American Intervention in Syria

Point 1: The use of chemical weapons is irrelevant.Rebuttal 1: The use of chemical weapons is not irrelevant. 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 enforced. Essentially the message sent by the West is "Everyone should submit to international law. However, if you think you can get away with a crime, it is okay if you commit one." That is not an acceptable message, and other nations must understand that crimes are followed by punishment, lest they think anything goes.However, the use of agent orange in Vietnam is irrelevant for two reasons. One, AO is not a chemical weapon and so did not violate international law. It wasn't used to kill people; it was used to clear forests in order to destroy the Hi Chi Minh Trail and to force peasants to move into cities. The unintentional health effects of AO were not well understood until after the war, and, of course, there is an obvious difference between intentionally killing a tree and intentionally killing a human being.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. Point 2: We can't help everyone. Therefore, we should hep no one.Rebuttal 2: Concerning the analogy, "taxpayer money" is an oxymoron. Taxpayers don't own what the government has already decided to take. 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.The point of the analogy is that allowing others to suffer when you have to ability to save them is a moral wrong. If you're willing to save a single rape victim, it should be intuitively obvious why thousands of rape victims should be saved.It is not, however, possible to save everyone. But we do not need to accept Con's inhuman implication that we just accept injustice as inevitable. While we cannot intervene in every country due to practical considerations, we can save as many people as is possible. People are saved one at a time, not all at once.Point 3 (redundant): The intervention in Libya was a failure.Rebuttal 3 (redundant): It wasn't a failure. The goal was to remove Qaddafi, as evidenced by the international ceasefire immediately after Gaddafi's death, despite the war's continuance. The dictator had never been very popular among UN members, and his crimes during the war simply provided provided the excuse necessary for intervention. http://www.bbc.co.uk...Point 4 (redundant): It's bad to arm terrorists and anti-Americans.Rebuttal 4 (redundant): 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??? Or maybe they'll shoot American soldiers stationed in the Middle East? As I've already shown, this is irrelevant. The casualty rates are all in are favor, and it isn't even close. Assault rifles are useless when your enemy has tanks, gunships, and cruise missiles. Even if one or two Americans are shot, at least the so-called terrorists are willing to remove a dictator who has killed thousands of people.Point 5: The Benghazi Attack was avoidable.Rebuttal 5: How do you know? How do you know the terrorists weren't simply anti-American and would have attacked the embassy regardless???http://en.wikipedia.org...Point 6: The United States foreign policy can cause more deaths by intervening than by remaining neutral.Rebuttal 6: "Can" doesn't mean "will." I find it difficult to believe that something like this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or this http://en.wikipedia.org... or even this http://en.wikipedia.org... could have been made worse than it was.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.