The United States should conquer Africa

Thanks Blackvoid!!Analysis:My Opponent has chosen the path of just responding to my arguments, instead of presenting his own. That's fine, after all I am the one advocating a change in the status quo. This does however, give me a distinct advantage: if any part of my argument survives his objections, then you vote Pro by default.Extend: Extend that governments are inherently expansionist, he hasn't questioned the logic. This is a serious blow for Con, because it justifies expansion even if said expansion comes at a cost to the natives. This lessens my BOP, because now I only have to show a benefit to the U.S. that comes with conquest.Specifications Con spends an entire paragraph arguing that my version of "conquest" would mean only a peacekeeping mission. Not exactly. Yes, we would be taking Africa by force (just as we took Afghanistan and Iraq by force). He further talks a lot about how the Libyan intervention was not conquest; I want to make this very clear: I agree. I never argued that Libya was conquered by the U.S., I argued that it shows a precedent of beneficial interventions. Conquest is a form of intervention! Cons argument thus is a red herring. He asserts that Iraq was not a "conquest". This is illogical. Iraq is a U.S. puppet state that had continued U.S. military occupation for 8 years (thats twice as long as it took to fight the second world war). If that is not conquest than I dont know what is.Con procedes to go on about how saving innocent Africans from genocide and then taking their un-used resources is not conquest, but if it was done by military force (which seems to be the only way) than under my definition, and his it still counts as conquest! Con seems to presume without justification that conquest is always a bad thing for the natives and anything else is a humanitarian mission. Dont buy this without justification, using his logic the WOT is a "humanitarian mission".Now I will respond to his formidable objections.Human rights1. The U.S. should conquer Africa because there is no alternative country to do so. The U.S. is the worlds hegemon and its military spending is greater than the next 17 countries combined[1]. His alternatives (the EU and UN) cannot work. The EU is a bickering collection of independent states, and the UN is little more than a debating society that accomplishes very little. So the U.S. specifically should do this because it has the best chance of success, and conquest is advantageous. 2. His private contracters plan is fallacious for 2 reasons. 1. It doesnt gain the net benefits my case does and 2. it does not actually support his side, because if the U.S.. hires mercenaries to conquer Africa for them than they are still conquering Africa. Hell, offer that up as an alternate plan of conquest: The U.S. uses some of its massive economic power to hire mercenaries to conquer Africa for them and only sends in its own troops when the worst of the fighting is over. 3. Red herring. My position was never that we had an obligation to solve CW/starvation, my position was that if we can do so while benefitting ourselves, we should. 4. I will address his objections seperatelyIraq: 100000 casualties over 8 years is miniscule compared to Iraq's population of 32 million[2]. Thats a per capita casualty rate of 3.9 per 10,000 annually. To put it in perspective, per capita around 10x more people in Iraq die of car crashes[3] yearly. Afghanistan: Turn: Cons source shows the HDI of Afghanistan to be INCREASING since 2005 (the first year data was taken)[4]. His quote from Layne is just that--a quote. No empirics given, or even justification. Besides why should we assume Africa would even have insurgents? 5. Turn: If violence in Iraq increased after the U.S. withdrew, than that shows long term colonization to be preferable to small scale intervention. This is significant because the U.S. will continue to intervene in other countries; after all every single president in the post-war era has intervened one way or another[5].Human cost23 small scale, African wars would be easy for the U.S. to solve. After all, the majority of militants in Africa use bolt-action WWI rifles or left overs from the African campaign of WWII. Once the tanks rolled in, they wouldn't stand a chance. African citizens for the most part have spent their whole (short) lives under the power of different struggling warlords, so there is no reason that they wouldnt "take kindly" to humanitarian support and conquest by the U.S. Heg1. There is no reason to believe that nations will build Nuclear weapons to deter the U.S., and certsinly no nation the U.S. could not stop. Consider that of the most powerful nations,all are either firmly allied w/ th U.S. (NATO) or economically dependent on the U.S. (China & India). Other nations already do see the U.S. as trying to take over other countries and rule the world, mostly because the U.S. does take over other countries, and essentially does rule the world (or tries to). His disadvantage (DA) is non-unique. 2. Africa spent half a century under European rule with very little terrorism. History tells us that Con is incorrect. Besides, a more plausible explnation for terrorism would be the U.S. exploiting middle eastern countries, which we do to Africa anyway. Non-unique DA. Resources1. Turn: You dont hear about these evironmental impacts within U.S., because the U.S. is responsible with its resources. If Africa was under U.S. control, than the U.S. would likely be responsible there as well (it certainly would have an incentive to). Besides, Cons environmental DA is the least of problems that Africa suffers, infant mortality, starvation and genocide are much more significant, and increasing economic activity will help to solve all three. 2. Obviously if Africa had more resources to export, than trade would increase. My advantage stands, his objection does not.Extend: You can extend the monetary advantage the U.S. would reap (which is enough to affirm the resolution) and you can extend that this would economically help Africans as well. I know there arent any studies on the subject, but it's logical to assume that an unemployed and economically depressed African citizen would take a job at the expense of having to breath dusty air. History1. Red herring- Intevention in Libya shows that western intervention is successful, and conquest is a kind of intervention. Not all interventions are conquest. 2. I see no reason to believe that conquering Africa means forming democracies. Con must justify this claim. Recall that in my specifications I claimed that the U.S. has in the past over-thrown demoracies to meet its military objectives (a fact he has not disputed) and propped up autocracies. When I refer to "westernizing" it means promoting western culture, which is not inherently democratic (multiple Western countries were autocratic until after WWI, and Germany/Italy were under autocratic rule until 1945 after a failed democratic experiment), and installing pro-western governments (similar to what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan). Con asserts that we dont have the man power to westernize Africa, but he doesnt explain why. He's saying that the U.S. does not have the ability to defeat (individually mind you, they are unlikely to ally with eachother) hugely outnumbered militaries using WWII weapons with soldiers pressed into service (compared w/ the U.S. all volunteer force) many of whom would rather be under the stars and stripes than their corrupt governments anyway. How absurd. You can extend my entire analysis of how Africa suffered economic collapse when the west departed. He has not touched it. I greatly anticipate my opponents reply, and urge readers to vote pro. Sources: http://www.debate.org...