The United Nations should intervene militarily in Syria

If you will, I shall condense your reply into the three major points which it appears to compose of. If you would like to amend this condensing, please state why and how it differs from your original argument. The primary point is that intervention is inadvisable due to the "economic instability" and "loss of life from a generation that is suffering through perpetual war." Secondly, that entering this war would be an "artificial war" which would "never end." Thirdly that this war would encourage "the imperial role of the current United States," and rather radically suggesting the attempted to "[subordinate] the rest of the people on this planet." In reply to this first point, I do not find it clear whether you refer to the UN countries involved in intervention or Syria, so I will discuss both here. In terms of the UN countries involved I would initially like to point out the clear incongruity of suggesting that another war would cause major "economic instability" despite the "perpetual war" that has occurred in this generation. Surely this suggests that the economic effect would be no more major than that we have already seen from previous military engagements in this "generation," which have been mild at worst. Furthermore, the present withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is causing funds to become available, meaning that the economic strain would not be significant. For the UN countries at least, loss of life is irrelevant, as military intervention could easily take the form of drone strikes or missile strikes, rather than direct boots on the ground. In terms of the Syrian economy, I believe that it is hardly in a state that you could call it such at the present time, the civil war having had such a drastic effect upon the country that our own intervention would cause very little difference in the overall quality of life in Syria, specifically since our owns strikes would be more surgical than the present combat, and as such have less effect upon the economy. As to loss of life in Syria, of course military action will have unwanted civilian casualties, this is unavoidable, however even the slightest potential of shutting down the military regime through surgical strikes that could save thousands more, is in my opinion certainly worthwhile. I have also addressed the loss of life in my third point, regarding their overall value in the longer term. As to your second point, that this war would be "artificial" and "never end," I find it extremely odd and irrelevant that you refer to "terrorism" in this regard, as despite the part terrorists now play in the rebel forces, this civil war did not begin through terrorism, and our potential intervention does not involve it (at least for the motives I have put forward.)Furthermore, I find it extremely unlikely that this war will "never end," unless perhaps you refer to the overall war on terror, which this intervention is again, not technically a part of. Therefore I found this point at best peculiar and at worst irrelevant, and would like to remind the Opposition that this debate is exclusive to Syrian intervention. In regard to your final, and seemingly key point discussing American imperialism, I would like to once more point out that this is a joint UN intervention, as shown in the title of the debate. Furthermore, it would of course be established that control of the country would not be taken by UN forces, and therefore no physical gain, either for the UN or for America would be taken. Dollar imperialism is also irrelevant as no form of economic ties would be necessary or included in this process, therefore I am dubious as to how the expansion of a "world power" would occur in this sense. Furthermore, attempting to assist these Syrians in their plight if anything raises them to a similar social level, rather than as you state, subordinating Syria and the "rest of the people on this planet." I would also like to remind the Opposition that the repeated mentions of America becoming "increasingly year by year" similar or "parallel to Nazi Germany" is irrelevant in this particular debate unless you can apply it to the title at hand. I would also like to remind you that you have technically neither answered or rebutted any of my three points made in my original argument - I assume this will be rectified in your next reply. Thank you for considering my argument.