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

On to round 2 it would seem. Let's start with your opening statement of your last speech: "Let first concede to your definitions and than begin focusing on attacking your numerous illogical arguments, starting with force. Force, as you pointed out, is eliminating choice, but this is not the only definition. For example, if you were let go of a ball in mid-air the direction of ball would be no different than if you slammed, or "forced" it down with all your might. It is the same with Afghanistan, the democratically elected government (with over an 75% approval rating, based on impartial polls) has asked NATO and ISAF forces to remain in the country, not to force upon the citizenry things it does not like, but to uphold the will of citizenry against violent and unruly insurgents." --Here you concede to me my definitions yet offer one of your own. This comparison really holds no baring, even if your definition was the accepted one, as political issues are not to be compared to "force" as defined by physics. Moving on to the rest of your paragraph, you say that the Government there urges for the support of the NATO and ISAF to remain in Afghanistan. What would you expect a NATO sponsered candidate, who is in power because of the NATO participant countries, to do? Ask them to kindly leave after all is said and done? They are beholden to them now, their only military might comes from the powers that put Karzai there, and without them, they'd certainly be overthrown. "Although you citing of the NATO charter was correct you must come to realize that organizations change over time, and without the Soviet Union thumping on the doorstep the need for concentrated military presence in Europe is no longer needed and NATO should make attempts to modernize its policies. In addition to this, the former Emirate government in Afghanistan was deliberately sheltering terrorists that had launched a major civilian attack on one of the member countries, thus helping furthering the argument that the invasion had some defensive purposes." --First off, I do agree to the fact that modern organizations need to reform their charter's to conform to the present, yet that does not mean attacking a country. This argument here also holds no bearing. The United States, the founder and current operator of NATO and it's forces, is basically the power that chooses when and where NATO should go. In essence, this makes NATO as a fail safe set of allies that will hopefully fulfill it's treaty obligations to do whatever the U.S. needs it to do. So, as you conceded my outlining of NATO, it was created in Washington and is operated from there, which makes the U.S. in turn, the power of NATO. The U.S. and it's various NATO allies, in the fear of so-called "Communism", established or set up the overthrowing of several democratically elected countries all over the world, which generates what the CIA call blowback. The terrorist attacks are not just random acts of violence, they are the response to Global Empire and Imperialism, mainly done by the U.S., which is essentially NATO. This blowback doesn't just affect the U.S., it affects all those around it. All these are interconnected, for nothing happens in a vacuum. The regime that was there was supported and put in power there by our involvement. "Many civilized countries have invaded countries to battle against atrocities undergone by the foreign citizenries. It was for this purpose that Western forces send aid to Yugoslavia and struck into the heart of France in attempts to overthrow the Nazi government and by extension, the rampant anti-Semitic polices. We commonly regard doctors and tender and kind, and yet they do some of the most violent things to our bodies like sticking in needles, cutting open chests, and amputating limbs. Likewise wit different nations, and you must also understand that this debate is not regarding whether or not NATO should have invaded, but whether they should remain now, which you have already agreed to." --"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." This is a quote from my earlier speech, essentially saying that I don't think NATO should remain and outlining my opinion on whether we should stay or not. The subject of Nazi germany and our reasons for going to war there are not relevant to the this debate. "This statement is utterly false and baseless. Though sometimes true if proper respect and attention is paid to the desires of the citizenry radicalism can be promptly removed, especially if its accompanied by prosperity- something that can only be achieved through development- which can only be achieved through security. Surely you do not contest the fact that the Nazis or other ultranationalist have never come close to overthrowing the German government several times or that the South Koreans are seething with resentment for the West from shielding them from the Northern invasion?" --This is the response to my statement that my opponent quoted as "By invading a country and taking over it's government, you only radicalise the enemy more while creating more enemies in the process." In CIA documents, the South Korean leaders post WWII were a long line of tyrants that American's put it play. The people overthrew the oppressive regimes we supported there, and democratically elected their own leader. This is radicalizing. They resented the presence of a foreign power, and did something about it. Several nations have spoken up in the past half a century as to the occupation of their lands: Vietnam, Malaysia, the Phillipines, and so on. The evidence is there that supports my statement. It's only a matter of time, through the logic of historical events, before the Afghani's resent our presence there as well. Some already do, apparently. "Lastly you have asserted that the occupation of Afghanistan is illegal. It is rather odd though that war can be considered illegal, for it is usually the winners that get to decide, and there is often a degree of bias in this. Even the supposedly impartial UN makes decisions based solely on the commercial and ideological (though mainly the former) whims of the Security members (i.e. refusal to condemn Darfur genocide due to trade-bribes to Russia and the PRC). Again we see legality is about power, not about analysis." --Regardless, the war IS illegal. You admit to that by not refuting it. And your point of the UN being commercially driven may be true, but it's that way because the interests of the nations involved make it that way, including Canada and the U.S., in which the latter is a permanent member of the Security council. Through this logic we can see that war is made for Commercial gain, and therefore it should be viewed that the Afghanistan invasion perhaps had more to it than just fighting terrorists. My opponent disregards my attacks toward him about violence, meaning that he must condone it. Violence never leads to peace, and can only breed more violence. By condoning violence you set the precedence for violence, by ignoring international law, you set the precedent for law breaking. If this can go on, what worth do laws have in an international society? How can we function as a world if we are going to do as we please without the regards of other nations. Would the U.S. or Canada tolerate it if the citizens ignored the laws and did as they pleased, taking other people's possessions and so on? I would argue not. NATO, by occupying and giving violent aid to Afghanistan, only worsens the situation. NATO must leave Afghanistan and rebuild it. The Military should be removed and Afghanistan allowed to police itself as a SOVEREIGN nation. The answer to world affairs shouldn't be done at gun point, but with diplomacy.