licentious radio

Thursday, April 10, 2003
[1:42:18 PM]

Why not? Why not conquer Syria? The troops are in place. We could do it for a hundred dead Americans -- well, maybe three hundred, but not many. A lot of Syrians would be glad to get rid of the current fascist regime. Certainly freedom would descend on Lebanon (in the form of a B-1 bomber, but that's a different part of the story). Unlike Iraq, Syria directly supports large-scale terrorism.

Think of how much safer Israel would be if "democratic" regimes control Syria and Lebanon. Rummy already gave us the green light: we can't find no WMD in Iraq, cuz Saddam shipped it all to Syria! And it was Syria smuggling high-tech weapons into Iraq during our conquest. (Weapons that apparently were never used, even though they clearly existed in Rummy's mind, or at least in his speeches.)

Some of us aren't too thrilled about endless war, but we'll shut up as soon as free speech is finally buried. Rovism is running way ahead of the McCarthyism schedule.

Apparently it doesn't much matter how many *Arabs* get killed. It doesn't matter how much destruction is done -- we didn't bomb Baghdad to rubble, but we let the looters take everything they wanted. Including cleaning out the hospitals, apparently. We don't care about the "Arab Street" -- they're the ones we're going to impose a "democratic" government on. Their going to love it!

It starts to seem like the only reason not to take out Syria is that they don't have any oil. You'd think helping Israel would trump that little obstacle.

Some of us might say that "nation-building" all these nations might get expensive -- start cutting into the redistribution of wealth to Bush's cronies. But *that's* a silly argument: look how much of the Bush gang's plunder is wasted on nation-building Afghanistan. They didn't even bother to put it into the budget.

Certainly the UN Charter's prohibition of military invasion is no impediment to doing Syria.

So why not? Why not take Syria down, now?