The United States should immediately intervene in Syria

Con thank you for your response. http://www.youtube.com...Con: Increased enmity towards Israel:My point is that they already hate Israel. Let's say their hate towards Israel is a level of 100,000, + or - by 100 isn't really worth considering. If Billy is sufficiently mad enough to murder Bob, and Bob flips billy off, why would Bob care if Billy's hostility towards Bob has increased?Con: We can't intervene in Syria without invading:It's very easy. Start out by destroying the tanks that Assad has recently put in an offensive formation against Syrian residential neighborhoods. Con Round 1: "Invading a country for the third time in about a decade and threatening to take out a fourth (Iran) would make Syria a stepping stone in all out war in the Middle East"Con Round 2: "I never said anything about a Middle Eastern War, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it would further strain relations between the US & Israel with the rest of the Islamic world, the Pro does not address this issue. The Islamic world WANTS to help Syria! They asked the UN for help and help was rejected because of China and Russia Vetoes. King of Saudi Arabia: "Until when will we remain spectators?" he said. The bloodshed in Syria "is a disgrace for us as Muslims and Arabs to accept." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com... Con: The People of Syria are currently not taking up arms against their government and arent organizedThat is simply not true. http://www.aljazeera.com...Con: Just because we have the big red button doesnt mean we should use it at every chance we getThis debate is only about SyriaIm not saying it does, Im just showing how your claim that US should invade countries that abused protesters is a little flawed since ITS HAPPENING HERE IN THE US. Again, Con equates what is happening in Syria with the Occupy movement in the United States using capital letters like that makes it true. It doesn't. I never claimed that we should invade countries that abuse protestors, I'm saying we should intervene in Syria because of all the reasons I've listed. I never said that any protesters deserved abuse. In the United States or anywhere else, the right to protest should be reasonably protected. If you provide an example of abuse, I will give you my personal judgement. As you were never specific in your allegations of abuse, I could not really tell what you were talking about. There is a clear difference betewen the use of Tear Gas Canisters and Mortar rounds. It revolves around the level of force. The force used in the Occupy Protests was more reasonable than the force used at the Syrian protests. We are talking about the use of excessive force and the use of overwhelming force. Both are wrong. One deserves Police Officers being judged by trial, one deserves an international coalition led by the United States to start dismantling the capability of organized violence. Middle Eastern countries already dont like how the US is so involved in the Middle East that if the US invades a third country it would only increase hatred towards the US by the Middle East. Again, vast oversimplification. Was the hatred of the United States by most Middle Easterners increased when we liberated Kuwait? No. Pretty sure the Kuwaitis didn't hate us. Similiarly, they are not going to hate us for destroying the corrupt Government of Assad. They went to the United Nations and asked for help. This help was rejected by China and Russia. Of what benefit is being a superpower if we don't use that power for Good? This is a situation where it is absolutely clear, the people of Syria reject the corrupt Government of Assad. The Government responds with overhwhelming force. We can and should deny them the capability of that overwhelming force. Syria has little to do with anything in IraqThey do, I've listed many sources. This is turning into a yes no argument. Palantir analyzed the Sinjar records as well as West Point. These sources provide evidence that Syria is a major highway for Al Queda into Iraq. Syria also supports Hezbollah. Con then goes on to presume that 10/11 of the war examples I provided were fought by America for purely selfish reasons. Apparently, we did not intervene early enough in Bosnia and Sierra Leone to be considered moral by Con, yet Con is arguing that we not intervene at all in Syria.It doesnt work that way Pro, the governments dont own, drill, but, and sell the oil, corporations do. And all the oil in the world wouldnt be able to offset the cost of a long conflict in Syria...For the record, none of that oil goes to the US, it all goes to Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org......Not surprisingly, we see France as the number three importer of Syrian Oil. If Assad was not in power, we could get some of that black gold. So then according to you Pro when the government started killing people protesting the Vietnam War all the countries in the world should immediately have overthrown the US?This is a really good point, but still not even close to what is going on in Syria. The Kent State shootings, made famous by the Song "Ohio" by Crosby Stills and Nash, only involved a "13 second barrage of gunfire, mostly from M-1 rifles, from over 300 feet" into a crowd of student protesters. http://alancanfora.com...This website is from a survivor of the shootings who was shot in the wrist. Can we honestly compare 13 seconds of gunfire from 300ft with the use of tanks? Is using a tank the same as using an M-1 Rifle? I'm using the Kent State shootings because Con makes me guess which protest he is talking about. Compae that to what is going on Syria:One doctor at Homs military hospital told Amnesty International he had seen four doctors and more than 20 nurses abusing patients. ”Ahmed” was delivered unconscious to the National Hospital in Tell Kalakh on 22 August after being beaten by security forces. A witness saw him in the emergency room: "There were around seven or eight security men, some carrying rifles, and nurses wearing white robes crowded around him. He opened his eyes and said: 'Where am I?' They all suddenly jumped on him and started beating him and hitting him." Patients have also been removed from hospitals. On 7 September, security forces looking for an alleged armed field commander opposed to the government raided al-Birr wa al-Khadamat Hospital in Homs. When they did not find him, they arrested 18 wounded people. http://www.amnestyusa.org...They also cut off water and electricty. That did not happen in America. Again, we're talking about two way different levels of force. The Syrian response can not be considered legitimate by anyone. So the Pro admits that he would not even consider invading a country unless those protesting the country were taking up arms against their government and were organized.....That is a tough question and I can empathize with any leader struggling with the idea of utilizing the military where self interest is secondary to the primary concern. I can say it would be easier for me personally to utilize violence in a foreign nation if the citizens there had taken up arms and were organized, such as Syria. Also let the record show that the Pro would invade any vital trading partner of the US if people were in revolt. If an uprising were sustained for 10 months, my military was orders of magnitude more powerful than theirs, nations similiar in culture to theirs were asking the UN For help, and they were quite regularly violating international law, then yeah pretty much. Again, you are using the word invade which I never did, and they can still be our trading partner after their economy recovers. Con thanks for a great debate. Also con makes a mistake saying I treat all of our nations veterans harshy just because I did one for having a pity party.