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

---Note about my previous sources---I hate to bother you readers, but I have been reported that some people can't see some my sources (apparently the Telegraph's ones). However, the articles can still be found If you search for the very titular from each link. To add 'Telegraph' in the search will may be of help.---Thank you for the bother---Source study. How an empire is runFor a big part of my life (particullary when studying history) I have been told and realised how important is to know who is telling you what you are reading or hearing. This helps you to understand the reasons behind his or her statements, sometimes these reasons even makes its credibility to shake.This is one of those times.Particularly, the thing that draws my attention the most is the 3rd source, the Council on Foreign Relations ( www.cfr.org/ ). At first glance, it just looks like a typical news agency, that covers a really large wide of topics. I search how it defines itself: 'The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher.', and the independent word grinds in my ears (or my eyes). There's no way such a big organisation is independent. It has to rely on some kind of financiation.And indeed it does. I am unable to find data about its exact income and assets (clumsy me), but I find something much more relevant: its 'corporate members': http://i.cfr.org...Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Chevron... Wow, this is la crème de la crème of the finantial industry. Wait, no, Chevron is more related to oil business. Most of the members in that list are multibillonaire, capitalist, international companies, whose business affect to great parts of the world. I (like many Americans, though I'm not one) still remember when Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest (and conscious) actors in the triggering of the current economic crysis, put the US government into its knees to get billions of dollars from the state, even when it had already made (EVEN MORE) rich a lot of rich people.It's a fact that a lot of the most giant sharks of the Western capitalism are in that list. Rothschild, General Electric. Giants don't become giants funding ONGs. Giants become giants in their never ending search for greed. Microsoft, Coca-Cola. The oil companies, particulary, got an enormous profit from the Iraq War *.* http://www.cnn.es...;Shell Oil, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips. Billionaries companies. They form part of Big Oil, don't they? I have big news: They appear in that list.The CFR is NOT an independent organization, and though it says it doesn't lobby, IT DOES ( http://www.cfr.org...;) '[convens] meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues'.I must personally thank Con for providing this source, as it has led me directly to a gold mine of evidence: the oil companies' lobbying and its connections with the United States government. This can't but to support my last statements in the last round: NATO is an empire, and its Masters wear top-hats. Though its countries apparently are democracies, in the backroom the government set up military operations to get other countries' resources. Mass murdering, looting and violating other countries' sovereignty is just collateral damage of its totally rightful search for profit. This is capitalism taken to its final consecuencies.And now, let's come back to Syria, our current victim.Untouched topic: The evidence of the chemical attacksSo far, Con hasn't touched the topic of the evidence that Al Assad used chemical weapons. He quotes a source that says that his government 'apparently used chemical weapons in small attacks', yet again no evidence is offered. He actually isn't going to find any, because the acuser, the United States government, hasn't shown any, which is stunning, because it would immediately give it the UN support.It's important to remember that this is the reason Obama has argued to make the intervention preparatives. If this happened to be false, US administration's claims would fall to the ground.First Con's Contention: StabilityActually this is not that much of an argument, but a lot of data. Data I don't see a reason to refute. Evenmore, we agree that we could intervene! But not military. As your own source says, '6.8 million Syrian are in need of serious assistance and that 4.25 million are internally displaced, with a total of 1.4 million outside Syria', so why not send real humanitarian help? I mean food and sources to give a temporary home to the displaced people. This seems a really more appropiate way to help people, rather than bombing its country. ...But on a second though, a non-military intervention wouldn't force Syria to give up its natural resources, so that wouldn't be profitable. Ever tried to make a campaign to send real humanitarian help? Cuba is a much (MUCH) poorer country and sends a lot of doctors everywhere, sometimes for free.Second Con's Contention: Persuasion on the use of mass destruction weaponsThis one can be summarized with this sentence: 'It is essential to respond directly and meaningfully to any use of such weapons so they are not used again by the regime. But the reasons for a strong response transcend Syria. It will be a very different 21st century if weapons of mass destruction'. There is an obvious problem with this one: there's still no evidence that Al Assad used any of them, thus it may not be that much of a well directed warning.There is a less violent way to prevent anyone from using such weapons: to shuck off them. And the US is in a great position to start such negotiations with Russia, China, UK, France and India, since US itself has an enormous amount of them.Third Con's Contention: The opportunity to destroy an Iran allyCon gives examples of Iranian terrorist found all over the world. Yet it's stupid to think they are founded by the Iranian government: US has been invading its region for a decade and Iran wants, needs allies. You don't protect your country by promoting disorganized minor terrorist operations. It's just ridiculous.I know a country that is a bigger threat for everyone, that throws governments all over the world like no ones business and shows little or no respect for many democracies all over the world.https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net...Note: The image misses many countries on the right side.Can we really rely on a country with such record to military intervene anywhere?Fourth Con's Contention: Intervention saves peopleCon's quotation don't include the study that shows the statements it makes. Sadly, only the owners of the book he quotes can know If it's on the book. However, anyone can check that it's published by the Council of Foreign Relations. I have talked quite a bit about it at the start of the round, remember? I just wanted to show the link.In any case, be that data true or false, a military intervention on this civil war isn't going to save lives. In fact, there's a wide range of situations that it could provoke, due to the fact that even within the rebels there's people who don't want the intervention*.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...http://rt.com...;http://www.worldtribune.com...'The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad'There are many rebels who don't want US to intervene. The Syrian in general don't want the US to intervene. And apparently most Syrian want, above everything, to finish the war.Apparently the US's administration intention doesn't fit with almost anyone's wishes in Syria. When I say that many things may happen in Syria If US goes there, I mean that rebels may start killing themselves due to not agreing on it, Syrian people may insurrect agaisnt the US army, and in the worst of the cases, the conflict may scalate into a war with Iran.It seems stupid to have to explain this, but to bomb Syria will cause more violence. Fifth Con's Contention: The rebels make use of their self to autodeterminationAnd so do Syrian when they support Al Assad's government. I have provided many sources that back this, and most of them come from Western media. You can find them all in the first round.Bonus 1: ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=YJPxmAi2diUHow lucky that Al Assad gave them an excuse to invade Syria, right? Actually, it seems that they had a reason to make a chemical attack happen in Syria. I won't provide evidence because I don't have it, but it actually makes sense. As I explained in the first round, it would have been a big mistake for Al Assad to do it, thus it has no sense that he did it.Bonus 2: http://i.imgur.com...Obviously not an argument, just a breath for the readers from such a wall of text ;)