Imperialism (Strong nations Striving to Conquer Weaker Nations)

Since my opponent seems to have a problem with "what if we did" scenarios, how about I give him some "what if we didn't" scenarios? Iraq: Bill Clinton, who was about as liberal as a Hippie on LSD, knew that Iraq was building Weapons of Mass Destruction. Have you ever heard of Operation Desert Fox, by any chance? http://en.wikipedia.org...(1998) Why did Bill Clinton do this? Well, critics will say that he did it to provide America with a convenient distraction from the Lewinsky Scandal, and perhaps that's true. However, even if this were his purpose, surely he knew what he was talking about when he started bombing another country. So I ask again, why did Bill Clinton bomb Iraq in 1998, aside from to distract America? It's because Iraq had refused to comply with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which pretty much had the purpose of making sure Iraq didn't build a nuclear arsenal. This argument probably falls under some kind of logical fallacy that I don't know about, but in any case what I'm saying here is true. So, I think it's pretty clear that Saddam had nuclear weapons, or at least that he planned on building them. Imagine that sometime around 2006 Saddam Hussein completes his nuclear arsenal. What then? The dude had already invaded Kuwait and Iran for basically no reason. He had already committed genocide against his own people. There's no real reason to think that Saddam wouldn't use nukes against some other country or threaten another country with them if he had them. Do you think the Iraq War was bad? It'd be nothing compared to the millions of people who'd probably die if Saddam got his hands on nuclear weapons. Heck, he might've even started WW3!!! Afghanistan: Officially the 1996-2001 Afghan Civil War ended on October 7. Do you know why? What happened on October 7? Here's the answer: the US invaded Afghanistan on that day. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1996%E2%80%932001) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93) So what would've happened had the US not gotten involved in this conflict? To figure that out, look at the map provided with this link. http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see, the majority of the country was in the Taliban's hands before the US got involved. Had the US not gotten involved, the Taliban would've most assuredly be in control of the country right now. So what would the Taliban have done if they took control of Afghanistan? Well, have you heard of the Hazara people? Their current population is at 6.5 million people, over 5 million of these which live in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Taliban had massacred several thousands Hazara people in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org... And believe me, this was not the only massacre the Taliban had ever conducted. If they were in power today, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of living Afghan civilians would be dead. So basically, using a cost-benefit analysis regarding the loss of lives, these two wars were worth it. How We Could've Ruled These Nations: Con points out that our attempts to maintain order in these nations without our military on their soil have failed, something I commend Con for pointing out. So... How about we DO exploit their nations? How about we take their resources and put their people to work in factories or farms? Con is probably cursing his guts out at the time that he hears me says this. But why not? We are ultimately bringing a lasting and worthwhile democracy to their nation, and this death-free exploitation would simply be to provide us with the appropriate monetary compensation for our troubles. We wouldn't be turning them into slaves; we'd give them jobs, hard jobs but jobs nevertheless. We'd also use their labor to modernize their nation. Meanwhile, with the money made from this we'd be able to keep our troops in the region. And of course, we could find other ways to lower the cost of the occupation. The Harmful European Crackdowns: Yes, there were harsh European crackdowns. But it doesn't have to be that way. Today's riot police are equipped with rubber bullets, water hoses, and tasers. The Use of Colonial Natives in European Wars: It doesn't have to be this way, though natives perhaps could voluntarily join the Western armies. Panama: This was an unfortunate side effect of a time period when colonialism was brutal. The labor that I suggested above would be more humane and safe labor. But even in the case of Panama, the billions that they make from the canal will be very rewarding to Panama for years and years to come. But even if the US had maintained control over the Canal, I'm sure native Panamanians could benefit from this canal today somehow. Haiti: Is Con suggesting that the US caused the 2010 Earthquake? I'm sorry if this wasn't very thorough, but I have to go for now.