The United States should conquer Africa

Thanks for an excellent debate my friend.Procedural noteMany times in his previous round my opponent accused me of not providing evidence for matters of common sense. I offer a blanket response that I need not source logical claims. Because of a need for brevity, this will be my only response to these numerous assertations.ExpansionismCon point blank concedes that governments are inherently expansionist. He argues that "affirming will save 1000 Americans, but kill a million Africans, thats ok. Thats obviously insane". I personally agree with this analysis, but the problem is that since he's conceded that we SHOULD expand, he has to establish a weighing mechanism as to when we shouldn't, otherwise the ballot gos Aff by default because Aff is arguing for expansion. You can see that he has not done this; since he agrees that the U.S. needs an expansionist foreign policy you can vote Pro on this single issue, because he's failed to meet the BOP he gave himself. Only consider his arguments when he weighs them under an expansionist framework (which would negate his nuclear war, heg, and lost lives DA's because they would happen anyway).Essentially, concessions in this round force us to presume that the U.S. SHOULD conquer someone.I will now respond to his objections.Human rights1. Extend the analysis that the U.S. military budget is the largest which gives it a greater ability for conquest. He makes no response. This negates his U.N. CP, because the U.S. has a budget that accounts for nearly half of the worlds[1], then who would be doing most of the fighting? Prior U.N. missions have had heavy U.S. involvement with scant reward, so you can extend the benefits from my case too. This plan falls. Extend every attack on the EU, he's made no reply.2. Ignore his contracters plan or turn it. It is not advantageous because the U.S. would not get to exploit Africas resources if it hires PMC's and then leaves. This further hurts his objection that the U.S. should not have to pay the costs of conquest alone, because his plan advocates this too. Turn it if you still find merit behind this idea because he makes no response to my plan of using the PMC's to do the heavy fighting, and sending in the military AFTERWARD to secure the conquest.3. His DA's are non-unique using the status quo, and the imperialistic framework he's conceded to. The U.S. will exploit other countries regardless. He never replied to this when I said it in the previous round, extend. 4. Iraq- Extend the GDP raise advantage, he's ignored it. Liberating iraq from a dictator and then strengthening its economy at a cost of 1/10th the amount of individuals killed in car crashes over the same time period is incredibly advantageous for Iraq. Not to mention that it is now a puppet state and thereby under the protection of the most mighty empire on Earth.Afghan- Extend the turn, he merely calls it "terrible". GDP rise coupled with an end to a civil war and an HDI raise= unquestionably good. Aff wins here. Further he never attempts to answer the question of why Africa would even have insurgents.5. It is true I did not answer Cons assertation that the U.S. could not afford continued occupation. I thought that the economic calculation from resources exploitation (24 tril. in one country alone!), which he dropped instead arguing a ridiculous environmental impact outweighed. He never argues an actual cost anyway, or a trade-off argument (use X money for Y). No response made to my turn. Extend the evidence that interventionism is ingrained in U.S. policy; this turns his argument because if short term occupation is bad, and occupation will happen regardeless, then long term occupation (IE colonization) is preferable! This too is an issue that you can vote Pro on.Human CostMy assertation that Africa used WWII weapons was a hyperbole to show their lack of military sophistication. I cannot access my opponents sources (see comments) but considering that the U.S. and its Allies account for nearly all military spending, they are almost certainly the buyers of these weapons. What Con has posted about Africas ilitary capabilities proves my point. They have grenade launchers and a handful of AA missles...the U.S. has tanks, planes, trained soldiers, ships, rockets, satellites, spies, hegemony, ect. There truly is no contest. The USAF is the most powerful airforce in the world[2], no African AF ranks in the top 10. Our air superiority would win us the "war" before it even started. Extend the objection that Africans would likely prefer the US to their local warlords.Heg1. Con objection to my status quo argument is laughable. The U.S. has soldiers stationed in every region of the world[3], and uses its economic and soft power to force other countries to bend to its will. Honestly, I need not provide evidence for this, its logic; states act in self interest so obviously the U.S. (or any country) will exploit others. Con accuses me of dropping his prolif argument, but I responded to it, the actual dropping was done by him. Extend that the US could stop a nation trying to gain nuclear weapons. Further, extend all the way back from round 2 that Africa is strategically located and that heg deters nuclear war. He made no response. 2. Con concedes that there was little terrorism in Africa during the age of imperialism (which was hardly a century ago, in the 1900's, not 1800's[4]). He has NEVER explained how invading Africa is going to cause them to become terroists anyway. The Middle East is a different place, you hear of islamic militants all the time (even beofre US involement) but you dont hear of ethiopian militants, or south african militants. Violence that Africa is involved in is directed towards other Africans, not the countries that terrorists target. My opponent is mistaken in claiming that I didnt respond to his al queda analysis. He's only mentioned that orgnization once in the entire round in his round 3 rebuttal. ResourcesExtend: That the U.S. would economically gain from this, he's made no response at all. Under the imperialistic framework he's conceded to, this is enough to vote Pro. 1. Ok, my opponent shows that there are some environmental hazards to mining, but using Cons logic there would never be any progress anywhere. When we stop living like animals we inherently harm the environment. Only vote Con on this if you wish to live off the land in the wilderness, otherwise we have to accept some economic harm for prosperity. Since this is his sole response to the massive increase of wealth Africa would see (24 trillion minimum), you can see that it stands. Cons minor impact is not enough to outweigh a better economy that would save lives (he never answered my argument that increased economics solves starvation). He doesnt even say how much of the African environment would be ruined. Since mining currently goes on in other parts of Africa, we can conclude that the impact is not substantial. There is simply no substance behind this argument. HistoryI have said if before and I will repeat, westernization involves installing pro-western governmnts and culture. My opponent never questions that Africa is currently a deadly mix between western and african culture, and that the departure of Western society has been harmful to Africa. This is a serious blow to Con, who's entire argument stipulates that we have to instill democracy and a love for the biebs into Africa. Con doesnt seem to understand that conquest would be a long-term occupation and westernization. Thus his objection that the US failed in short term interventions (Iraq) fails. African countries would not be hard for the U.S. to conquer, especially since he's dropped that many of them would prefer the U.S. anyway. Conclusion:Blackvoid did a wonderful job, and I thank him for taking part, but when we weigh this round the offense all goes to the Aff. I know that all of you disagree with my position, but please judge with an open mind.Sources:http://tinyurl.com...