Vietnam and Afghanistan are completely powerless in any meaningful sense (just like most other third world backwaters that managed to fight off invaders), and it took them devastating wars on their own soil to not get conquered, so if anything you're actually further strengthening my argument in favor of being imperialistic rather than just defensive. The truth of the matter is that in geopolitics you're either on the long end of the stick or the short end of the stick, so in geopolitics there isn't really room for morality and moral consistency in the same way there should be on an interpersonal level.

That doesn't mean, however, that we should just oppress and exploit non-whites living in countries to be colonized or indirectly controlled, which I strongly oppose. Under the type of imperialism I advocate for, we would build infrastructure, farms, schools and hospitals for them, help them improve through eugenics, and give them access to the same social safety net and public facilities as people in white countries in general. In exchange, they aren't allowed to leave for white countries anymore, can't have too many children, and have to give us whites unlimited acccess to the valuable resources located in their lands. This would be a win-win scenario: They won't have to live in poverty anymore and get to enjoy a Western standard of living, while we get to curb non-white overpopulation and gain access to the resources needed for our advanced technology.