United States actions in foreign countries.

It was indeed my bad on the expect, I thought you meant except. I have reread your previous argument, and have seen my mistake. And I do find that anarchy is so far a better option than most other governmental options, since it's every man/woman/child for themselves, thus endangering only one person to a small group of people when stupid decisions are made, not the entire country's population. But we digress. In response to your views on humanitarian aid, I find this subject tricky. But you've said it is out duty as humans to help others. Humans are animals. Intelligent animals, but animals none the less. The only reason we help others now is because A) If the government doesn't, a large group of people won't like them, and officials don't want to lose their political seats so quickly, and B) We just feel sorry for others. If the government didn't care, than we wouldn't DO this whole humanitarian thing. Also, you have to choose. Am I RIGHT about the 30-40 billion dollar thing, or do you think it wouldn't work, and I am therefore WRONG? And about the MD. While I do think it would be suicidal (get it? Suicidal? ) for the Middle Eastern countries, who by no means have the strength to go to all out war with America, to attack in retaliation for us interfering in their affairs. I believe it should be the Europeans and Asians (Russians, Iraqis, Afghans, and Iranians included since they are a part of the Eurasian continent) who should be angry. The MD states it is an act of war for any European country to attempt to colonize American soil, which is true. However, why is it that Europe, Russia, China, etc. , don't force some kind of punishment upon Americans and each other for interfering on the Asian continent and Arabian Peninsula? Isn't it the UN's job to settle these disputes without violence, and to stop them from happening in the first place? Moving on. Also, constructive grammatical advice in your second section (I've divided your arguments using your links as separations): Next time, say "I'm not going to touch this (anarchist) crap" instead of "(anarchist crap)". I understand that you are "extremely busy" for reasons you do not need to explain (we all have lives we need to take care of), but grammar is a fundamental part of society. And how is my separation idea anarchistic? I do hope you understand the meaning of the word. Just in case though: Anarchy is A) Absence of any form of political authority, B) Political disorder and confusion, or C) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. Anarchism is A) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished, B) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists, or C) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority. (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) I merely believe that if any boundaries between peoples are to exist at all, we should strictly abide by them, and leave others to do as they please. When these boundaries are erased on maps, and ignored by all world countries, only then will we as a species grow and unite. And no, I exaggerated with the whole assassinating Obama thing (do you think the NSA sees this? I really don't want them tattling on me to the CIA so they can black-bag me). Of course we can't just kill our leaders over stupid, but well-intended laws. But again, the only reason this would be repealed is because America is supposed to be democratic, and if our legislators didn't even touch the subject, they wouldn't get reelected. But once again, we digress. And to avoid discussing this in later rounds, I suppose I have to agree that as a part of the UN, Syria couldn't have used chemical weapons. But the UN should have helped stop the conflict if the proposition was made and the Syrian government or the Syrian rebels accepted. My issue with all of these foreign affairs is the lack of authoritative permission, which I'll let you argue for or against later. And by authoritative permission, I mean the government (the head honchos in charge) allowing outsiders to do something in their country. As for our little Iranian coup, I am against it for the right reasons, which you have presented for the voters to see. Not only to you name-drop Iraq a lot on the subject of Iran, but Iran was acting in it's best interests, opening up it's oil to a larger group of buyers. Good for them. And England and America were well within their rights to act in THEIR interests. However, by this I mean to formally petition for change in the UN, or to go begging on their knees to Mossadegh's feet. However, we decided to murder a ruler, effectively establishing a monarchy (something we're supposedly against) and the Shah, a very unpopular ruler in Iranian history. And finally, Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood "had it coming"? Again, we interfered in a country's affairs, and established a military-ruled government. The Muslim Brotherhood may have had some unethical policies (by first-world standards anyway), but they were the ruling party. The military attempted to overthrow and murder their rulers. If anything, we should have been helping the Brotherhood! Above protecting (note: 'Murica's supposed to protect democratic ideals, not enforce them) democracy, we, at least according you, are supposed to protect order. We, by supporting rebels, are creating an image that it's okay to overthrow a government, because you can run to big momma America and she'll protect you. So, I've responded to your argument, and I have nothing to add, so I have to get back to my own life. Take your time ending this round. .. . Or don't for all I care. One more forfeited round is one less I have to spend time on.