United States actions in foreign countries.

hmm. Well forgive me for the lack of the ' in it's, but honestly I don't really care, everyone knows what was meant. Also expect was spelled correct and my bad on the "since" instead of sense. But once again I don't care. Honestly I think that third sentence of yours was an Ad Homonym but ill let the voters decided that. Now it appears to me that I am debating an anarchist which changes this quite drastically. I've debated them before and it is near impossible since they really wont listen to a thing you say and I honestly just cant comprehend how they come to their ideology. If that's wrong and your not then I apologize but that's what it seems to me. Any how... on to the arguments. You say you are against humanitarian aid and I find this somewhat shameful. As humans is it not our duty to aid those less fortunate then ourselves? We already spend hundreds of billions on ourselves, and while you are right in the fact that we could use that 30-40 billion for ourselves I just really don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. And once again you insist on bring up the Monroe Doctrine (MD). As I said this has no place in this debate since this is about foreign aggression against America not American influence in foreign affairs. I really can't grasp what you fail to understand about this so let me try and paint a clearer picture. The MD states that if we are attacked by a foreign nation then we will treat it as hostile and act accordingly. So if Russia invades Alaska and starts setting up settlements then we will respond to this aggression. This has absolutely nothing to do with how we act when dealing with foreign affairs. You seem to be under the impression that it is hypocritical for us to attack someone else when we have the MD. What? You brought up Iraq and Afghan and said "we haven't had bombs drooped on us yet." So? What do you think the MD acts as a magic power which makes countries like Iraq unable to attack us even if we attack them? If they wanted to attack us they could of. We would have treated it as hostile, just like the MD states, but they still could have. Its not like it outlaws them form doing this. Only reason they didn't was because they couldn't. First off cause it would be utter suicide and second off cause they were to busy fighting us on their turf. If this doesn't clear things up for you then please in your next round explain what you think the MD is and what it does.[1] http://www.google.com... You brought up how counties shouldn't be even within thirty feet of each other and I'm not really even going to touch this (anarchist crap) and all ill say is how are we supposed to grow as a species and hopefully remove borders and become united if we do stuff like that? As for democracy in Iraq, it IS what the people wanted and that's what we helped them achieve.[2] I'm pretty sure it was the Iraqis that voted for their leaders and I kinda recall them being the ones who were doing things like tearing down Saddams statues and what not. So... Yeah. http://www.google.com... No we cant kill Obama for the ACA but we can call upon our elected representatives to do what they can about that law or any other we don't care for. That's how it works. I did state that I was not a supporter of the Iranian coup but I feel that you are against it for the wrong reasons. Your simply against it because you don't like America doing anything outside of the US. You said Mossadegh was acting in his countries best interest and America was just didn't like what he was doing with the oil. Well isn't that in OUR interests? Should we not act on what is best for our nation from time to time? Or is this unreasonable. Like I said, what we did kept the oil business flowing which not only stabilized the region but also the economies of several nations throughout the world. It benefited both nations economies and most importantly kept Iraq from joining the Soviet Union, which would have extremely bad for everyone. Once again you go into Syria and say its ok to use chemical weapons and "So what if they are in the UN." (anarchist) It does matter and the vast majority of the world cares. I've already covered all of this in round one but for the sake of things lets get this straight. The globally accepted law is that chemical weapons are bad. End. Of. Discussion. I'm sure I know the answer but do you believe that we should not have law and order and that there should be no UN or something of the like? And no. They were in no way, shape or form within their rights to used said weapons. They are apart of the UN and they agreed to the laws of the UN and so they are bound to these laws. once again, End. Of. Discussion. If you disagree with this then your going to have to end the UN cause what you want or what I want does not change what IS. Egypt? Well in both cases we were acting along with what the people of that nation wanted. The Muslim Brotherhood brought all of that upon them selves what with the rioting and the killings and the attempts at creating a civil war. America acted exactly as it should have with this situation. I'm sorry but I'm extremely busy so that's all I have time for. Good luck in your next round.