The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations
Debate Rounds (5)
1. The Americans could take better care of them. The American empire could take these nations like Iran Iraq Saudi Arabia Kuwait Jordan Syria ect. and it would benefit both sides because after the war when the Americans rebuilt they would rebuild it with western architecture and western culture giving more variety to the people there then also the Americans would have a steady non threatened oil supply.
2. It would make the middle east more peaceful Iraq hates Iran the Arabs hate the Jews the Persians hate Arabs the Taliban don't like anyone and no one likes the Jews in the middle east its basically a giant Mexican stand off they all have their pistols pointing at each other but if some one were to get in on this little stand off with lets say a cannon then things wouldn't be as tense if the mighty American military system took out the Taliban and conquered some of the Arabic and Persian nations with oil then many hostilities would end because for one group to get to their enemies they would have to get through the Americans on what is now America giving the US forces a distinct advantage over the invading enemy.
3. It would raise the world economy. America is allies with many of the down economy nations like the Europeans if America took control of the oil supplies in the middle east with their European allies they could profit off from exporting oil to the east raising their economy.
I think these are good reasons to why America should take over the middle east. I wish my opponent the best of luck in the debate.
I am devils advocating.
1. My opponent claims we could govern them better, but this first assumes they are governable. Now, this is historically inaccurate as when any country has actually occupied the area, they lose. Now the middle east is all of the middle east. I will use some examples of countries to make it easier, but in short they are not governable, hence no one can govern them better. When the UK tried to hold Iraq as their own after WW1, there where fierce resistance, blood shed, internal conflict, essentially hell. They tried to control it, but failed. The occupation failed, and they where deemed ungovernable.  The soviets too where attempting to control the middle east in the cold war, Afghanistan. They where forced to withdraw, concede, the war pushed them out.  The point there is, Afghanistan wants to be free, and they never lose. They have never been fully invaded forever you know.
2. Would it make it more peaceful? If you look at history, the UK attempted to protect israel from the Arabians before, with no results. They promised protection, where unable to give any, as they are ungovernable. The Israelis complied, the Arabs did not. The Arabs kept killing, killing, like the English government did not exist. The Arabs killed, even with large powers controlling them. In the Iraq war, there has been still a lot of violence and human death.  Does it really lower the human cost of it? No.
3. Now, this is false. The people there would not work for the US, they hate us! They will cause damages, and will not help the economy due to their added damage, not to mention it would increase spending. More spending = bad.
There would he huge costs to the operation, the Iraq and Afghan war is expensive enough, but a regional war? That's like asking for another 15 trillion dollars in debt. But it it common sense it would be expensive.
C2: Non aggression principle
"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another." 
As they do not want rulers, they will rebel and defy you rule, it will be a war, hence it is aggression, being a warmonger does not decrease violence and cost.
C3: It's not our business
It isn't! I can be very brief here: Middle east is middle east, not america, it is not our business, like how your house is not my business.
Easy vote. CON
2. America is not England America has defeated England twice America saved England from inevitable German overtaking so don't assume because England couldn't do it America can't also if America takes the area over they will control the Arab population and if the Arabs decide to cause an international problem the Americans will hand them over to the Israeli's and let them deal with them which will end that problem quickly.
3. Even if they hate America they most of them want to live and have money and enjoy life and if they want that they will do as they are told = less spending
C1. War can be profitable we just have to stop trying to defend enemy civilians until the nation surrenders.
C2. And who is stopping us from breaking this NAP the UN? HA they will do nothing plus America has fought rebels before better armed better trained and smarter rebels than a bunch of angry Arabs with AK 47s
C3. Who cares if its not our business if they can't defend it we have every right to take it its been done all through history.
My opponent then cites examples from hundreds years ago, well get this: their rule was short lived, collapsed. And, really, does hundreds of years ago matter today?
2. England was the most powerful country in the world, they failed. We are the most powerful country in the world, and we're failing. Our Iraq war increased the terrorism threat.  So, current failings and past failings, will trying a failed method work? No, sorry.
3. That makes no sense, in iraq we tried to help them, they tried to say screw off, so your argument fails, they want happiness but not from america. Also, how would that lower spending? We would still have to have troops stationed there etc. Your argument is false and logically fails, you have yet to prove it lowers spending. So increased spending to occupy them lowers spending? Enlighten me.
so war is profitable?
"Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy." 
So, it is not profitable, thats a Keynesian myth. War is not profitable, all it does it increase spending, human costs through deaths, destroy, thats common sense!! Look: "Last weekend, the Iraq war had cost more than $800 billion since 2001; the Afghan war, $467 billion plus." 
It costs money, and war has no profits.
C2: Non-agression principle
Extend argument, you drop the argument.
Also, if we where so good a fighting rebels, why are we still in Afghanistan?
I beg to differ history repeats itself we must learn from the past the US government was built from the best parts of past governments also the Mongolian empire lasted a long time the Aztec empire lasted a long time the British empire lasted a long time.
2. America did not fail in Iraq they killed Saddam that was the entire job.
3. If we control their oil supply then that will easily pay for the troops their.
C1. The Gulf war was not a profitable war because we didn't make it one if we had gone in taken Saddam's oil and anything else he had for a few years and refused to stop until he payed us a huge sum of money that would be profit.
C2. Afghanistan still going because the soldiers aren't allowed to do their jobs the American people demanding an end to a "horribly bloody conflict" that really has been the least bloody major conflict in US history we have only lost 2,000 troops we lost five times that amount just landing on the beaches of Normandy the confirmed kill to death ratio in the war is 1 American for every 19 Taliban that's 38,000 dead Taliban confirmed killed who knows how many unconfirmed the Taliban are running out of soldiers to fight for their cause.
C3. I could not watch your video because I have broken speakers on my computer and can not hear it.
1. You claim having troops there deters them, this is false. Citizens there killed coalition troops all the time. Just because we have troops there does not mean they will not attack.  Also you have not justified CIA help of the afghans was the reason the afghans won. Unless you prove that point you fail on the point. 
You must also prove that iraq would not fight back, they would. Your argument makes no logical sense.
2. LOL, they failed to make a stable country, we left with our head between our tails.
3. extend argument, your argument is irrelevant, having support from the army and civilians is two different things.
C1: LOL, war is destructive, there would be nothing, we would be in constant fighting. In the current iraq war it hurt the economy, and we had the oil supply. War spending has little effect, and increased spending is not good for the economy. You have not refuted the point that this would increase governmental debt, then the doubt would increase, then another collapse. You are dropping my case.
C2: Red herring. Public opinion does nothing to the soldiers job in Afghanistan. Peace means giving peaceful means, peace does not come from war. You have also not disproved the non aggression principle -_-
C3: Its not our business to enter THEIR lands, you have not refuted this.
My opponent has the full BOP, and has failed to meet it... Also this debate got lopsided
The photos on the links above will show you the elite Russian force these troops were facing their defense was hopeless if not for American support.
As far as Iraq goes if we set up Iraq like America most attacks will fail and the people will get the point
2. We destroyed their military beat the insurgents badly the job was to kill Saddam which we did and out of the goodness of our hearts and wallets we agreed to pay for the damage but with all the bombings we kinda just figured oh I guess they like their country like this and decided to stop wasting money
C1. In history if you raid the enemy and demand tribute they give it to you and you make money still works today
C2. In a government by the people which is America they do effect the soldiers job by giving them less reinforcements also I'm not talking about making peace I'm talking about taking the sand forget non aggression the debate is that we should go on conquest.
C3. If they can't defend it they don't deserve it who cares if its not our business we will make it our business .
You claim the reason they won was the US, lets pretend that is the case. Would it not be safe to assume the Taliban wold be armed? Saudi Arabia would arm them, North Korea, or Egypt they would be getting the same help we gave them (basic weaponry). So assuming this is the case, the Afghanistan would win.
You claim history repeats, lets pretend that is true. Afghnans are the most invaded, yet never have been conquered.
"Great emperors like Darius I, Alexander, Kanishka, Genghis Khan, Timur, Babur and Nadir Shah all fought their way through Afghanistan. Yet it has never been completely conquered or colonised." 
This means if history repeats itself, middle east is unconquerable, hence voters this is an auto win.
2. My opponents claims are Iraq is a success, therefore the whole middle east is ok. Now, my opponent as still not proven the US would be able to handle the whole middle east. Also the people that start a war can never make a good peace, as Winston Churchill said:
"Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war."
My opponent has the full BOP, even my weak argumentation is defeating his, he has not fulfilled his BOP/
C1: My opponent has not proven war is good for the economy. He says you raid, the US isn't a raiding group of barbarians. Further, he has not proven this war would be profitable. Lets look at the minor costs of iraq:
"Total amount of approved taxpayer spending on the Iraq War through 2011 $1 Trillion
Total amount of money lost or unaccounted for from the Iraq War $9 billion
Total amount of money lost in unaccounted for or stolen equipment $549.7 million
Total amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq $6.6 billion
Total amount of Halliburton overcharges classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported $1.4 billion
Total number of bombs dropped on Iraq during the Shock and Awe Campaign 4,845
Total amount of monthly spending during 2009 on the Iraq War $7.3 billion
Total amount of U.S. spent monthly on Iraq War in 2008 $12 billion
Total number of U.S. troop casualties in the Iraq War 4,487 U.S. troops
Total percentage of male U.S. troops killed in the Iraq War 98%" 
ok, does the iraq war which gives us oil help our economy? No. 24 countries in the middle east, let snot add all of that up, only taxpayer dime. 24 trillion new dollars in taxes. Yeah, great for the economy!! Not, increased taxes spending and destruction is NOT good.
C2: Now, my opponent claims popular support > Non aggression principle, in other words band wagon fallacy > non aggression principle. But first lets look into popular support for the Iraqi war:
The lower numbers are approve, the higher numbers disprove. So you know I am not lying:
If the people disagree with a minor war, I doubt a major one will be seen favorably. Further, you still have not refuted the non aggression principle.
31 66 2
29 68 3
33 66 1
34 65 2
31 69 1
36 62 1
39 60 1
36 62 2
34 64 2
34 65 1
35 63 1
31 67 2
36 63 1
10/30 - 11/1/08
33 64 3
32 66 1
34 65 -
37 61 2
35 64 1
33 66 1
33 66 1
30 68 2
30 68 1
30 68 3
32 66 2
34 64 2
34 63 3
33 65 3
31 68 1
31 68 1
34 65 2
34 63 4
33 64 3
30 67 3
34 65 1
32 66 2
32 63 4
31 67 2
31 67 2
33 63 4
33 61 6
38 59 3
34 64 3
34 64 2
32 62 7
9/29 - 10/2/06
38 61 1
40 59 1
8/30 - 9/2/06
39 58 2
35 61 3
36 60 3
38 54 8
C3: lol, its not my business to rob your house, under your argument it is ok to get in peoples space. Treat those how you want to be treated, you never refuted this, hence I win the argument.
We also trained the Taliban and top notch training in the major decider of modern battle training that North Korea and muslim armies could not provide.
Alexander and the Persians both colonised and conquered Afghanistan and they mined there they mind it almost clean and they conquered it by playing the Afghani's game they got hit followed the Afghani's back to their village and wiped them out then got away this collapsed the Afghani's.
This states that if America fights correctly they can win the war.
2. Iraq was a success but that does not make the middle east safe also fear holds loyalty though take them with brutality and they will have fear and will obey.
C1. I would like to point out to my opponent the Iraq war has lasted almost a decade in the words of Sun Tzu
Neither side benefits from prolonged warfare.
Also though the American military system does not raid does not mean they are not designed for it America has Black Hawk helicopters Humvees and very fast infantry and special forces teams ideal for raiding just because they don't raid doesn't mean they can't with American weapons and technology they could go in hit a city or town take everything of value kill any and all threats burn it down and return to base before a large hostile force could counter.
Imagine this 10 Black Hawk helicopters fly in carrying soldiers they land Humvees follow not far behind as the town may attempt to fight back the soldiers quickly destroy them as the helicopters gun down and destroy anyone trying to escape who may be important while the Humvees cut off any retreat by hostile forces and shield the soldiers while they take anything of value in the town the soldiers pack up their goods in the helicopters torch the town and take off the Humvees fall back picking up any soldiers along the way who didn't get a ride from the Helo's and the Americans are gone the resistance has taken heavy losses the surviving people are terrified and probably a bit angry but the rest of the country is horrified as this happens all over their nation and their government society and feeling of safety collapses around them and their military is torn apart bit by bit soon the people force their government to surrender to a kindly offered peace treaty where they accept their annexation into American borders as the Americans agree to stop any and all attacks and repair the damage any military force that tries hit and run tactics are followed back to their base which is attack and destroyed all found there are killed mercilessly.
With this situation the war be over quickly not to mention the oil income and the expansion to do more with not coming close to a price of 24 trillion dollars.
C2. My opponent still adds in the non aggression principle I am not saying take the middle east with diplomacy I'm saying conquest go in kill the enemy and take them over.
C3. But you could rob my house and (saying there are no police because there are none for a nation) it would be my job to stop you and if I can't stop you than you can take whatever you want and I can't do a thing about it and your life probably became a lot easier and you probably made a lot of money.
1. I never extended the point, your reasoning, even using your logic fails to prove the US is capable nor is beneficial to the middle east.
As stated there is NO good reasons are effective ways to rule the middle east, and the way they do it may be faulty but wasting our resources and men are not worth our time. And this poll is really scary:
" According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics.
Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion. " 
So if we did take the middle east, we would be able to assume we would be facing large portions of the population, as I explained above, and this WOULD NOT BE FIGHT ABLE.
My opponent then claims the Taliban even with help would fail, but as stated the US has been in many wars similar (i.e. Vietnam) against weaker foe but LOSE because they never give up. In the Russian war in Afghanistan, only 3% of Russian troops where lost, but is was enough to win. As we would be fighting formal armies of the country's and their populace, we woudl be forced to withdrawal. You have not refuted this, hence you lose the point based on basic information.
I believe I stated this, but the Persians feats are irrelevant to now a days because the Persians HELD THE SAME VIEWS as the rest of the middle east, we do not have the same views, hence we are screwed. Further Alexanders occupation was extremely short lived, also he never got Afghanistan.
The problem is we cant win in the current wars we where/are in, and lost in similar situations (vietnam). YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN HOW WE CAN TAKE GOOD CARE OF THEM NOR HOW WE WOULD WIN A WAR.
2. Iraq was not a success, if you look at the evolving goals it was to make a stable country, we never did, we are losing minor two wars, but I doubt we could defeat 216 million people.  Our army would not win, your argument is invalid.
3. Dropped by my opponent
C1: well, concession by my opponent:
"Neither side benefits from prolonged warfare."
The Iraq war, ~10 years, Afghanistan, ~11 years (I think). These minor wars are long, so we dont benefit. Invading the WHOLE THING would take, well, forever. So my opponent concedes the point. If minor wars take a decade, then a major one will take longer.
My opponent then shows instances of troops killing, sure, but this does not matter. Imagine the same thing, but lasting 50 years. My opponent conceded with the : "Neither side benefits from prolonged warfare." He actually now that I think about it CONCEDES THE WHOLE DEBATE, as the invasion of a large portion of asia would take years, so your reasoning is, well, it destroys your case.
Hypothetical situations do not matter, as long warfare hurts no one, and your premise includes long invasions, really that quote destroys your case.
ha, 24 trillion dollars in oil, lets assume we spend 1 trillion per country. 38 countries, 3 trillion dollar deficits.  That's a 14 trillion dollar short fall.
C2: SO go take them over? As I quoted, people who attack first never can make peace, those who make peace never make war, and all wars are bad. YOU NEVER REFUTED THE POINT. My opponent has only dodged the non aggression principle, not show how/why it is not beneficial. You essentially concede the point. You also earlier stated popular support > non aggression, thats the only argument you gave, I showed the US hates minor wars, and would unlikely support a larger one. So you dont defend your argument, dodge the argument, and yeah.
C3: My opponent concedes saying if I hurt him, he will hurt me. Well if we invade the middle east, then its their job to kill us. You conceded saying if I rob you, you would stop me. If we invade them, they will stop us. Your reasoning is self defeating.
My opponent has the full BOP, being PRO, instigator, and advocating a change in the status quo. He has NOT AT ALL proven his point, hence I urge a CON vote. Further, he conceded C1, dodged C2, and used self defeating logic C3. In (1) He fails to understand history, drops (3), and does not prove how we would win the war in (2). SO in conclusion I, CON, win this debate.
Args - See conclusion
Sources - Me, More of them and more accurate ones
Conduct - You decide
S/G - ^
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: I dont see why this debate lasted 5 rounds because it was over after round 3. Pro seems to have little grasp on how complicated wars are and how much harder it is to peacefully occupy other nations. Other then that pro needs to really use punctuation and sources that are actually relevant to his arguments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.