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

"Joint Strike Fighter program": $382 billion USD "Virginia Class Nuclear Submarines": $79.2 billion USD "ICBM Stockpile of 33,2525 nuclear warheads": $2.26 trillion USD "Invading and intimidating weaker countries because you don’t agree with their ideology": Priceless.http://en.wikipedia.org...; The Nuclear Issue: On my first rebuttal I neglected to include my arguments against the US’ nuclear hegemony over other countries. I want to make my position clear, the proliferation of nuclear arms promotes international safety, and I support nuclear proliferation. The less number of countries have nuclear arms, the less of a chance that a full out nuclear war can occur. HOWEVER, in doing so, the United States can only allow select countries to produce and manufacture nuclear arms, and limit the production of other countries which do not share the same ideology as the US, such as North Korea, Iran, etc. to produce nuclear arms in order to protect the US. Nuclear potential is a display of power, and the fact that the US limits other countries from possessing nuclear arms is to limit the spread of power to ambitious countries. The US plays a pivotal role in limiting the production of nuclear arms by any other country which they view pose as a threat to the ideology of the US. But the fact is, most countries produce nuclear arms to use it as a form of deterrence and not combat. The US imposes nuclear restrictions on other countries to limit their power, and thus it is a form of bullying. I’d like to point out the fact that, during the time when the development of nuclear arms occurred in the USSR and China, in the 50’s and 60’s, the US was VERY opposed to such a move, and both countries independently developed nuclear arms without direct US assistance. Since then neither the USSR or China has detonated nuclear arms in an armed engagement. But Nagasaki and Hiroshima proves the US readiness and potential to detonate nuclear arms against enemy states. The Nuclear Issue: My opponent quotes: “Yes we do attempt to control nuclear stockpiling for very good reasons. The countries today that posses nuclear weapons such as the U.S., Russia, China, India, France, the UK, etc, are all very stable countries NOT run by dictators.” My opponent quotes that the listed countries which produce nuclear arms are run by “sane” leaders. But I’d also like to point out, that besides UK and France, the US did not promote any form of nuclear arms development for Russia, China, India, or Pakistan. In fact, the US was stringently against the production of nuclear arms by these countries. The production of nuclear arms by these non-NATO states were individual efforts undertaken secretively. Had these non-NATO states been open to the US about the development of their nuclear arms, I doubt the US would have given these countries their blessing. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://nuclearweaponarchive.org... Moreover, my opponent has implied that any country run as a dictatorship should not have the right to produce nuclear arms. May I remind him that currently China, is a run by one party dictatorship. And less that 20 years ago, the USSR was run by a one party dictatorship, during the time when it peaked its nuclear stockpile. With the US being not much of a democracy in the first place, as it consists of a 2 party dictatorship. My opponent claims that due to the US’ complex government and military structure, the launching of a nuclear strike must pass through unanimous decision through multiple parties before the strike is made. Yet despite all these layers of precaution, the US dropped two atomic bombs which killed 500,000 civilians, the only country to do so in world history. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, famed Allied commander and war-hero during WWII, urged the use of nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War. He was removed from his post as a result. Let the record stand that MacArthur was not removed because he suggested the use of nuclear arms, but he URGED president Truman to do so. Had MacArthur got his way, Beijing would have been paved flat.http://en.wikipedia.org...; My opponent may respond that America did make a great effort in defeating Imperial Japan, but nonetheless, Americans are more than willing to do almost whatever it takes to advance their own motives, thus making them one giant bully. (just maybe not as bad as the Nazis though) More on Military Expenditure: My opponent quotes:"U.S. service embers whose pay checks are part of the defense budget, are substantially higher than that of a Chinese military service member. The U.S. also provides soldiers medical care, education, housing, and other other various benefits to U.S. military and women...our competitors are allowed to build and maintain much more of a military at a fraction of the cost. If we bought tanks, jets, and paid soldiers for the same China does our budget would actually be smaller than China's.” Now, Take a look at this article: Soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor http://www.usatoday.com... And now take a look at this article: Raytheon won another $229 million in contracts for upgrades to Patriot missile systems in Kuwait http://www.defensenews.com... So basically, the US military is willing to invest in nothing for the lifesaving armor of infantry in combat, while there more than willing to dish out $156 million USD for high-technology ballistic missiles. Is there any way I can sign up for the US military as a satellite missile system? I hear the perks are really good. Words of an American Bigot: My opponent quotes: “ I don't care what the Labor, Peace and Freedom, Nazi, Communist, and Green parties have to say and neither does anyone else… That's like saying it's unfair that no ice cream stores spend the money, time and resources making vomit/feces flavored ice cream that 5 or so people in the Western Hemisphere happen to enjoy.” Whoa, thanks for speaking on behalf of 300 million other Americans based on your own opinion, bigot. He even goes on to comparing other ideologies to fecal matter, calling them irrelevant. Please come up with a more convincing argument next time. American War Crimes: Oh, sorry the picture of American atrocities in Korea was a North Korean propaganda video, but he should of read the article I supplied, which was written by a British source. But here is a more comprehensive video of atrocities committed by Americans in Korea: (Refer to Video) http://www.youtube.com... US Intervention:My opponent says: “Are you attempting to use the point that when we are willing to fight bad guys and save civilians it's only when there isn't an enormous amount of lives lost as result of the ensuing conflict,…” After reading this, I think Noam Chomsky himself would jump up and slap my opponent across the face. For example, the US-backed Indonesian government lead by Suharto was responsible for slaughtering half a million men women and children. http://en.wikipedia.org... How about the US backed Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan War, seemed like a good idea to fund and supply weapons to insurgent fighters against the Soviets. After the Soviets pulled out, the Americans left the Taliban with an armed arsenal which they used to massacre and torture thousands of civilians from 1989-1997, where the US did not intervene during this period. Thanks for saving civilians American hypocrites. http://articles.chicagotribune.com... And how about the Vietnam War? (Stay tuned on that for the next round)