With John McCain, the highest chance of World War III will be upon us.

The very idea that we are debating this topic proves that I'm right in saying you have the burden of proof. Your proposing that we accept something that is outside of what the mainstream public widely and overwhelmingly accepts. Since you are making this proposition that is contrary to popular notion, you have to show all of us why we should change our way of thinking. You also want to say that this is the largest threat in history for WWIII, might I remind you how close we were to nuclear proliferation during the Cold War? I will still prove this wrong however by pointing out several things. Its ludicrous to say that McCain is going to be the "highest chance" of WWIII, since the pegs have been in motion looooong before John McCain was in office. It takes a lot more than 4 years my friend, to destroy international relations, and in fact has been occurring ever since WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. This leads me to define World War. No complicated definitions really. Both previous World Wars have involved all the worlds top military establishments with the largest players being the ones who have those capabilities at that time. Let's address who they are for the current day and age. The United States, Great Britain, Russia, China, Australia, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, Germany, and I'm sure you can think of a few if not many many more that have incredible influence in the worlds affairs now since the establishment of the European Union and United Nations. Ladies and Gentleman, it would take the greater majority of this entire planet to get involved for there to be a World War. This is something that is simply beyond the scope of John McCain's ability, and these course of events have been occurring long before John McCain was an influential politician. It is these previous events that have led up to this "high chance" of World War III, clearly much bigger than John McCain. Iv already shown how my opponent was wrong on North Korea, an issue that no one is going to pin on John McCain. Its possible that he is terribly misguided in several other points as well, in fact he is, especially concerning Iran. Again, you have yet to prove that John McCain has said that he wanted to go to war with Russia. Talking sternly doesn't always mean war. Please provide some evidence if your going to be making a claim like that, because so far, you haven't proven anything yet. Concerning Iran, I really do not know how much "talking that you think is necessary, considering that the United States and United Nations are already on their THIRD round of economic sanctions with Iran. When does talking become redundant and seen as useless? Also, are you going to trust someone who says that the true Holocaust hasn't happened yet? That the state of Israel, is going to be wiped off the face of the world? You think someone who speaks like that is honestly using that nuclear energy for power? Oh yea, I really trust this guy. The only type of power he's using it for is nuclear power. There are only two reasons you import plutonium. 1.make nuclear weapons 2.make nuclear weapons stronger. I will now direct your attention to these four articles http://abcnews.go.com...- This one shows that the materials all were but assembled for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, (i.e... nerve and mustard gas present). It's most likely that if the sanctions were taken off of Iraq, then Saddam would have continued with the process of making those bombs. Also it explains how the investigations were continued and the investigators received pretty much balogney, to put it politely from the Iraqis This next article explains through various citing that you can access yourself on how the Americans were the ones that supplied Iraq with the capabilities of weapons- http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com... Here you will find how Iran is indeed making Nuclear weapons http://www.telegraph.co.uk... and here you will find how Iran is also helping Iraqi insurgents http://abcnews.go.com... article explains how Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents. Interesting, and you want to talk about all this hmmm? Along with what I said in my introduction, the pegs have been in motion long before John McCain came to town. So the quotes that you actually used in face show that he A) Knows the entire situation as it really is AND B) knows exactly what a threat is when it is staring him in the face. So if it takes another "war in Iraq" with Iran, considering that WMD chemicals were available to Iraq and not the type that most Americans are thinking of when they hear WMD's, then yes I would feel comfortable that I have a leader who is standing up to a threat that has been posed long before he entered the presidential realm. It's very clear that Iran does have them, and they DON'T want us to know about them since they are hiding them. If you want to know who the largest threat to World War III is, then consider it Iran and those who want to TALK with them. You point out how John McCain has been looking at these countries for eight years now and that is an example of how aggressive and warmongering he is. Well, I just showed how he has the proper foresight and how he knows exactly what is going on. It seems to me that John McCain has actually been trying to prevent any wars before they turn into World Wars by nipping the problem in the bud. John McCain wants to take out the biggest threat in this world and in my eyes he is the biggest cause in PREVENTING World War III. I have clearly shown how the United Nations inspectors were pretty much "duped" and that we knew the Iraqis had weapons considering we were a huge supplier in that cause. You posed a second challenge to me that is just as fallacious as the first one, I'm sorry. You have found several quotes in which you THINK John McCain is hinting towards going to war, and I thank you for posting that article, yet I severely doubt that him not even explaining what his initial plans are, that you can go that far out on a limb and suggest that he is going to cause World War. All the nations that you have posed as potential ones that we are going to invade, are countries that are being looked at on a global scale where we do indeed have allies. Like North Korea, international pressure can work. Besides, Israel is the most threatened by Iran, and you can be darn sure that Israel is going to take action long before they get a permission slip from the United States, United Nations, or anyone else for that matter. Concerning your address on the deaths of those who are being innocently bombed, that not so much an issue considering that the United States does what is called "strategic bombing" which is guided by lasers and GPS. No civilians are targeted for bombing and military installations would probably be held away from the general population, because it is too condensed and the civilians would have enough common sense to move out of the area. I shown consistently, time and time again throughout this debate, how my opponent is using false logic and misconstrued "facts". Please listen to reason, like I know all of you do and don't give credence to my opponents argument. Thank you very much for your time, -Mitchell Paglia