United States actions in foreign countries.

Alright lets get this thing started. First off I would like to make this known that I do not believe that the United States is the white angel of god and has never or never will do anything bad. Of course we have. Of course we've done some shady stuff, of course we've done things purely for our own interests, of course we've made mistakes. What do you expect? What country doesn't? Just letting you know that. Now one thing before I begin my arguments I would like for Pro to do something in his next round. He has expressed that he is against US influence and actions in foreign affairs. In his opening round he has pointed out things like military intervention and political influence. Cool cool. But what about all the good we do in the world? What about the 30-40 billion dollars a year that our government spend on humanitarian and foreign aid? The leading country by the way in humanitarian aid.[1] What about when we do things like disaster relief like the current aid we are giving to the Philippines?[2] We've spent millions of our tax dollars to help these people and are now using military resources to help them. Examples of American aid to[3] That 1.5 billion a year we give to Egypt is pretty much the only way they are able to feed their people. Are these not examples of foreign influence? So pretty much what I'm wanting to get at is that if Con is saying he is against US influence in foreign nations then that means ALL US influence in the world. Including foreign aid. And so in Cons next round I request, no, demand that he also announce that he is against these things as well and that if the US should stop its political and military influence it must also stop things such as foreign and humanitarian aid and dictator relief. I didn't include private and charity organizations in my stats but since Con has not differentiated between the US government or the US population and merely states that "United States actions in foreign countries" then these must also be ended under Cons position. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com... So on to counter arguments. Your bring up the current Syrian conflict. A very difficult and uncertain topic. Ill start by addressing your issue with the chemical weapons. You seem to be under the impression that the use of chemical weapons is not a bad thing and is allowable. I mean, as you said "Nothing much wrong with that. It's still killing innocents, but what can you do?" Accept... It isn't. The US belongs to this thing called the United Nations and the United Nations, not just the US, has certain rules and policies that those under the UN charter tend to follow. As you can see here [4] chemical weapons are completely and totally banned. Their use for any reason whether it be for military or other is completely unacceptable. As you can see here [5] nations that are apart of the UN are obligated and all most demanded to take action against the building, procurement and especially use of chemical weapons. And as you can see here [6] both the US and Syria are part of the UN and thus, and both nations have agreed to this, are responsible to these laws and policies. So your assertion that President Obamas desire to seek military action due to "a case of public opinion influencing politicians." is highly unlikely and "it's completely unethical, and hypocritical." is flat out false sense POTUS is required by international law to be against Syria's use of chemical weapons and is also obligated to take whatever means necessary to prevent future use of said weapons by said named country. I really don't see why you even brought up the Monroe Doctrine sense I fail to see how this has anything to do with American influence in the world. This is a pretty straight forward doctrine that states that if a foreign nation attempts to colonize parts of the Americas it will be considered hostile intent. Well no crap. What do you think it means? I mean its pretty much like saying that if Russia lands paratroopers in Alaska to build a Russian city that we should take action against that. Do you disagree with that? And this applies to the Americas and has nothing to do with the rest of the world so like I said I fail to see why you brought it up. Now if what you are saying is that the US is hypocritical for this doctrine sense we are trying to colonize other countries well then I will contest that we are not. When was the last time we actually colonized someplace? I'm almost positive you'll probably bring up something like Iraq or Afghanistan so I ask you are we colonizing these places? If we are we are doing a pretty poor job of it. So we conquered Iraq and had complete control of the nation. Did we start sending in citizens to set up the 51st state and rename Iraq New America? No instead we spent billions of our tax dollars to rebuild their nation for them, help them establish a government and military, and then what did we do? We left. Doesn't sound like colonization to me. [7] Same thing with Afghanistan. Now you might try to say this is Neo-Colonization, well thing is they don't really do what we tell them to nor do they really follow our interests so... [4] http://www.google.com... [5] http://www.google.com... [6] http://www.google.com... [7] http://www.google.com... And finally the Issue of the Iran coup of 1953. Now personally, I feel that this was definitely not one of the US's brighter moments and goes with what I first stated that the US has and will do some shady stuff and that we will operate for the sole purpose to better our interests and that we have made mistakes. I will not defend what the US did that year however I will point out several reasons for why the US decided to get involved and other possibilities that could have happened had the coup not occurred. First off had the coup not occurred then there was the very likely possibility that the Great Britain would have invaded Iran. Obviously not the best route to take. The US had several reasons to get involved one of which obviously is the oil and the revenue we would have been denied under Mossadegh. Another and I consider the more serious one is that thanks to the coup we were able to secure a deal with the Shah insuring that Iran would not become an ally of the Soviet Union. I hope I don't have to go into the importance of this since this is the 50s were talking about and the Cold War was a pretty big deal and so the US would probably do anything during this time to insure the Soviet Union would not gain any more power. The British asked us to and we are major allies. And lastly the fact that Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil was a solid breach of previously established contracts made between the Iranian government and AIOC. Maybe this isn't a big deal to you, I know I don't really care, but this is still an issue and actually a case of unethical politics and business committed by Mossadegh. One last thing Id like to point out is the hypocritical misconception and flat lie that this was an act of evil committed by the big bad Americans and that we are to blame even though this was primarily a British operation and only occurred do to the desires of the British and the controversy between Mossadeghs desire to nationalize Iran's oil and the already established contracts held by the British oil company AIOC. [8] http://www.google.com...'%25C3%25A9tat&ei=pbaHUvORGJOqsQT_u4CYBg&usg=AFQjCNGbQ-vmoMeYZHX9jvkaQMwYhWkSYQ Well that will wrap up my first presentation. I look forward to my opponents next round and as always good luck.