American Intervention in Syria

I simply posted some arguments of my own to get the debate started. I will remind the opponent and the voters that during round 2 the opponent failed to present any arguments of his own as to why the United States should intervene in the Syrian Civil War. During this round I will rebut my opponents counter-arguments. I hope to see my opponent actually present arguments of his own for round 3. Rebuttal: The Revolution Belongs to the Syrian People. I will remind the opponent that the Syrian regime is just that a Syrian regime, in which a democratic election hasn't occurred for decades, Assad's family has been in power since 1971. Before the Syrian Civil War began the Syrian people were demanding a change of government, in which the Syrian people could elect their own leader, therefore the Syrian people are fighting for their own government and by doing so they must first overthrow their current government. On several occasions, the Syrian government has killed democratic protesters, abused human rights, and recently, it has been revealed the the government has used chemical weapons against its own people, a violation of international law. Yes, there have been reports that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against it's own people, which does violate international law. However, is the United States truly the nation to condemn another for violating international law? Didn't we violate international law when we dropped over 20 million gallons of Agent Orange over the population of Vietnam, killing over 400,000 people? Who should have intervened then to stop us? The fact that the Syrian regime changes nothing. The Syrian regime has killed hundreds upon thousands of Syrians before the use of chemical weapons, thus the introduction of the use of chemical weapons should have no effect on whether the United States should intervene or not, considering the fact that the Syrian regime is very capable of killing it's citizens without it. To say that the Syrian people should fight their own battle is akin to saying that a rape victim should fight off her own rapist. But this is nonsense. If you were walking down the street and you witnessed a woman being raped in broad daylight, would you attempt to help the woman? Or would you casually walk by and say, "She needs to help herself"? Provided you're averse to sociopath, it seems as if you have a moral obligation to save lives, not let them be. In the international community, there is no effective police force and so countries in a position to help the suffering have a moral obligation to do so. That is an absurd example and completely off topic. If I was walking down the street and I saw a women/men getting raped of course I would intervene, however, this is solely my decision a decision that would not cost the American tax payers any money. My opponent says that countries who are in a position to help have an obligation to help the suffering. However, If the United States was morally obligated to help the suffering, we will be in every single country in the world. I mean why stop at Syria? Why don't we send 50,000 American soldiers into the Congo to help stop the epidemic of rape being used as a tool of war? Why don't we send in soldiers to India to help reduce the number of rapes that occur each year in India? Why don't we intervene in China and give military and economic aid to the Chinese people and help them establish a democratic government? Why don't we invade Mexico in order to bring an end to the Mexican cartels that kill thousands of people each year? Why don't we intervene in Columbia and declare war on the FARC? Why don't we go into Haiti and supply billions of dollars to help them re establish their infrastructure and help them reconstruct schools and help them feed their poor? Why don't we go into South Africa and provide billions of dollars in order to help bring an end to the AIDS epidemic in South Africa? Surely by now you must understand that no nation can base the foundation of its foreign policy, on helping all the suffering people of the world, it's too great a burden to carry. And according to my opponents own words, this is exactly what he/she/they demands. Rebuttal: The Failure of American Intervention in Libya. Yes it was a failure. The mission of NATOs intervention was not just to overthrow Gaddafi, for if NATO had wanted to overthrow Gaddafi then NATO could have overthrown Gaddafi decades before the Libyan Revolution. The goal of NATO intervention was to overthrow the Libyan regime that was killing innocent civilians, this was the goal of NATO intervention and it's crucial that we understand this. Now considering that NATOs goal was to stop the killing of innocent civilians it should be deemed as a failure that the intervention by NATO powers just caused more deaths in Mali. Some of the fighters who killed Qaddafi were terrorists who might use the weapons against Americans? So what? It seems as though the opponent doesn't see danger in arming terrorists, which is a big mistake. Not only does it violate American law to arm enemies of the United States but it presents a danger to Americans and civilians that cannot protect themselves against terrorists, civilians in Africa and the Middle East. It's not a good foreign policy if Americans just keep on supplying their enemies with weapons and it's certainly not an issue that deserves a "so what" response like the one my opponent gave. Rebuttal: Some of the Syrian Rebels are Anti-American. It doesn't matter if the only weapons we give them are pistols, those are still weapons that can be used against American civilians and American soldiers. And it's a self contradiction to arm enemies that will have to fight later on and unlawful as well. Rebuttal: The Benghazi Attack. Northern Africa is a very violent, uncivilized place. People are massacred on a daily basis, and there are often random explosions. The attack on the US embassy was significant only because the media chose to talk about it. Yes it is significant and too ignore its significance is a horrible mistake. The Benghazi Attack as I stated previously could have been prevented if we had simply maintained a neutral policy when it came to the Libyan Revolution. The Benghazi Attack is significant due to its brutal reality and the fact it could have been avoided. Because as we all know, the death of a human being is none of our concern unless that human just happens to be American. This is true but the matter of the fact is that the United States foreign policy can cause more deaths by intervening than by remaining neutral. Sources. . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...