Are they Syrious?

In the news: the whole world seems to be demanding that Syrian military forces leave Lebanon. "The world," in this case, seems to include The Hated and Contemptible United Nations, The Old European Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys of France, and the U.S. Imperium.

The ironies here are abundant.

Does anyone else think that the Washington Imperium sounds a little ... uh ... hypocritical, perhaps, when admonishing the Syrians that they ought not to park armies in other nation-states? Even "failed" ones? Maybe it would be better to remove a few American divisions from Iraq before lecturing others on the subject.

And then there's the "U.N. resolution" business. The U.N. instructed Syria to depart back in September 2004. Is it time for another American invasion of a state that has failed to click its heels and obey the U.N.? If so, expect a massive redeployment of the Imperial legions from Iraq to Israel very soon. Nobody, but nobody, can be permitted to thumb the nose at the U.N., and Israel's done more of that than anybody.

Then, too, there's the French Factor. Here's Washington, joining France in telling some third party what to do ... isn't George the Younger afraid that some of that Continental effeminacy will rub off on him? What happened to rough 'n' ready Texas unilateralism?

I wonder of the D.C. Likudniks are really serious about seeking a synthetic provocation to serve as an excuse for opening a new front in the War On Swarthy Brown Folk? If so, how far behind can conscription be? And will it just be the boys ... or will it be a fully equal-opportunity draft?