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

Con"s second round post only proves how little he knows of the subjects on hand. He can only ask numerous questions, peddling them one after the other. And for what? To expose me of gaps in my own argument? Not at all! The questioning, readers and potential voters, are nothing but a reflection of his own gaps in his own understanding of the topic on hand. Somehow Con believes that establishing "client states" means "establishing peaceful relationships" with other countries. That is just far from the truth. A client state is one established by the Empire (via all sorts of means) which constructs domestic economic policies which are only to the benefit of the Empire"s economic interests. Whether they be dictatorships, monarchies or "formal" democracies, they all provide the same illusion, that the "country" at hand is "independent" of the Empire, and it is exercising its own sovereignty. But we see time and time again, that even "formal" democracies are not safe. When the "right" candidate is not elected and the right policies are not pursued, they are subject to intervention and a potential overthrowing. Consider these two facts provided in the introduction to William Blum"s book (http://www.amazon.com...): 1.)Since 1945, the US has "endeavored to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected;" 2.)"Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries;" One of the most horrific and most referenced examples was the overthrow of Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973, and his replacement with the brutal dictator Pinochet, armed with famed economic advisor Milton Friedman! Just to make sure it"s clear, the US has never had a consistent support for "democracy" and "free elections". It only does so when its interests are being served, otherwise it"s completely thrown out of the door. Rather, we see a consistent pattern of supporting authoritarian regimes. And the more these regimes are backed by Washington, the more authoritarian they become (http://www.chomsky.info...). Con cites Kinzer"s book as the most "definitive" book on US invasions and "his exhaustive list of 14 invasions". That"s it? 14 (contrary to the 50 foreign governments intervened, with interventions totaling around the 100 mark)? Talk about turning a blind eye to history. Somebody like Noam Chomsky or William Blum, or even Michael Parenti is more authoritative on this topic. Why don"t you give them a look? Plus, I don"t think Kinzer would say that 14 is the only number of interventions the US committed itself to. I believe he took those 14 examples more of as a sample to cover and explore. Con questions how can I establish that neo-colonialism is at root of the US-Syria conflict based on one event in the 1950s (i.e. Iran). Well, if that"s the only event you are aware of, then of course you can"t comprehend the nature of US imperialism any further. (http://williamblum.org...) Plus, why would this one event establish any basis for the neo-colonialism at root of the potential intervention of Syria? My whole purpose of bringing this debate all the way back to 1945 was to highlight that fundamental-qualitative shifts that took place within the global order. As British and other colonialisms receded, that left a politico-economic power gap that had to be re-filled if the core-peripheral relationship was to be maintained. The core-peripheral relationship was one in which core (also known as "First World") countries were dependent upon peripheral ("Third World") ones for surplus to exploit. And it is that usurpation of surplus that was behind the accelerating growth and advancement of the core, and the deprivation and misery of the masses in the peripheral. In fact, our whole current production system (global in nature by the way) is dependent upon this relationship, so any other tip of the balance would only cause further seismic instability. I wish I can explore that even further, but can"t do so here. (Check Immanuel Wallerstein) So the US would step in assuming the role the British would leave behind, i.e. the sole administrator of the core-peripheral world-system. But it had to carry out this role with totally different means than the traditional direct colonization practiced by the British. That is where neo-colonialism comes in, which is more "informal" in nature, so that you can almost never see it. And it involves having client states establishing "laissez faire" economic policies, where its resources and labor are totally up for grabs, where tariffs are eliminated, where child labor laws and environmental regulations are nonexistent; all of which is to the benefit of foreign corporations (usually from the mother country). Con writes of them "selling goods to the population at competitive prices" and "providing job opportunities". You bet those people (whether they live in Africa, the Middle East, or wherever) would take those "job opportunities" at poverty wages, after having local resources being captured by foreign entities far more larger and powerful than any one of them, or being driven out of business by foreign entities flooding the local markets with cheap goods, undercutting the local producers. These are the same policies that keeps the Third World where they are. As Michael Parenti would tell you, they are not underdeveloped (they are rich in all sorts of resources), rather they are overexploited. The First World, led by the US, has established a hierarchy within the global order that doesn't allow for an expansion of foreign capitalist economies. And it is often in the interest of Third World "nation"-states to chart an independent course to expand their own economies, and hence their own power. And that almost involves embracing economic policies (e.g. protectionism) that is incompatible with US interests. Whether or not the local population is naive to support their "own" state is not the point. (For one thing, I am against capitalism and all states) The point is that I or you is in no position to tell any state what economic course they should take. Rather, it is better to explain why they do what they do. Another point, I don"t why in the world I or you should support the actions of one state enforcing another state to embrace its own economic program. You might have to explain yourself there. Con writes, "The incentives of a state are complex and therefore cannot be summarized in a sweeping statement like this. There is a realpolitik aspect of any political action, but removing human compassion from a vast equation involving human beings cannot be done." Wow! Human compassion is a factor in state policy! This is just anti-scientific, ahistorical and moralizing. Does Con even know what a state is? Maybe we should have a debate on that. I see on his profile that he is a supporter of the Democratic Party. Does he ever take a step back and ask if electoral politics is the proper venue for politics in general? Does he ever ask what politics is? Because throughout his whole second round post, he repeats face value assumptions, like the lies of the Bush administration that the US sought to spread democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. How hard did it take to come up with that? As for my lack of citations and fabrications, the fact is that the US still hasn't given evidence of who exactly used those weapons. "Confidence" and "belief" is not evidence. But the whole absurdity here is that the "Syrian" proletariat is going to be punished brutally for something their rulers may have did, because we all know that the victims of modern warfare are in most cases innocents who were never directly involved in any way with the inter-imperial rivalries between capitalist states. And my opponent in this debate is only serving the US ruling class by repeating its lies and propaganda.