U.S. Intervention

This is the last round and I cannot submit new evidence/arguments, and I will use it to weigh previously entered evidence/arguments.C1: HumanitarianismThe 10,000 deaths + 100 deaths per day seems relatively factual, acknowledging the fact that it is difficult to find an exact toll due to lack of Government cooperation/other difficulties. However, it has little bearing on your Humanitarian argument. Innocents die everywhere else every day from sectarian violence and government repression on the same scale as Syria, and you have failed to provide any evidence how Syria's case is different. I used the Houla massacre to illustrate that although the Government kills innocents, the Opposition murders innocents as well and is just as guilty of crimes of war. That was my argument in previous rounds which render your argument of "magnitude" ineffective. There is no innocence left in the SFA and other Opposition groups, if there was any in the first place.There is no point in providing State Department evidence of heavy armaments at the town- I already established that around 20 of the dead died from Government artillery, but that the majority died by hand at close range. I never claimed the Government did not fire at citizens, but they did not begin the violence or commit the majority of the killings where a logical view of evidence obviously implicates Opposition forces. I clearly refuted the argument you provided in the last round- that the Alawites and Shias killed were defectors. If they were defectors, why were the majority killed of the group that historically supports the al-Assad regime? Government backed militias that selectively killed Alawites and Shias is simply irrational and illogical. The narrative of the Syrian Investigative Journalist I provided in round 3 clearly implicates the Opposition militias. All evidence provided beforehand supports his narrative- majority of killings Alawis/Shias, majority of killings at close range/by hand. The evidence I provided beforehand pokes gaping holes in my Opponent's evidence that he cannot refute. Simply review the multiple eyewitness accounts I provided (which my opponent failed to provide in kind) and you will see that my argument is far superior in logic and evidence. C2: Iranian HegemonyThe evidence I provided in the previous round proves that not only are sanctions working, but they are in fact lowering the popularity of the current Government, which my opponent then dropped. I said before the Iranian Government's popularity and stability are at an all-time low, and military action against Iran is completely needless and would accomplish little. I concede military intervention in Syria would geostrategically isolate Iran's hegemony but not weaken Iranian international power or favor among powerful nations like China and Russia. 1) Have sanctions decreased Iranian influence? At home or abroad? At home, certainly sanctions have weakened Iranian influence which I provided in my previous argument. Abroad, sanctions weaken Iranian's economic stability especially with high-tech military/strategic solutions that come primarily from the U.S. 2) Will sanctions actually work? Refer to my previous argument. 3) will China and Russia actually back down from their vetoes on the Security Council dealing with tough sanctions? We are talking about Iran here, a relatively small nation, not China or Russia. For that matter, sanctions will have little effect on self-sustainable and powerful nations like China or Russia, but that is like saying will sanctions influence the U.S.'s vetoes on the Security Council? It is irrelevant and adds nothing to the specific argument. My argument about Iran uniting against a Western war results from the ambiguity of your statement asking me to prove Iran would unite against "a war." You never mentioned a specific Iran v.s. Syrian war, causing me to misinterpret this statement because we were discussing Western sanctions. Because I am restricted from entering new arguments I cannot answer this contention but rest assured I would if I could. I have proven that sanctions would have a similar effect to military intervention, which my opponent surreptitiously dropped.C3: RadicalismYou argue that U.S. Intervention in Syria would solve the following problems:1) Iranian hegemony in the region- Are you suggesting Syrian rebels would enlist Iranian support? Not going to happen. Are you suggesting that when the rebels are defeated Iranian hegemony will remain intact? This is simply repetition that has little bearing on your Radicalism argument.2) Radical infiltrationAs I have said before, supporting the rebels is as heinous in practice as supporting the radicalists. The SFA is composed of largely defectors joined together and the argument that U.S. intervention could organize the SFA is too speculative to be relied upon. No one can prove that U.S. Intervention would organize the rebels, because the rebels are too dysfunctional in the status quo to be organized. There is no central SFA command in Syria and the SFA has no easy way of communicating and planning as a result. There are many splinter groups with various agendas and the idea that the SFA will defer completely to U.S. strategy is naive.C4: U.S. HegemonySpeculation again. The only issue is not decentralization, it is division, conflict of agendas, lack of strategy, lack of communication and lack of consistency. Numbers mean little without strategy or other deficits I outlined above, and U.S. Intervention cannot solve those problems without ground forces. Even if all that was required from the U.S. was air strikes, how would those be coordinated with the rebels? My opponent fails to address many of the logistical questions that have a great deal of influence on the difference between a successful campaign and defeat. China has no incentive to backlash? I question this argument, given increasing U.S.-China proxy shows of power, especially near Chinese waters. The U.S. has no need to show it's power against Russia- Syria was allied with Russia long before Russia began its adventurism. You have provided no evidence showing that any other nations doubt the U.S.'s military superiority and instead rely on slightly loony claims that whenever the U.S. fails to intervene it becomes more insignificant. I would argue choosing when to intervene more carefully increases wariness about challenging U.S. power.Finally,Thanks to my opponent for an AWESOME debate! :D