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

Budget My opponent dropped my point regarding the fact that the U. S. provides additional benefits to U. S. service men that our competitors don't allowing them to cut billions we don't. China, Russia, and India are very wealthy yet developing nations. Despite their economic stances these countries manage to develop 5th generation fighters, advanced anti-air systems, build large modern forces, conduct large joint excercises, etc. In short, 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. Also remember we have at least two and maybe as much as 3 military competitors if you include India. Since the U. S. has more expensive equipment and a higher standard of living we spend more on men and equipment and we still need to be either on par or barely ahead of 2 or 3 major military powers combined. Thus the U. S. needs to spend more on defense. Foreign interests Let it be known there is no doubt in my mind that the U. S. would win in a war with North Korea. But there is also no doubt in my mind that having large amounts of men and material, despite being outdated, would inflict large numbers of casualties on both civilians and soldiers. North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has rockets to deliver them. North Korea is run by a single anti-american dictator. North Korea is a credible military threat. (. http://www.fas.org...) (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...) If a full fledged war were to break out with North Korea the U. S. would win, definately, absolutely, no doubt. But hundreds of thousands would die at the minimum. North Korea has the ability to do this yet has a GDP half of Bill Gate's net worth. Israel has won multiple defensive victories in the Middle East over the past 60 or so years, effectively proving Israel is a nation and has a right to the boudaries it claims. It has already set that precedent and is a very progressive and liberal nation compared to the Arab nations around it. There is no need nor no more use for further Arab attacks resulting in more casualties. It's ridiculous that opposing nations get "reset" buttons to try over and over again to recorrect their military errors of the past in yet another attempt to defeat Israel at the cost of thousands of lives. Russia and China are trying to establish bases abroad as well. (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...) (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...) (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...) And this isn't anything new. We and our competitors have always had bases in allied territory. The only difference is that we have more allies, our allies like us, and allow us to use their territory willing. We are better at what our competitors attempt to do. In the event of a nuclear war all sides would lose, regardless of who struck first. It would take several minutes for a missile launched from Japan or S. Korea to reach major Russian or Chinese targets. That's all the time it takes to counter attack. No one would survive the attack you hypothesize of occurring regardless of who had missiles where. The fact that we have planes able to carry nuclear bombs in Japan is a moot and irrelevant point. I am not heavily critical of our competitors military excercises nor did I ever say they didn't have the right to participate in such excercises. I was making the point that our competitors and potential enemies have strong militaries, low costs for material and men, and are active, making our competitors very realistic threats in the future, justifying a large U. S. defense budget. You are trying to twist my words. American Democracy No there are hundreds and I showed them to you. The fact nobody votes for them is not a violation of rights when you are able to vote for Nazi's and Communists. Yes they don't win because the Media does not cover all 100 or so OTHER minor politcal parties. That's because CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc all have so much air time and so much news to cover. They don't have the time to report on all the minor parties because all of their viewers would tune out. I don't care what the Labor, Peace and Freedom, Nazi, Communist, and Green parties have to say and neither does anyone else because if a significant amount of people did, then the other parties would get airtime. 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. The Media does not have the time, money or resources to report on what hundreds of minor and irrelevant parties have to say, and they shouldn't have to. Human Rights. Abu Grahib was committed by a handful of MP's, Mai Lai was committed by a platoon, the other varous unjust atrocities in Korea were committed by squads and other small groups. The war crimes committed by small groups of individual soldiers does not mean the U. S. is significant violator of human rights. And if it did then I could show you soldiers of dozens of other nations who have committed similar acts. To argue the U. S. commits atrocities at an abnormal scale would mean every country that ever went to war was just as bad. I looked over your sources in Korea which included a NORTH KOREAN PROPAGANDA PAINTING Let me ask, can I paint a picture of a man eating a baby then claim it's evidence you eat babies? The others proven killings of civilians were either committed by small groups of men or were inevitable accidents or necessary such as when people shoot to kill from behind people, or when you can't tell whether they are enemies or civilians, or when you need to bomb a bridge or a harbor. To this day most South Koreans are members of the Pro-American South Korean Grand National political party. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) U. S. Intervention My opponent dropped the original argument over U. S. intervention to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons so I assume he agrees with me on that issue. I was making the point that we leave when nations ask us to, we don't force our military installations on others if they don't want us there. You have changed directions and are using my statements regarding other scenarious for the scenarios you just brought up. You are attempting to twist my words again. However you appear to agree that Libya is a corrupt government violently murdering it's own people with airplanes and armored vehicals and onto your final point. You are correct, a war with nuclear superpowers would have resulted in billions of lives lost. That's why the U. S. didn't want to go to war with Russia or China. How is that selfish or thug like of the U. S. ? What a sh! t stain on the U. S. for making decisions for an obviously selfish reason like that. Are you actually serious? 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, as YOUR point? We should help out militarily when the resources and lives lost end up being worth it but when it isn't we shouldn't get involved. I have gone through and refuted all of my opponents points, he forfeited a round, he has dropped many of my points such as my arguments regarding U. S. prevention of other nations acquiring nukes, he has put words in my mouth twice and he has failed to fulfill the BoP by proving that U. S. actions are those of thug rather than a liberator with inevitable byproducts of conflict such as inevitable warcrimes committed by few individuals.