached their target even without Russian S-300's and Pantsirs being involved. This time, they might be. The last cruise missile attacks was around 50 missiles. So if Trump wants a "bigger" attack this time, will it be 100 missiles? Airstrikes by US jets against the SAA since the cruise missiles might be ineffective against ground troop positions? What happens if the Syrian air defenses - even without Russian help - shoot down a US jet attacking SAA forces a la the Israeli incident earlier? How does Trump react to that?
You seem to have some based on this blog. And since I read TTG's post on remote viewing, I must assume he does as well - as long as it doesn't involve Russian hacking. :-) I tend to regard remote viewing as mostly crap by con artists (how many "remote viewers" did the CIA REALLY have working for them? Apparently hundreds based on everyone claiming to have been one.). However, I have my own theories about how so-called "psychic powers" might work. I call it "the biological Internet". I merely assume that living beings are connected in some way by a known or unknown physical energy (call it "The Force" if you're into Star Wars) which enable communication between those entities. It implies that the cells of the body store information in some manner which can then be transmitted and received over this energy in much the same manner as the physical Internet works - with other living beings serving as "routers" and "switches" routing "packets" of information which can then be assembled, partly or completely, by the receiving body and tapped into by the brain and then entered into consciousness. This would "explain" a whole host of alleged abilities from telepathy to clairvoyance (which is the same as "remote viewing" which is just another buzzword) to even reincarnation memories, precognition and "astral travel". It could even explain curses and so-called "magic powers." It would at least give a sound theory that could be investigated by experiment. Whether the "energy" involved is somewhere on the EM spectrum or quantum in nature could at least be theorized and experiments designed to detect it. That would put things on a more sound footing than just trying to make people guess cards in an unemotional lab environment which is clearly not conducive to results. Most of these phenomena seem to depend on emotional involvement; guessing cards isn't going to stimulate it. One of the more interesting Russian experiments I read about involved a mother rabbit on a Russian submarine at sea with her litter back on shore. Every time the researchers agitated the litter, the mother reacted with agitation. There was no known form of communication that could explain the behavior, which implies an unknown form. Presumably the communication occurs on an unconscious level and only emerges into (modern) consciousness under conditions of emotional stress. Earlier humans might have had more connection to it due the environmental conditions of human evolution. Anyone who has looked into "occult training" at all knows that "magic powers" entail invoking extreme emotional tension and concentration, usually by rituals of some sort. Once some sort of theory of the mechanism involved is derived, this implies such abilities could be trained. Once trained, the trained subjects could be used to explore the limits of the mechanism. I doubt this will ever happen because almost no one has either the imagination or the guts to suggest such research due to career damage that usually ensues. Frankly most people, especially scientists, are scared to death of the knowledge expansion and consequences that could occur if such things were proven to be feasible. Better to let them lie as "old wives tales" and hoaxes.
The problem with the military investigating UFOs is that they have zero imagination. They tend to view the phenomenon as a series of discrete incidents and apply an either/or assumption that they are either real physical phenomena or don't exist at all. As John Keel demonstrated in his research, this gets you no where at all and hasn't since the military started investigations in the late 1940's. One exception might be the Office of Naval Intelligence, which has been involved in UFO research in UFO research in the past under some interesting circumstances. Look up Morris K. Jessup and the Allende letters: The Allende Letters And the VARO Edition of the Case For the UFO Here's a recap of that story: I had an interesting experience when I was stationed at Fort Rucker, Alabama, back in the late '60's. I had noticed the mysterious individual Carlos Allende had an address in one of the books. On a lark, I wrote that address and asked some pointed questions. The letter came back marked undeliverable at that address. So I forgot about it. Some time later I get a letter allegedly from this Carlos Allende. I forwarded that to John Keel, who I was corresponding with at the time. The question was how whoever was posing as Allende know I had written him when the letter had been returned by the Post Office. Of course, it's possible that Allende actually did reside there and the Post Office had delivered it and he had opened and read it before returning it to the Post Office as "undeliverable" as part of his "schtick". But it's an example of the sort of thing that occurs in UFO research that the military isn't actually comfortable in dealing with. I also note that the CIA convened a scientific panel back in the 1950's chaired by Howard P. Robertson, a physicist, a CIA consultant, and the director of the Defense Department Weapons Evaluation Group. See the Wikipedia entry here: That basically went nowhere, as well. Then there was the famous Condon Repot back in the '70's which was basically a debunking effort led by a physicist named Edward Condon. See here: That went no where as well, although two members - David R. Saunders and R. Roger Harkins - issued a "dissenting report" entitled "UFO's? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong", World Publishing, 1968, which is available on Amazon: So official government investigations of the phenomena are and have been mired in problems due to damaging career concerns and lack of imagination in forming a comprehensive examination of the issue from first principles. John Keel's approach was journalistic - investigate everything from scratch - and proved much more productive - although the results were even more baffling than whether UFOs were "alien spacecraft." What's needed is an investigation that mixes scientific, law enforcement, and intelligence gathering methods with a deep knowledge of human psychology, brain science, and sociology. Population centers that have a high rate of UFO phenomena should be picked to investigate in toto like Keel used to do - literally go door-to-door asking people for their experiences, then compare them for similarities and with other locales. Specific locations reported to be repetitively and frequently visited by UFOs should have persistent investigations, i.e., "watches" set up to detect and record the phenomena when it appears over time. UFO researchers know any number of areas in the US where UFOs can be seen virtually any time over a period of a week if one is willing to stay up all night looking. Why no one has spent that time recording events is beyond me, other than the inconvenience and some expense. Keel did it and he was by no means rich.
I hung out with Ivan Sanderson for a week after I got out of the Army back in the '70's. He was in western New Jersey IIRC on rural land where he used to have a small zoo, but abandoned that after it had been flooded out and burned out a couple times. He formed the Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU), of which I was a member, in 1967. The archives of that group are apparently under the control of this fellow: Sanderson's mostly known for his very deeply researched study on Bigfoot and other crypto-zoological entities. Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life: The Story Of Sub-Humans On Five Continents From The Early Ice Age Until Today It's worth reading because it shows that it's not just the Yeti in Tibet and Bigfoot in Oregon, it's literally everywhere and in every time. Where the problem comes in is that John Keel also discovered that these subhuman species were frequently encountered in areas where there are a lot of UFO sightings. This complicates the issue by suggesting that Bigfoot and his cousins are as much fragments of some alternate reality as UFOs appear to be.
According to Wikipedia Turkish poll results, Erdogan still has a comfortable lead in the polls. And there are rumors he may call for an early election which would work in his favor. Any campaign in Idlib might not occur until after the elections in that case and it may be months after before such a campaign went badly for Turkey. Also keep in mind that the SAA may be more formidable than before and Turkey may not have fought a real army in years, but Turkey is still much more powerful than the SAA (without direct Russian air support.) So I suspect he's not too worried about the results of the Afrin expedition. As for Idlib, I suspect he won't try to engage SAA forces until they attack him - and Putin will try to prevent Assad from doing that before negotiations are tried. Much depends on the upcoming summit between Russia, Iran and Turkey where a new deal might be struck that saves face on all sides. The same situation exists for US forces in Syria. Despite being small in number - a couple thousand - they can call on the entire US/NATO assets in the region. And any attempt to remove them by force will result in exactly that war on Syria that the US has been trying to get started since it started. So there is no military solution to US forces in Syria, either. Unfortunately, diplomatic negotiations are unlikely to get anywhere either.
The simplest answer to me is that the SAA want any surrendered insurgents sent up to Idlib because 1) it's easier than executing prisoners and being blamed for that, 2) it's easier than trying to imprison them, and 3) if they're in Idlib, they're Turkey's problem - until it's time get rid of both Idlib and Turkey's forces inside Syria. In other words, throw all the scum into Idlib and when the time comes to annihilate Idlib, they get everybody - jihadists and Turks. The problem remains: what to do about Turkey? I submit that the issue of Turkey inside Syria can only be resolved be diplomatic negotiations between Assad, Putin and Erdogan. Iran can be on Assad's side but they really don't have any say. The US doesn't really have a say either. There is no military solution to forcing Turkey out of Syria. The SAA can't do it without inviting even more Turkish troops into Syria. Iran and Hizballah can't do it. Russia theoretically could do it, but it would destroy relations between Russia and Turkey and Putin won't do that without serious reasons. The US won't do it because it doesn't mind Syria being broken up into pieces, regardless of what happens to the Kurds - unless Turkey actually attacks US forces which is extremely unlikely.
Not surprising the scope is large given that they have a budget of allegedly some 75 to 100 million dollars paid for by the US and Britain. Compare that budget with the usual TV production costs of half a million to a million and a half per episode for a Hollywood TV production. The White Helmets could produce an entire season (or more) of actual TV with their budget or a feature film. Producing a series of small propaganda films would be easy.
"It is a wholesale rejection out of hand of ANY American idea" Fascist much? That is just demonizing scores of millions of people who have any number of different ideas. In other words, it's just stupid.
You still don't get it. The FISA court is NOT a CRIMINAL court. So your experience in criminal court is irrelevant. The government in the FISA court is OBLIGATED to provide ALL exculpatory evidence because the target of the warrant is unable to respond because the warrant is secret. In other words, the government is OBLIGATED to be both prosecutor and defense attorney. Try to get that.
Just watched this and highly recommend it to everyone here: Syria’s shifting sands: RT's Peter Lavelle interviews Alastair Crooke Crooke makes a number of interesting points about the sea change in Syria's military relations with Israel after the shoot down of the Israeli jet, whether Turkey will indeed try to take Manbij, and US relations with Iran.
They also deployed eight other aircraft - four SU-35 multi-role fighters and four SU-25 attack aircraft and - significantly - an A-50U Airborne Early Warning and Control plane, an equivalent of an AWACS aircraft, making two of those in country I don't know if there was any aircraft rotation back to Russia to offset this increase in area force, but if there wasn't it seems Russia is concerned about an increased possibility of air (and ground) combat - which means Turkey, Israel or the US.
So you'd prefer that Ukraine continues to wage war and kill Donbass civilians? Because that "war on terrorists" is the only thing keeping the Ukraine government afloat right now. Remove their ability to do that and western Ukraine sinks beneath the waves.
"If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this project certainly contributed to US political disarray." So you're saying that because a commercial fake ad campaign was seized upon by a US government Russian witch-hunt that therefore the fake ad campaign contributed to US political disarray? As opposed to the witch-hunt itself? I believe that's putting the cart before the horse. We have Facebook's head of ads explicitly saying that he's seen all the ads and they definitely had nothing to do with swaying the election - before he's forced to recant that statement by Facebook management on the excuse that it insults Mueller. Facebook executive apologizes to social media mob after pointing out that Russian ads did “NOT sway” election Then we have the journalist who covered the operation back in 2015 debunking the importance: “13 Russian trolls” indictment debunked by journalist who profiled the operation in 2015 Then we have the *Russian* journalist who covered the operation back in 2013 debunking it: The Russian journalist who helped uncover election interference is confounded by the Mueller indictments In other words, everyone views this as a commercial marketing operation which used the US elections as a vehicle to make money by supporting and denouncing both Trump and Clinton, but you're convinced it was a real Russian government disinformation operation. Based on what? The fact that it had zero impact on the election? Or the fact that by definition it couldn't possibly have had any significant impact on US divisiveness by comparison with the US media and social media themselves - other than by having been put up by Mueller's witch hunt as significant? The fact that this operation has zero connections to the Russian government except for this "chef" having some vague connections with Putin? Not buying it. This operation in my view had zilch to do with weakening the US in any way, shape or form - except to extract some money from it.
It's worse than a hissy fit. As Glenn Greenwald and Pat Buchanan point out in separate articles, there are Democrats and others out there calling this an "act of war" on a par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11! That is absolute lunacy. A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Should the U.S. Response Be Similar? Is That Russia Troll Farm an Act of War? This is what happens when a nation allows itself to be swept up in mass hysteria as a result of propaganda promulgated by persons with an agenda. Not, as Greenwald points out, that we are actually likely to go to war with Russia over these indictments, but they provide further grist for a degeneration of relations which could ultimately lead to WWIII.
Current Crosstalk program covers both the 13 Russians - with Alexander Mercouris as one of the panelists - plus the Syrian situation vis-a-vis Turkey and the US. Worth listening to. CrossTalk Bullhorns: 13 Russians (extended version) One interesting point brought up is that if the 13 Russians can be indicted for what they did, then Christopher Steele is equally guilty and worthy of indictment. Mark Sleboda also brought up this interesting article from The Guardian in 2011: Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media Of course, the article did state: "Centcom said it was not targeting any US-based web sites, in English or any other language, and specifically said it was not targeting Facebook or Twitter." Right... Sleboda also brought up Michael Hayden's comment on the DNC hack during a speech at the Heritage Foundation: Quote: “I have to admit my definition of what the Russians did [in hacking the Democratic National Committee] is, unfortunately, honorable state espionage," Hayden said during an on-stage interview at the Heritage Foundation. "A foreign intelligence service getting the internal emails of a major political party in a major foreign adversary? Game on. That’s what we do. By the way, I would not want to be in an American court of law and be forced to deny that I never did anything like that as director of the NSA,” he said. End Quote Of course, then Hayden denies the US "weaponizes" that information - which is absurd on the face of it. The discussion on Syria comes to no real conclusions other than that Erdogan is trying to play the US and Russia/Iran against each other so he can grab some territory, specifically Afrin, Manbij and the Jarabulus corridor he already has and force the Kurds back east of the Euphrates. There's some comedy when Peter Lavelle quotes James Woolsey on "Russia's bad behavior in the Eurasian space" pointing out that Russia IS in Eurasia and the US is NOT. And "the South China Sea is called the South China Sea for a REASON!" Sleboda also brings up the Intercept report that the UK hacked Belgium forcing Belgium to replace all their computers at a cost of $55 million, saying "there is no honor among imperialists." Also discussed is the Dutch minister who admitted lying about Putin claiming he wanted Russia to control Belarus and Ukraine.
A lot of the anti-Clinton camp are deep into claims of widespread pedophilia on the part of the Clinton crowd as well as other government officials worldwide. I have no idea about it, haven't followed any of that stuff. I've seen nothing come of it other than the prosecution of Huma Abedin's husband and Jeffrey Epstein. So until I see criminal charges and prosecutions I couldn't care less. People's sexual peccadilloes don't interest me - I have enough of my own. :-)
This was reported yesterday... Syrian Kurdish official: deal for Syrian army to enter Afrin Of course, it comes from a Kurdish official with no Syrian confirmation. As the report says: Quote: There was no immediate comment from the Syrian military. When asked about the reported deal, YPG spokesman Nouri Mahmoud repeated an earlier statement that said the Syrian army had yet to respond to their calls to help protect Afrin. End Quote I can't see that Assad getting his military to directly confront the Turkish military can be a good idea. For years earlier in this conflict, Turkey tried to get Assad to respond to numerous provocations by the Turkish military, so Turkey could get NATO to attack Syria along with the US. Assad never took the bait, from Turkey or Israel which engaged in the same provocations. Now Assad is going to send his troops against Turkey's much larger military - when they haven't even cleaned up ISIS and Al Qaeda yet? Yes, the presence of Turkey illegally in Syria is an issue, as is the US presence. I don't see Syria trying to militarily force either of them out. It would just give either country an excuse to escalate. I assume Syria and Russia will present these issues at the UNSC first. Then we'll see who does what.
Ah, yes, this is the new talking point: Just wait for Mueller to finish and Trump will be destroyed. Except the reality is Mueller has produced NOTHING related to Trump or any of his associates that has ANYTHING to do with Russia. Note: The 13 trolls have ZERO connection with Mueller's remit which was to find evidence of Trump "collusion". After a year and a half. So we're all supposed to wait with baited breath for Mueller's "grand reveal". I can't hold my breath that long.