NATO should continue to support the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, incluidng through violent force.

Alright, this'll be my first debate. Thanks for the topic. First off, let's look at your resolution and throw out some definitions to get things started. "NATO should continue to support the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, including through violent force." --Let's define NATO and what NATO was designed for: "an organization formed in Washington, D.C. (1949), comprising the 12 nations of the Atlantic Pact together with Greece, Turkey, and the Federal Republic of Germany, for the purpose of collective defense against aggression." In addition to this, NATO was created as a balancing power to the Soviet bloc, which was created by the Warsaw Pact: "The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO. This caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature and tasks."-wikipedia So, according to this definition and the clear fact that NATO was created only to produce a rival to the Soviet Union, NATO, in effect, is not even suppose to exist any longer. Yet, despite that fact, it still does. On to the other definitions: Violent: "caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death." and Force: "strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person." So let's move on with the evaluation of the situation. In my opponent's resolution he calls for supporting a regime with violent force if necessary. I can assume that we agree that violence is bad, if you disagree, I invite you to allow a brawl of violent drunken men into your home with your family and see if you don't like violence. I can also assume that force, or forcing someone or something to do something, is in essence, removing it's freedom of choice, it's "Free Will" if you will. Let me add one more definition before we move on, and that is the definition of civilized: "1. Having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc. 2. Polite; well-bred; refined." In your first statement, you make the claim that "A civilized nation does not invade a country, overthrow its government, ruin the infrastructure, and than leave, the country still in anarchy." I would hold that this is true, but I will take it further: under my definitions (which were attained from dictionary.com, for clarity) a civilized nation, being humane, meaning "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed", wouldn't even begin an invasion in the first place. Yet, let us say that a so-called "civilized" nation does invade Afghanistan, as was done by some NATO participant countries. Under the Geneva Convention, it is internationally illegal to invade a country without cause, in short, to start a war of aggression or a pre-emptive war. Afghanistan, in no source I can find, has ever invaded a NATO participant country while NATO was in existence. In fact, the US, the founder of NATO, gave the Afghani's weapons in order to fight the Soviet Union. In the argument of 9/11, it wasn't Afghanistan or any country that attacked the U.S., but fundamentalist groups, one led by Osama bin-Laden. He should be the target, not the country of Afghanistan. By illegally invading this country, NATO has broken international law and should be forced to leave, while being responsible for all the damages done by NATO forces. The countries involved should be reprimanded. By remaining in Afghanistan and forcing people to accept the Karzai Regime, we are removing the people's freedom of choice. It is not the job of other countries to make sure that Afghanistan does things the way we view is the correct way to do things. Would you like it if your country was invaded and people told you how to think or what to accept, let alone foreigners? In almost every case in history, those that are oppressed by outside forces will eventually resent it, and create fundamentalists, like what exist today in numerous countries, or nationalists. It caused both World Wars and many countless wars of the years. By invading a country and taking over it's government, you only radicalise the enemy more while creating more enemies in the process. I would urge the voter to consider that not only was the war in Afghanistan illegal, but NATO is forcing people to do things, which is the opposite of democracy, and that using violent force in order to maintain the regime NATO put in power is not only uncivilized but it is the opposite of freedom. I also would like to point out to you that under my definition of civilized, the NATO powers don't qualify, yet he implies that they do. Thank you.