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

For some reason, the video I was suppose to post on the 4th round didn’t show up, anyways here it is: (Refer to top most video) http://www.youtube.com... The Vietnam War: After several Oscar winning movies, countless documentaries, journals, editorials, protests, which criticized the Vietnam war, I’ll pass on the section where I have to prove that the Vietnam War was an act of unnecessary US aggression, instead feel free to visit these links: http://www.life.com... http://vietnamwar3.tripod.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://replay.web.archive.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.isreview.org... The Iraq War: My opponent claims that I shouldn’t use historical events, like WWII & Korea, to justify my points. To be fair, I kept all of my references to events that occurred in WWII or later. Maybe he was sleeping through the first lesson in history class, when the teacher said “history has the tendency to repeat itself.” But nonetheless, here is criticism of a more recent war, that’s still going on, hopefully he doesn’t play the “history” card on this one again. http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://antiwar.com... http://people.cas.sc.edu... http://www.youtube.com... (Refer to Second Video) http://newsinitiative.org... Military Expenditure: My opponent still insists that the US military’s medicare and education to its service members. But yet he has no evidence to support that Chinese and Russian militaries don’t provide the same education and medicare for their soldiers. On a personal note, I was kind of interested in joining the US military as an officer cadet after high school graduation because I heard that they would pay for my education. So I contacted a Naval recruiter and realized that after graduation I am expected to serve in the Navy for contracted service terms that can range anywhere from 5-10 years. Moreover, if I choose to disenroll in the ROTC, I would have to serve at least 2 years and complete my term of service as an enlisted member, or make recoupment for all of my tuition fees. Naturally, having 5-10 years spent in the military and climbed up the ranks, people usually grow accustomed and stay in the military. https://www.nrotc.navy.mil... I speculate that these perks don’t make up for the majority of military spending, seeing how the US is too cheap to even buy the latest body armor for its soldiers who put their lives on the line. Correction on the Afghan Conflict: It was my mistake, the Taliban didn’t exist until 1994. But that really doesn’t change the fact, that the CIA funded and supplied Osama Bin Laden with weapons and training, which he then used to form the Taliban to slaughter and torture thousands of people. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com... Final Thoughts: Many good points were brought up by my opponent in the defense of the US’ actions. But nevertheless, the US international aggression is evident and cannot be mitigated, even if my opponent chooses to negate history, and dodge responsibility for the US actions in the past. The US is the world’s top developer and supplier of military arms in the world. This is evident when we look at the financial spectrum, and see the US military spending is 10 times that of the next big spender. Today in the US the military-industrial complex is as strong as ever, with companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Blackwater, all acquiring multi-million dollar contracts with the Department of Defense to fund the US’ armed conflicts. My opponent has tried justify that despite the US’ top military spending, the US promoting peace, and doing it for a just cause. Where I have pointed out, that the US is only pursing its militaristic path to advance its own motives, such as in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and currently the Iraq War, and during these conflicts the US wartime conduct was not the most commendable. With the US vast span of military bases worldwide, it poses as a threat to other world superpowers such as China, Russia, and India. China and Russia do not have any bases even close in proximity to the US shorelines. But US has bases stationed in South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. All which cause a potential danger to the China and Russia. Such bases serve no purpose to the immediate defense of the US, but to provide an airbase for US spy-planes who wish to take photographs of Chinese and Russian military secrets. A recent example of this occurred: http://en.wikipedia.org... Many of the US actions are not approved by non-NATO states. Such as the introduction of Israel, the division of North/South Korea, the Vietnam War, etc. Much of the US’ conduct since WWII, has only proven to antagonize smaller countries which the US wishes to take advantage of. The US also limits the capability of other countries to become major powers of the world by limiting their development of nuclear weapons and advanced weaponry in general, using the threat of invasion, or economic sanctions. Even though countries who were once run by dictators, such as China and Russia, had independently developed nuclear weapons and have not used them since. Whereas the US only permits NATO countries like Britain to develop nuclear weapons. Don’t get me wrong, I also do not hope that Ahmadenijad or Kim ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, but I’m making my point that the US doesn’t have much of a reason to limit other countries development of nuclear arms, if they themselves are stockpiling ridiculous amounts of it. I’ll conclude with a final quote: “Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies.” –Madame Ngo Dinh Ngu, first lady of South Vietnam (1924-2011) On the Wikipedia Issue: My opponent says that my frequent use of citing Wikipedia is not credible. He should go tell that to my Engineering Design Prof. I think I’ve cited Wikipedia extensively for numerous the design reports and proposals I submitted for the semester, and even the Prof. himself cites Wikipedia in lecture. The fact is, only stingy English teachers and professors don’t like Wikipedia simply because its open-source, and something they aren’t used to. May I remind my opponent that the open content capability of Wikipedia makes it far superior to “old school” encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britanica, as it can be almost updated on a daily basis, keeping up with corrections and current events. This makes the amount of inconsistencies in Wikipedia far lower than Britanica’s. Moreover, currently Wikipedia is so tightly watched by its moderators, that any controversial change is almost immediately spotted. Plus the fact that almost every factual statement made on Wikipedia is linked to an external source at the bottom of the page. If my opponent thinks Wikipedia is not credible, I would like him to prove the credibility of any other site he finds on the web. And I would also advise him to “get with the information age and stop being so conservative”. I challenge my opponent to a debate on the credibility of Wikipedia.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...;