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

As per the round one rules, I will only be presenting my case/core arguments in this round. I will rebut my opponents remarks in my next speech. Thanks to Pro for this opportunity to debate! Contention One: For reasons of stability and of human rights it is necessary to take action in Syria. "The humanitarian case is a clear reason for U.S. action, and so is that fact that many in the region hold the U.S. accountable for not acting and question its strength and willingness to support them in an emergency because of U.S. willingness to stand aside in this crisis. Given UN and other outside estimates, there now have to be over 110,000, dead and possibly twice that number because suspect deaths are not being counted. There are at least two to three times that total in seriously wounded. This means a total of at least 260,000 casualties." [1] Presumably, this disaffection with the U.S. would also apply to its western allies, including the UK and the remainder of NATO, who are just as inactive/unresponsive as the U.S. My source goes on to observe that "these costs are small, however, relative to the total cost to Syrian civilians, and to the stability and economies states around Syria. An estimate by the State Department"s Humanitarian Information Unit (HIU), dated May 1, suggests that 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. The size of this tragedy is growing steadily, as well as destabilizing Syria's neighbors. Experts estimate that at least 8.2 million Syrians are now affected out of a total population of 22.5 million -- 36 percent of the total population and counting -- even if one ignores casualties. The immediate human impact is obvious, and the economic and social costs to both Syrian civilians and Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan will rise indefinitely unless the Syrian people get a government they and the world can accept." [1] Contention Two: A strike will reinforce international norms against WMD or NBC use. "At first he merely arrested protesters. Then his forces began firing on them. Next his soldiers swept hostile neighborhoods. Then the Syrian Army began firing rockets and mortars at rebel positions. Assad moved on to indiscriminate bombing. Then his army apparently used chemical weapons in small attacks. Finally, his army appears to have undertaken a major assault with nerve gas. We"ve been the frog in the beaker. To me there"s some hope that destroying military aircraft or intelligence headquarters can persuade Assad that chemical weapons are not worth the cost and that he is better off employing more banal ways to slaughter his people. That's unsatisfying but would still be a useful message to other leaders. It would reinforce the international norm against weapons of mass destruction...Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons...if the coming clash gives us a chance to do more to arm certain rebel groups or share intelligence with them, that would still be worthwhile -- all while backing the idea of a negotiated settlement. For all the risks of hypocrisy and ineffectiveness, it"s better to stand up inconsistently to some atrocities than to acquiesce consistently in them all." [2] "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 --whether they are chemical, biological or nuclear -- come to be seen as just another type of weapon. There needs to be a robust taboo surrounding their use. Any leader must know that a decision to deploy them will sacrifice sovereign immunity and result in many in the world accepting nothing less than ousting and arrest." [3] Contention Three: Failure to intervene Strengthens Iran. "Without forceful American action, al-Assad's latest maneuvers constitute a victory for his regime and its top allies, Iran and Hezbollah. Giving a boost to this alliance runs counter to regional and global peace and stability. Iran and Hezbollah have a nefarious track record. They have carried out a wave of terrorist attacks in Asia, Europe and Latin America. Just last week a judge in Thailand sentenced an Iranian man to life in prison for his role in a terrorist plot against Israeli diplomats in Bangkok. Iranian and Hezbollah agents have been implicated in terrorist plots in Argentina, Cyprus, Bulgaria, India and elsewhere. Even if you don't care about Syria or the Middle East, handing a victory to this dangerous threesome should worry everyone." [4] "the Syrian conflict does not involve major risks with outside powers, but it is steadily strengthening Iran and Hezbollah"s role in the region. It is dividing Lebanon and giving the Hezbollah and extremists a larger foothold there, creating new problems in Jordan and Turkey, pushing Iraq toward civil war and pushing Iraq"s Shi"ite leadership toward added dependence on Iran. If Bashar al-Assad wins or survives in ways that give him control over most of Syria, Iran will have a massive new degree of influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in a polarized Middle East divided between Sunni and Shi'ite and steadily driving minorities into exile. This will present serious new risks for an Israel that will never again be able to count on a passive Assad. It will weaken Jordan and Turkey and, most importantly, give Iran far more influence in the Gulf. BP estimates that Iraq and Iraq together have nearly 20 percent of the world"s proven oil reserves, and the Middle East has over 48 percent." [1] Contention Four: Intervention, statistically, works. Intervention has "contributed to a marked decline in violence resulting from civil war. According to the most recent Human Security Report, between 1992 and 2003 the number of conflicts worldwide declined by more than 40 percent, and between 1988 and 2008 the number of conflicts that produced 1,000 or more battle deaths per year fell by 78 percent. Most notably, the incidence of lethal attacks against civilians was found to be lower in 2008 than at any point since the collection of such data began in 1989." [5] Furthermore, "even when civil wars do not stop right away, external interventions often mitigate violence against civilians. This is because"interventions aimed at preventing mass atrocities often force would-be killers to divert resources away from slaughtering civilians and toward defending themselves. This phenomenon means that even when interventions fail to end civil wars or resolve factional differences immediately, they can still protect civilians." [5] Contention Five: Rebels can appeal for assistance on moral grounds. "And where sovereignty is unconstrained, we could argue that human rights invigilation by third party outsiders becomes justified, to exercise the scrutiny and control of sovereignty that insiders would exercise if their sovereigns allowed them to...the legitimacy of collective self-determination 'the right of states to be sovereign' derives in turn from individual self-determination, the right of individuals to be free. If this individual right is crushed, an individual retains the right to appeal for help outside, and those outside have a duty to assist." [6] Thus, NATO citizens should not oppose intervention in Syria. With that, I negate, and I look forward to Pro's responses. 1 - Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), August 23, 2013, "US Options in Syria: Obama"s Delays and the Demsey Warnings, http://csis.org... 2 - Nicholas Kristof, 8-28, 13, "Reinforce a Norm in Syria," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com... 3 - Richard N. Haass, 8-22, President, Council on Foreign Relations, America Must Respond to the Atrocities in Syria, http://www.cfr.org... 4 - Frida Ghitis, 8-28, 13 is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review, 8-28, CNN, http://www.cnn.com... 5 - Western, John, 2011, [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University], "Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 6 6 - Ignatieff, Michael, 2001, [former Leader Liberal Party of Canada, member of the UN-mandated International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty. Currently, a fellow at the University of Toronto] "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry," ed. A. Gutmann, p. 40