Syria: US credibility problems before the UN

It's interesting to contrast the different approaches the international community takes to how countries may or may not be involved in the domestic affairs of their neighbors.

One standard is applied for US allies; a different standard applies when the US has a predetermined agenda. This is not different than what we saw in Iraq and the argument about WMD.

* * *

It is curious to contrast the arguments surrounding Pakistan and Syria.

Both have been accused of being behind internal instability in their neighbors.

Pakistan "would never" be involved with it's neighbor's affairs; while Syria is not afforded that same presumption of non involvement.

However, we are asked to believe that it is "beyond reasonable discourse" to think about Pakistani involvement in the Indian explosions; while at the same time, we are told that "it is reasonable" to assume Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Primer minister assassination.

Pakistan is given a free pass; while Syria is presumed guilty without evidence.

Why the double standard?

* * *

One of the arguments against Pakistan's involvement in the Indian explosions is that it would be "not in the interests of Pakistan to do so. There are more important issues. Pakistan would never do anything to jeopardize support and goodwill."

Curiously this "they would never do that"-argument is not given the same weight when discussing the allegations of Syrian involvement in the Hairari assassination.

* * *

If we are to believe that "Pakistan wouldn't do this" then why can we not also be open to the same argument about the Syrians?

On the contrary, "despite all hat we don't know," the US asserts the Syrians must be held to account.

Yet, where are the same claims about "the Pakistanis being held to account" for what happened in India?

The answer is that, like Syria, Pakistan has no vested interest in instability in a neighboring country.

* * *

It is of concern when the US asks the world to take speedy action. We've seen the US doctor information about Iraq.

The goal of the US is to shut off the debate, and get action.

* * *

We need to understand why the arguments "against Pakistani involvement in India" are not also applicable to the arguments "against Syrian involvement in the Lebanese prime minister assassination."

* * *

Either one nation does or does not have an interest in regional stability;

Either one nation is involved in a neighbor's domestic affairs, or they are not;

Either one nation is involved in the violence in another region, or they are not.

* * *

There are two standards: One for Pakistan in re Indian explosions; and a second standard for Syria in re the Lebanese prime minister assassination.

* * *

The word needs to understand why there are two standards in the Pakistani and Syrian situations.

* * *

The world needs to understand why the US, as it did in Iraq, is pressing for a timeline without evidence.

What does the US want the world to agree to without considering the evidence?

Why is Pakistan assumed to "have no role in the Indian explosions," but the Syrians are assumed to have the opposite.

* * *

It is curious to contrast the Syrian relationship with Lebanon; and the Pakistani relationship with India.

When it is in the US interests to provide assistance to an ally like Pakistan, the world doesn't want to consider the potential of Pakistani involvement in Indian internal affairs.

But when it serves the US interests to do the opposite with Syria, despite no evidence, many are willing to hold Syria to account for something the US or Martians cold have easily have been involved with.

* * *

Why is it "out of the question" for Pakistan to be involved in the Indian explosion; but it is "within the bounds of acceptable debate" to conclude the opposite when looking at whether Syria was or was not involved in the assassination in Lebanon?

Two standards. Two levels of evidence.

one argument cannot be discussed; while the second argument, never debated, is asserted as evidence of a conclusion.

Both arguments are flawed. One asks that we not consider the potential; the second demands us to assume a conclusion without evidence.

That is not prudent, nor is it consistent, nor is it a compelling legal argument.

* * *

Why are we commanded to ignore one potential risk or augment; but in a second situation commanded that the unproven argument is proof of something that has been simply asserted?

Two standards, two agendas.

The same United States.

No surprise.

* * *

UN imposes requirement on Syria to cooperate, but doesn't dare demand the US to cooperate with its own prosecutor, 9-11 investigation, or the Able Danger review.

Can't have the same standard imposed on tyrants, can we?