The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

1. I never extended the point, your reasoning, even using your logic fails to prove the US is capable nor is beneficial to the middle east. As stated there is NO good reasons are effective ways to rule the middle east, and the way they do it may be faulty but wasting our resources and men are not worth our time. And this poll is really scary:" According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion. " [1]So if we did take the middle east, we would be able to assume we would be facing large portions of the population, as I explained above, and this WOULD NOT BE FIGHT ABLE. My opponent then claims the Taliban even with help would fail, but as stated the US has been in many wars similar (i.e. Vietnam) against weaker foe but LOSE because they never give up. In the Russian war in Afghanistan, only 3% of Russian troops where lost, but is was enough to win. As we would be fighting formal armies of the country's and their populace, we woudl be forced to withdrawal. You have not refuted this, hence you lose the point based on basic information. I believe I stated this, but the Persians feats are irrelevant to now a days because the Persians HELD THE SAME VIEWS as the rest of the middle east, we do not have the same views, hence we are screwed. Further Alexanders occupation was extremely short lived, also he never got Afghanistan. The problem is we cant win in the current wars we where/are in, and lost in similar situations (vietnam). YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN HOW WE CAN TAKE GOOD CARE OF THEM NOR HOW WE WOULD WIN A WAR. 2. Iraq was not a success, if you look at the evolving goals it was to make a stable country, we never did, we are losing minor two wars, but I doubt we could defeat 216 million people. [2] Our army would not win, your argument is invalid.3. Dropped by my opponent ************************C1: well, concession by my opponent:"Neither side benefits from prolonged warfare." The Iraq war, ~10 years, Afghanistan, ~11 years (I think). These minor wars are long, so we dont benefit. Invading the WHOLE THING would take, well, forever. So my opponent concedes the point. If minor wars take a decade, then a major one will take longer. My opponent then shows instances of troops killing, sure, but this does not matter. Imagine the same thing, but lasting 50 years. My opponent conceded with the : "Neither side benefits from prolonged warfare." He actually now that I think about it CONCEDES THE WHOLE DEBATE, as the invasion of a large portion of asia would take years, so your reasoning is, well, it destroys your case. Hypothetical situations do not matter, as long warfare hurts no one, and your premise includes long invasions, really that quote destroys your case. ha, 24 trillion dollars in oil, lets assume we spend 1 trillion per country. 38 countries, 3 trillion dollar deficits. [3] That's a 14 trillion dollar short fall. C2: SO go take them over? As I quoted, people who attack first never can make peace, those who make peace never make war, and all wars are bad. YOU NEVER REFUTED THE POINT. My opponent has only dodged the non aggression principle, not show how/why it is not beneficial. You essentially concede the point. You also earlier stated popular support > non aggression, thats the only argument you gave, I showed the US hates minor wars, and would unlikely support a larger one. So you dont defend your argument, dodge the argument, and yeah. C3: My opponent concedes saying if I hurt him, he will hurt me. Well if we invade the middle east, then its their job to kill us. You conceded saying if I rob you, you would stop me. If we invade them, they will stop us. Your reasoning is self defeating. CONCLUSION:My opponent has the full BOP, being PRO, instigator, and advocating a change in the status quo. He has NOT AT ALL proven his point, hence I urge a CON vote. Further, he conceded C1, dodged C2, and used self defeating logic C3. In (1) He fails to understand history, drops (3), and does not prove how we would win the war in (2). SO in conclusion I, CON, win this debate. ***Args - See conclusion Sources - Me, More of them and more accurate ones Conduct - You decideS/G - ^VOTE CON_____________[1] http://www.freerepublic.com...[2] http://www.internetworldstats.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...