NATO countries' citizens should oppose to a foreign military intervention in Syria

I'll address Pro's case first, and then defend my own. PRO'S CASE C1: Were chemical weapons used, and if so, by whom. Pro accuses me of failing to address this question; I was waiting for my rebuttal to tackle this issue. "The French and British findings, based on samples taken from Syria, came hours after a UN team said it had 'reasonable grounds' to suspect small-scale use of toxic chemicals in at least four attacks in March and April." [1] Even the Russians have concede CWs were used, even though they claim Assad wasn't behind them. Additionally, the UN investigation's preliminary report is fairly unequivocal in that some CWs were deployed. [2] This leaves us with the second question of "now that we know sarin or other CWs were used, who used them?" Con states that it is irrational for Assad to use chemical weapons, but let's come back to this in a minute. First, let's consider who could have used chemical weapons. It is unlikely that the rebels used chemical weapons, as they would have had to acquire them from Assad's heavily guarded facilities. And, with only minimal weaponry, how could the rebels have successfully deployed CWs in so many areas. The EU's chief diplomat states as much when she observes that Assad had the means of utilizing CWs in this context, and is therefore, the most likely culprit. ( http://www.youtube.com... ) Returning to the issue of logic, Assad never believed the U.S. would actually attack--Assad has Russia, Iran, and China in his corner, plus, the West is admittedly reluctant to get involved. Furthermore, "the reason that Syrian military units may have resorted to CW...was as a desperate measure to drive rebel forces from a key suburb of Damascus." [3] (This analysis can also be found in State Dept. archives.) Assad was losing the battle for the Capital; a loss of that city would be devastating for Assad's image and his force's morale, not to mention being a tactical nightmare. Assad balanced the immediate benefits of CWs use vs. the nebulous possibility of foreign intervention, and found that it was, in fact, logical to use CW. Lastly, even if you don't accept that Assad was the perpetrator, despite the evidence, the U.S. should intervene as a peacekeeping agent to try to halt further CWs use by any actor. Next, Pro continues to press the notion of "invasion," when Obama isn't for invasion. Airstrikes and missiles aren't the same thing. C2: The Rebels I don't deny that many rebels have links to al-Qaeda, but, simultaneously, that does not mean that we cannot support those factions that are moderate. "The U.S. can influence the situation in Syria...Syria is only one example of the fact that failing to exert that influence does not make the situation better." [4] What this source argues more broadly is that by selectively supporting moderate or secular Syrian rebel groups, the U.S. can boost their influence among the rebel movement. The FSA, according to Pro's sources, is one "moderate" we could work with. In this way, U.S. intervention could positively work against extremist groups. Even if you don't accept this argument, the U.S. should still intervene in an attempt to halt the violence and WMD use. am unable to find Pro's telegraph articles, and I would appreciate him messaging me new links to them so that I can examine them for round four. C4: Democratization Pro's only example of the U.S.'s inability to democratize efficiently is Libya, which, of course, is only one example. It's cherry-picking. But, let's make two points here: (a) U.S. intervention is not about democratization, it is about halting a slaughter and WMD use, and (b) even in Libya, it is still better now than before. In Libya, there is still freedom of speech and freedom of religion--no one is forcing you to convert. You can vote, you can publish pro-secular articles, you can protest--none of these things were possible under Gadhaffi, so, the situation may not be ideal, but improvements are there. Also, sharia law is not synonymous with oppression--that's a very ethnocentric view to take. Every culture has social norms about dress, marriage, etc. In Utah it was once legal to be a polygamist, does this mean that Utah was once oppressive? No, it doesn't; it merely shows there were different norms codified at that time. C5: Other interests. The U.S. isn't putting feet on the ground, nor is it willing to engage in a long-term commitment, as is clear from polling. Ultimately, our interests in the region are twofold: (a) to stop the destabilization of the region, as I noted in my own case, and (b) to halt the conflict impacting millions of people. Either way, the violence is halted, and the region benefits. It's not U.S. imperialism when there is real evidence of CW use. Finally, the Iraq war is not a good comparison, because it was an invasion, whereas it is unlikely that will be the case in Syria. CON CASE Overview re: Sources: Pro goes on a lengthy digression in an attempt to impeach my CFR source. There are three simple reasons to reject Pro's arguments: (a) many investors are left or center donors that would counterbalance the more right-leaning companies, (b) the author is neutral, and (c) the article makes rational sense. Starting with the first point, just to name a few, Bloomberg, Soros, and Time Warner (whose CEO donated mostly to democrats [5]), are more left-leaning organizations or people that would help to balance out the "giant sharks" Pro cites. Secondly, Richard Haass, who actually wrote the article, was formerly at the left-leaning Brookings Institution. He has advised both left- and right-leaning politicians, and is highly respected in his field. Thirdly, the evidence itself made sense. A robust taboo on WMDs is needed to prevent their use and proliferation. Even if the source were biased, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense--and this evidence does make sense. Pro spends so much time impeaching the source he never addresses it's content; extend it across the flow. Intervention will reduce WMD use. Lastly, even if you buy none of these points, the CFR evidence is only used once, and is not even the main piece of evidence in the sub-point that I use it in. Therefore, even if it's thrown out, it only has a minimal affect on my case. Also, the link that shows that the CFR lobbies is not functions--I would appreciate a new link being messaged to me. C1: Stability I would ask Pro how we are supposed to distribute aid when even the UN investigators are shot at? It's too volatile to have civilians on the ground until the situation has be stabilized--intervention is a great way to do this, as my arguments show. Furthermore, non-military intervention may get people foodstuffs and medicines, but it won't end the fighting. And until the fighting ends, people will continue needing humanitarian aid. Instead of only sending aid, why don't we stop what is creating the need for aid, i.e. the civil war? C2: WMDs Pro asserts that we should simply engage in non-proliferation and WMD reduction diplomacy. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that diplomacy will yield results in time for Syria's people. Also unlikely is that nations with WMDs will give up all of their stockpiles. WMDs will never completely vanish, which is why it is crucial to maintain strict int'l norms against their use, which is what I'm advocating here. Pro drops my argument that a strike would bolster the anti-WMD norm; extend my arguments. Instead, Pro says there is another alternative, but as I note, it's not a foolproof or comprehensive solution. The norm still needs to be upheld, and that is why anti-CW intervention must be employed. C3: Iran Frankly, we're not here to debate the morality of the U.S.'s past actions; we're here to discussion Syrian intervention. However, Iran supports myriad terrorist groups [8, 9, and 10], including Hezbollah [6], which itself calls for "organized terrorism" campaigns [7] against Western targets. This seems like state-sponsored terrorism to me. [11] Pro offer no sources to back his claim that Iran doesn't sponsor terrorism; in fact, Iran is a theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah, and as such, it used terrorism a means to spread it's extreme ideology. Syrian intervention will harm Iran, Pro drops this. Iran must be kept weak. C4: Lives I suggest Pro Google my source. They are reliable. Additionally, my points about Iran, less WMD use, and greater ability to dispense aid prove this contention. Pro criticizes my for using right-leaning sources, but then uses HuffPost which is notoriously left? I think at this point, most sources are fair game. Again, we're not striking b/c we want to, or others want to, but because we need to. Syrian propaganda and influence over pollsters impacts those numbers. Regardless, Assad is repression at the very least a minority, which is wrong. Also, in the region he isn't so popular [12.] Pro drops the substance of my card; extend it. The minority can still appeal for external help. 1- http://www.cbc.ca... 2- http://www.hngn.com... 3- http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4- http://csis.org... 5- http://www.newsmeat.com... 6- http://www.siasat.com... 7- http://www.cnn.com... 8- http://www.brookings.edu... 9- http://www.bloomberg.com... 10- http://www.washingtoninstitute.org... 11- http://en.wikipedia.org... 12 - http://www.pewglobal.org...