Foreign Powers Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War

I'll just use CP's sources again... so yeah. 1. National Sovereignty The mere occurrence of human rights violations in any degree is alone not sufficient to justify actions which, if taken by another state, would be at the expense of another state's sovereignty -but when human rights violations reach a point where the character of human rights violations becomes so great that the scope of the offense indicates that a government are acting (on balance) at the expense of the rights of its subjects rather than in defense of their subjects' rights, only then is it permissible for other states to intervene. It is justifiable for states to intervene as described because only states are entitled to sovereignty, and when states cease to uphold the rights of their subjects a state can no longer be said to be functioning as a state -but as an illegitimate center of power (rendered illegitimate by its violation of its people's rights) which has no claim to sovereignty. CP's example of intervention in France, however, (among the others he listed) highlights the necessity of carefully determining when and under what circumstances those powers which have the capacity to intervene ought to intervene in defense of human rights -but dangerously confuses the issue (and my argument) in such a way that would suggest some arbitrary notion of human rights that, if semantically manipulated, could lead to something of an unjustified intervention. I posit that if human rights are to mean anything, and if we accept the universality of human rights grounded in human dignity then it follows that we are equally able to make distinctions between those nations which on balance serve to protect their people's rights, and those which violate their people's human rights. However, I would also suggest that while human rights violations may erode a state's justifiable claim to sovereignty as state above, that a state has no claim to sovereignty does not mean that "we" (whoever the "we" is in CP's rebuttal) are obliged to intervene. That is a separate issue for states to determine on the basis of their interests -such that where it is in the interest of a state to intervene on behalf of human rights, it is justifiable for them to do so even if that means that foreign powers are acting at the expense of state sovereignty. 2. Human Rights and Picking Sides CP argues that "cannot in good faith choose [either the Assad Regime or the Syrian rebels] over the other at this time" in considerable error, such that I will explore below. To intervene on behalf of human rights does not mean that one side is chosen over another, but that intervention has taken effect -but, in the case of Syria the question is: "Does the Assad government uphold its subjects basic human rights, or does it act on balance at their expense?" The answer to that question tells us that indeed, the rights of the Syrian people are being violated to an egregious degree an in egregious ways. Dexter Filkins from the New Yorker notes that in addition to using chemical weapons against his people, the Assad Regime's war against its people has resulted in more than 70,000 deaths and 3.5 million people made refugees (1). Determining who is violating who's rights and what rights those are, to a reasonable, impartial observer shouldn't be very difficult. 3. Stability, Freedom and Unpredictability Because the United States' intelligence collecting operations in Syria are presently limited by various factors, determining the scope and extent to which any outcome will be "unpredictable" is a fairly disingenuous argument because (a) the United States has unprecedented and nearly preeminent military capacity such that rival forces, if resources were properly allocated, would be sufficient to overwhelm any potential challenger. Moreover, (b) it should be noted that before military resources were committed to intervention of any kind, less entangling methods would be ruled out as possibilities to achieve given objectives -but above all before any apparatus of the US military were delegated, an intelligence operation to clarify the variables that CP pointed out would be necessary to ensure that the US knew what it was getting into. But, that aside, the resolution states that "Foreign Powers Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War" rather than "The United States Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War." So, even if you don't believe that the United States should intervene in Syria's conflict, that does not mean that all foreign powers should ignore the occurrent human rights crisis in Syria. 4. Intervention and War My opponent's speculation that the methods of intervention that I described would prolong a conflict does not negate the resolution, because prolonging a conflict does not mean that more human rights will be violated -but even if in prolonging the Syrian conflict a temporary increase in violence did occur, that violence would be -if aid were given to the Syrian people- in defense of the Syrian people's rights and defense from an oppressive government. Moreover, letting the conflict "play out on its own" is only what it easy -it is not what is right. If we accept that evil (human rights violations, in this case) prevails when good men do nothing, then it is incumbent upon us to facilitate some sort of intervention in defense of the Syrian people's rights. That could mean action through NATO, auspices of the UN or other alternatives. Ignoring a moral imperative because doing so is expedient cannot be said to be right... it is what is easy, and to choose between what is right and what is easy is the choice before the world now. In conclusion, We as people hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever ANY Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. While it is the right of the Syrian people to alter or abolish their government, it is the obligation of foreign powers to come to their aid. (I remind all that The United States would not exist without French aid.) While prudence, indeed, will dictate that The Assad Regime long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that the Syrian people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed... when a long train of human rights abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the Syrian people under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Syrian people, and to put an end to that suffering in defense of human rights is the moral duty of foreign powers (2). It is permissible, it is just, it is obliged. Foreign powers should intervene in Syria's civil war. Fin. (1) http://www.newyorker.com... (2) The Declaration of Independence... that's right.