Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

Responses to my opponent's questions: Qn 1 ("Doesn't the US Army kill more civilians than insurgents?") None of my opponent's sources indicate this. In any event, that is not what this debate is about. We're not talking about how poor life has become because of the US presence. We're talking about whether NATO makes this better or worse. Qn 2 ("Are there not more AL Q members in Pakistan?") The Economist is acting on the basis of an estimate. NATO don't believe the estimates of that particular periodical. But on an unrelated aside to this entire debate, if the entire war was waged from the one front, the supply line would come from the other. Recent major offensives have been taking place in Pakistan, and a war has been ongoing since about 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Qn 3 ("Are there any reasons for the NATO presence other than the US presence?") Yes. As I told you way back in my first speech, it's not like the US is the only country with a stake in finishing the war on terror. London, Spain and so forth have all been terrorist targets themselves. Were it not for 9/11, Afghanistan would have been invaded anyway. Other countries such as Canada are fighting now to avoid being a target themselves in the future. Qn 4 ("Do you imagine that only one woman has faced injustice?") I now appreciate my response on this earlier has been misread, for this I apologize. The word "but" in my earlier response is in the archaic sense of the word, being synonymous with "even", yet my opponent read it in the modern sense of "all except." No woman has faced any more injustice than any man under Taliban society. Taliban rulers had punishments that were far more grievous. Karzai runs a fair judicial system, so far as is possible. My opponent has not been able to substantiate his claim of worse punishments under Karzai with a source, unlike me (see my last round). Qn 5 ("What obliges the Taliban or the Karzai government to state anything about opium?") The UN obliges the Karzai government because they're in the country, could check for themselves if they wanted to, and want to discredit Karzai in favor of a more moderate leader. The Taliban are also obliged by the UN, but they want to give the world the message their Islamic state is perfect, and nobody is able to check on them directly. Qn 6 ("How can NATO be both forceful and yet not be dealing with the warlords?") NATO is not forceful towards warlords because they are busy fighting Al Qaeda. Their plan is to first destroy Al Qaeda, second disarm the warlords, and third stabilize the country so that if there is a common problem with the electoral system (which I deny there is) they can work it out, in collaboration with the people of Afghanistan. My case is that this is the most fair way of going about it, rather than having the Taliban come back in using force. Qn 7 ("Prove Taliban propaganda exists") See http://www.time.com... Qn 8 ("If NATO leaves why wouldn't the US retreat?") Out of concern for the Afghani people who would die under the new Taliban government AND out of concern for the safety of their citizens (we all know that they're capable of!) Qn 9 ("Clarify pt 12 rnd 4") The effect on US citizens is patriotism. But the effect on US observers and foreign states is the encouragement of a world police view. It doesn't get much clearer than that! Qn 10 ("Taliban police are better than NATO police") Yes, they are better at torturing and murdering people. But as for protecting people, NATO police seem to be doing the job just as well. The difference is that Afghanis need no longer live in fear. Qn 11 ("Nato includes the United States") Agreed. But they are not the United States, nor are they legally the same, nor are they exclusively the United States. I do not understand how this bit of information helps your contention. Qn 12 ("When have I ever stated that corruption can only be solved by the Taliban?") When you asked question #6 Qn 13 ("When do you expect NATO to finish off al Qaeda?") So long as NATO does not withdraw, the war can be won quite soon. At the present rate of taking land, the war should be over within 5 years, no longer than 15. Regardless of when they do it, in doing so they are still helping the civilians. Qn 14 ("Is your first contention about the regime or propaganda?") It's about the regime. I've never mentioned propaganda in the context of my first contention. Qn 15 ("How do the Taliban not have the ability to strike Kabul?") Even if your source is accurate, the point is that they were not striking there to harm the installations (they did not attack a NATO base but rather Karzai's house). It is because they were trying to spread fear. Qn 16 ("What about the definition on dictionary.com?") Doesn't really matter what the wording of the definitions is if they're synonymous. Qn 17 ("How are Al Qaeda connected to the Taliban?") Closely. They are fighting on the same side of the war on terror right now. Once they ruled Afghanistan together. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Qn 18 ("Is the moot the moot?") Yes. Qn 19 ("Could you please waste your word count by restating and explaining all your arguments?") No. Qn 20 ("Did I prove anything in round 4?") Yes. I proved my opponent's arguments were fallacious. If you'd like to see some of my contentions, please scroll back to rounds 2 and 3. My 15 questions: 1) If the war on terror was a given, don't you agree that the best thing NATO can do is to minimize the harm to civilians and finish the war soon? If so, please counter my analysis that this is exactly what they have been doing. 2) Would you rather have Muhammed Omar (Taliban leader) or Hamid Karzai as your president? Why? 3) If Afghanis wanted Muhammed Omar, why do you suppose so few voted for him? 4) Why do you think NATO forces are there in the first place? Have any of these reasons changed? 5) How do you, objectively, measure progress in a country? On this scale, how has Karzai been faring? 6) What, specifically, is wrong with me using GDP to make said estimate of standard of living and progress? 7) Why do people commit terrorism - is it to inspire terror or destroy NATO bases? 8) If the US had turned the other cheek on 9/11, don't you think that Al Qaeda would simply have slapped the other one too? 9) Earlier you said my response to qn 8, crossfire 1 was invalid. Could you please explain that logic? 10) I ask again, if NATO leaves, what reasons would the US have for retreating? 11) If Karzai does have ulterior motives as you suppose, how will NATO retreating help the general Afghani population? 12) More than 30,000 insurgents have been killed in combat (earlier wikipedia source) - what source tells you more than this number have died in civilians? If you have no such source, don't you agree your question #1 is misleading? 13) Without NATO, don't you agree that the war on terror would be harder to win? 14) Please tell us whether you still think NATO do not pacify the general population of Afghanistan? 15) Why are you not voting pro right now? Please do.