The U.S.A. is not the evil country everyone makes it out to be

I apologize to my opponent for the obvious lack of sources last round. I ran out of space and will include them with my sources for this round. That being said, let's get on with the debate. Perhaps I was wrong to compare America's nationalism to Nazi German nationalism, for one reason: The U.S. media and government both distort facts and leave out information with the intention of keeping the populace quiet. Even so, the U.S.A. is a federal republic (1), which means that it is a political organization. If any of the letters in the name denoted the people residing in the country the United States of America, then my opponent's statement about America not being evil because the majority of the POPULACE is not evil would be true. The political body, which my opponent admitted has great capacity for manipulation, and has implied that he agrees that they are indeed malevolent, constitutes the actual United States of America, when combined with the territory of the United States of America, simply because the United States of America is not merely an ethnic group or a body of people living somewhere on a continent. It is a state, or an inhabited area of land under a government (2). Nothing about that definition suggests anything about the populace, only the people that constitute the government. I didn't say anything about "far back in the past" (which is subjective), and I never listed any incidents that occurred roughly around the same time as the exploitation of African slaves in America, so I won't even bother refuting my opponent's statements regarding such. I did, however, take note of the U.S.'s actions in Afghanistan, and backing of drug lords there (3). I think we both agree that the year 2001 counts as in modern time, rather than "far back in the past". I would have liked my opponent to state what "far back in the past" means by his definition. Perhaps he will be as kind to do so later. I would appreciate it and thank my opponent for the clarification. About my opponent's statements of "American giving": I do realize that the American populace organizes funds to help other people abroad. This accomplishes two things at the same time: It 1.diverts attention from the government's actions and 2.makes people feel as though they are "making a difference". As I stated earlier, the people of America cannot represent whether the country, which is a state (4) is evil or not, as the state is constituted by a political body. The people in charge decide what they want to do to other countries. Although Americans do give over "355 billion dollars to charity" (needs additional information), and they are supposedly doing good, can you really put a price on the life of a person? Because the American government has been responsible for, directly and indirectly, the deaths of at least a million people abroad since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (3)- and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam claimed the lives of more than three million inhabitants of Vietnam (5), 1.1 million of those North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces (5). Hefty price tag for what amounted to a U.S. defeat, don't you think? Keep in mind that the U.S. backed Ngo Dinh Diem, a brutal dictator whom the Vietcong disagreed with and were fighting against, and the French rule of Vietnam also. It's true that the U.S. later disavowed Diem, but its justification for the war (to prevent the spread of Communism) is wrong and evil no matter which why you slice it, as Communism by itself is not inherently evil. It's shameful that the U.S. can't allow other people to disagree with its conception of how they should be governed, especially seeing as how the U.S. had no territories in Vietnam to begin with. Also, studies have been conducted that seem to suggest that little money that goes to most charities, such as the one conducted by the Tampa Bay Times and Center for Investigative Reporting in conjunction with CNN (6). The study identified fifty charities across America that generated upwards of 1.4 billion dollars in the past ten years, but directly spent less than four percent on the needy people they were ostensibly aiding. If this is going on in America, then who knows what's going on overseas, where tracking money flowing from the U.S. is more difficult? When the most recent earthquake devastated Haiti, almost none of the relief money flowing from the U.S. went to directly to Haiti (7). Perhaps the U.S. is a "land of opportunity", but it also seems to want to make itself the ONLY land of opportunity, and furthers this goal through diabolical, despicable, tyrannical, vile, and inconsiderate means. As to my opponent's question of whether I hail from the United States of America, the answer is "yes", and also that I am not proud of it. I hate what it has helped to do to Ukraine, and to my relatives living in her capital city. I thank my opponent for a very lively and engaging debate so far! My Sources: This Round's Arguments: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.salon.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.britannica.com... 6. http://news.msn.com... 7. http://www.haitiaction.net... Last Round's Arguments: Source 3 for this round http://www.motherjones.com... wikipedia.com