The need for military intervention in Syria is imperialist in objective, not humanitarian

So we can now see the utter vacuity of Pro's Anarcho-Marxist view of geopolitics as an explanatory framework for the actions of states. When directly challenged on the US's relationship to oil; promotion of secular, pluralistic democracies; the justification on isolating the Iranian, anti-human theocracy; the human element in state actions; the economic usefulness of limited air strikes on Regime targets; and the role of morality in the actions of states, he can only mutter a few ad hominems. We are asked to accept the notion of "client states" - such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel - as countries establish by the "Empire", and whose domestic economies are constructed by said "Empire" for the benefit of said "Empire". And any sovereignty these countries have is an illusion perpetrated by the "Empire". What a cartoonish view of such a complex regional history? The history of US interventions - each with their own complex dynamics - is appealed to in order to explain the current complex situation in Syria. This is a sort of reverse gamblers fallacy where past situations are necessarily predictive of future ones. In Pro's Willersteinian analysis of First World-Third World relations, we are asked to accept the economic assumptions of the Mercantilists which were that the world has a fixed amount of wealth, and wealth can't be produced, only stolen[1]. This theory has be thoroughly discredited in modern economics, but one must accept it in order to accept Pro's/Willersteinian view that the Third World can't advance in wealth; thereby necessitating that the First World subjugate the Third World to its economic designs. We are also expected to accept that states - those human institutions composed strictly of humans - can't act in ways representative of their human constituents. Pro's view depends on fabrications when it is at its weakest. Pro asserted falsely that those who shot at the UN inspectors were Syrian rebels. I pointed out that it is unknown who shot at the inspectors, and Pro was not able to meet that challenge. Pro's views rely on vague definitions. What was "imperialism" in the first round became "neo-colonialism" in the next. "Client-states" are vaguely defined as puppets of the "Empire" - "Empire" itself being another ill-defined term. The First World is assumed to act as an single entity. We are asked to forget that half the First World is against military intervention in Syria [2], that only France and the US are nominally for military aggression[2], that currently the decision by the US to take action is being deliberated by the House and Senate (its very unclear what that final decision will be)[2], and that France has shown significant reserve on military action in Syria[3]. Where is the "Empire" in any of this? Notice, too, that Pro's rounds have very little to do with Syria (in his last round he mentions Syria 3 times, and 2 of those times was simply to criticize something I said). He wants to prove the resolution not by affirming it, but by outlining a far-left, far-fetched world-view. Once you accept his fringe interpretation of reality, you are expected to naturally accept that the "Empire" is the major source of all the Third Worlds economic problems and, therefore, any military action taken in Syria, no matter how limited in scope, has an economic goal as its purpose and a Machiavellian purport behind it. In closing, Pro's apprehension of geopolitics is strictly informed by an Anarcho-Marxist echo chamber. It's theories can't accept certain portions of reality. This is way Pro doesn't have any citations. At the end of each round, he posts links to dozens of books and websites that would paint this Marxist world-view for you, if only you would only read them, and accept all their contentions, before voting on the debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...