The US is an international bully, and NATO is a gang of thugs!

I respect my partners stance on US foreign policy, but obviously he is a typical promoter of biased US propaganda. I'd like to apologize for the missed rebuttal, because I was up the last two nights preparing for my calculus exam. Definition of “bullying” & “thugs”: I’d like to define the meaning of “bullying” and “thugs”: Bullying: The act of using force and intimidation to coerce another party to comply with one’s demands Thugs: A group of bullies, lead by a single leader figure On Military Budget: I'm surprised he would actually bring this up, because even though the US is more economically dominant than China, it still dished out 4.7% of its national GDP on military related funding, as compared to China, which is 2.2%, of their gorss GDP so the US despite it being the richest country in the world is still dishing out twice as much as the Chinese invest in their military in terms of percentage of annual income. My opponent may point out later that, the Saudi Arabia spend s11.2% of their GDP on military, but that only amounts to 43 billion, where in the US it adds up to almost 700 billion. Oh, and did I mention that countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, are top customers of US's weapons trade?And just an update, the forecasted US military expenditure for 2012 is expected to be around 1 .4 trillion, double military spending in the past 4 years. And as of 2010, the use has spent 20% of its federal income on the Department of Defense.Bottom line is the US dishes out inconceivably more for the military than ANY other country in the world. At least 10x times as much as the next big spenders in the world today as of 2011:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...This justifies that the US is the most dominant military force in the world today.On US foreign intersts:My opponent has pointed the North Korean Army is, for a lack of better words, large and cheap. the North Koreans spend %25 percent of their GDP on their military… but still produce out a measly $6 billion dollars in total expenditure. I guess you can say that NK is trying its hardest with what they got to produce a strong army, but just don't have what it takes. This also proves nothing as the NK army is armed with 60-70's Soviet guns and artillery, and 3rd gen fighter jets. The North Korean army does not pose a serious threat to the US (unless they are developing nuclear arms). Any planned invasion of the NK, would result in a lopsided victory by a NATO coalition, much like what happened in the Gulf War and Iraq. My point it the NK military is considerably weaker than the US military, despite its numbers, and I would request my opponent point out some more "credible " threats to US national security.As for Israel and South Korea, again, there are many people who will disagree that Israel "belongs" in the Middle East in the first place. And as for South Korea, the US provides SK with foreign aid, but also the US positions over 30 military bases in SK and over 50 bases in Japan, all with capabilities to call an air strike and send ballistic missiles to fly through the Chinese and Russian peninsula with the push of a button. Where as China, Russia, and India have none such bases in such close proximity to the US border. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...It is CLEAR that the US is only antagonizing and interfering with the diplomatic affairs counterpart nations, such actions can be viewed as "the act of using force and intimidation to coerce another party to comply with one's demands."Moreover, I'd like to point out that my opponent is heavily critical of military exercises conducted by China, Russia and India. But he is not critical of military exercises conducted by NATO countries, such as Britain and Germany. So is he saying that other countries that do not share the same ideals as he US do not have a right to conduct military exercises? Enforcing one's own ideals and motives on others, that sounds like bullying to me.On American Democracy:THERE ARE ONLY TWO PARTIES in the US, because realistically, individual and non-mainstream parties rarely ever win. They don't win not because their ideologies are unpopular, they don't win because the media never mention these parties, and never air the speeches that the leaders of this parties make. They don't win not because they have unpopular ideas, but because they are rendered unpopular due to the lack of attention they're given.But hey, lets back that up with just hard facts:Barak Obama raised over $500 million USD for his campaign, and John Mccain over $300 million. And poor Ralph Nader, who doesn't belong to any of these parties, raised a measly $4 million USD, despite him being in 3rd place in terms of fundraising, with ~20 other contending parties behind him. Face it, it's practically impossible to come to power in the US, unless you belong to either one of the two major parties!http://en.wikipedia.org...On American Human Rights Record: My opponent quotes,"Abu Ghraib was a tragedy"…I quote,"It sure is…, and the US doesn't have any good reason for being in Iraq in the first place!"http://antiwar.com...http://www.antiwar.com...Take a look at these pictures, I don't think anyone can now seriously say that the United States is a model country for democracy OR human rights! Let's examine the war time conduct of the US military in recent times:My Lai massacre:http://pictureshistory.blogspot.com...Korean War Atrocities:http://www.hartford-hwp.com...http://boingboing.net...Gulf War Atrocities: (Refer to video) http://www.youtube.com... I am not saying that the US is an extremely depraved violator of human rights, because brutality IS a fact of war. But moreover, I would like to make the point clear that the US is NOT in any form a "savior or model of human rights". This just goes to show Americans are bigoted when they use words like "liberate", or "bring democracy" to another third-world country.On US foreign intervention:It is almost amusing, if not bait-worthy, that my opponent would bring in Libya into this debate, because right now Libya is a perfect example of why NATO is a gang of thugs. My opponent explicitly mentioned that the US are willingly compliant to leave foreign territories if they are not welcome there,…Certainly, Gaddafi's government does not welcome ANY US interference, and the current no-fly zone is a perfect example of unwanted US interference in another country's affairs. Again the US & NATO is stirring up trouble for another country by supplying rebels with weapons, and shooting another country's air force just because they don't like that country.But sure, my opponent will point out that no-fly zone is for a "just cause", to "overthrow a corrupt government" etc… So, you might ask, where was the United States, to overthrow the Chinese dictatorship, or the Soviet Union, or Iran's theocracy? China, USSR, and Iran, all shared opposing ideals with the US, at least in a time in history, and I'm pretty sure the US did not "like" red China or the USSR. In the words of the Sen. McCarthy, "we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communism and democracy…",http://www.humanevents.com...Despite the rivalry, US never dared to have an upfront and DIRECT confrontation with China or USSR, this was due to mutually assured destruction. HOWEVER, when weaker countries, like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, share opposing ideals with the US, the US jumps head in to bust them down.