Britain should refuse to take her former colonies back

Greetings, Brian! This debate should be most enjoyable! : ) Good luck, have fun. I do not deem it necessary to discuss the contention, as is is very clear, "What are the benefits or the negative elements of re-accepting rogue colonies under the matronly wing of Great Britain? In essence, should they, or should they not?" Right, as con, I contend that Great Britain should reassert authority over all beleaguered colonies who admit that they have not since benefited from independence, and thence wish to be welcomed back into the proverbial Imperial "family". Pro makes the contention that Great Britain expended invaluable time, energy, capital, natural resources and human resources into its colonies in order to aid them in prospering. The Governing body has even sacrificed the lives of million of English soldiers in order to protect its colonies throughout various wars. And then the ungrateful colonies rebel or resist - sometimes violently, as in the cases of the American Revolution, Indian Mutinies, Boer Wars, Sudanese conflicts and Mau Mau Rebellion, IRA terrorism etc. My opponent wonders, "Why go through this, again?" Perhaps more sensible nations will be stabilized and contented with Great Britain's resumed colonization of them. I will raise some crucial points about why Great Britain should restore its errant colonies. 1. Great Britain will flourish with the natural resources available from its colonies. Great Britain is currently encouraging Global Trade among Commonwealth members - these trade policies would become a lot simpler if conciliatory nations simply became an extension of Great Britain, once again. 2. Great Britain would benefit from the added militaristic and economical power. Right now, one must admit that Great Britain's former might is slowly dwindling. Great Britain no longer has even the sixth largest army in the world, and it's reduced itself to treatises with France about the funding of powerful naval vessels. Great Britain is crucial to the Commonwealth and many alliances, but it could be ever stronger if it had the added might of restored colonies. Imagine the sudden influx of soldiers, capital and equipment - the United Kingdom could rival China in strength and once again assert itself Internationally without the aid of NATO or the UN! Or, even worse, being called a "Puppet" to the former pitiful arrangement of colonies that could not have thrived without Great Britain's careful attentiveness - the United States of America. 3. As my opponent kindly conceded, the nations themselves would thrive from stable Governance, improved infrastructure, medical systems and sanitary systems. As my opponent stated, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Uganda, India etc. would perhaps not be such destitute nations if they had only accepted themselves as subjects of the United Kingdom. Indian citizens still remained impoverished, and many have limited access to sanitation systems or medical care - which would have long been remedied if the United Kingdom had retained authority. Instability is the cause of many deaths and diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Colonies wouldn't have suffered from maniacal despots such as Idi Amin, Juvenal Habyarimana or Siaka Stevens. But they did, and many have yet to rejuvenate themselves into prosperous nations. Great Britain could capably aid in that progress, and the two would mutually benefit eachother, if the country only wishes to submit itself as a colony. As an example, when Sierra Leone suffered from an intense Civil War, the United Nations deployed 6,000 soldiers to stabilize the situation. They not only failed, but were driven backward by the RUF. Less than a year later, the English deployed a little over 200 soldiers and ended the war with a string of efficient victories. 4. I will expound later, but Great Britain should also consolidate its position as head of the Commonwealth and assert that all nations mutually act to national defense and the economical benefit of eachother. It should also create stability in those Commonwealth nations that are plagued by war, famine, disease etc. 5. To refuse would be to allow other powerful nations to potentially influence former colonial nations; this simply can't be done. Right, since my opponent has the burden of proof, I will cede the floor. Thanks for perusing this debate.