The United States should immediately intervene in Syria

1) Libya style or Iraq style?"An intervention in Syria has to be a protracted and long campaign similar to Iraq -- not true. I favor a Libya style intervention, though I would not be opposed to a declared war on Syria, which we should do if we are to go to war in any sense."Of course you would hope for a Libya style intervention, but the situation in Syria is much closer to Iraq then Libya was. We cant just drone bomb Syria, no one is openly fighting the government or taking up arms against them (similar to Iraq and not Libya). Without people in Syria actually fighting their military, US drones would only be able to blow up government buildings and not much else. In Libya there was a lot of coordination with the rebels, NATO, and the US so that Libyan forces were pin pointed and taken care of swiftly, If the US opened fire on Syria though we wouldnt have any information from ground forces (because there are none), we couldnt coordinate with NATO (because they dont want to be involved), it would be like US drone attacks in Pakistan. We might kill 3 armed terrorists or 20 civilians...2) Middle East relations " Intervention in Libya will lead to an all out war in the Middle East. It won't."I never said anything about a Middle Eastern War, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it would further strain relations between the US & Israel with the rest of the Islamic world, the Pro does not address this issue. 3) Morality"A few instances of excessive (Maybe even reasonble?) force [#occupy]does not equal repeated use of unjustifiable deadly force [Murder going on every day now for almost a year in Syria]."Im not saying it does, Im just showing how your claim that US should invade countries that abused protesters is a little flawed since ITS HAPPENING HERE IN THE US. Also let the record show that when the US abuses protesters here in the US, the Pro says they deserve it, but when the ame thing happens in Syria we should immediately overthrow their government.."Iraq is affected by Syria. Syria is the highway for foreign influence into Iraq. I've shown evidence of this."You havent shown any evidence of this at all! foreign influence comes in from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Bahrain, Syria has little to do with anything in Iraq. As for the list the Pro gave about a history of intervening "on moral grounds.""1917 - World War I - We intervened in WWI to aid our allies in Britain and France, this was a political intervention for the US1939 - World War II - Pro seems to forget that Pearl Harbor was the reason the US intervened in WWII....1950 - Korean War - That was because of a fear of communism1986 - Libya - That was because Libya terrorists attacked us first, we didnt bomb them off of any moral reasons1989 - Panama - A dictatorship threatened to cut off the Panama Canal1991 - Desert Shield - Oil interests and a universal hatred for Saddam caused this conflict1992 - Somalia - Wtf we left Somalia the minute they started killing us and we didnt give a damn when Civil War erupted1992 - Bosnia - Oh yes the genocide the US knew about but waited three years to intervene, how moral of the US1994 - Haiti (Operation Uphold Democracy) - Ill give you this one2000 - Sierra Leone - They were in a Civil War for 10 YEARS before the US intervened, and other countries beat us to it2011 - Libya - Libya has a massive oil reserve, a universally hated dictator, and supporter of terrorism. We did not go in because people felt bad for Libyans3) Ramifications of increased enmity towards Israel"There is no military scenario where any one of them, or combination, or totality of, could win in a fight against Israel. This alone is why they do not fight Israel"If they dont fight Israel then how come the two were bombing each other a only few days ago?http://presstv.com..."Con also argues that the Middle Eastern countries protest a very abundant US presence and this is the reason we should not intervene in Syria.... American courts protect the right to protest. We're not going to intervene in Syria because of protesting, we're going to intervene in Syria because the protesters are being murdered."Pro COMPLETELY missed the point here. Middle Eastern countries already dont like how the US is so involved in the Middle East that if the US invades a third country it would only increase hatred towards the US by the Middle East. "Protesting is a good thing" http://myrtus.typepad.com...Protesting is not a good thing for US relations with the Middle East if people are protesting US involvement in the Middle East and those protesters want to kill all of us...4) Economical benefits"An emergent Syrian Government that is dedicated to peace would need to raise funds for reconstruction. The main peaceful way to raise funds is to sell something valuable, say, oil. We could buy it. Good for them, good for us."It doesnt work that way Pro, the governments dont own, drill, but, and sell the oil, corporations do. And all the oil in the world wouldnt be able to offset the cost of a long conflict in Syria...For the record, none of that oil goes to the US, it all goes to Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org...5) Doesnt make sense"I'll assume we're talking about the Boston Tea Party. YES! They should have" - Pro's response that the second people in a country protest, that country should be invaded by outside powers. So then according to you Pro when the government started killing people protesting the Vietnam War all the countries in the world should immediately have overthrown the US?"imagine that instead of being defeated at T-square, rebel groups emerged... The rebel group is asking for assistance. I would make the same case I am making here."So the Pro admits that he would not even consider invading a country unless those protesting the country were taking up arms against their government and were organized.....The People of Syria are currently not taking up arms against their government and arent organizedAlso let the record show that the Pro would invade any vital trading partner of the US if people were in revolt. 6) Intervention might not work"Con is also claiming to know how the Egyptian, Tunisian, and Libyan rebellions turned out. Common sense tells us it is too soon to tell."Ive already shown sources showing how it isnt working at all right now even though these revolutions have been going on for years now...."The US uniquely has the tools needed to stop the violence that Assad is committing against his people"Just because we have the big red button doesnt mean we should use it at every chance we get"Syria is mobilizing thousands of troops for a ground assault against civilians:"Read your own source Pro, they dont say anything about preparing for a ground assault against civilians..... This looks like simply a case of preparing for a possible mass uprising, not a mass genocide. "Arab coalitions have made numerous requests to the world to stop the Syrain Onslaught, but they're too slow. Therefore we should try."So even though they didnt ask us we should come in, invade the place, piss off just about everyone, and claim we did it for moral reasons.....Reasons we should not invade Syria1) Might not work (I've shown evidence why it hasnt worked in other places)2) It will strain US relations with the Middle East (Pro says it doesnt matter)3) The cost of the war would be great (Pro thinks we could fix this by buying their oil)4) Any intervention would be a prolonged conflict since Syrians are not openly trying to overthrow their own government5) The US is not the moral police of the world, they shouldnt be, and the US isnt moral itself6) There are many other sites of protesters being abused but the Pro only wants to invade Syria for some reason7) It would be hypocritical of the US to invade a country to protect protesters (also I invite people to view the comments to see just how the Pro treats our nations veterans)