United States actions in foreign countries.

I thank Con for pointing out this "flaw" in my argument, as it is something I failed to address in my previous turn. Also, *Except, *It's, and *Since x2. How do you expect someone to take you seriously when you can't spell simple words properly? You also lack in punctuation. And I do feel that even humanitarian aid falls under otherwise wrong manipulations of foreign policy. You stated that 30-40 billion dollars go into humanitarian aid? I understand the numbers may be bigger than this, but that 30-40 billion could go a long way if redirected to domestic affairs. As long as it doesn't go toward our military budget, but that's a debate for another day. You also suggest that the Monroe Doctrine is unrelated to this topic. However, I can assure you it is. As the simple doctrine states, any foreign country's attempts to invade America will be treated as hostile and will be responded to as such. However, this does not seem to apply to America itself, as we have interfered in Iran, Afghanistan, and multiple other countries in the Middle East, and we still haven't had any bombs dropped on us yet, my argument being (this being a repetition) that we are hypocritical for saying no one else can interfere with us, and yet we're allowed to interfere with others. Now, a completely honest opinion, and perhaps the whole story behind this debate. I don't think countries should even be within thirty feet of each other. Interaction between different ethnic groups has always ended badly. Middle Ages? We've got religious wars between Muslims and Christians because one didn't like the other, and now we have Americans versus Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, and Syrians. And no, we didn't set up Iran as the 51st state. We did help set up a government. A government WE like. What if the people WANTED a monarchy? Or a dictatorship? Sure, maybe they don't, but what if they had? Would America have allowed that? No. Because citizens are sheep, and support the opinion that democracy is awesome, and anyone who doesn't like democracy is a moron. And it doesn't matter that the Iranian coup was primarily a British operation. America helped fund the op, as well as donated troops. All because of "dirty" business. Mossadegh was acting in what he believed to be the interests of his country. Were Britain and America acting within their rights to overthrow a government all because they didn't like what they were doing with their oil? Shouldn't that mean if we (as Americans) don't like the Affordable Care Act, we can kill Obama for introducing it, and threaten Congress and the Supreme Court into removing the law? No. And back to the subject of Syria and their chemical weapons. So what if they're in the UN? And so what is chemical weapons are outlawed by the UN? The government was in a civil war, and decided to end it in a way they deemed quick. Unless they were launching these weapons at Poland, they were well within their rights to end a war that could have torn the country apart. And what about Egypt? I have no issue with the unseating of Mohammed Morsi, who from what I've read was a pretty brutal president (democratically elected no less). My problem is the US not responding to the military attacking the Muslim Brotherhood. And allowing the military to take over. For aren't we supposed to favor democracy over a junta? As a conclusion, all countries inevitably will settle their own problems. When they begin to encroach upon our and our allies' borders is when we are allowed ethically to intervene.