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

Despite Pro's (literally) overflowing verbosity, I must say his round 2, in addition to being clear and well-written, was a very interesting read and helped me understand his conception of imperialism and its historical underpinnings. "Imperialism" In R1, Pro didn't provide a definition "imperialism" so I, as the contender, provided a definition of the term in my R1. There is a common consensus that terms should be defined in R1, if not by the instigator, then by the contender. In R2, Pro has changed the meaning of "imperialism" from the one proposed in R1, and the legitimacy of that needs to be considered by the voters. "Neo-colonialism" In R2, Pro wants imperialism to mean neo-colonialism, i.e., where a states attempt to advance its economic (open market) interests through the establishment of "client states" (an undefined and vague term). So the US, here, is charged with establishing peaceful relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel to open up markets such that it is possible for American companies to play a competitive role in these economies. So far so good, I guess. American companies are able to compete in these markets, selling goods to the populations at competitive prices, and these companies, where possible, are able to create jobs in these countries - providing job opportunities to populations that are emerging out of 3rd world poverty. So despite the defamatory language used by Pro, it would seem that these relationships are hardly nefarious. Pro brought up the point of the US's history of invading countries to advance it's economic and geopolitical interests. The definitive book on this shameful history of US invasions is Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change by Stephen Kinzer. In his exhaustive list of 14 invasions, only 3 occurred in the Middle East: Iran (the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953) and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.[a] The overthrow of Mossadegh was a service rendered by the CIA to British oil interests and rightly qualifies as the type of violent imperialism that Pro argues is occurring in Syria now. The explicit aim of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion, however, was to establish democratic rule in those regions. So, to the extent that the Middle East is concerned, a case for the violent neo-colonialism that Pro wants to argue is at the root of the current situation in US-Syrian relations can be made by appealing to one event that happened in the early 1950's. As shameful as this event is, it can't be used to characterize a nation's entire designs on the Middle East or Syria. So that leaves us with Iraq and Afghanistan. A simple question: How is US hegemony served by the propping up of sovereign democracies? Bad Faith So far, all the assertions Pro has made have been without citations. Consider this passage from his last round: However, the UN has already sent a team to investigate (when they arrived at their location, they immediately faced gunshots coming from rebel strongholds!) these new locations. As far as I know, it hasn't been determined who fired the shots. Whenever this is reported in the media, no information is reported about the shooters. Consider this passage from Democracy Now's website from August 27: The visit was initially delayed after the inspectors' convoy came under sniper fire. A U.N. spokesperson said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon still believes the inspectors can make a proper assessment, even though five days passed before they were allowed entry. http://www.democracynow.org... Democracy Now is a highly competent news outlet which, as a rule, denounces any violent acts by the US government, so it can't be considered one of the "official sources" Pro said I was "dependent" on. If the origin of the gunfire was known, they would be the first to report it, but they don't because no one knows - expect apparently Pro. The reader should be skeptical of Pro's assertions, not only because they are uncited, but because many appear to be fabrications. Questions for Pro In this section, I will challenge Pro on some of the assertion he made. "In order to secure its hegemonic position, it rightfully sees its long-term objective in securing control over Middle Eastern oil." How does this comport with the US's national push to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels? What about the fact that the Middle East is only one of many oil producing regions? "Well, Assad's Syria is an important political ally of Iran. And if they can eventually topple the Assad regime, and replace him with a more faithful client, they can isolate Iran and have a better chance at securing their aims. That's why the US has been and will continue to involve themselves in this conflict." What's wrong with pursuing a geopolitical strategy that is more conducive to open markets with a secular, pluralistic Syrian democracy? What's wrong with isolating a theocratic, anti-Western nuclear power (Iran) which is, above all other countries, the most likely to end humanity? Do these aims only serve the "Empire"? "Concern for helpless people being attacked by this or that weaponry is not the concern of the US state, who themselves have sponsored countless attacks (since 1945) on huge numbers of mostly poor people." 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. Summary In R1, Pro stated: I will try to argue that the main reason why the United States desires to intervene in Syria's civil war has everything to do with its long-term imperial goals rather than to defend helpless foreign people(s) being subjected to chemical weapons attack. And I will try to explain what those 'imperial goals' are. What imperial goals are to be accomplished by blowing up a handful of Regime targets? Why should we disregard the normal moral feelings that an entire nation will be expected to have upon learning 1500 people have been destroyed in a single chemical weapons attacks? So far, Pro has written an interesting narrative regarding his opinions of the role of the US as the single superpower since WWII (for some reason leaving out Russia). However, he has done little in defending the initial contentions of the debate. [a] http://en.wikipedia.org...