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

Nuclear My opponent does not realize that simply quoting Wikipedia, is not a reliable source. Data on Wikipedia can be easily manipulated by countless users so you must quote more reliable sources. We limit the spread of power to unstable countries that aren't responsible. That's why we have no qualms with our competitors such as China and Russia owning nuclear weapons. They very responsible and we know they won't start a nuclear war because they have stable governments with many people in charge. They have a lot invested in the world and they don't want to go down as being the ones who dragged the world through turmoil. What does Ahmadinejad care? What does Kim Jong il care? We impose nuclear restrictions on Kim Jong il and Ahmadinejad who have both outright stated they wish to destroy entire countries and races of people yet my opponent believes we are being bullies by doing so. I say we are being parents. When a country like Iran or North Korea is in the power of one individual who is clearly violent and hateful and makes serious threats to the lives of millions of people, they must be stopped from obtaining the weapons that enable them to act on those threats. The U.S. is stopping them and without blood spill. My opponent believes we should wait to stop them after Iran wipes the Jews off the planet. When Russia developed nuclear weapons the country was run by Joseph Stalin, arguably the most evil man in history. When China developed nuclear weapons the country was run by Mao Tse Tung. We had a pretty good reason to oppose them possessing nuclear missiles. Nowadays however, they are run by more stable governments. I agree that it was terrible when soldiers began buying their own body armor. That was because there are shortages in body armor and this also isn't just the U.S. Here is an example of when a British soldier was killed when they had to redistribute his body armor. http://news.bbc.co.uk... So while my opponent has a point that money should be going to body armor, keep in mind that they are given much higher pay than soldiers of competing nations, given abilities to go to good schools, given medical care, and given housing benefits. We do provide much more for our soldiers than anyone else, especially since our allies in Europe have similar issues with body armor. An advanced ABM system is able to shoot down a rocket carrying a nuclear warhead. My opponent believes that men who have publicly stated they want to destroy the U.S. and various U.S. allies should not be stopped from possessing nuclear arms and now he believes we should have no defense when Kim Jong il decides to finally carry out his threats and decides to launch a rocket at Tokyo or Seoul. If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. Word of an American Bigot All right enough is enough. This is a debate where I'm forced to debate to win even though I may or may not agree the position I debate for. For all you know I agree with you 100% I claim my opponent has terrible conduct for using blatant personal attacks against me for arguing a position he wanted me to argue for. Again, if a good amount of people wanted to hear what other political parties had to say the media would give other political parties airtime. Media is a business, and like all businesses, it makes sense to supply the demands of the public. It makes no sense to simply show what Dems and Reps have to say when there are a significant amount of people who wish to hear what Ralph Nader has to say. So I repeat, an insignificant amount of people wish to hear what other parties say because apparently the media is making money off a large amount of people viewing Dems and Reps. The only way to solve this solution is to have the federal government step in and force CNN, Fox, and MSNBC to display hundreds of other political parties. That would be tyranny when the government violates the 1st amendment of freedom of the press to report on whatever the hell you want, however, a business not providing a certain service such as reporting on Ralph Nader because it would lose them money, is not tyranny, its the FREE market in action. My opponent has failed to solve the problem of getting more publicity to other political parties yet blames the U.S. War Crimes It doesn't matter. North Korea painted a picture of the U.S. soldiers murdering people and my opponent cited it as a reliable source. I read the article. The atrocities were either committed by small groups of soldiers, were accidents where it is too hard or too risky to tell between civilians and combatants, or necessary such as in the demolition of a strategic bridge or a harbor or win the enemy shoots from within crowds of civilians. My opponent has made a deliberately misleading claim when he said, "the US backed Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan War" The fact of the matter is that the Taliban did not exist until 1994 http://www.infoplease.com... We did in fact fund the Mujahadeen, which was an anti-communist guerrilla army. The Taliban emerged as one of several factions and took power following a civil war and most of the people we funded in the Soviet-Afghan war fought them. All throughout his arguments my opponent keeps drudging up past U.S. actions to show how the U.S. IS an international bully. What's next? Is my opponent going to go back to when we moved the Indians off their territory? Or when the U.S. was engaged in the slave trade? By using past examples he makes a good case to show how the U.S. WAS an international bully. But by his logic I can pull up crimes against humanity committed by France, England, Germany, etc not more than 60 years ago and claim that Germany is an international bully because they started the Second World War. The UK is an international bully because 300 years ago they conquered swaths of land as their colonies. France is an international bully because 200 years ago Napoleon conquered several major European powers during the Napoleonic wars. I can say Spain is an international bully. By using his methods by pulling up U.S. actions decades ago and claiming the U.S. is a bully I could use his same logic, pull up the fact that Germany started the Second world war, the fact that England still had a firm hold on India and Africa, the fact that France was waging a war in Vietnam, the fact that China invaded Tibet, the Fact that the USSR invaded Chechnya and claim that just about every major power on the planet is a bully. The point is my opponent made this debate so he could support the idea that the U.S. IS currently an international bully, which he did by bringing up recent events in the Middle East, the current U.S. defense budget, the fact that NATO attempts to prevent other nations from getting nuclear weapons, etc. When he realized he couldn't win there, he decided he had to go back to Korea, to Vietnam, to Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, to Indonesia, etc, and if he loses those points as well he'll go back to the Mexican American war, to Westward Expansion, etc. So far, by using past U.S. actions, my opponent is not supporting the resolution that the U.S. IS an international bully, only that the U.S. WAS an international bully during the Cold War and before. This was find the first few times but now I realize it is becoming the basis for his entire argument, now he's going to bring up the Vietnam war which was 40 years ago to show that the U.S. today is an international bully when in fact it only shows that during the 60's and 70s the U.S. was an international bully. All of his arguments regarding past U.S. actions from the 1990's and before are irrelevant. They don't support the resolution that the U.S. is currently an international bully.