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

---Telegraph again--- I already explained how to access my Telegraph sources. I'll go with an example.Already provided URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;If it doesn't work, copy the titular "Syrian-opposition-says-West-is-already-aiding-rebels" in Google, type "Telegraph" next to it and you will find the article.https://www.google.es...---Rebuttal: Chemical weapons could have been given to the rebelsUnfortunately Con couldn't read my previous source, though it was given at round 2. It's a fact that rebels have received aid from Western countries for a long time, not only because the rebels themselves recogized so, but because it's the only reasonable way that a rebellion could have lasted this long against a profesional army when most of the population supports the current government. Therefore, If it would have been an interest for the US government, it could have be given chemical weapons to the rebels.Rebuttal: Geopolitics never were in Al Assad's favourThough Con claims Al Assad never though the US would intervene in Syria, this is easily refutable. The US has already intervened in many Middle-Eastern countries recently, and the self proclaimed Assad's allies are not in position to help him.http://1.bp.blogspot.com...Turkey (from NATO) at the North, Israel (from NATO) at the South, Arabia Saudi (presumably an US ally) also at the South, while the Syrian allies are Russia (which has border with many buffer states, as well as the heavily militarized Turkey as a reminiscence from the Cold War), China (which is so far away and can't really compete with NATO in military terms yet) and Iran (part the ruinous state of Israel). If NATO intervenes directly, Syria can't be helped.Rebuttal: The rebels made the last attack with chemical weaponsCon's source claims the chemical attack was a last resource against the inminent rebel attack to Damascus. But If the Syrian army is composed of more than 100.000 soldiers*, how could a chemical attack that only killed between 200 and 1500 be a help to maintain the city? A large army force would have probably been defending the capital, and many of the deaths would probably have been civilians and even Al Assad's forces.And besides the argument that it doesn't make sense to use such an incontrollabe resource to kill so few people when you have such a large army, there's the UN investigator case too.According to Con's source, the UN investigator was killed while he was trying to gather the evidence the US claimed they had. If it would had been an action from the loyalists, it wouldn't have made sense to kill the UN investigator BUT NOT to kill the US ones. But If it would have been an action from the rebels, it would make sense, as the US investigator may be attending arbitrary interests (such as his own country government's), but the UN one is supposed to find out the truth (or else many countries would complain).* http://www.google.com...;Rebuttal: US can invade Syria without sending its own land forcesBecause the US's government may get profit If the rebel factions they support get the control of the country, as it happened in Lybia*1,*2. If this was the real US government's intention, it would explain why it is so aggresive against Al Assad, but not against the rebels, who are also under suspect of using chemical weapons, according as both my source and Con's.*1: http://www.thenewamerican.com...*2: http://www.finalcall.com...*3: http://www.washingtonpost.com...*4: http://www.cbc.ca...It's an invasion as long as you use military force to guarantee a certain group a country's government.Rebuttal: The importance of the Council of Foreign RelationsIf both Con and the readers read my previous round again, they will find I wasn't attacking any particular argument, but the interests behind the CFR. Though Con claims that "many investors are left or center donors that would counterbalance the more right-leaning companies", this doesn't matter, as large donors are in a much better position to impose their interests, and any large donor is large precisely because it moves by greed. Evenmore, If we check my previous source again* and check the Founders privileges, we can find the following: "Invitations to Ambassador’s Lunches and the Foreign Policy Breakfast Forum series with members of Congress", which means that there is an organization that organizes regular meetings between members of Congress and executives from the Founders privilegees, in which we can find 4 companies related to financial and banking services and 3 oil companies, out of 8. This is only one example out of the so many we don't know of how the US system is corrupted to its veins...*: http://i.cfr.org...;Rebuttal: The morality of past US actions matters...because it's intrisecal to its system, in which the large corporations enjoy plutocratic benefits from direct contact with Congress members and CIA's high ranks, its capacity to propagate opinions that 'legitimize' policies that benefit them though mass media, which is the only explanation that fits with its historial* and this* (again, previously presented sources.*: https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net...*: http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_SwConclusion Too many arguments and information has been brought to scene. Let's remember everything that's happened.2001: General Wesley and Democrat politician affirms the US government was already planning the invasion of seven countries in the Middle East.2002-2012: Many Middle East countries are invaded, this usually supposses profit for private individuals.2011: Syrian 'Civil War' starts.Feb 2012: Syrian rebels admit they are being supplied by Western countries.2012: Both candidates to the US presidency assure the importance of Syria.2012: Numerous polls reveal most of the Syrian back and support Al Assad's government.Dec 2012: Obama warns Al Assad: 'If [he] uses chemical weapons, there will be consecuences'Mar-Apr, Jun 2013: Acussations against both Syrian government and rebels of using chemical weapons.Aug 2013: Chemical attack takes place. US claims they have evidence that ensure Al Assad was behind it, while...Sep 2013: ...the UN investigator dies trying to collect same evidence.Back to Aug 2013: Obama says he pretends to attack Syrian government facilities to prevent them from using chemical weapons.What an arbitrary behaviour.The United States of America is a criminal state that does not only not assure basic human rights to its citizens like housing and food (it's not in its Bill of Rights, nor there are mecanisms that make sure everyone sleeps warm and full at night), but also invades, loots and blockades other countries against their people wills, proving they don't care about their sovereignty.This is possible because, though it's formally a democracy, the power the big economic powers have got allow them not only to pressure the government when it takes policies that prejudice them, but it also generates and spreads opinions that allow politicians whose ideology only helps the big corporations and even have means to influence the Congresists themselves.The intervention in Syria is simply another example of this: it's the interest of the big oil companies to maintain control in the region, which the previous (Gaddafi) and actual (Al Assad) leaders didn't allow them. The 'Humanitarian' excuse doesn't sustain itself as there have been already more than 100.000 deaths, yet the trigger is a minor conflict with between 200 and 1.500 deaths that is caused by Chemical Weapons. They accuse Al Assad of using them yet they can't prove it, and there are equally standing accustions against the rebels. Yet the only line of action the US government contemplates is to bomb the Syrian Government.I am not going to ask you to vote me.If you want a true democracy, in which everyone's votes have the same value, a democracy in which the wealthy don't impose their opinion through the use of the mass media, a democracy that doesn't invade other countries for personal interests and that recognizes everyone's right to have basic housing and food,Then, stop the intervention. Send a letter to your Congressman, join an activist group, take place in manifestations, join a political party and CHANGE it.This is not only for you, this is about us.About everyone else who doesn't live in the United States, and doesn't have such a large army to defend them, everyone whose government policies are influenced by foreign lobbies and organisms such as the IMF.We also want democracy.But we can't have it If you bomb us. We can't have it If we're dead. So please, respect our will.http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=G-xjt_rwEIc