Imperialism (Strong nations Striving to Conquer Weaker Nations)

One of the first things that Con said was this outlandish claim: "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. " Con's arguments, on the other hand, on first glance, appear to have merit. However, many of his arguments do not, as I will show. IRAQ: Con said that instead of invading and occupying Iraq, we could've simply prevented him from developing nukes through sanctions or through an invasion followed by a withdrawal upon the collapse of his regime. Apparently, Con thinks that sanctions are much more humane than an invasion. However, he conveniently "forgot" to add that the sanctions against Iraq have killed just as many people as the Invasion of Iraq did. . http://www.nytimes.com... Note: This was a mere 4 years after the Gulf War ended. I don't even know how many innocent Iraqi civilians had died by 2003. Of course, this still leaves open the option of defeating Hussein and withdrawing. This is why it will not work: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.washingtonpost.com... Here's the thing: this is happening because we didn't stay in Iraq long enough. Had we stayed for 20 or 25 years, this likely would not happening. The ISIL would probably be extinct by the end of this decade and Fallujah would still be some city in Iraq that most Americans have never heard of. Con will (or would) likely accuse me of speculation. saying that we have no way of knowing this. In my Afghanistan rebuttal, I will show you why it isn't mere speculation. Afghanistan: You're right about one thing: staying in Afghanistan for 13 years was not a good idea. Why is this? The answer is that we didn't stay long enough. The Taliban had an estimated 45,000 soldiers in 2001. Their numbers dwindled to 11.000 by 2008, and then increased to 36,000 by 2010. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Granted, their numbers returned to a high (though not quite as high as it was in 2001). But why makes the Taliban grow? Here's my answer: . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... This report is on Pakistan, but it is likely true in Afghanistan as well. After all, virtually anywhere a higher education rate decreases crime. . http://emlab.berkeley.edu... Here's the thing: after the Taliban fell the world has been providing Afghanistan with money needed for schools. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As for Iraq and Afghanistan being authoritarian regimes, as the people are more educated and they live better they'll likely strive for more rights and better government. Many Americans supported the American Revolution because they had read works by John Locke and other philosophers. Conclusion: If the US had stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan for 25 years or so, providing education to children, they'd be much more stable and better off. The Taliban and ISIF would eventually be eradicated, or at least severely weakened. Cost of Staying/Ethics of Proposed Exploitation: By exploitation, I am referring to Iraq's oil fields. Let the US take control of the oil fields, and get Iraqi civilians to work these fields. Not forced labor, but provide jobs. These jobs would be at around the American minimum wage or perhaps below this, but many bare necessities are cheaper in Iraq than they are in the United States. . http://www.numbeo.com... . http://www.numbeo.com... This oil money going to the US would mean less rich people in Iraq, but if you're a Marxist you'd consider this a good thing. The civilians of Iraq would still have a job in the oil fields. If Con feels the urge to protest, saying that they'll all die in the oil fields, well, this simply is not the case. Plenty of people work in the oil fields and they come back all right. My father did (for a brief period of time) work on what was an oil rig, I think, back in the 1980s, I think. He's quite alive at the time that I'm writing this. If Con asks how we'll pay for Afghanistan, well, I'm honestly at a loss here. Unless Afghanistan has a large oil reserve, of course. We can't sell their opium, because that's obviously illegal. Panama: Con says that our involvement in Panama was inhumane. That's correct. However, this was during a time when our imperialism was not benign at all. Panama, besides its canal which benefits it today, did not benefit from our involvement there, and thus this cannot be considered benign imperialism. Haiti: Okay then, the buildings that we made them build collapsed. However: A. Once again this was in a time where imperialism was not benign. B. Most building materials would not stand up to an earthquake like the one that hit Haiti. Japan, a region with earthquake-proof buildings, is still effected by disastrous earthquakes from time to time. Nicaragua: I apologize for not noticing what you said about Nicaragua. And you're right: that didn't turn out so well for the country. Conclusion of Pro's Case: Con has based most of his case on past examples of imperialism going wrong. And he's right: these instances of imperialism hurt the occupied nations. But here's my case summarized in a nutshell: does imperialism have to be as exploitative as it was back then? The exploitation that I mentioned simply involved taking control of their oil reserves, but this wouldn't cause people to die. They'd still have jobs; there'd simply be less rich people. Imperialism can be benign, even though it wasn't for the majority of times that it happened. We have entered into an age where the international community will condemn inhumane occupations by Western nations. It doesn't necessarily have to be beneficial for us, but they're dirt-poor compared to us. We have at least some kind of responsibility towards them! With the confidence that I have fulfilled my burden of proof, I ask voters to cast their votes for me.