Imperialism is bad for either the imperialist or the conquered.

As this is my closing argument, I will first address your points, and then make a few closing remarks. First of all, I agree that microloans are an extremely effective tool for reducing poverty. However, they are a relatively new invention, and they did not come into use until long after the British Raj left India. For our purposes, they are irrelevant. Banking, on the whole, on the other hand, was a largely Western institution almost unknown to China and India before they both had extensive contact with Europeans (primarily through occupation). So while microloans, in their implementation, might be solely India's doing, the British were the ones to introduce the system that allowed for them. Secondly, America's role as the world's policeman is disputable, but I agree with you. We should not have to solve other nations' problems just because "its our job" or because we are supposedly more moral than everybody else. We are not, in my opinion, more moral of a country than any other. However, the military bases do have the valuable role as a vehicle for the execution of a Pax Americana. Western Democracies are peaceful with one another not because they are all democratic, but because they are all a part of a single American Empire. We exercise a great deal of control over Western Europe and the Pacific's foreign policies, and so they could not attack one another. This peace and stability, which allows American commerce to carry on successfully, is well worth the relatively minor price of maintaining our military bases (not in excess of a couple dozen billion, consider that our trade is in voluminous billions.) I agree that Iran-Contra was wrong. Let us remember, that was done without US military bases. That was the result of poor foreign policy (which any nation is subject to) rather than our sprawling empire. Another point that is necessary to bring up is that many empires, throughout history, have succeeded by leaving native cultures largely intact. Surely, there is some cultural diffusion between mother and son, but that is inherent in any interaction. While empires have the tendency of destroying suspicions about trade and foreign commerce (which are indisputably counter-productive), they will almost always compromise with existing cultures (Spain being a noticeable exception.) For example, though American vassals such as South Korea, Germany, Japan, and formerly South Vietnam have adopted many American practices, they all retain very distinct and native cultures. Similarly, the British government in India kept the Indian culture largely intact. African tribal beliefs have largely fused with Christianity, and the African taste for tribal structure is still largely allowed to be freely expressed in government (to the dismay of the innocent civilians caught in it). The contention that deindustrialisation is making the United States increasingly dependent on foreign countries is true. However, the reverse is also true. The world has become increasingly dependent on the American market to supply it with liquid capital, which is no doubt just as important as material goods. This interdependency, this integrated economy, is a good thing. Nations who trade extensively are far less likely to declare war on one another, as opposed to nations who are members of opposite and competing trade networks. As American becomes dependent on the world, and the world becomes dependent on America, the potential for conflict is reduced precipitously. With that, I would like to make my closing remarks. Imperialism has been an important and driving force throughout history, and it continues to be today. The economic benefits for both the mother nation and its possessions are undeniable. Capital flowing into an underdeveloped nation is good, markets opening makes the whole world richer, and the introduction of technology to economies that might otherwise not have it is good. Globalisation and interdependence between mother and colony might seem enigmatic and frightfully unexplored, but there is no cause for alarm. As the world comes closer together economically, there is more understanding. As we come to depend on one another, we learn to cooperate. As this world becomes more and more unified, the potential for future bloodshed is reduced. And the cultural benefits of imperialism, too, are undeniable. Imperialism has spread a sort of global culture, in which almost all citizens of the world can understand and empathize with one another. But at the same time, this global culture has millions of variations, and the retention of native beliefs makes it a beautiful mosaic, uniform in theme but each part is unique. I ask you all to discard what your teachers force-fed you in World History, to consider imperialism both from the hard-nosed and empathetic aspects. If you do so with an open mind, I hope you can come to see things as I do.