The Instigator
TheLogicCircuit
Pro (for)
The Contender
Hemoglobin
Con (against)

We should become imperialist once again

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheLogicCircuit has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 109335
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

TheLogicCircuit

Pro

We should continue our imperialist beliefs. In this day and age we our limited and "contained" by United Nations, international sanctions and other Intra Governmental Organizations.
I am aware we fight proxy wars throughout the world but I think full invasion and annexation is necessary to maintain power of the USA. I would say NATO should work together to liberate the world so we can unite the world bringing mutual welfare, eventual economic stability, and order/law (reduce crime). This is not some invade - conquer - move on movement. This is a thorough annexation to unite the world for the betterment of all.
Hemoglobin

Con

I think that there are several key points for why the U.S. cannot revert to imperialism.

1. Russia is having problems with imperialism. When taking the example of Russia I am focusing on the annexation of Crimea and the current fighting that is going on in eastern Ukraine. From a general point of view if any place could be taken over by Russia, Ukraine may be it. The people in both countries have very similar cultures and backgrounds, yet the people in Ukraine are still resisting. I bring this up as an example for how imperialist techniques are not working in the modern era.

2. Countries do not want to be taken over. In Ukraine as well as almost all countries in the world, the people there do not want to be conquered. If the U.S. tried to conquer a country, it would face serious resistance. Many people would die fighting against the U.S. and there would be no guarantee that the U.S. would win. For example in Vietnam the U.S. could not continue fighting the Viet Cong. There is no assurance that we would win a war with another country and the only assured thing is that many people would die.

3. Even if the U.S. successfully conquered a country, there would be a massive increase in terrorism and guerrilla warfare. It would not be easy holding on to a country that wants to be free. A great example of terrorism would be Islamic fundamentalists. Every country has a host of strong nationalists both inside and outside it, who would do anything to protect their country.

4. There would be massive public hatred. I cannot see Imperialism being heavenly supported by the U.S. so we would end up with situations like in Vietnam. There would also be a fallout among the U.S.s' allies, not to mention Russia or other countries supporting those countries being invaded. We could quite possibly end up with a second Cold War.

5. The U.S. is not a Utopian society. You mention that through imperialism we would decrease crime, however this would seem very difficult as there is also a massive amount of crime in the U.S. The U.S. also struggles with many other thing, for example many people living in poverty.

6. Finally, I am interested in hearing which countries you think are good options to invade. I understand that you may be proposing to one take one country and then assimilate it, but I think even this would cause massive problems.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by asta 2 years ago
asta
I think imperialism can exist by rich countries buying out other countries. Not militarily taking over them, but buying land from them. The US can buy huge chunks of NDP Canada from Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) for some money Canada can use to pay for their healthcare and keeping the French in their country.

The US can buy Greenland and Faeroe from Denmark for $100 million (since they aren't valuable for a country). Denmark can use some of this money to pay for things (like the Oresund Bridge)(https://www.gwern.net...). The only thing holding them back is national pride. The US can make this about as developed as Alaska in development.

The US can then buy parts of Mexico(like the Baja California peninsula) and eliminate the drugs there so it doesn't spread to the US(all at prices agreed upon by Mexico and the US). The US would then assimilate it so it doesn't want to rejoin mexico.
Posted by Amphia 2 years ago
Amphia
Ugh, I hate this so much. Imperialism is what f-ed over so many countries.
Posted by bfritts5 2 years ago
bfritts5
The human race would end if that were to happen. Nuclear warfare would kill us all. We wouldn't get as far as you think. But if it was possible, I would agree.
Posted by Arclite 2 years ago
Arclite
I could see the merits of doing such, but I would say it is neither our place nor are we capable. Even our vast military power would be overextended in the attempt to control and regulate that much territory, much less suppress the inevitable rebellions in both hostile nations and former allies alike. However, I would agree that the US has a duty to stand vigil over the civilized world, and intervene when necessary.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.