The United States government would possibly be responsible for disaster or catastrophy

"The US military is in place to protect ALL people in the United States, as well as all people who live in nations that are closely allied with the United States as well." I'd first like to point out that the U.S. military include ALL units of the military force, including militarized police forces. This is emphasized because these units of the U.S. military arsenal are the closest and most influential towards the lives of U.S. citizens, which is the argument here. There is a benefit. yes... a benefit for the military. The more that the police force is armed, there is only more hurt towards people. The only strength here, again, can only be profit and if not, still is definitely not helping the U.S. citizens. 1- http://billmoyers.com... 2- http://www.washingtonsblog.com... These two sources support my cases completely on their own, but I will refer to them and other sources anyways. "So the US gets almost no oil from Iraq, and the US hasnt invaded any other third world nation for their resources." First off, if you want to prove that oil is not being taken by force, you should not post a link to a website about legal import/exports of oil that is willingly TRADED among the countries. So this "http://atlas.media.mit.edu...; link is irrelevant to the debate, as for one: any oil taken by force is obviously not documented in a trading stock imports/exports website, and two: the reason why the United States receives no oil legally (hence the con side), is because of the seizures illegally. 1-http://www.theguardian.com... 2-http://www.cnn.com... "Not all people who speak ill will of the government are terrorists..... In fact the overwheming majority of people who sh*t on the government are not terrorists either. " First of all, nowhere do I state that everybody is a terrorist, and the con argues upon that solely. I argued, in which the con has failed to understand and respond adequately, that people who speak of the government in an opposing way can be CONSIDERED a terrorist, and killed or seized at any time. the very second source I have provided has a specific statement: "President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he"s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States." "The government cant even cover up a simple burglary (WaterGate) yet they are somehow behind the deaths of famous celebrities who didnt even say anything bad about the government to begin with like you claim?" To begin with, the simple mentioning of Watergate is highly invalid, because the Nixon Administration has ordered to basically harass the authorities of Washington, D.C. and their security. One, this is harder to cover up that a death of one person and two, this is obviously not being covered up by the U.S. because of it's tensions with Cuba. The only possible way that the con may win this particular argument is if Cuba and the U.S. are allied, but the fact that Cuba is in the U.S.' State Sponsor of Terrorism List out rules this possibility. There is plenty of PROOF that celebrities are trying to "reveal the truth," and those who speak directly are found to be dead the next day. 1-http://blackbag.gawker.com... 2-http://www.endalldisease.com... "Ok now i'm SURE that youre retarded, even for a 14 year old. " Despite the fact that this argument was not answered in a universal way in which we can understand, it is safe to assume that the con's argument neither harms my side nor benefits his side of the argument. To that, I may extend my argument to a more obvious explanation, specifically to match with the con's intellect, in which is apparently weak. 1-https://www.patriotprivacy.com... 2-http://freedomoutpost.com... 3-http://antiwar.com... "You act as if terrorists are somehow NOT a problem or DONT pose a threat to society, when they clearly do, as evidenced by 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombings, etc." This is obviously misunderstood by the con. Of course, destruction of national establishments is quite a concern, but the argument here is that the government is trying to get full and nieve trust from its citizens so that they can cause a sort of "disaster," such as 9/11. This inside job occurred so that the U.S. government has an excuse to further security and invade more privacy, all while telling it's citizens that "it's going to be ok, we will fix this." There will be many types of posibilities of this, in which will force citizens to fall for the government's trap of New World Order, a "solution" to the problem of the disaster. Just think about this: 1) why do we need flu shots? The U.S. causes fear among its citizens about the flu, and makes the flu shot look like such an essential thing. It is a sort of brainwashing.And if they wanted to cause a disaster, all they have to do is put it in the shot(which everyone has to take at least once every year, for several years). I know that we didn't need those shots before, and the flu was not even that bad as previous epidemics. 2)You see it in the movies. There are zombies, disease, or some sort of post-apocalyptic occurrence, and the citizens rely on some sort of "hero." This is what the U.S. government is trying to be. Look back at 9/11, the "Osama Bin Ladin" ordeal, and the recent Ebola epidemic. What has the citizens of the U.S. do? Panic. And this led the U.S. government easily able to play that "hero," and lead the citizens to trust them, and lead that possibility of that trust leading to something bad. 3) Brainwashing. It's another vulnerability in tricking people in trusting government. It happens all the time. Just think about it: have you ever realized that ever since we were kids, we had to sing the Pledge of allegiance every single day in school, to the point where we know it word by word, and easily recognize from even the smallest reference. We are being brainwashed in this sense of "my country is honored by God," and "we are the mighty ones." 1-http://articles.mercola.com... 2-http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... 3-http://www.debatingeurope.eu... 4-http://www.wanttoknow.info... 5-http://www.abovetopsecret.com... 6-http://truthstreammedia.com... "You cant claim something so blatantly stupid to be factual without providing any sort of evidence in the first place. " Obviously we see that con strongly argues that we (or at least he) lives in the make-believe world in which the U.S. government is completely justified in every way and that it is terribly "stupid," as the con suggests, to say that something that has been going on and proven many times, as well as there being thousands upon thousands of page result on the Google web engine by itself, cannot be factual. Sure, I can provide evidence. And by that, I will automatically win the argument because that is the only offensive attack that the con has made. 1- http://www.goodmessages.info... 2- 3-http://programmingthenation.com...