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

""Violence never leads to peace, and can only breed more violence!" rants my opponent one must ask oneself- is that always the case? When Allies invaded Western Germany during the 40's did they breed resentment and hatred that would fester itself a terrible rebuttal against their causes? No one saw a people happy to get rid of a depleted regime and happyy to rebuild their civilzation after decades of mismanagment. Likewise with Afghanistan- a highly unpopular regime was toppled and the people there now adamently support foreign troops and their president (70, and 80 % aprox repectfully). Although it unliky her future is as bright as Germany's surely it only has sovereignty to GAIN from the extra security in the southern regions of the country. Only with security and proper care can Afghanistan hope to sustain herself as a stable nation." -- First, my opponent does not really address my argAnyways if you read the title closely you will realize this debate was not about the past invasion, but rather about the here and now and what can be done in the present. Whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelvent- we are concerned with what should be done now.uments with any evidence, just that the people want NATO forces in their territory. Afghanistan is torn apart by a civil war, The Karzai regime controls Kabul, their capital, and that is it. So where is this statistic coming from? The people of Kabul? Awesome,Anyways if you read the title closely you will realize this debate was not about the past invasion, but rather about the here and now and what can be done in the present. Whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelvent- we are concerned with what should be done now. the capital agrees, but the rest of the nation is at war. Aside from that, my opponent decides to continue his German comparison, when he clearly states later on that this is about the NATO occupation and what to do now, not how the Germans did it. -- In addition, has the violence gone down in Afghanistan because of NATO? Maybe in Kabul, but the rest of the nation wages a civil war between various tribes. The percentage rates of approval my opponent gives are outdated, this year only 42% like the occupation, which is primarily a US one, down from 68% in '05. Also, the south west seem to be increasing their support for the Taliban that were thrown from power six years ago. (http://abcnews.go.com...) "You go on to condemn our brave soldiers for disobeying laws of the land but this is untrue. They detachments of milatary are there on the request of the Karzai's - and by extension the citizenry of Afghanistan's- request and grealty appreciated for their efforts for the Afghan people know they cannot acheive sovereignty with the current state of affairs- civil war would ensue- and this is not sAnyways if you read the title closely you will realize this debate was not about the past invasion, but rather about the here and now and what can be done in the present. Whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelvent- we are concerned with what should be done now.omehting they want to get any worse. They need time to rebuild and rearm before they will be ready to dismiss the ISAF from their post. You say this war is illegal, and according to the UN the invasion was so, but surely the opinions of democratically elected legislatures in Afghanistan and the West matters more than a few bickering bureacrats from Fiji and Switzerland. This is a local issue, and none of their buisness to intrude, unless it is by request of the Afghan government." -- First, I did not condemn soldiers for anything, only NATO. Not to mention, I never said anything about disobeying the law of the land, but of the Geneva convention. My opponent consistently talks about the demerits of the Convention and draws a bad comparison by confusing the Geneva Convention, which the USA and various nations participated in, with the UN, which he calls corrupt, even though his country and the USA are part of it, but that's a different story. In addition, the Afghan government controls Kabul, that is it. They don't want NATO to leave clearly because it would leave the Karzai regime unprotected. "Anyways if you read the title closely you will realize this debate was not about the past invasion, but rather about the here and now and what can be done in the present. Whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelvent- we are concerned with what should be done now." -- I propose that the NATO forces cannot solve the issue. The civil war in Afghanistan is to out of control for NATO to do anything, and NATO should leave. NATO can't just police the world, and the nation is going to have to solve it's own issues. I have answered this in my past speeches and again my opponent insists I have provided no plan. I have, and I provided the alternative of Diplomacy. I challenge my opponent to show me that the Karzai regime is approved of and even if it is, that they control all of Afghanistan. Until then, when things are agreed upon and enjoyed by the Afghani's, I will support the occupation. Until then, I suggest NATO leaves and diplomacy be taken up.