The Instigator
anonymouse
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vigour
Con (against)
Winning
66 Points

The U.S. regime should be disarmed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Vigour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,362 times Debate No: 37698
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (10)

 

anonymouse

Pro

Most of the wars in the world are started by the U.S. and or its allies. Millions of people have died because of them, and millions more will continue to die if they continue their rampage. Their dominance of the world market is based on military aggression. If the U.S. regime were to be disarmed, the world would be a safer and fairer place.
Vigour

Con


I’d like to start off by thanking my opponent for developing an interesting premise to debate.


Since Pro did not define their terms or the parameters of the debate, I will assume disarm to mean the abolishment of conventional arms owned and utilized by the US government. I will also assume that Pro means disarmed solely in the international environment and not in domestic law enforcement situations, as I believe that is the spirit of the resolution.


As Con I will be arguing that there is no compelling reason to disarm the US, whereas I assume Pro will be providing reasoned arguments as to why it should be.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I’m going to begin by addressing several claims my opponent made in their opening statement.


1) Most of the wars in the world are started by the U.S. and or its allies


Since the resolution concerns only the US, I will ignore conflicts involving allies – which is an ambiguous term either way, especially regarding the US. Looking at a list of essentially all recognized international conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries, we can see that the US was involved in only 20 / 247 global conflicts – or approximately 8% of conflicts occurring in the last century (1). Determining who “started” the conflicts the US was involved in can be a subjective affair; however, it can be assumed that the US did not start every conflict it was involved in (most notably it did not start WWI or WWII), and therefore it is reasonable to assume that it is directly responsible for much less than 8% of wars in the last century. In contrast, China and the UK have been involved in a greater number of conflicts in the last century (11% and 12% respectively), and both are arguably responsible for a greater number of deaths.


We can clearly see that Pro’s assertion that the US is responsible for “most” of the wars in the world is erroneous. It is a common mistake made by people from the Western Diaspora – it is a simply fact that the majority of the world’s conflicts do not involve the US, and assuming otherwise is a rather ego-centric bias. This fact removes the one main argument supporting Pro’s position that disarming the US would benefit civilization at large.


2) Their [U.S.] dominance of the world market is based on military aggression


U.S. dominance of certain sectors of the world economy is not a direct result of military aggression, and if you believe it is you need to provide clear proof to support it. Arguably the only economic sector the US dominates - mostly as a result of its enormous capital investment rather than its aggression - would be international arms sales – although Russia, Britain, France, and North Korea also sell billions of dollars worth of arms annually as well. Again, this comment demonstrates a clear bias that assumes the US is not only dominant in all international economic sectors which is clearly ludicrous, but also that it is dominant simply as a result of its military which is a gross simplification. Furthermore, this point is dangerously close to be irrelevant to the resolution of why the US should be disarmed – I only address it here because I assume that you think US “dominance” of certain economic sectors is inherently “bad” and should be rectified by disarming the country. I would appreciate you clarifying both how US prowess in certain economic sectors is fundamentally negative, and also how disarming the US would affect that dominance in any reasonable way.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I await Pro’s response demonstrating more compelling reasons for why the US should be disarmed. As it stands, the evidence so far is rather lackluster.


(1) http://www.war-memorial.net...


Debate Round No. 1
anonymouse

Pro

Why should the U.S. regime be trusted with arms? The corporate media is crying about how Asad allegedly used chemical weapons on "his own people", and therefore he should be overthrown. Yet, the U.S. regime has been using chemical weapons for a long time. Members of the U.S. military, (shill or not) [Dennis Kyne] have come forward and talked about the usage of depleted uranium on civilian populations. Now should we really trust a regime that uses depleted uranium indiscriminatntly?

The Korean , Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyan, and Syrian wars were all started by the U.S. regime alone, even though other aggressors participated. And speaking of Viet Nam, the U.S. regime used many different kinds of chemical weapons there. How come no one called for a regime change then?

Weapons should be used for defense, and not to advance economic interests. Doing false flag terror to start a war does not justify it.

You can talk about allies if you want, but the fact remains that the U.S. regime is responsible for most of the ongoing wars right now, this includes sponsoring terrorists, and backing sectarian conflicts. One example I will use is the Sunni vs. Shiite wars. I don't need to remind anyone that more people died under 5 years of U.S. occupation than under 25 years of Sadam. The U.S. regime is more or less a continuation of previous imperialist empires, and operates in similar manners. They will find, and facilitate extremists in order to escalate wars. One example i will use is the Iraq/Iran war, where the U.S. regime backed Sadam Husein to attack Iran. Isn't it ironic how Sadam ended up? Hey, I know that John Perkins is a shill, but check out his book, and watch his movie, the confession of an economic hitman, and you can see how the U.S. regime uses aggression to dominate the economy. European regimes also do the same thing. The U.S. regime always talks about the "free market", so is using military aggression really the basis for a free market? It's the fear of American military aggression that causes many regimes across the globe to make deals with western multinational corporations. This is why the U.S. regime has 800 military bases across the globe. If you disobey their economic and market terms, they will attack you, or back some terrorists in your country, as seen in Syria today. Sadam Husein, and Momar Gadafi both wanted to trade oil in Euros, and they paid for it with their lives.

Let's see how long this debate lasts before the U.S. regime censors me.
Vigour

Con

There’s a TL;DR at the bottom! Sorry for the wall of text.

As it would seem that my opponent ignored most of my points in the first round, I will assume they either did not understand them, or more hopefully, that he has conceded his position by not addressing them. If it is the former case of not understanding, I will again attempt to explain my points in the hopes of receiving a relevant response.

  • The US has not been involved in a majority of conflicts in the last century (~8%), contrary to what my opponent erroneously stated in their first round, and unethically continued to repeat in their second round. Of those conflicts it has been involved in, it is likely to assume that it did not start all of them. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the U.S. is responsible for “starting” less than 8% of conflicts in the last century. In contrast, both China and Britain have been involved in more conflicts, and likely have been the aggressors in more conflicts by reason of simple statistics (11% and 12% respectively). As I assume my opponents point is that aggressive nations should be disarmed, I am curious as to why he does not advocate that more aggressive nations be disarmed before less aggressive nations. As this is not his contention, I will assume that he harbors a rather obvious bias towards the US and its international policy – a bias not supported by evidence or history. It remains that Pro’s resolution is not proven or supported by even the smallest amount of factual evidence, beyond that provided by his personal, unsubstantiated political beliefs.

  • I am also hesitant to address this issue as I find it becoming increasingly irrelevant to the resolution; however, as my opponent has felt the need to continue to expound upon it in the second round, I feel it’s necessary to address again. The U.S. does not dominate the world economy. It does lead in certain sectors, and has a strong presence in a majority of economic sectors. To assume complete dominance is a rather gross ego-centric Western Bias. Furthermore, your contention that the sole reason for this economic influence is US military aggression is entirely unsubstantiated by facts that you have offered, and I very much doubt you can address them and still defend your resolution. I would suggest a stop to ranting about US economic interests and “dominance”, and instead would encourage you to defend your own resolution in a more vigorous manner. If you insist that this is a valid point, I will again ask you to clearly demonstrate the US economic presence is, as you state, “dominant” in every aspect; is inherently “negative”; is a result of the US being an “armed” nation; and would be negated by disarming the US. Good luck proving even one of those conjectures.

I will also quickly counter several of my opponent’s arguments, however many of them are simple regurgitations from the first round and my counterpoints remain unanswered and unchallenged.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The corporate media is crying about how Asad allegedly used chemical weapons on "his own people", and therefore he should be overthrown.”

This is completely irrelevant to your resolution. Furthermore, using the words corporate media is like saying the Sahara Desert, its redundant and makes you look foolish.

“Yet, the U.S. regime has been using chemical weapons for a long time. Members of the U.S. military, (shill or not) [Dennis Kyne] have come forward and talked about the usage of depleted uranium on civilian populations. Now should we really trust a regime that uses depleted uranium indiscriminatntly?”

Despite the fact that this is also irrelevant and libelous, your contention that depleted uranium shells are chemical weapons is false. They are not. They are controversial; they are potentially environmentally hazardous; but they are not chemical weapons and are not currently banned by any international weapons treaties that govern weapons of mass destruction and / or chemical weapons.

“The Korean , Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyan, and Syrian wars were all started by the U.S. regime alone, even though other aggressors participated. And speaking of Viet Nam, the U.S. regime used many different kinds of chemical weapons there. How come no one called for a regime change then?”

Without intending to sound rude, this statement makes me question the current level of your education. Most high school international relations / world government classes cover these wars in depth, and I would assume that having taken those classes you would know several facts about them. First of all, the Korean War was not started by the U.S. North Korea, supported by the USSR, crossed the 38th parallel on June 25th 1950 and invaded South Korea. This is “starting” the war. The Vietnam War was largely started by French Colonialists and Chinese Nationalists following WWII, although it was escalated by U.S. politicians weary of a communist takeover of Southeast Asia. Afghanistan arguably was started by the Taliban following the attack on the WTC in 2001, although this is a politically charged issue. The First War in Iraq was not started by the US, but rather by Saddam Hussein when he invaded the neighboring state of Kuwait. The Second Iraq War was indeed started by the US. The Libyan conflict is not a war. And there is no direct involvement of US forces in the Syrian conflict, so I have trouble understanding how the US could have possibly “started” that conflict. You are currently batting 1 / 7 in your contentions, and have yet to tie any of this to your assertion that the US should be disarmed.

“Doing false flag terror to start a war does not justify it.”

Evidence? Or are we not debating?

“You can talk about allies if you want, but the fact remains that the U.S. regime is responsible for most of the ongoing wars right now, this includes sponsoring terrorists, and backing sectarian conflicts.”

I specifically said in my first post that I am not talking about US allies. I see that my earlier assumption that you didn’t read my argument clearly enough was correct. I suggest you reread my arguments and address their contentions before you lose this debate.

“One example I will use is the Sunni vs. Shiite wars. I don't need to remind anyone that more people died under 5 years of U.S. occupation than under 25 years of Sadam.”

First of all there is no Sunni / Shiite War. There are sectarian conflicts, and regional power grabs – but there is no wholesale war between Sunni and Shiite’s in the world. Again you assume that all Muslims are centered in the Middle East, that all Middle Eastern conflicts are driven solely by sectarian tensions, and that somehow the US being disarmed would improve this situation. All of that is false, and most of your conjecturing is uninformed.

Furthermore, your contention that more people died under US occupation of Iraq in the second Gulf War (2003-2008) than under Saddam rule (1979-2003) is again painfully uninformed. Saddam was responsible for anywhre from 500,000 to over 1 million dead – many of them killed using chemical weapons in what most would consider a genocide. The Iraq War Logs, classified US documents leaked by Wikileaks – a source I’m sure you can appreciate – lists 109,032 deaths. as a result of the current conflict as of 2010 (2). I think most would agree that ~100,000 is less than ~1,000,000, or even 500,000. Before you remind people of your “facts”, it might benefit you to look them up first.

"Let's see how long this debate lasts before the U.S. regime censors me."

I doubt the “regime” would be concerned enough the bother censoring your rants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR (Too Long, Didn’t Read): Much of my opponents’ claims are factually inaccurate. Furthermore, few of those claims – as inaccurate as they are – support his resolution. This debate appears to be an exercise in political demagoguery – which is unfortunate as Pro did have an interesting, albeit woefully undefended, premise.

(1) http://www.nytimes.com...

(2) http://www.theguardian.com...

Debate Round No. 2
anonymouse

Pro

False flag terror- The U.S. regime, and allies accuse others of terrorism without evidence. One would assume that it is false flag unless the U.S. regime, and allies come up with some evidence. We also should look at who benefits from the false flag terror. However, we are not debating whether the U.S. regime and its allies are guilty of false flag terror. My original point is that the west using false flag terror to justify military aggression is wrong. I am sure most people would agree with that. Shills excluded.

Like I said, you can talk about allies if you want or not. I don't really care.

The Sunni/Shiite sectarian conflicts are fueled by the U.S. regime. The British fueled sectarian conflicts through its colonial period, and still do it today. Now Americans, British, and French do it. That's how they keep their former colonies weak, and in chaos.

Not all conflicts are driven by sectarian tensions. However, the west loves to exploit them, and arm them. There's another reason for disarming the USA. It always seems like the most lunatic aggressors have U.S. made weapons on their hands. The latest example is of course the Syrian rebels, but the U.S. regime also broke known terrorists out of prison in Libya, and armed them. The disturbing part is that these terrorists, and jihadists are being armed by the U.S. regime, and killing innocent people, and doing insane things like BBQing their victims heads, and something which was caught on camera- sodomising Colonel Gadafi.

More people died under US occupation of Iraq in the second Gulf War (2003-2008) than under Saddam rule (1979-2003)- This is true. Also, when Sadam used his "chemical weapons" on his victims, guess where his weapons came from? The USA. Another reason why the USA should be disarmed. You see, you arm some of the world's worst dictators, and then try to condem them afterwards. If you want to make them look bad, first you have to look at yourself.

And why is Wikileaks a credible source? Because he poses as some kind of dissident?

Instead of looking up facts, and taking books, or internet articles as gospel, use your common sense.

The U.S. regime censors plenty. Do a search for U.S. troop abuse on Google, Yahoo, or Bing, and see if you come up with anything. This isn't because U.S. troops aren't abusing anyone, it's because the U.S. regime censors out everything.
Vigour

Con

My oppponent is simply ranting at this point. I've put enough effort into this already and I choose not to address the same ignorant arguments that have been put forth for a third time. He has not supported his resolution, he has not addressed my counterpoints to his orignial contention, he has ignored all efforts to educate himself through reason and fact, and he had the gumption to write this gem: "Instead of looking up facts, and taking books, or internet articles as gospel, use your common sense."

You should vote Con for any number of reasons - there are quite too many to list here.

I sincerely hope that this was an effort to troll an internet community and that you don't actually operate this way in the real world. Good luck out there if you do believe this drivel.

TL;DR: My opponent thinks common sense > facts. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Betapoet 3 years ago
Betapoet
I think Pro sources were through alternative media. His argument was valid and he did explain why. It seemed as if con was trying to divert attention from the actual topic, and was trying to get us to question the opponents intelligence. He was very successful with that tactic unfortunately. Con is very intelligent in trying to twist facts using stats about wars started through out the 19th - 21st century, something I would of done given the technicality of the premise. He also took a low blow by saying pro should have learned more about previous wars in high school, when it in fact even high school is known to be subjected to propaganda (Take Nazi Germany for example). Pro is also very intelligent and this argument should not be dismissed as the ramblings of an insane guy on the internet. I am an American and I too feel that if our government does not change our foreign policy then we are going to need more than a great debate to stop the blow back. Great debate guys and thanks for posting.

I'll post some alternative news sources for those who are interesting in researching further into these kind of topics. These sites are in a sense their own propaganda, but like with all news, it's best to have more than one source and it's up for you to decide which news matches up with real world events.

Here's a list of alternative news websites that may differ in opinion to what's mainstream in America.
http://rt.com..., http://www.presstv.com..., http://therealnews.com..., http://monthlyreview.org..., http://enenews.com...
Posted by bsoten 3 years ago
bsoten
The very premise is illogical. If the premise is illogical, therefore the conclusion must also be illogical.
Posted by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
Anonymouse severely overestimates his importance. He makes he mistake of thinking that the government cares about the rantings of some guy on a debate website. This was hilarious to read, by the way.

(NO ONE TELL HIM BUT I'M ACTUALLY FROM THE REGIME AND I'M TRYING TO DISCREDIT HIS CLEVERNESS BEFORE THE WORLD SEES THE TRUTH. EVERYTHING IS A LIE!)
Posted by walkertreat 3 years ago
walkertreat
Just by reading the first rebuttal. Yoi can clerify we have a debate proffesional against a biased individual
Posted by ConformistDave 3 years ago
ConformistDave
the u.s. regime should be disarmed.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Thank you Jedediah-Kerman but your wasting your time on him.
Posted by Jebediah-Kerman 3 years ago
Jebediah-Kerman
@anonymouse: Depleted uranium is uranium that is DEPLETED OF RADIATION, and by no means is a chemical or radioactive weapon. It is used for it's high density.
Posted by jeh123 3 years ago
jeh123
As answer to ararmer1919's last question, we'll never know...:D

As for Afghanistan, ur info is probably from some looney Commie website, and yes, i think that if there's less civilian deaths there than anytime since 1979, I think that they ARE better off.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Ok just to be clear. I didn't notice the typo but "dent" was supposed to be "deny". So yeah. And "sodomizing senior citizens"??? God damn kid. Also unlike you who has no fing clue what's going on there and no reliable information about it iv been there and have first hand experience on the matter so... Yeah. And as for the rest of your crap... Dude. How stupid are you?????
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
Afganistan is now better? Well, who's saying that? The shills? The corporate media? Why don't you let some independent news sources (instead of your fascist spooks) go in and interview Afgans. According to western journalists, Afgans are coming forward saying that U.S. and allied troops are sexually sodomising Afgan senior citizens. If this is your idea of having it better then it should be YOU that needs your head checked, preferably not by Mkultra. There's never enough with the shills, because yous keep coming back. Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that a "normal" person would come on here defending western imperialism for free, day in and day out. It just doesn't happen. The thing that fuels guys like you is greed, and coming on here defending western imperialism (without pay) all day does not fit that M.O.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It's obvious.
Vote Placed by gabbsmcswaggin 3 years ago
gabbsmcswaggin
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: "Instead of looking up facts, and taking books, or internet articles as gospel, use your common sense." after this quote im pretty sure pro was trolling
Vote Placed by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were painful, the stupid really hurt. Good job Con on your rebuttals, kudos for keeping your cool the entire debate.
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm from the regime sending all my votes towards Con to try to get Pro censored before people realize he's right. Just kidding, Pro had better conduct S&G, arguments, sources, and a clear head.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was completely one-sided. Pro repeated the same already-refuted arguments over and over, with no source or fact, and even had the nerve to DISCOURAGE USING FACTS in favour of "common sense", whatever that means.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anonymouse had an un-based, unreasonable argument, mostly based on the ideals of a bleeding heart that isn't corroborated by any kind of fact at all.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources and no logic to back up their claims.
Vote Placed by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry but this was just sad. This was nothing more then the bigoted personal rant of someone with questionable intellect who used 0 facts, proof, or even supporting testimony. Who many a time made outrageous claims that were easily thwarted by Con who disproved them beyond a shadow of a doubt and even then Pro refused to acknowledge this and continued to make the same exact claims. This was a no brainer and I feel bad for Con having wasted his time here.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anonymouse is just ranting. He has absolutely nothing substantive to offer--no evidence, no analysis, no empirics. Merely, he spent the entirety of his speeches spewing unwarranted, dogmatic nonsense. Frankly, I prefer sources and analysis to unsupported, highly partisan opinions/claptrap. Con wins in all categories.
Vote Placed by Franciscanorder 3 years ago
Franciscanorder
anonymouseVigourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I deeply enjoy reading flagrantly anti-west rants. They are entertaining on a number of levels. I liked Pro's material much more than I did Con's. That said, I must, sadly, vote for Con anyway. The glaring historical falsities that made Pro's comments so fun to read are, alas, false. Con very easily corrected the false information, and pointed out where Pro was repeatedly going off topic.