We should annex or exercise greater control over the old pacific trust territories

"Unlike these other nations, the United States has full control over their military. If the government passes a law that incites war, it is now a US problem. These nations are too small to take care of themselves as far as military goes. "This only adds more problems to annexation. The United States will be fully accountable for a nations that are incapable of protecting themselves. "Remember the Hawaii annexation. Planters were grateful that the US annexed them, because they benefitted from the wealth they received. The micronesian nations are underdeveloped and have yet to modernize. They have many industries to exploit, some of which are very valuable. Nothing in this scenario means the States would have to invest more money. "The conditions which brought about the annexation of Hawaii are different. Hawaii, was originally a kingdom until the late 19th century[1]. There was a private group who decided to overthrow the kingdom. This event led to the annexation of Hawaii in the long term. We should not be under any assumption that majority of the Hawaii residents were delighted when their Queen was overthrown. If Micronesian nations are underdeveloped as Pro claims that definitely means more investment. How will the resources be of any use if there is no infrastructure to transport those resources? The United States would have to invest in infrastructure(roads, highways) and a large port to export the resources. No investment will result in no infrastructure rendering the resources inconsequential because they can not be transported for trade. Also who would on these resources? It doesn't seem like a private corporation from what my opponent has implied. It seems the United States will have to manage the extraction of resources. Therefore the United States will have to invest money into the equipment to extract the resources. Then the United States will have to invest money into the trucks and ships to transport the resources. Then of course, most importantly, the United States will have to pay the employees who will be engaging in this entire process. This will cost quite a large sum of money. I assume tens of millions of dollars will be needed considering the cost of trucks and ships alone. [1]. http://www.hawaii-nation.org... "Palau: Palau is inhabited by over 20,000 residents. Most of them are subsistence farmers. There is potential for growth in many areas in fishing, tourism, etc. ""FSM: The Federated States of Micronesia show more potential than any of the 3 nations. It’s exciting how many industries can be exploited. ""Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands have just begun to transition to new industries. Mainly due to US investments. "If you read Pro's arguments he had not produced on iota of evidence supporting how these islands are currently turning a profit in any of the industries he has mentioned. Instead, Pro offers us one result which he gives no evidence to back at all. Pro ha focused on potential growth for industries. He wants our faith. This is more than reckless. The nited States will annex these countries and invest in them when there is no evidence they will turn a profit. I ask, can the United Stated afford to take a risk based on potential growth? It would be wise to remember the United States failed by investing in an American solar company, Solyndra. The United States invested over five hundred of million American tax payer dollars into a company which went bankrupt[2]. To put it mildly, this is embarrassing. But at least, Solyndra no longer operates. If we listen to Pro and there is a significant loss, the United States will be stuck with it since we would of annexed these nations. These nations couldn't go bankrupt. Can the United States afford such a risk when it has a over $17 trillion owed in debt[3]? It would not be a thought out decison for the United States to annex these nations when we do not even possess any factual information on growth from these Micronesian Nations. [2]. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3]http://www.usdebtclock.org... "Money, power, and expanded markets. "This is not a fact. This is only speculation my opponent has offered. The United States will have to cover more costs by annexing these countries. That is a fact, not speculation since the United States will have to invest more in these nations once they are U. S. territories like other U. S. territories(Ex. Puerto Rico). " They would rather be annexed then have there US aid revoked. Micronesian governments have also banned guns that aren’t for hunting. "How does Pro know this? Pro has just stated people would rather give up their sovereignty to prevent US aid from being revoked. "The idea of armed resistance against the US from these 200,00 citizens seems a bit ridiculous to me. They rely heavily on US aid right now, and would probably accept annexation due to pure necessity. "My opponent gave us the image of limited guns in the Micronesian nations. We all should know why the amount of firearms is limited. There is a limited amount of trade taking place. If the United States, the country with the largest gun manufacturing companies in the world, decides to annex the Micronesian nations, firearms will become prevalent[4]. When the United States annexes the Micronesian nations, the laws will have to change. So the current firearm ban might not exist any longer. [4]. http://www.theblaze.com...Let's sum up this debate and why you should vote Con based on the resolution:1. There are better nations to annex(Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan). See Round 2.2. The Micronesian nations are not profitable. See Rounds 2 & 3.3. The Micronesian nations are insignificant compared to the grander scheme of American affairs. See Rounds 2 & 3.4. The United States has a limited amount of resources which it should not spend on annexing the Micronesian nations. See Round 3.5. The United States will have to invest millions into Micronesia. See Round 3.6. Annexation of the Micronesian nations could result in rebellion. See Rounds 2 & 3.7. Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. Pro was proposing for the United States to annex the Micronesian nations but failed to provide enough evidence of why these nations in particular should be annexed. Pro gave us only speculation when we require data and hard facts to even consider annexing these nations. The United States should not consider annexing these nations based on mere conjecture. I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. Thanks to the voters and observers who took the time to read this as well.