The us should use military strikes in Syria

---Note about my previous sources---I hate to bother you readers, but I have been reported that some people can't see some my sources (apparently the Telegraph's ones). However, the articles can still be found If you search for the very titular from each link. To add 'Telegraph' in the search will may be of help.---Thank you for the bother---International Community's position about SyriaPro claims that 'there is little doubt in the international community that pro government forces are responsible for the attacks that unleashed chemical weapons on innocent men, women and children all in rebel held areas surrounding Damascus'. This is false.Most of the British Parliament voted against military intervention.http://www.bbc.co.uk...;Spain has decided to wait for the UN's report to decide.http://www.lavanguardia.com...;Uruguay's president position is quite inusual: instead of bombing them, we should send them food.http://actualidad.rt.com...Evo Morales (that guy whose plane was forced to land, showing a lot of respect from part of Europe) acusses USA of acting as the 'owner of the world':http://elcomercio.pe...Rafael Correa denounces US is only seeking Syrian oil:http://www.telesurtv.net...;Venezuelan president has asked USA to not to wage war (I recommend reading the letter):http://venezuelanalysis.com...;As everyone knows, Russia keeps refusing Al Assad's involvement. China has joined Putin now:http://www.theguardian.com...Iran's position is obviousIndia doesn't want a military intervention either:http://indiatoday.intoday.in...In the end, it seems that only US' allies support it in this genocidal campaign:http://www.washingtonpost.com...And some of them are not that sure about it either.And I have only talked about governments. As you should know, there is a lot of people in the US protesting and asking the government to not to wage war in Syria. Good for them by the way.Evidence on the chemical attackIndeed, I provided no evidence that the rebels were behind the last attack. Just like the US hasn't shown any evidence to the UN. In the other hand, I explained why Al Assad isn't interested in launching a chemical attack.You ask how the rebels would be able to do such a thing. That is an interesting question. If you search for the data, you will see most sources agree that the Syrian Civil War has killed more than 100.000 people. If the rebels can extend the conflict this much, they NEED some kind of financiation. Which is interesting, because the only countries in the region that doesn't support the government is US an its allies (Turkey, Israel and Arabia Saudi).While it doesn't makes sense that Al Assad wanted chemical attacks to happen (you will have to refute my explanation somehow, or you will be giving up this point), BUT according to my explanation that the US is only behind the natural resources, they would have a wonderful claim to send its troops If they could have made the rebels to launch a chemical attack and then blame the government.In fact, there are sources that indicate this may have happened:http://www.examiner.com...http://www.globalresearch.ca...;If you support the Syrian government made the chemical attack basing on the US government sources, you will have to explain why they haven't showed their evidence to the UN commission. This behaviour can only be described as illogical, when not suspicious.Invading Syria as a future warning?"My opponent then goes on to argue an us intervention cannot bring democracy to Syria. This point is irrelevant as pointed out in the previous round an intervention is not about altering the course of a civil war but deterring the regime to use chemical weapons in the future."As I explained, a US warning was more than enough to not to use such weapons: it has showed no considerations in invading other countries in the region and using chemical weapons would just give them the perfect excuse. I would thank my opponent that he read and understood my arguments before he press on the same points when making no advance at all.US foreign policy"I think the following statement by my opponent sums up his argument "" What is the difference between the nazi policies and the US' ones now? The nazis had to take social policies to get the support from population. Maybe the West has grown worse than Hitler."" . laughable with very little serious consideration."Actually it's only laughable when you have made not considerations in the topic, at all.I apologize the readers, as I'm going to use Wikipedia, but it's the only way of showing half a century of evidence:http://en.wikipedia.org...Note that many of these countries were democracies when intervened. Also notice that the list is missing names.