Hi readers. Thanks for coming by for a read.
This guy in the White House is evidently really really really determined to do a humanitarian air strike against the next-door-neighbor to Israel. He wants to do it so badly he’s even planning to ASK THE US CONGRESS to approve him doing it. How’s that for adding a new side of presidential behavior?
But now this Rambo/Charles Atlas/Arnold Schwartzneigger guy running Russia’s saying he has an itchy trigger finger, too. Says he ain’t going to put up with any one-upsmanship from the US guy in the White House when it comes to bombing the bejesus out of unlikely places.
So the burning question is this:
Can we still kill more Russians than they can kill of us?
Now that they’re just a pissant rat hole more in Asia than Europe run by gangs of thugs that aren’t even all from the same families the way they are in the US, I’m betting they can’t nuke more than thirty, forty US cities. And I’m betting too, that we can destroy several hundred Rooskie cities if it comes to it.
Our Popeye is one hell of a lot tougher than their Bluto nowadays.
If those damned Rooskies don’t want us humanitarian bombing the bejesus out of Israel’s next-door-neighbors, maybe it’s time to cut them down a few notches, saturate them with some H-bombs for their trouble.
We can afford to lose a few dozen cities to protect our right to humanitarian bomb backwoods places like Syria. Israeli lobbyists will work three shifts telling these straight facts to the US Congress next week.
I’m betting that, too. But I won’t get any takers. Nobody bets against a sure thing.
Old Jules
So Far From Heaven 
Another sad but true post. At least your sarcastic reality makes me smile and chuckle while drinking my morning coffee thinking of the old saying, “time to bend over and kiss my as s goodbye”.
Hi Dragonfly: It loses the sad eventually and just becomes amusing. Gracias, J
In all seriousness the current U.S. response to chemical weapons being deployed and used in Syria’s civil war seems to reek of piety. It was okay not to intervene when bullets and bombs were killing 100,000 or so Syrians. But 1,400 killed by an alleged gas attack now warrants a military response. Civil wars are murderous on domestic populations. There is little compromise in pursuit of power. One side is determined to retain it. The other is dying by the thousands to get it. And neither care too much about the collateral damage to the civilian population that is not picking up weapons.
I don’t think Israel has any role to play in U.S. decision making here. For Israel Assad was a known quantity that they could control with military vigilance and the continued occupation of the Golan. They could also communicate with him from time to time through back channels to defuse crises.
The Syrian-Iranian client state relationship would make you think that Israel would benefit from Assad’s demise but that is not necessarily the case. Those who seek power by overthrowing him may be less willing to maintain the status quo once in power. So this is no win for the current leadership within Israel.
Hi Lenrosen. Thanks for the observations. Evidently there’s room for disagreemnet about what Israel might think about it. One of the headline stories on Yahoo News today was about Israel and Saudi Arabia pulling together about Syria and both of them lobbying US Congress in favor of a US air strike. Gracias, J