The United States should immediately intervene in Syria

Counter arguments to the Pro's 3 main points1) US security interests. The Pro argues that the US should intervene in Syria because since Syria is a dangerous country, they should be stopped. Syria is a disturbance to the Middle East, but deploying US troops and opening fire on a THIRD country in the Middle East with Iran filling the number four spot along with weariness from US presence in the Middle East already, intervening in Syria may cause more problems than it solves. If this argument is that the US should invade Syria to keep the peace, then the US NOT invading Syria is the best option for keeping the peace since Middle Eastern countries already protest the very abundant US presence. 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 Easthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://en.wikipedia.org...2) Economical benefitsInvading Syria wont be economically beneficial for the US as a whole. It would take a lot of money to deploy troops back to the Middle East (we just got them out of Iraq) It will cost money to support them and supply them, the collateral damage will be very abundant, it will be looked down upon by the international community, and all these expenses would come at a time just as the US economy was starting to mend. A third war in the Middle East could bring a grinding halt to the economic progress we've made over the past few months and send us right back into a recession, which would not be able to be alleviated by new oil trade....http://economics.about.com...http://www.joshuagoldstein.com...3) Benefits American allies - 1 - It only benefits 1 ally, Israel. Iraq is unaffected by any disturbance Syria has because Iraq already has its own problems, Syria is not even close to being a major issue for them. Israel would be the only one benefiting from this (because the US sure wouldnt), and it would only benefit Israel in the short term. - 2 - A third US-started conflict in the middle east would sufficiently piss off many middle eastern nations and only add more fuel to the anti-west atmosphere in the Middle East. When the Middle East wants to protest the west, they act hostile towards the US, and their closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. Invading Syria may benefit Israel on the short term, but the anti-western anger and resentment it would cause would be aimed at Israel in the long term future in addition to the already deep resentment towards Israel. http://newsblaze.com...4) Moral Stance - 1 - When the hell has the US ever intervened in a country based on morality? The Pro wants the US to intervene in a country that is treating protesters poorly. But how hypocritical would the US be for invading a country that is treating protesters poorly when the US right now is fighting the Occupy Wall Street movement with in some cases overwhelming force? If the US wants to become a moral nation, it should start at home not in the Middle East - 2 - Syria is not comparable to Libya because Libyans were in open arms actually fighting for their freedoms against the government, Syrians are still just protesting their government asking for change instead of fighting for something they truly believe in. Imagine in 1770 when the US protesters were not treated fairly by the British empire, should France have immediately declared war on Britain and get Americans to fight also? of course not. When it comes to regime change, especially in the modern world, it is the people who have to put everything on the line and fight for what they truly want, they cant just wait around for someone to swoop in and give them these rights, they must fight for it not just protestWhat was the last country the US invaded to give freedom to people who wanted it but werent openly fighting for it?Iraq....................... And we all know how that ended...........http://security.blogs.cnn.com... - 3 - Invading Syria would not be "another Epoch in America's history of support for Freedom" it would be more like a clusterf*ck of another Middle Eastern country by an already over-interventionist United States. - 4 - "Screw the United Nations, China, Russia, etc" - Do you see how pissing off our closest trading partners to invade Syria might hurt us economically?.....Now my arguments for why the US should not intervene in Syria1) The US doesnt want to intervene, so why should they?2) Why should the US suddenly become the morality police?3) Nothing might happen - 1 - The US officially does not want to militaristically intervene in Syria because the US wants to use diplomatic and economic pressure to try to influence Syria to reform. What is wrong with that? The US shouldnt be forced to take up arms when diplomatic solutions to this problem are still available, when Americans are already weary of war, and when Syria is still only in the protesting the government phase. http://www.panarmenian.net... - 2 - Imagine a country, where people who are campaigning for democratic reforms in a rather oppressive country are suddenly open fired on by government forces, does that mean the US should invade that country and remove that government?If you answered yes then 10 years ago you would have wanted the US to invade ChinaTiananmen Square, 1989. Chinese protesters wanting democratic reform who are peacefully protesting the lack of democracy in the Chinese government, and to solve the problem China used live fire and other extreme crowd control measures to eliminate the protests, in the process killing anywhere from hundreds to a couple thousand civilian deaths, creating a martial law, banning foreign newspapers, controlled media coverage of the event within the country, and earned itself several economic sanctions for its actions. http://en.wikipedia.org...Syria is much the same way, and should the US invade Syria for moral interests after letting China get away with murder, it would make the US the biggest hypocrites in the world since the US has already allowed countries to use force against protests and have only stood by and watched. Iran kills protestersNorth Korea forces protesters into labor campsQatar has cracked down on protests violentlyVenezuela is no differentNigeria has had its fair share of brutalityBelarus outlaws both actual protests and "silent" protestsBahrain banned protests a year ago Saudi Arabia has banned public demonstrationsPoint is, if the US invaded every country that treated protesters with hostility, we would have invaded every country in the world by now except maybe Canada.... The US shouldnt invade Syria by "acting moral" because if we did then we would have to react similarly to every other country that will ever act immoral, which would be the downfall of the US as we end up at war with 20 countries or so.... - 3 - Syria is not the only Arab country going through some political shifts, you may have noticed that Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and other nations have had populations that succeeded in overthrowing their dictators in the name of Democracy, how did those nations turn out?Egypt: Military still controls everythinghttp://www.commondreams.org...Tunisia: Government still is too ineffective and is sparkign another wave of protestinghttp://www.dailystar.com.lb...Libya: On the verge of falling into a Civil Warhttp://www.nytimes.com...Ill end here for now