American Intervention in Syria

I have to be honest I'm dissapointed that until this point the opponent has failed to provide arguments of his own.“The use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, and because laws are meaningless without enforcement, it is necessary for the laws to be informed.” Yes the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, and it is true that without enforcement laws are meaningless but the United Nations not the United States is responsible for upholding and enforcing international law. This is the objective of the United Nations to ensure that all of its members abide and uphold the laws that the international community has placed. But while we are on the topic of international law and the fact that a violation of international law should not go unpunished, it shouldn’t go without saying that if the United States is to get involved in Syria without the United Nations approval it would be a violation of international law. Who then would punish the United States for violating international law? “AO is not a chemical weapon and so did not violate international law. And it wasn’t used to kill; it was used to clear forests Wrong, once again. Agent Orange is in fact a chemical, and a very deadly one for that matter. And Operation Ranch Hand had the intent of intoxicating the food supply of the Viet Cong, thus the United States willingly used a chemical to intoxicate the food supply of a nation. This attack is still a dominant health issue in Vietnam, but yet no one has punished the United States for such actions. “Two, even if AO had been used as a chemical weapon, so what? If something is wrong, it should be condemned, regardless of whoever did it in the past. By your logic, Germany should tolerate genocide because Germans committed genocide in the past.” No by my logic, a nation should remain neutral from foreign conflicts especially when the nation has a history of failures during foreign intervention. By my logic Germany should never place troops in Israel or Poland, due to the historical role that Germany played in the deaths of millions of Jews by setting up concentration camps in Poland. The only money in question is "government money," and the government should use its money to help those who need it most. Those who need it most are the those who live in poverty and constant fear of death, not those who can't afford to live in a $100,000 house and drive a $20,000 car...at the same time. So the United States should spend money aiding foreign people, when it has a $16 trillion dollar debt? The people who need help and should be given aid with the money that Americans pay in taxes are here in the United States not Syria. Yes, it is. But I still ask, "So what?" The weapons we've provided are of little to no threat to us. What would the terrorists do? Sneak past security, hop upon an airplane, fly all the way to the US, sneak past security again, and just shoot random people with their American-made guns? How often has this happened??? It happened twice, once in 1993 and again in 2001. You haven’t forgotten 911 have you? "Can" doesn't mean "will." But it has, as I already have proven that. Intervention in Libya which you rebuttal by saying “so what” ended up killing thousands of civilians in Mali. But I can already predict your response to that as well, let me guess “so what?” By your logic, if a man brings an assault rifle into a mall and starts killing people, the police should not intervene. Why? Because the situation might become worse. You never know, right? I mean, what if some people die in the crossfire? That's unacceptable, isn't it? The shooter will run out of bullets eventually. Let things run their course. You seem to lack basic understanding about the difference between a police and a soldier. You see an American police has the duty to save protect American citizens from harm here in the United States, and a soldiers job is to protect the United States from foreign enemies. You cannot believe that Syria poses a threat to the United States correct? I mean what is Syria going to do with a few assault rifles, when we have tanks and jet fighters. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...ttp://en.wikipedia.org...