The United States should conquer Africa

Epic debate so far.Pro's analysisI guess Pro missed my sentence where I said that I'm making my own arguments by attacking his. I argued that conquering Africa would lead to nuclear proliferation, terrorism, environmental damage, and economic harms. So I have made offensive arguments; Pro not only needs to prove his case but explain how it outweighs my disadvantages.ExpansionismI didnt disagree that governments are expansionist, I see no problem with that. But the impact he tries to get here is ridiculous. He tries to say that this means as long as conquering Africa benefits the US, its ok, it doesn't matter what happens to Africa. This is like saying that if affirming will save 1000 Americans, but kill a million Africans, thats ok. Thats obviously insane.SpecificationPro's clarified that he supports long-term military occupation and a nation building plan. I now agree that his definition of conquering is acceptable. Now we can just focus on the arguments.C1: Human rights. 1. Pro asserts with no evidence that the UN and EU can't solve Africa's genocides instead. He says the UN is just a debating society and doesn't accomplish anything, which is strange because my source lists 22 peacekeeping operations they've taken in Africa before (1). The EU also has 8 operations currently going on (2), showing that they're not just a "bickering collection of states". So extend my alternatives - There's no reason for one country to spend all the money on this, when instead we could fund this through an international effort. Prefer my sourced arguments to my opponent's blank assertions.2. Pro says using military contractors to solve Africa's genocides doesn't gain the net benefits of his case. Thats all he says; he never explains why. He also says that if we use contractors, we're still conquering the country. Actually no, since conquering requires long-term military occupation, and contractors are on a...contract, with an expiration date. So extend - my alternative to solving genocide is better because it doesn't force more US soldiers away from home. He never addressed that logic.3. Group this with my environmental, nuclear prolif, and terrorism disadvantages. He says we should solve their wars if it benefits both parties, except those DAs show you that we don't.4. He drops my argument that he cannot justify the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2 sentences. He has no offense here. But I'll address his rebuttal anyway.Iraq - Pro says that 100,000 civilian deaths from the Iraq war is "minuscule". I don't even know what to say to this. It doesn't matter if thats a small % of the population, thats still 100,000 people killed because of the US's intervention showing that thousands will die in an Africa invasion as well.Afghanistan - Yes, since the US's 10-year occupation, Afghanistan's living conditions have improved 0.042 units. Thats terrible. This shows that US interventions aren't reliable; he can't guarantee success in improving Africa's stability.5. Pro agrees that we have to be in Africa long-term in order to prevent them from going back to civil war. He never addresses my arguments here that this is not only completely unaffordable, but also that it permanently separates our military force from their families, because they're stuck fighting people in Africa rather than being home.Human Cost:23 wars will not be "easy for the U.S. to solve". Pro again asserts without evidence that Africa's militants use old WW2 rifles. Actually, my source indicates that Africa's arms trade produces 200,000 guns a year "of a quality comparable with industrially produced guns” (3). Again, prefer my source to the blank assertion. My source also references militants having grenade launchers and anti-aircraft missiles. The US is not going to roll over this; casualties will be massive. They will not roll over and give up because we're offering to "help" them, war is all they know.But in any case, it should be obvious that the US can neither afford nor win 23 wars. C2: Hegemony1. The world does not already see the US as taking over the world when we have only occupied 2 other countries in this decade (Iraq, Afg.). He gives no proof that the world sees the US as a threat to them. In contrast to Iraq and Afghanistan, conquering Africa is a take over of twenty-three countries. This is essentially 1/5 of the world. This WILL make every other country nervous, encouraging them to build nuclear weapons to deter the US from invading them as well. He completely dropped the analysis that nuclear proliferation leads to high probability of nuke war, extend this as the biggest impact in the round. 2. Yes, Europe didn't deal with much terrorism when they colonized Africa. That was in the 1800's. Terrorism today is much more common and potent. And Pro is right, we've also caused terrorism by exploiting the middle east and Africa in the present time (though he again gives no evidence). That doesn't mean invading the whole dang continent won't make the problem worse. So extend that his plan of conquering a continent will manifest even more US terrorism than exists today, and also the dropped analysis that it would strengthen the resolve of Al Qaeda. C3. Resources1. Pro claims that the US doesn't cause environmental damage when mining for minerals, again with no evidence. In contrast, my source shows that mining in the Appalachian Mountains (a US area) has destroyed homes, poisoned wells, and polluted streams (4). He also drops the UN Environmental Report stating that large-scale mining in general has disastrous environmental effects. And remember that Africa already has a lot of trouble with this, the US joining in would add more fuel to the fire, hastening the impacts of air and water pollution. I said this last round, but poisoning Africa's air and water supply outweighs any monetary benefit since it affects the living condition of everyone on the continent.2. And his entire Trade argument relies on us actually digging out all of Africa's minerals, which I just showed is a bad idea. C4: HistorySo Pro now says that to westernize Africa, we have to "promote Western culture". What does this even mean? Like, we have to introduce them to Western things like Hip-Hop and Justin Bieber? If my interpretation is wrong (its not, I even gave the Wiki source to show you what Westernization actually is), Pro needs to explain what he's actually advocating here.He also says we need to install a pro-western government in all the warring Africa countries. Ok, thats 23+ governments we're having to overthrow and transfigure into a Pro-US system. My source on the African weapons trade earlier showed you that their militants wield modern assault rifles, grenade launchers, and anti-aircraft weaponry. So we would have to conquer 23 countries who wield these things. We had enough trouble with just one country in Iraq; so bad that we pulled out after ten years. 23 countries is impossible. He's also dropped that its unaffordable, and since mining Africa's resources would destroy their environment, we can't fund it that way either. If we absolutely have to do something, prefer my alternative of an international effort.Conclusion:Pro's imperialistic plan would not only fail due to resistance from Africa's better-than-you-think militaries, but would be unaffordable as a long term strategy. Based off our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can infer that trying to invade 23 more countries wouldnt go so well and would just add more soldiers and casualties into the fight, Finally, an attempt to take over a continent will spur terrorism and nuclear proliferation as countries begin to fear the US, and worry that they might be invaded next. Pro even says the US will continue to conquer other nations. This creates a world where everybody except the US lives in fear of invasion. Good luck in Thett's last round.