The United States should conquer Africa

Thanks Thett for whats been an intense debate on an even better topic. So that this doesnt become too long for judges, this round will focus on the four most important arguments in the round, and I will explain why I win all of them. First though, "Procedural note"I did accuse Pro of not giving evidence for several key statements last round, but he says he doesnt need to source logical claims. Except, most of his nonsourced arguments were factual claims, not logical ones. For instance, he blankly says that Africa uses old WW2 weapons, that the UN doesn't accomplish anything, and that US mining practices dont harm the environment. These are factual claims that are not "common sense". So at the end of the day, since I gave you specific evidence proving that these claims are wrong and he only gives his opinion that they are true, prefer my position due to more empirics.Key arguments in this round:1. AlternativesRemember that if either of my alternatives to sole US conquest stand, you negate because I have a better plan than my opponent.UN - Pro is right, the US would do much of the fighting if this was a UN international effort, but thats still better than us doing all of it ourselves. We only have 1.4 million people in our military, we will need assistance from other countries to succeed. Making this an international effort would not only reduce economic cost but also decrease the amount of US lives we have to risk. Pro blankly asserts that past UN missions have had scant reward. But again, and I know he hates me saying this, but he didnt give any evidence or proof of that...EU - Cool, Pro drops it. He originally had one sentence against my EU alternative, which was a blank assertion that they just bicker and do nothing. I gave empirical proof last round that shows that this isn't the case, they have achieved peacekeeping missions. Pro only replies by saying that I dropped his argument. Guess he didnt see that response I listed. Remember that these CP's are competitive. Pro's plan is solely a US mission which involves no-one else, whereas my CP's achieve his goal more efficiently by incorporating an international effort.2. Can we take over 23 countries?Remember my source stating that Africa's militaries are in possession of modern firearms, grenade launchers, AA missiles, and machine guns. Pro originally said that Africa used old weapons and had weak militaries (disproven by source), but last round he changed his argument to "well, we'd still beat them anyway". I agree that we (the US) have cool tanks and airplanes and all that, Taking over any individual one of these countries would be fairly simple. The issue is that there's 23 of these countries in possession of these weapons I listed. We only have 1.4 million people in our military, so even with better technology, a conquest of 23 countries (half a continent)is a fantasy. And even if it could be done, the casualties would be too high for the decision to be rational. Furthermore, he drops my argument that Africa won't take lightly to US intervention because war is all they know.3. Nuclear prolifPro is right, we do have soldiers stationed across the world. For instance, we have a few thousand in Japan, Germany, Mexico, etc. Except this is hardly a conquest of these countries. We haven't "taken over" any country we have some soldiers in except Iraq and Afghanistan, so Pro's really exaggerating his impact. Therefore. since the US has only "conquered" 2 countries in this decade, the world doesn't see us as an imperialistic threat just yet. In contrast, taking over an entire continent (23+ countries) would signify a world takeover, leading to the nuclear proliferation disadvantage I've brought up since R2. He still hasn't denied that proliferation will inevitably lead to nuclear war.4. EnvironmentAwesome, Pro has now entirely conceded that heavy mining of Africa's minerals will exacerbate their environmental damage. Remember back in my R2, when I said that harming Africa's environment (air/water pollution poisons life sources) would outweigh any monetary benefit. Pro waits until round 4 to actually contend this. Pro responds by making a ridiculous straw man that I would advocate not doing anything prosperous if it would harm the environment. However, some environmental harms are okay so long as they are minor. Cut down a few trees, drain a couple lakes, burn certain areas of forest down. These are acceptable. But according to my evidence, the US joining in mining practices across Africa would exacerbate continental-scale air pollution, water pollution, and acid mine drainage. These harms are severe and cause suffering across the continent. We're not going to worsen these damages, which would assuredly lead to the death of thousands, for the promise of money. My impact of continental environmental destruction outweighs money.ConclusionIf voters feel that Africa should be conquered (you shouldnt), prefer my alternative of an international effort, as opposed to one country taking over a continent by themselves. If you feel that one country cannot take over 23, which have more sophisticated military capabilities than my opponent originally thought, vote con. If you feel that conquering a continent would make other countries nervous, and would try to build nuclear arsenals to deter US aggression, vote con. and if you dont think that 1.4 million US soldiers (our entire military) can install 23 pro-western governments simultaneously, when we arguably havent even done it in Iraq or Afghanistan, well, you get the idea.Again, thanks for the awesome debate.