American Intervention in Syria

Point 1: 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. Rebuttal 1: The United Nations has demonstrated its unwillingness to uphold international law. It therefore falls to another power to uphold the law. That power is the United States.If the police were unwilling to capture criminals, would that justify criminal behavior? Would you allow a serial rapist to rape as many women as he wanted, just because the police were incompetent? Or would you try to stop the suffering yourself?Point 2: 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’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? Rebuttal 2: No one. In case you haven't noticed, the UN doesn't really enforce anything, and as I said earlier, laws are meaningless without enforcement. If no one is willing to stop the US, the US is free to do as it sees best. In this case, the US is free to save lives in Syria.Point 3 (redundant): 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. Rebuttal 3: (redundant): It's not a chemical weapon. AO targeted plants, not people. Humans and plants are different things, and while the US killed crops, the intention was to force the Vietnamese off their farmlands and into the cities, not to kill them. Chemical weapons are used to kill people, not plants.Point 4: 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.Rebuttal 4: The police have a history of failure when it comes to preventing crime. I mean, the police have been around for centuries and yet...there are still crimes. We should just disband the police force. It's ineffective.Fallacious logic, still. A history of alleged failure does not justify inaction. By your logic, Edison should have given up on creating the light bulb. He failed 1000 times.Point 5: 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.Rebuttal 5: Taxes aren't donations. Even if they were, that doesn't fix your argument. Why would you give money to a rich man when there's a starving poor man next door? That's like... You're coming off the freeway and you see two beggars on the side of the rode. One is all dirty and shaking and has an unkempt beard. The other is wearing a tailored business suit from Bloomingdale's while talking on his new iphone. Under what sociopathic logic do you justify "helping" the latter man??? Why should Americans live in luxury when there are people being killed every day by an oppressive government? I fail to see how living under a deficit (which you know about only because some people on the news talk about it) is worse than being shot or gassed... -_- Point 7: 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?”Rebuttal 7: Yeah, that's called the slippery slope fallacy. By the same logic, we should ban gay marriage because it will eventually lead to pedophilia. Just follow the logic. We allowed rich people to marry poor people. Then we allowed interracial marriage. Now we're allowing gay marriage. Next, we'll allow marriage between children and adults. (Eventually, people will be able to marry animals.) "Can" really doesn't mean "will." To assert otherwise is fallacious.http://en.wikipedia.org...Point 8: 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. Rebuttal 9: No, that's false. The military's responsibility has been to protect American interests, not necessarily the country. WWII is the only instance where the United States has taken a defensive position. Every other war has either been initiated by or bolstered by the United States, often when the US itself was in no immediate danger.Regardless, your argument does not justify inaction. As I've said earlier, humans have moral obligations that transcends national boundaries. American interests ought to coincide with the human interest to prevent unnecessary suffering. Police officers and soldiers, as humans beings, have a moral obligation to prevent unnecessary suffering, and that's what they do every day.I have provided arguments of my own. My argument is, and has always been, that people have a moral obligation to help those who are oppressed. The United States is group of people. Syria is a group of people. The Syrian people are suffering. The United States has the ability to end the suffering and so is morally obligated to do so. As I said earlier, the situation is similar to a person who witnesses a rape in broad daylight. The evil thing to do is to walk away and shrug it off as "That's not my problem. The woman will just be raped harder if I stop the rapist." However, that is what has happened in the international community. The Syrian people are being shot and gassed by their government, and yet sociopathic logic (Who else but a sociopath would willing allow children to be gassed with sarin???), such as that displayed by Con, would attempt to excuse and allow crimes against humanity. Everybody, vote!