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

Con begins the debate with a textbook definition of imperialism, one that is not totally accurate (e.g. it"s not based on "ideas of superiority") but which I will have to leave aside for now. I would rather like to begin, before discussing US objectives, by briefly summing up the situation in Syria. There are some facts I would like to bring to light, that Con omits for whatever reason. Con cites Kerry"s moral condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, and I think we would all agree with such condemnation. In fact, I would extend such condemnation to all weapons. (Why only chemical weapons? Who the heck knows?) But the problem here is that intervention is being asked for solely on the fact that such chemical weapons were used, not for who used them and for what purposes. In reality, the US has no evidence that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian regime. In fact, it would be totally absurd for the Syrian regime (under Bashar al-Assad) to use such weapons when considering two reasons: 1)The Syrian regime was winning the civil war without the use of chemical weapons. It was successfully pushing back the rebels, removing them from their previous strongholds. Why all of the sudden would they use such weapons? Either they are completely nuts (which the massive propaganda machinery would like us to believe) or they are being framed. 2)The Syrian regime wouldn"t want to use such weapons knowing the US would retaliate against its use. Why in the world would they invite massive destruction upon themselves? Remember the first rounds of chemical weapons accusations came out in April or May (I think) and the warnings shortly after ("Red Line") were established. Now going back to the first rounds of accusations, there were indeed uses of chemical weapons. But they were not proven to be that of Assad"s use. Rather, according to senior UN official Carle Del Ponte (based on a real assembling of evidence), they were used by the rebels themselves. And after that shocking revelation came out, the US propaganda system totally abandoned the Syria situation and stopped accusing the Syrian regime of chemical weapons use. Embarrassed? Yes. But it also reveals the total hypocrisy on the part of the US political establishment and their media-propaganda apparatus. Why not suggest intervening to stop the rebels from using such horrific weapons? Here was a clear case where the rebels gassed people nearby in order to create a pretext for intervention. Now the US is going for a second round, assuming everyone has forgot about the first one. When the UN decided to investigate this second round of chemical weapons use, the Obama regime balked and tried to call it off, saying it was "too late". 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. The UN still has a team investigating the locations from the first round as well. Assad himself has even demanded the UN to investigate two or three new locations where it is suggested that the rebels have also used chemical weapons there. Contrary to what people are led to believe, Assad seems far more willing to allow the UN to investigate these accusations than the US establishment. The US doesn"t seem comfortable with them taking place. Well, too bad! Why would the rebels use chemical weapons? Well, there"s more reasons for why they would use it than one can come up with for why the Assad regime would do the same. For one thing they are badly losing the war in Syria, and they would like to tip the balance so that they are at least on an equal footing with the Assad regime. But the only way they can do that is with the help of the US"s awesome military power. However, any intervention by the US needs a pretext to justify such actions. Neither the US nor the rebels have such a pretext. So, what do they do? They go out and create one. It"s as simple as that. At least, that is what seems to be the conclusion based on the evidence coming out of the UN. On the imperialism subject: Con doesn"t seem to understand what imperialism. "Boots on the ground" isn"t imperialist in itself, although it is a means of achieving imperialist objectives. Waging a proxy war as it is in Syria isn"t imperialist in itself, but it is a means of achieving imperialist objectives. Do I have to repeat myself? The United States came out of the Second World War as the sole superpower, which claimed the right to establish economic-political hegemony in every part of the world. That means control over the markets, resources and labor of foreign territories. It also means the right establish military bases where ever they see fit. Now the Middle East is probably considered the most important of such regions. State planners, dating back to the Roosevelt administration, have always saw that region as the "crown jewel of the world". "Whoever controls the Middle East controls the world". Why? Well, aside from oil, it is at a strategically important location. It exists at a center point, in which Europe, Africa, Russia and the rest of Asia lie all around it. Just pull out a map, and you"ll see what I mean. Now coming out of the Second World War, we clearly see that the mantle of Empire is taken from the British by the United States. But the means by which such Empire operate have changed qualitatively. Whereas the British used colonialism, i.e. the direct control of foreign lands, the United States have adopted what academics call neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism is where the Empire doesn"t directly control foreign lands, but advances its economic interests indirectly by establishing "client states", which in turn establishes open market economies through which the corporations of the mother country can penetrate and profit from. And the US has a good number of them: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, etc. And let us not forget the countless numbers of interventions the US has performed since 1945 in order to advance its own imperial interest. That has been the historical record that no one can doubt. But it is losing this hegemonic position. Its economic power has substantially been in serious decline. In the post-war period, it"s GDP represented half of the world"s GDP. Today, it is around a mere fifth. This has opened the way for other imperial rivalries to present a challenge, including Russia and China. What we are witnessing is a transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one (which is definitely raising the possibility of a Third World War). In order to secure its hegemonic position, it rightfully sees its long-term objective in securing control over Middle Eastern oil. But it has a problem: Iran, which US foreign policy advisers have always seen as a "nationalist" threat, vying for regional power. 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. 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. At this point, I spent a good deal writing. On such topics as this one, it is important to go beneath the surface appearance of things and grasp the reality of the situation as it is. What I just did above was sort of summarize the course of American imperialism. But it probably would have been more useful to discuss why imperialism exist at all, why do states (any state, not just the US state) pursues such a course. In fact, it might have been useful to understand what a state is, and what its purpose and functions are. CONTINUED IN COMMENT SECTION.