Imperialism (Strong nations Striving to Conquer Weaker Nations)

Let's take a step back. Recall from the first round of this debate, I set a standard for how I felt this debate should be judged. Since Pro never responded, these conditions were consented to, by default. There is just one condition for winning this debate, and it's ensconced in evidence that supports our individual cases. What both my opponent and myself have done is to provide examples. We've provided quite a few. However, examples aren't weighed in this debate simply for being present. They must relate to the case being made. Pro has not provided a single example that supports his case. Not one. I've shown that in previous rounds, and, given his rebuttals in this round, I will repeat it. My opponent starts by saying that it's fine for him to present "what if" scenarios, so long as it's a "what if we didn't." A "what if" scenario, of any sort, doesn't weigh within this debate. Pro has given absolutely no reason to favor any of these arguments. Meanwhile, I've given several reasons why not. They're not real world, functioning as imaginary examples of what might have been with little to no support. They are extremely unlikely and often contradictory (more on that shortly). They don't apply showcase any benefit of imperialism. So let's get into his new pieces of evidence. Pro talks about Operation Desert Fox, of course ignoring the fact that Clinton never occupied or even invaded Iraq. I will outright grant that this was beneficial. This shows that it is entirely possible to disarm a tyrant like Saddam without ever engaging in imperialist policies. This is a terrible example for Pro. He then talks about the possibility that, at some point, maybe, over the next few years, Saddam may have gotten a nuclear arsenal. He doesn't provide any support for this. We knew that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons, and so did nearly all of the major powers of the world.[1] Deducing that, hypothetically, it was possible that Saddam would get them with time doesn't change the fact that he didn't have them at the time and wasn't likely to acquire them due to strict sanctions. But, once again, this is irrelevant. I could grant Pro's argument here and it would still work against him. This in no way supports a long-term occupation of Iraq, just the removal of Saddam from power, increased sanctions, and perhaps a future variant of Operation Desert Fox. All of these things would have solved for the problem. Pro has provided absolutely no support for imperialism in this instance, but solely for intervention. And he does the same thing in Afghanistan! I could argue that the U.S. hasn't really made any appreciable dent in the problems in Afghanistan (look to my previous links on the topic), but I could also simply grant this argument. All I have to do is say that our invasion of Afghanistan was a good thing, but our stay there for the last 13 years is not. Again, Pro has not provided a single argument here for why our continued presence is necessary, only a reason for intervention. On these two examples, I'm garnering every benefit he discusses merely by granting his points. He then goes into a little more what iffery, going back to his previous point about exploiting these countries. First off, this is a complete about-face by Pro. I'll quote him from R2: "I personally think that if a nation conquers another nation, their rule should be humane and they also should have a responsibility towards the nation that they've conquered. This is my version of imperialism: a humane and beneficial occupation of somebody else's land." Since when did forced labor (like we employed in Haiti and Panama) become humane? Since when did exploitation of resources become humane? Since when did either of these practices not face a nearly inevitable outcome of riot and rebellion that leads to the death Pro thinks he so deftly avoids (as many of my examples have shown)? Since when did the mass poverty, overworking, starvation and disease that result from these practices not caused death? I can't tell if Pro is living in a dream world or if he has a split personality here, but either way, it's troubling. Second, most of our previous attempts to bring democracy to other nations have failed. Pro may want to cite Iraq and Afghanistan again, but of course this ignores the reality that both countries are twisted examples, if they are examples at all, of democracy. Afghanistan is still categorized as an authoritarian regime, and is listed 180 out of 182 on the Democracy Index, only slightly higher than Somalia and North Korea. Iraq's a little better, but not much. It's a hybrid of "flawed democracy" and "authoritarian regime, still sitting low in the pack on countries in this Index.[2] But Pro wants to bring democracy to the world! Why should we stand in his way? Well, most countries just won't accept democracies,[3] and trying to force freedom on a country that doesn't want it is about as antithetical as it gets. Third, in another great twist, Pro now finds it entirely reasonable to leave our troops in the regions they occupy, utilizing this great source of money. Of course, this ignores the fact that this process will dramatically weaken the occupied nation's economy by siphoning off all their resources and labor force (causing mass starvation), but let's forget about that for now. Pro finds it entirely reasonable to leave and resupply troops in a foreign nation over multiple decades. Why would he care? It's because he's straight conceding that there will be rebellions, guerrillas, insurgencies, and terrorists to contend with. Trouble is that those wouldn't exist in the absence of an imperialistic power. So all of the plausible troop deaths that are caused by these uprisings are all harms to Pro's case that don't exist in mine. All of the brutal crackdowns that will have to be done in order to quash these efforts are all, similarly, harms solely to Pro's case. This isn't a benefit. It's a massive harm that only he garners. What's worse, Pro cold concedes that these crackdowns will occur in the next post. He says that riot police won't kill people. That's an interesting point... one problem. It's not the riot police who are going to be occupying these nations. It's going to be the military, and since they're going to be facing untold numbers of enemies in a foreign land who are likely to use deadly force, the military is going to be on a hair trigger as well. Pro then mishandles my point on colonial natives being used in European wars. Every single one of his African examples is couched in the supposition that imperialism would have solved their problems if only it had gone on longer. But of course, the European nations weren't looking for volunteers. They were forcibly conscripting. And in the process, they killed off untold numbers of natives for a cause they never believed in, and the harms of depressing these nations economies (by siphoning off resources and getting their workers killed en mass) led directly to all of the bloody revolutions, civil wars, and deaths that followed. Every single African example he provided is straight turned against him, a panoply of great examples of imperialism gone wrong. Lastly, he touches back on Panama and Haiti. On Panama, he basically ignores the cost of life, saying it "was an unfortunate side effect." He essentially says that those lives were well-spent, an economic victory for Panama that was worth the cost. I don't know how much a single life is worth, but over 125,017 makes that some bloody money. It was a direct example of imperialism gone wrong, plain and simple. Over and over again in this debate, Pro has taken the perspective that we can do better, that we can be more humane. And yet, he hasn't presented a single example of a humane occupation that ended well for either country involved, or even a case of imperialism where the conquering nation truly acted humanely. He even goes so far as to suggest some inhumane actions they could take, such as forced labor and resource siphoning. On Haiti, Pro is again entirely dismissive. The 2010 earthquake point was with regards to their infrastructure, which was largely built or repaired by us. The infrastructure we so benevolently forced them to build was the cause of the vast majority of their deaths during that quake.[4] Those deaths were partially our responsibility. As were the revolts that destabilized the country. Pro is not at all responsive to my Nicaragua example, so it stands as an uncontested example of imperialism harming a nation we purported to be protecting. With that, I leave it to Pro to conclude his argument. 1. http://www.washingtonsblog.com... 2. http://costsofwar.org... 3. http://www.cato.org... 4. http://www.cnn.com...