The United Nations should intervene militarily in Syria

Once more, I shall condense my oppositions argument, as I understand that other work leaves little time to refine it. Firstly, that the UN forces are "a joke" and that the UN aims for "world peace" and "energy preservation," and that as a result the forces used as in Iraq would be largely American, and therefore it still classifies as "American spearheaded invasion." Secondly, that as we would "blow the country to the stone age" that "billions of taxpayers dollars" would be necessary to rebuild Syria, without "consensus of the country." Thirdly that the Syrian conflict is a method of "profiteering" and turning "lives into money." Fourthly that the war on "terrorism" is endless, and would be exploited in Syria. Fifthly that "American Imperialism" is the future and leading to world domination by the US. Sixthly that lives wold be lost (implied through "mourn the death of") from UN countries. Finally there are further references to Hitler in comparison to the US. I shall now systematically explain why each of these points are either unsound, or irrelevant. Firstly, this is not an invasion. I would like to make this as clear as possible, military intervention in this sense, as I have previously stated (as the proposition has the right to) would "take the form of drone strikes or missile strikes." This makes the invasion of Iraq void and irrelevant, and I feel a closer comparison would be Libya, in which the United Kingdom committed more funds than the US. The UK spent up to $1500 million in the Libyan intervention and $1570 million was spent by the other four most major countries involved (Italy, France, Turkey and Denmark) as opposed to only up to $1100 million by the US. Similar to this conflict, in Syria military action would be organised by the UN but made up of the major countries within it, not the US alone, or even most significantly. Not only this, but there was no land or territory claimed by the UN in Libya, and nor would there be in Syria. Making this point about "American spearheaded invasion" simply deluded. Secondly, the if the country is, as you claim already almost entirely in ruins, then there would be no major destructive impact of a military strike, reducing this negative effect. Furthermore, the funding for rebuilding of these countries would be included within the individual countries foreign affairs budget, included within the countries taxing, which is part of the policy which the population will have voted in within any one country. Any other aid will be provided by charity organisations. This aid is also worthwhile, as it encourages more unity between countries, and reduces the suffering of civilians. Thirdly, unless you explain how money for the US will be made during this engagement, which you have not yet done, this point is invalid. Furthermore, I fail to see how money could be gained during this at all, as admittedly private companies may make gains through selling missiles etc. the overall countries involved, as shown in the Libya engagement, commit large amounts of money (which is worthwhile due to my original three points in my first argument) to it, meaning that there is no feasible gain from this scenario. Fourthly, that the "war on terrorism" is "endless." This point is irrelevant, as the motives for engaging in Syria have been stated in my first argument, and terrorism has nothing to do with it, as the engagement would be against the Syrian state and Assad. Fifthly that "American Imperialism" will lead to the domination of the world by America. I restate that there is no invasion in this military intervention, therefore America itself stands no territory or economic allegiance to gain. Regardless of American imperialism in other fields, I would remind the opposition that this argument regards "Syria" and nothing else. This makes this point entirely irrelevant in the present debate. Sixthly that lives would be lost from UN countries. The only key difference between the Libya intervention and the one I propose, is that there would be no manned air strikes, making this even safer for UN military forces. One person died in the Libyan intervention from UN forces. On the 20th of July 2011, a British airman was killed in Italy as part of a logistical convoy as a result of a traffic accident. I cannot make my point any more clear than this, that there is essentially no risk to UN forces. Finally, regardless of fascism or increasing likeness to Hitler's Germany in America, this bears literally no relevance in the present debate to do with intervention in Syria. Unless you can make this relevant to the present title, then there it carries no weight for you argument. Overall, due to the fact that out of the seven key points I could draw from your argument, three (4,5,7) were irrelevant, and four (1,2,3,6) were unsound, I determine that your argument carries little weight regarding the debate's title. Furthermore, your rebuttal to my point initial on chemical weapons, other than UN losses (which I have proven would not occur to great extent) essentially agreed with my argument, stating that "Assad" has lost his "[right] to rule" and that chemical warfare is "Morally unjust and wrong in every sense of the world. Not only this, but I would remind the opposition that my second (danger of further development in chemical/biological weapons) and third (the long term aim of world peace) initial points still remain unmentioned in his argument, and that his next statement is the last chance to rebut these points. Therefore, due to the three major points I presented initially in my argument, and the fact that none of these have been refuted to great avail, and that no significantly damaging counter argument has yet been presented, I urge all reading this to agree with the proposition, that "the United Nations should intervene military in Syria." Thank you for reading my arguments, and I appreciate the opposition's time and effort in this debate. - Invictus References: http://en.wikipedia.org...